Sitting of 22 July 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Lone Parents
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost of income-related benefits paid to lone parents.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): In 1990–91 the expenditure was approximately £3·4 billion.
    Mr. Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that less than one third of lone parents currently receive regular maintenance? If that is the case, both in equity and—given his answers—in the interests of the taxpayer, must not there be a greater effort to ensure that absent parents contribute and face their financial responsibilities?
    Mr. Jack: In general terms, I can confirm that figure. I also confirm that only 23 per cent. of people on income support have their maintenance orders honoured. As my hon. Friend says, because absent parents do not honour their obligations to their children, the taxpayer has to make up the deficit, to the tune of £400 million a year. The Child Support Bill now in another place will deal with that problem.
    Mr. McAllion: What is the annual cost of the tax cuts and other advantages that the Government have given to the rich? Does the Minister agree that the rich have received far more from the Government than ever the poor have, which has widened the gap between rich and poor during the lifetime of the Government? Does not that reflect the reality that this is a Government of the rich, for the rich, by the rich?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman will not tempt me into areas more appropriately covered by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury. However, to answer his question and to focus again on the subject of lone parents, in 1981–82—these figures are in 1990–91 prices—we spent £2·169 billion on benefits for lone parents, while by 1990–91 that sum had risen to £4·476 billion. That shows how high a priority we give to some of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman alluded.
    Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend agree that this has nothing to do with a battle between rich and poor but is about the fact that families on lower incomes who fall
    736
    within the income tax net have to subsidise fathers who abscond and leave their wives and children so that the state has to pick up the burden?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is entirely correct that people on low incomes make their contribution to the £400 million to which I referred. The Child Support Agency, to whose establishment the House agree last Thursday, will be able to attend to that matter.
    Mr. Allen: For many lone parents the long-term answer has to be a job, with adequate child care. Does the Minister accept that he offers a choice between keeping women out of work on low benefits and subsidising low-paying employers through family credit? Why do he and the Government continue to refuse to support a national minimum wage of a measly £3·40 an hour? That would give many people on benefits the two things that they need—a decent job at a decent wage.
    Mr. Jack: That question confirms that the Opposition see little point in continuing with family credit as a benefit. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's words show that, in their view, withering on the vine has become total decay. The contempt with which the Opposition deal with the issue of the minimum wage is summed up by a quotation from their spokesman on employment, the hon. Member for sedgefield (Mr. Blair):
    "I have not accepted that the minimum wage will cost jobs … I have simply accepted that the econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact."
    Are the Opposition reducing people to econometric models? Is that the amount of care that they show? Our Child Support Bill will make access to family credit easier. Family credit is important, as the Opposition will know if they have eventually got round to reading examples 10 and 11 in the White Paper "Children Come First", which show precisely how child care costs can be met, to the advantage of the working parent.

    Pensioners' Christmas Bonus
    Mr. Atkinson: to ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the Christmas bonus for pensioners.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The Christmas bonus has been paid by this Government every year since we took office in 1979. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that it is paid to 12 million people each Christmas.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Christmas bonus will once again be paid this Christmas to every pensioner, by contrast with the performance of the previous Labour Government, who refused to pay it for two years running? Does she accept that keeping the payment level for some years raises the question of its viability due to increasing administrative costs? Will she review that level with a view to increasing it in due course?
    Miss Widdecombe: I have pleasure in confirming that the bonus will be paid this year as in past years. It was this Government who made it statutory, rather than concessionary, as one of their first acts in 1979. That was a worthy successor to their first act, which was to introduce the bonus in the first place in 1972.
    In considering any increase we need to remember that merely increasing the bonus by £1 would cost £12 million

    737
    and that to double it would cost £120 million. Bearing in mind the fact that the Christmas bonus goes to everyone who is entitled to it and is not a targeted benefit, we have to ask whether that is the wisest use of resources. At the moment we are targeting resources—for instance, in the recent packages worth about £280 million for poorer pensioners—and that seems a better use of this sort of money.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister recall that a few moments ago the Under-Secretary of State referred to a benefit withering on the vine? If the Christmas bonus were paid allowing for inflation, it would now be worth £59·17.
    Miss Widdecombe: And it would cost us £700 million to pay it at that level. We are trying to use money to target poorer pensioners. It ill becomes the Opposition to criticise us when for two years they did not pay the bonus at all. It is better to pay it regularly and by statute than to go for ambitious uprating programmes and then fail to deliver for two years running.

    Disability Benefits
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that disabled people and their representatives are consulted on the details of the two new disability benefits being introduced next year.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Disabled people have already been involved in testing early versions of the claim forms for disability living allowance and disability working allowance, with very encouraging results. We have now issued these forms to a number of organisations for comment, together with the draft regulations for the benefits and the first draft of the disability handbook which will be used by officials working on DLA.
    Mr. Hannam: I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend for responding to the need for full consultation with disabled people. I also congratulate him on the Government's record level of spending on the disabled.
    In the consultation process, will my right hon. Friend take account of the representations about the extra costs facing disabled people for special diets and clothing, laundry and communications? When considering the development of the living allowance, will he take those costs into account and try to arrange for their inclusion?
    Mr. Scott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind comments. We are determined to involve disabled people and the organisations that represent them as much as possible in developing the new benefits—we have already done that—and in the way that they are administered. That is working successfully.
    I take the point about extra costs. I believe that in general our structure of benefits reflects the additional costs of disability. I should certainly be reluctant to go back to the complexities of the former additional requirements—but I note my hon. Friend's point.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter how good a benefit system is, it is important that it be accessible to those in need? What progress is being made on modernising social security offices and providing a much more sophisticated system for the future?
    Mr. Scott: We are certainly making a great deal of progress with the introduction of the Benefits Agency and with the new system of district offices, both of which will improve the efficiency of our delivery of benefits. If the system is to be accessible to people they need information about it. I was especially pleased recently to be able to launch the national benefits inquiry line, which will significantly help disabled people to understand the benefits to which they may be entitled and how to claim them.

    State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the forecast extra cost of SERPS into the year 2035.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Expenditure on the state earnings-related pension scheme is estimated to rise from nearly £2 billion in 1991–92 to £16 billion in 2035–36, at 1990 prices.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is not it crystal clear that any Government or party which sought to satisfy the funding of pensions at that level solely through state provision would literally be going for broke?
    Mr. Newton: If to that prospective rise in costs were added the cost of some of the promises that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is fond of making, the costs would at least be doubled in 2035–36 and we should be moving into a pension system which I doubt would be sustainable for those to whom the promises were made.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend contemplate increasing the benefits for people who buy their own pensions? What would happen if by some misadventure we were not returned at the next general election?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's question. The right course is exactly the one that we have been pursuing, which is to make sustainable promises about what the state will provide and to give maximum encouragement to people to build up their own occupational and personal provision. We have done that with huge success.
    Mr. McAllion: Can we understand from the Minister's earlier replies on this issue that he is confirming that the Government will not implement SERPS and have changed the uprating of pensions purely to cut the social security budget because they are too mean to give workers in this country the kind of pensions that people receive everywhere else in Europe?
    Mr. Newton: Before the hon. Gentleman puts too much weight on that point, he should reflect on the fact that if we followed the pension arrangements of virtually all other European countries, 2 million married women in this country would not have pensions in their own right. Our policies are to ensure real promises to pensioners that can be kept. We have done that and our record compares very well with that of the last Labour Government, which included the non-payment of the Christmas bonus for two years running.

    Disability Working Allowance
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment has been made of the effect on incentives to work for disabled people of the introduction of the disability working allowance.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect on incentives to work for disabled people of the introduction of the disability working allowance.
    Mr. Scott: The introduction of disability working allowance will provide a real opportunity to work for up to 50,000 disabled people who would like to do so, but whose earnings capacity is limited.
    Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disability working allowance will provide an effective bridge for disabled people between total dependence on benefits and the world of work in a way that is rather similar to the job that family credit has done for families on low incomes?
    Mr. Scott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Disability working allowance will remove a rigid distinction in the present benefit structure between ability and inability to work. As people become increasingly aware of the opportunities that are available to them, many will take those opportunities. One of the most important aspects of the allowance is that people who avail themselves of the opportunity to go into work will for two years retain underlying entitlement to whatever disability benefit they were drawing beforehand. That should give them confidence to try out work.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this new and radical initiative, which offers the opportunity for independence and promotes integration of the disabled. Does he agree that it is far better to target resources on those who are in most need, in this case low-income families, than to make uncosted and fanciful promises, as the Opposition have done, which can never be fulfilled?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have a good record on incremental improvements in the benefits that are available to the long-term sick and disabled. We have made an increase in real terms of more than £7 billion a year to meet the needs of those groups and we have concentrated on those who need most help. I am sure that that is the right approach.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Since we are talking about people with disabilities, may I raise a case that came my way this morning? It relates to a claim for attendance allowance in leaflet DS2(1990), which is straightforward. It is a good attendance allowance, but when trying to get hold of a DS1500 report from the local GP and from the hospital, my constituent encountered complete ignorance of DS1500 report writing. Has everyone been advised of the procedures, particularly those who will be approached by people asking for attendance allowance and for a DS1500 report?
    Mr. Scott: I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman has said and I should be grateful if he would send me details of the case so that I can follow it up. We are anxious that those who have to produce such reports are fully
    740
    aware of the necessary forms and how to complete them. We are conscious that there have been some difficulties and that is why, when we introduce disability living allowance next year, we shall, to a considerable extent, rely on the claimant's assessment of the effect of the disability on his life, supported by a carer, a general practitioner or some other professional so that we can substantially demedicalise the way in which we process a claim for benefit.
    Mr. Bellotti: Will the Minister consider the following? He will be aware that fewer people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I can do it perfectly well without reading. He will be aware, as the House is, that over the past 12 months, fewer people with disabilities have gone into real jobs and that training and enterprise councils have recruited fewer people with disabilities for training courses than ever before. Will he now consider extending allowances to those who go on training courses so that eventually they can be encouraged to go into real jobs?
    Mr. Scott: I believe that the allowances that are paid —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Certainly not. The allowances should be attractive to disabled people. We are anxious that they take part in training schemes and avail themselves of opportunities for employment. I am also conscious that new technology will make it possible for more disabled people either to take jobs in places of work, or, increasingly, to work from home.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the aim of the Government's policy to improve work incentives, to get people into work and to eliminate poverty? Bearing in mind those three points, would not it be extraordinarily stupid to introduce a minimum wage?
    Mr. Scott: That matter has been dealt with effectively in the House on a number of occasions in recent days. I understand why those who analyse these matters are convinced that the introduction of a minimum wage would destroy, not create, jobs. Our approach is much better. When I meet disability organisations or disabled people, I find that the vast majority are keen to take the opportunity of employment. The Government have, for the first time, moved to a proper partial capacity benefit.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Minister seen the all-party disablement group's briefing on these questions, with its strong criticism of the punitively high marginal tax rates that DWA involves for disabled people, leaving them with as little as 6p in the £1 of increased earnings? Is this not a fierce new poverty trap? The Government plan to save millions of pounds, as they have told me, by introducing the new allowance. Instead, why cannot they allow disabled people to keep more of their own earnings?
    Mr. Scott: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that when one introduces benefits that relate to people's earnings, there is a balance to be struck between having too steep or too shallow a rate of withdrawal of benefits as earnings increase. Under the system for DWA, if earnings increase, the income of disabled people will also increase. We have moved away from the over 100 per cent. withdrawal of benefit that operated under the Labour Government.

    Pensioners (Income)
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have income from occupational pensions or savings; and what was the comparable position in 1979.
    Mr. Newton: We estimate that in 1988, 82 per cent. of pensioners had income from either savings or from an occupational pension, compared with only 73 per cent. in 1979.
    Mr. Sims: Does not that figure give added weight to the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a few moments ago—that the best interests of pensioners are served by directing additional resources to those who rely entirely on the state pension, rather than on a general increase in pension benefits? Does not it also suggest that the best interests of pensioners as a whole are served by maintaining a stable economic climate and a low rate of inflation?
    Mr. Newton: I entirely agree with the second point. As for the first, it is to assist those who are least well-off that we have focused additional resources on increasing pensioners' income support premiums in the past two or three years.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a difference between the pension arrangements for Members of Parliament and directors of privatised industries, who give themselves vast pay increases on which their pensions will be based, and those for people who have only just entered schemes and will therefore receive very little?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that all this talk of income from savings and pension schemes will not interefere with state benefits or with the annual increase in those benefits?
    Mr. Newton: We have made it absolutely clear that, having fully and faithfully—a phrase which I have used before—uprated the basic state retirement pension throughout our period in office, we intend to continue to do so. I have always acknowledged that, although a growing number of pensioners have extra income of various kinds, a good many still have no such income. That is why we have increased income support premiums: we want to direct additional help to those people.
    Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, in the light of his answer, that now that more than 80 per cent. of pensioners receive additional income it is essential at times to talk of average earnings, rather than only of state pensions, as Opposition Members often do? That applies particularly to comparisons with other European countries.
    Mr. Newton: I agree, but I know that my hon. Friend will accept that we should always remember that averages are averages and that they conceal the fact that some people receive less than the average. We should bear those people in mind.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make a statement regarding the operation of the social fund.
    Mr. Scott: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the 1991 annual report of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the operation of the social fund, which was laid before Parliament on 17 July.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that some areas do not spend their allocations, while others, such as Leicester, do not have nearly as much as they need? As a result, people such as my constituent, Jayne Cooper, of north Braunston—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not understand. Question Time is the time when we protect our constituents from all the bureaucracy that the Government impose on them.
    If I send him the details, will the Minister look into the case of Jayne Cooper and see what help can be given to this lady, who has been skewered by the fierce and narrow impositions placed on the use of the social fund?
    Mr. Scott: Of course, I shall look at the case, if the hon. and learned Gentleman sends me the details. In both the north Leicester and south Leicester offices, all high-priority cases are being met and some medium-priority cases are being met in north Leicester. We are making arrangements to improve the method whereby funds are reallocated from offices with surplus resources to other offices that are under pressure.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Lancashire county council welfare rights sub-committee—of which my right hon. Friend may have heard—fears that, in future, now that Kendal and Barrow are linked with Lancaster in the same office, when the statistics go on to the mainframe computer it may be impossible to obtain those that relate to Lancaster. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that they can be singled out? Lancaster has been given an assurance this year, but it is wondering about the future.
    Mr. Scott: I have no reason to believe that the introduction of a new system will in any way inhibit our ability to obtain such information.
    Mr. Pike: Is not it regrettable that people who apply to the social fund are often refused a grant and are then refused a loan because their income is not sufficient for them to repay it? Are not many people in urgent need thus prevented from receiving the assistance that they need so much?
    Mr. Scott: Very few people are refused a loan by the social fund because of inability to pay; but, when someone clearly cannot pay, other procedures can be brought into play. Indeed, many thousands who apply for a loan in the first place end up with a grant instead.
    Mr. Harris: The old system of single payments led to massive abuse and had to be changed, but will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the administrative cost of the social fund, as evidence to the Select Committee on Social Security showed clearly that the cost of handling individual applications was very high?
    Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend about the old single payment scheme, and I seem to have the support of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury who said recently that nobody liked the system of single payments, which was extremely complicated for both claimants and staff. Any system which depends on discretion rather than on an automatic formula and precise regulations for the

    743
    delivery of benefit is bound to be more expensive administratively because of the discretionary element involved in the decision-making process.
    Mr. Meacher: What is the point of the Prime Minister unveiling a citizens charter today if, as last week's report of the social fund shows, 27,000 of the very poorest citizens in our society got no help because they were too poor to repay it? That is not a very small figure, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Will any of the 185,000 people who were denied assistance from the social fund, because there was too little money in a cash-limited budget, get any redress today from the citizens charter? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the social fund, the administration costs of which last year, at £77 million, exceeded the total of all the grants paid throughout the year, which came to only £68 million?
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to trespass on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's ground—the citizens charter—of later this afternoon. I can say, however, that the social fund, with its element of discretion, has proved to be a much more flexible and effective way of meeting exceptional need and exceptional circumstances than the old single payments scheme, or its predecessor schemes.

    Widows' Payments
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current value in real terms of the £1,000 widow's payment announced in June 1985.
    Miss Widdecombe: The widow's payment was introduced in April 1988. The current value of the payment at June 1991 prices is £789.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the hon. Lady agree that the widow's payment was announced six and not three years ago and that at that time the widow's allowance that it replaced was running at £50 a year, which would now be worth £72 a year, making the widow's payment not £1,000 but £1,450? Is it not a disgrace that the Government have allowed these almost invisible salami cuts against this most vulnerable group of people? Is it not about time that we had a widows' charter?
    Miss Widdecombe: The reforms that we have already introduced and the changes that we have made to the widows' allowances effectively amount to a widows' charter. We have introduced reforms which direct benefits towards those widows who are older and who therefore do not have a work record and also towards those with dependent children. We keep the level of the widow's allowance regularly under review, but I say to the hon. Gentleman what I said in response to an earlier question. The allowance is payable to every widow. We have to consider the proper use of resources. It is better to direct them towards those in need, as we have done.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that this benefit, which has only recently been introduced, is much better than the death grant, which was laughable, and that its introduction is a credit to the Government?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, indeed. The death grant had long ceased to be a realistic figure. Benefits which provide immediate relief, through immediate payments, are very much to be preferred. Everybody with the necessary
    744
    contributions record will benefit from this payment. It is therefore designed to relieve immediate need in a way that the death grant did not manage to do.

    National Insurance Contributions
    Sir Bernard Braine: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the levying of employers' NI contributions on all earnings.
    Mr. Jack: Employers' national insurance contributions are levied on all earnings except where an employee earns below the lower earnings limit. Following a consultation exercise, we have received representations from employers' organisations expressing opposition to proposals put forward by the European Commission which would result in contributions being levied on earnings below that limit.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of abolishing the upper earnings limit would be severe for many middle income earners, such as doctors, teachers and the like, who are absolutely essential to the proper running of our society?
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend alludes to a very important point. He is absolutely right that people such as teachers and members of the nursing profession would be included in a proposal to increase national insurance above the upper limit, but let nobody imagine that would be just those people. Anyone with a wage of, say, £250 per week who received a Christmas bonus of a similar amount would find part of that bonus taxed under the Opposition's proposals. We have flushed out a tax on Christmas.

    Social Action Programme
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of the social security policy initiatives in the social action programme.
    Mr. Jack: Of the five proposals in the social action programme for which the Department of Social Security is responsible, one has already been dealt with and the Government are taking a positive line in negotiations on the other four. We expect to be able to respond positively to the proposals on convergence of schemes, minimum income guarantees, occupational pensions and the schedule of industrial diseases.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warning that we are about to have the Christmas Adjournment, not the summer Adjournment.
    Will my hon. Friend continue to work hard on those programmes? It is important that Britain is not seen to be objecting in principle to social programmes being discussed in the European Community, which is sensible. We want to ensure that application of the programme is based on national guidelines and does not cut across what would normally be a fierce national political debate between parties. That is what my hon. Friend should be saying to the Commission in relation to the programme.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the general line that the Government are taking. We much applaud the principle of convergence of social security schemes and acknowledge the need for common provision for social security benefits, but we stick hard to

    745
    the principle that the way in which the policies are worked out in each member country should be subject to the concept of subsidiarity. We adhere closely to that point of principle.

    State Pension
    Mr. Andrew Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the level of the state pension.
    Miss Widdecombe: In recent months, we have received several representations on the level of the state pension from individual pensioners and from pensioners' organisations.
    Mr. Bowden: Does my hon. Friend accept that although the state pension has more than kept pace with inflation, the great difficulty is that 750,000 pensioners receive only the basic old age pension and do not claim any income support? Will she see what steps can be taken to ensure that more of them accept their entitlement and claim income support?
    Miss Widdecombe: All those who are entitled to income support should be given the necessary information. Even those who are unable to claim income support, not because they have failed to do so but because they are ineligible, are entitled to claim benefits such as housing benefit, community charge benefit and help towards national health service prescriptions. That fact should also be made widely known.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What would be the pension for a couple and for an individual if the Government had not broken the link between pensions and earnings?
    Miss Widdecombe: It would be substantially higher, and the value of pensioners' incomes would be substantially lower. The Labour party practised a link with earnings, but pensioners' incomes rose by only 3 per cent. During our term in office, pensioners' incomes have risen by 33 per cent. It is much more valuable to pensioners that their overall income should rise rather than that the state pension should be linked to something theoretical, which would cost employees and employers £7 in national insurance, would not benefit less well-off people and would not result in an overall rise in incomes.
    Mr. Holt: Nevertheless, as the Government have pledged to equalise the state pension for men and women, would not one small step in that direction be for prescriptions to be free for over 60-year-old men as they are for women? Will my hon. Friend make representations so that that small category of people, whom I shall be joining in 10 days' time, will not have to pay prescription charges?
    Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his impending entitlement. We are considering all aspects of equal treatment and we have those matters under review. Any retired person who is on income support or is just a little above it is entitled to claim help towards NHS prescriptions. As I have said, we are taking steps to ensure that that fact is widely known.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Lady, who suddenly seems to have forgotten her facts, confirm that if Labour's link with earnings had been maintained, the single pension
    746
    today would be £13 per week higher and the married couple's pension £21 per week higher? Will she also confirm that as a result of the abolition of that link, the saving at the expense of pensioners is no less than £26 billion? Will she reconsider the facts that she gave a moment ago? The state retirement pension under the previous Labour Government rose by 20 per cent. in real terms, whereas under the present Government it has risen by 2 per cent. Finally, will she confirm that the reason why occupational pensioners have done well in the past year is mainly the state earnings-related pension scheme, and that a single person retiring today on SERPS, which Labour introduced in 1975, would get a SERPS pension of an extra £40 a week?
    Miss Widdecombe: Almost all the hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. He did not manage to get right even his basic question on the increases that there would be if we had maintained the earnings link, although I must give him credit for having got it wrong in our favour. The actual change would have been £64·80 for the single person and £103·75 basic for the couple. It is not true that pensioners' incomes have fallen. We have increased expenditure on benefits for pensioners by 29 per cent. The hon. Gentleman, whose party not only failed to pay the Christmas bonus but ruined pensioners' savings through inflationary policies, is on very weak ground. Why go back to a link which did not benefit pensioners because the 20 per cent. rise was wholly eroded by the overall decrease of 3 per cent? Pensioners' savings fell, the value of their pensions fell and the value of their incomes fell—that is the hon. Gentleman's record and it is not surprising that he is ashamed to talk about it.

  THE ARTS

    Royal Opera House
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the average total subsidy out of public funds paid for each seat for performances of opera in the Royal Opera house.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): In 1990–91, the subsidy per seat for opera performances at the Royal Opera house was £27–28. By comparison, the figure at Welsh National Opera was £33–69.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister explain to those of us who are having difficulties with the concept of citizenship why the citizen millionaire, Gerald Ronson had a state handout of £52 a fortnight ago when he attended the opera house with his wife, whereas a citizen who is homeless and 17-years-old gets nothing from the state and one who is unemployed and aged 24 receives the princely sum of £31 to last the entire week? Is that fair?
    Mr. Renton: I will deal with the small part of the question which referred to the Royal Opera house, which falls within my responsibility. It is fairly obvious that the subsidy per seat goes very much more directly to those who sit in the cheap seats at the top of the house than to those who sit in the expensive seats at the bottom. It goes far more, for example, to those who pay £4 to sit in the upper slips. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that when I was at the opera house last week, I saw the right

    747
    hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the noble Lord Varley. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they were not sitting in the cheap seats.
    Mr. Jessel: Does it weigh with my right hon. Friend and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that not only opera, but all the other arts and heritage, pull into Britain visitors whose spending on hotels, restaurants, shops and travel generates income, employment and a tax yield to the Government? Should not that and the possibility of a national lottery for the arts be taken into account?
    Mr. Renton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is obvious that performances at the great theatres and opera houses in London are attractive to tourists from both within this country and without. That pulls in a great deal of money, including VAT revenue on tickets. It is also noticeable that the subsidy for performances at the Royal Opera house is much less than that in Rome, which is more than double that of London, and much less than that in Vienna or Berlin. It is clear that if we were to decide in due course to have a national lottery, the proceeds of that could be helpful in, for example, restoring the fabric of the Royal Opera house.

    Arts Council for Wales
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the Arts Council for Wales to discuss funding.
    Mr. Renton: I meet the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council from time to time to discuss topics of mutual interest. I visited the Welsh Arts Council's offices on 2 May and met the chairman and staff for a very useful meeting.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Neath-based West Glamorgan Theatre Company on its pioneering work in Welsh language productions, but will he recognise that it needs more funding, especially in view of the reductions in the centrally held funds of educational authorities? Will the Minister also encourage extra funding for the excellent Pontardawe music festival, which will be attended by 20,000 people on the weekend of 16 to 18 August but receives a derisory Arts Council grant of just £1,275, which would not even buy four seats in a box at Covent Garden? Does the Minister agree that our rich arts culture cannot survive on voluntary enthusiasm and dedication alone?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but it is also true that that culture should not survive on public subsidy alone. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to persuade the local authorities in Wales to ensure that they, too, make their contribution to support the activities to which he referred. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that, following a series of constructive meetings with the festival arts organisers, West Wales Arts will be providing additional support. A joint action plan has also been agreed that will allow West Wales Arts to be more closely involved in the festival, particularly in its marketing activities. I wish the festival every success.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a national lottery would help not only Wales, but other areas of the country? My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am a member of the Brighton Festival Trust, which raises a great deal of money both from
    748
    business sponsorship and from affluent individuals. However, that trust would be helped immensely if ordinary citizens in the street could subscribe, as in many ways they would like to, through a national lottery.
    Mr. Renton: I note what my hon. Friend says. I had the great pleasure of opening the Brighton festival a few weeks ago. At the moment we are set on the course of the Pools Foundation for Sports and the Arts, which will provide about £40 millon per year to help sports and £20 million to help the arts, which will be beneficial to both those activities. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is worth while in the long run to consider how a national lottery, if a great many people subscribed to it, could help arts festivals as well as the fabric of art buildings.
    Mr. Fisher: When the Minister considers funding of arts in Wales, following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), will he consider conducting a survey of Welsh local authorities to see the impact of the poll tax on their arts and library budgets? A Labour party survey of the London boroughs revealed that more than £9 million this year has been squeezed out of local authority budgets by the Government's poll tax policies. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the courage to conduct such a survey in Wales to establish the facts and to see the malign effect that his Government's policies are having on the very local authorities that he is urging to back the arts in Wales?
    Mr. Renton: Listening to the hon. Gentleman's nightmare prescriptions, I sometimes wonder whether, unlike Glasgow city corporation, he knows his art from his elbow. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that under this Government the arts have flourished up and down the country. The only difficulty at the moment lies with some local authorities—in Bristol and in London for instance—which are hesitant in matching the amount of money that I am contributing through the Arts Council. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having delivered the last of the lectures paid for by that well-known Labour supporter, Paul Hamlyn. He has become the paid piper of Hamlyn.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of using the millennium to triumph abroad the cultural achievements of this country. I agree with him about that, but his words would carry more weight if he learned how to spell "millennium" which has two n's and not one.

    Museums Association
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will be making an official visit to the 1991 Museums Association annual conference.
    Mr. Renton: I shall visit the 1991 Museums Association annual conference in Newcastle tomorrow to make the opening address.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's plural funding policy for the arts has given museums and galleries much greater freedom, enabling them to be more dynamic and consumer conscious?
    Mr. Renton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments. That is a point that I hope to make in my address to the Museums Association in Newcastle tomorrow. Our plural funding policy has enabled

    749
    museums to attract sponsorship from the private sector—for instance, from the Leverhulme trust to the science museum, the Wolfson Foundation to the British museum and Agnew's to the national gallery, all of which have come forward in recent weeks and enabled the museums to undertake a number of ventures, including redecoration, refurbishment and putting on new exhibitions, which they would not otherwise have been able to undertake.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that, with the laudable exception of the British museum, more and more museums are now charging for entry? If they do not charge they threaten by suggesting a minimum payment of £3. That is having a direct effect on the number of children who can go to museums. Is the Minister not ashamed of the contribution that he is making to the poverty of many of our children's cultural life?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Lady's remarks are wholly misguided. As my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) said when he introduced that policy, it has been left to the individual museum or gallery to decide whether to charge. Those who have decided to charge, like the natural history museum and the science museum, are now putting on remarkably exciting exhibitions to which children are going. I opened the science lab exhibition at the science museum last week, and it was filled with children. I suggest that the hon. Lady goes there herself to see just how wrong her remarks are.

    National Gallery
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has yet made an official visit to the new Sainsbury wing at the national gallery.
    Mr. Renton: I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of the new wing by Her Majesty the Queen on 9 July; prior to that I had an informal preview on 27 June.
    Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Sainsbury wing is a triumph in the way that it displays the pre-renaissance collection? Is not the Sainsbury family greatly to be congratulated on its most generous patronage? Does that not show the way forward for private patronage of national collections to work together to the great benefit of the nation?
    Mr. Renton: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. It is a remarkable act of generosity by the three brothers and it follows many similar acts of generosity by members of the Sainsbury family. The early renaissance pictures are extraordinarily well shown off in the new wing and many hon. Members might benefit from going there for a period of quiet contemplation.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Ex-Prime Ministers
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what civil service facilities, and under what circumstances, are made available to former Prime Ministers.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): Civil service facilities made available to all former Prime Ministers are physical protection advice and services on the same basis as for other public figures considered to be at risk; the use of an official car; access to the official papers of their Administration. Briefing and help from local posts may also be provided in connection with overseas visits. Those facilities are long standing.
    Mr. Banks: What a wretched and ungrateful response that is, from a Minister who owes a great deal to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), for all the promotions that he got out of her. When Ronald Reagan can get public funding in America for a library to house his comics, why cannot the former Prime Minister get enough money to set up her own foundation, the Margaret Thatcher Institute for the Promotion of Political Humility, or whatever it may be called? Why can she not have some extra staff to mop up the tears every time she bumps into one of the back-stabbers on the Conservative Benches, to push her eyeballs back in after one of those BBC interviews, or to switch off the polygraph after she has recorded her memoirs telling us the truth about the Belgrano and Westland? The Minister could do far more for one of the great political loonies of the century. When we are in control, we shall give her everything she deserves.
    Mr. Renton: I very much doubt whether the commitment just made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will be followed up by the Opposition Front Bench. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his extremely generous approach, and suggest that such generosity should also be made available to Lord Callaghan and Lord Wilson, who have not exactly been shrinking, blushing, quiet violets since they retired. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) might also benefit from substantially more secretarial services to help him with his speech writing.
    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the circumstances in which access is granted for a former Prime Minister to his or her papers? Is it a privilege or a right? Does it extend to members of his or her staff? Where is he or she given access to those papers—in the Cabinet Office or elsewhere?
    Mr. Renton: I think that it is probably correct to say that it is a privilege rather than a right. Former Prime Ministers and, occasionally, former Cabinet Ministers from time to time request—and, as my hon. Friend will know, are given—access to official papers from their Administration for research purposes. Given the nature of the papers, it is prudent as well as courteous to offer the reader a room in the Cabinet Office to read them.
    Dr. Marek: Which of the facilities granted to former Prime Ministers are also granted to ex-Ministers of the Crown? There is great general interest in this question. To what extent have Prime Ministers made use of the various facilities in the past?
    Mr. Renton: I was referring specifically to facilities made available to Prime Ministers. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), access to Cabinet papers is sometimes given to former Cabinet

    751
    members when they request it. With regard to the new facilities announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, it would be invidious for me to go into financial details in the House, but I expect that those facilities will be widely used by all five former Prime Ministers. In comparison with what is available in other western countries, the facilities here are small beer.

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he intends to take steps to ensure that the list of those being considered for service on public bodies adequately reflects the interests of women and ethnic minorities.
    Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir. I keep under active review the range of good practices currently recommended to Departments to ensure equality of opportunity for women and members of the ethnic minorities. The public appointments unit in the Cabinet Office is always keen to receive names and details of anybody whom hon. Members or, indeed, the general public feel would be suitable for addition to the list.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an encouraging trend and in the right direction for the Government to take? Does he also agree that there is a big difference between positive discrimination, which is unacceptable, and acting positiviely, which is what the Government are doing?
    Mr. Renton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that this is a good trend. The central list now contains more than 5,600 names—about one third of which are women, who are all well qualified for public appointment. I hope that the present trend, including the public nominating themselves, will continue.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the recently formed all-party race and community group, of which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is a respected officer, is concerned about the trends, not only in the sector to which the question referred, but especially in the civil service, where the numbers of people from ethnic minorities in the top grades have fallen in the past year? Will the Minister undertake to look into the matter?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates a question just ahead of us on the Order Paper. He is not right to say that the number of those from ethnic minorities in the civil service has fallen—[Interruption.] The number of those from ethnic minorities throughout the civil service has not fallen, but increased. However, I have no doubt that a further increase would be welcome. It is for that reason that the Cabinet Office gives out policy advice about the employment of ethnic minorities.

    Civil Service Secondments
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are currently seconded to private industry.
    Mr. Renton: So far this year, some 250 civil servants have been on secondment to industry and commerce. In addition, 70 civil servants are currently serving as
    752
    non-executive directors, and a further 50 have been selected for short-term attachments under this year's excellent programme organised by the Whitehall and Industry Group.
    Mr. Marshall: I welcome those figures, because the cross-fertilisation of ideas generated by those trends can only be helpful. Does my right hon. Friend expect a further increase in years to come?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I am sure that that will happen. The trend has been significantly upwards. One good aspect is that many civil servants are attached to customer-oriented industries, where they establish the right mood for next steps agencies—which in many respects serve as a curtain raiser for the citizens charter, about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may shortly have a few words to say.

    Women Civil Servants
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what arrangements are now being made to ensure that women civil servants are able to maintain employment with the civil service during child-bearing years.
    Mr. Renton: Departments and agencies have a range of measures to enable staff who so choose to combine a career with domestic responsibilities. They include flexible working arrangements, career breaks and child care provision.
    Mrs. Currie: Am I right in thinking that the majority of civil servants are women, but that fewer than one in three of those going into the fast stream are women? Is it not in the interests of the nation as a whole, as well as of women, to have the very best people working at the top of the civil service which should include far more women than is the case now?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Clearly it is a matter for women themselves—whether or not they are mothers—to decide whether they want to enter or to remain in the civil service. As my hon. Friend has said, more women than men join the civil service. To help them, we have introduced provisions such as career breaks and part-time working, which mean that many more women can return to the civil service after taking a break due to child bearing.

    Next Steps Agencies
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what visits he has paid to next steps agencies to assess the morale of staff.
    Mr. Renton: I have made several visits to next steps agencies, and have met many staff working there. From what I hear from chief executives, staff morale is generally very high.
    Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of high-quality service to the public enhances job satisfaction for those working in executive agencies, and that the development of those agencies will play an important part in delivering the objectives of the citizens charter?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.The purpose of next steps is to encourage executive agencies to provide a better service to the customer
    754
    through good management and better staff training. In many ways, that serves as a prologue or curtain raiser to the citizens charter.

Bank of Credit and Commerce

  International
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn) (by private notice): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about knowledge of, and understanding of, the operations of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International over the years before June this year.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement to the House on Friday and indicated that the Government will commission an independent inquiry into precisely those matters. I am now able to tell the House that the inquiry will be undertaken by Lord Justice Bingham, and that the terms of reference will be as follows:
  To inquire into the supervision of BCCI under the Banking Acts; to consider whether the action taken by all the United Kingdom authorities was appropriate and timely; and to make recommendations.
  All the matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised today will be covered in Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry. He will have access to all relevant papers, officials and Ministers. Nothing and no one will be held back. I assure the House that any relevant matter of any sort will be made available to Lord Justice Bingham. The conclusions of the inquiry will be made public.
  Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for responding to my request to make a statement. Is he aware that simply reannouncing the inquiry and the name of the person who will head it is not an adequate answer to the questions being raised by the public? Is he further aware that since that inquiry itself had to be prised out of the Government, it would be much more appropriate for the Prime Minister to give us now the answers which he can give us from his own knowledge as a result of having been both Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Is the Prime Minister aware that, in the 17 days since the BCCI was closed, it has become evident that in March 1990 the auditors—Price Waterhouse—reported that the BCCI was in near-bankruptcy and had repeatedly made huge non-performing loans, some to individuals who did not even exist, and secondly, that in October 1990 a further auditors' report stated that grave and widespread irregularities continued in the BCCI's banking, and referred also to fraudulent documentation in the bank? In addition, there is now substantial reason to believe that in January of this year a formal report was made to the Bank of England and to the relevant Government Departments that the BCCI was linked with terrorist activities.
  Is the Prime Minister aware that the Governor of the Bank of England told an all-party group of Members of this place last Thursday evening that he kept the right hon. Gentleman, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, fully informed of all developments concerning the BCCI? Is he aware also that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer told hon. Members last Thursday morning that until he became Chancellor he knew nothing about the BCCI—that was the responsibility of his predecessor?
  The specific questions that have previously been put to the Government but not answered must now be answered
  756
  by the Prime Minister. First, when did Ministers, including himself as Chancellor, first know of the very serious banking irregularities at the BCCI?
  Secondly, when did Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman as Chancellor, first know about fraud?
  Thirdly, when did Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman as Chancellor and Prime Minister, first know that the BCCI was being systematically used for the laundering of criminals' moneys and the funding of terrorism? These are—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is for the inquiry."] These are answers that the Prime Minister can give today.
  Will the Prime Minister now tell us whether the decision to allow the BCCI to continue to operate after the receipt of the March and October 1990 reports was taken with the knowledge and the agreement of the Government? Why was the BCCI allowed to continue in operation after the Government had evidence that the bank was involved deeply in financing terrorists? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would indeed be strange if the Government were not aware of the repeated reports from Price Waterhouse of very serious and continued irregularities at BCCI, of the money-laundering cases in the United States of America and, particularly, of the information available from the security services about practices at the BCCI?
  Does the Prime Minister not agree that no Government can be allowed to shift the blame on to officials, whether junior or senior? Is he aware also that neither legal nor moral obligations can be confined to the Bank of England? This is a matter of ministerial responsibility, and ultimately the responsibility of the Prime Minister himself. The small investors, the depositors and the local authorities that have lost millions of pounds have the right to full and honest answers, and they need to know which Ministers knew what, when they knew it and what action they took. They deserve those answers now.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is muck-racking, and he knows it.
  Mr. Kinnock rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Hon. Members: Sit down!
  Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order?
  Mr. Kinnock: There is certainly plenty of muck about, and I suspect that a great deal of it is on the Conservative Benches. The Prime Minister must withdraw his remark. Millions of pounds have been lost by small depositors, small businesses and local authorities. We deserve better than that answer—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for the answers that are given.
  The Prime Minister: No one in my Government is seeking to shift blame. We have established an inquiry to determine where the blame lies, and we shall publish that inquiry. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman always rises on a point of order. I shall call him later.
  The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should again ask those questions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor dealt with a number of them the other day, and the remainder are for the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman asked for an inquiry, and he has got an inquiry. All documents will be available, and all officials and all Ministers will co-operate with the inquiry. Nothing will be hidden. The matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised are matters for the inquiry.
  The right hon. Gentleman has twice shifted his ground in recent days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer the question in my way.
  Hon. Members: Did you know?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that there are many people outside this place who are very interested in what the Prime Minister has to say. He has a right to answer the questions put to him.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman called for a statement in this House, and that could have only two purposes—either to secure discussion on the Floor of the House of the very sensitive operations of the security services or to prejudice the results of an independent inquiry. If it is the first, the right hon. Gentleman of all people should know, because he is a Privy Councillor, that security operations are never discussed on the Floor of the House. I find it surprising that he did not seek a briefing on Privy Council terms—something which is always available to the Leader of the Opposition. If it is the second, the right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
  I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely what I did and did not know. I did not see, nor would I have been expected to see, any of the audit reports that Price Waterhouse submitted during 1990. I was informed of the suspected fraud uncovered in a section 41 report only on 28 June this year. I had no previous knowledge of that.
  I have established an inquiry and I have made it quite clear that it will be open. All evidence, all people—including Ministers and myself—will be answerable to that inquiry. I shall publish the inquiry, and then answer for it before this House.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is not it worth reminding the House and the country that the BCCI was not a British bank, and that many of the problems have arisen because of the difficulties of international regulations? Have there been any international consultations on this range of issues?
  The Prime Minister: It is likely that, at the conclusion of Lord Justice Bingham's report, those matters will have to be pursued, but at this stage it would be unwise of me to pursue them.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Although the appointment of Lord Justice Bingham to chair the inquiry is welcome and appropriate, will the Prime Minister confirm that he will have the power to compel witnesses to attend to give evidence, that the inquiry will include in its remit inquiring into the activities of the security services, and inquiring into whether it is appropriate for the Bank of England to approve banks registered under the toytown banking laws of Luxembourg that guarantee secrecy to crooks and vagabonds? Will the right hon. Gentleman
  758
  confirm that if Bingham concludes that, if the Government or the Bank of England has not shown a responsible duty of care to corner shopkeepers, compensation will be paid?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about toytown authorities in Luxembourg come ill from a party which purports to be strongly European and I suspect that they will cause strong offence in Luxembourg and possibly elsewhere.
  On the hon. and learned Gentleman's substantive point, it will not be necessary to compel people to attend the inquiry. Those who will attend are Government servants or regulators. I have given to the House a commitment that they will all attend and give evidence—that includes members of the security services, if Lord Justice Bingham requires to see them.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not a fact that this House has imposed on the Bank of England a responsibility for regulating the banks, and that it is not the Government's task to do that? If there is a fault in the system, does it not date back to the codification of the bank's powers which was imposed by the Labour Government in the Banking Act 1979—which on Second Reading I warned would weaken the much more arbitrary powers which the Bank had held? Is it not appropriate that we should proceed via a public inquiry—a suggestion which I made a fortnight ago? Have we not just heard from the Leader of the Opposition one of the most cynical displays of political opportunism that we have seen?
  The Prime Minister: I believe that each of my hon. Friend's points is correct. It is an undeniable fact that, under the Banking Acts, the Bank of England is the regulator and is responsible for these matters. The Governor of the Bank of England has made it wholly clear that he will co-operate fully with the inquiry, and he will undoubtedly do so.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Like many others this weekend, I read a great deal about the BBCI's actions and the suspicions felt about the bank long before the recent revelations. Obviously, we accept that the right hon. Gentleman, as Prime Minister and as Chancellor of the Exchequer, may not have known about definitive acts of fraud, but conversations and discussions take place all the time between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor and it would be astonishing if he did not know something about that affair. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have been informed about part of it.
  The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the audit reports submitted by Price Waterhouse suggested that there was widespread fraud, which is a substantive point. I did not see the audit reports from Price Waterhouse; nor was I informed about them. As soon as I was informed, on 28 June, we saw the Governor of the Bank of England and the action about which the House now knows was subsequently taken. At no earlier stage was I given the information that the right hon. Gentleman implies that I was given.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there should be some sympathy with the Leader of the Opposition because of the excellent situation resulting from my right hon. Friend's G7 talks and negotiations? This whole point is meant to cloud those negotiations. Is it not odd that the

  759
  party that wants fully to support the Common Market is one reason why we have problems with the BCCI? Is it not odd that the Labour party is not willing to accept a full and independent discussion and inquiry, which will come to the truth without anyone being sheltered? How else can one explain the opportunism and muck-raking involved in raising this matter at this time?
  The Prime Minister: I am surprised at that, for the reasons which I set out earlier. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to me on Thursday about the benefit of setting up an inquiry without delay. For once, on this matter the right hon. Gentleman and I were in complete agreement. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced such an inquiry on Friday. The Leader of the Opposition then denounced it, and today we have heard what he has subsequently had to say.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his proposed citizens charter, will deal with the growing menace, freshly illustrated today, of buck-passing Ministers in bank scandals?
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman and his party will stop devising artificial reasons for preventing us from getting on to the statement on the citizens charter, they will find out.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will Lord Justice Bingham have the authority to investigate the manner in which so many people's misery has been shamelessly exploited for political ends?
  The Prime Minister: The inquiry will be wide-ranging, but I should not imagine that Lord Justice Bingham will investigate that matter.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would it not be normal practice for security information linking terrorism and a banking house to be passed to the Prime Minister of the day by the security services?
  The Prime Minister: As a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House that I shall not answer questions in the House on security. I reiterate what I said a few moments ago—hat any relevant material will be made available to Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry, and that the outcome of that inquiry will be published.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will the House accept, that although the BCCI has had a suspicious reputation for many years in banking circles, it was at the prompting of the Bank of England that the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi was persuaded to mount a refinancing of the bank to lead it back to the straight and narrow, and that when that proved to have failed, and fraud was revealed, when the Bank of England considered that it might have sufficient evidence to stand up in court it acted promptly? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not the job of the Government or of Ministers to pre-empt the Bank of England in such matters?
  The Prime Minister: That is entirely right. The moment that there was evidence of fraud, the Bank of England acted very promptly indeed, and so did the Government.
  Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North): How will Lord Justice Bingham be able to compel foreign nationals to attend his inquiry to give evidence?
  The Prime Minister: This will be an inquiry into the regulators, not into foreign nationals.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As we are informed by the press that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is for ever dining or lunching in the City of London, is it not remarkable that he was not aware of the alleged—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman come to his question?
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: —crime, and that the Opposition never once raised the matter, although they say that it was so obvious?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend makes his point pertinently in his own way. It is indeed a surprising omission, and I can confirm that, so as far as I am aware, I have received no letter from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Is it not the case that none of the big City players or institutions have lost money in the debacle, because none of them has done business with the BCCI for many years, because of its unsavoury reputation? Why was that information kept within a small charmed circle and not made available to my constituents, who have lost their businesses and their savings?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to remind him that the statement was about the inquiry and not about the bank itself.
  Mr. Leighton: Why was that information kept not only from my constituents, but, apparently, from the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  The Prime Minister: As you, Mr. Speaker, have just said, I have no knowledge of other banks' relationships with the BCCI. The inquiry will concern what knowledge the regulators had, when they had it and whether that knowledge was properly handled.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): As my right hon. Friend will have gathered from a number of questions today, there has been anxiety on both sides of the House about whether the approach of 1992 and all that follows from it will strengthen or weaken the controls over banks registered in places such as Luxembourg. Will the inquiry examine the impact that the European Community will have on such regulations, and can he assure us that it will strengthen them?
  The Prime Minister: There are generally very high standards of regulation in Europe. Clearly we shall have to take account of them when we study the report—but these are matters that will need to be considered afresh in the light of the sophisticated but serious fraud that has been perpetrated by the BCCI.
  Although people may regard it as entirely right, as I do, that the inquiry should take place, we should never overlook the fact that this was a sophisticated and detailed fraud.
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the results of the inquiry will be published before the next election?
  The Prime Minister: I shall publish the results of the inquiry as soon as Lord Justice Bingham presents them to me. I hope that he will be precipitate and that he will speed ahead with his inquiry. We shall put no impediments in his way.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will Lord Bingham be able to look into the way in which it appears that the BCCI has been able to do so much business with local councils? Will he be able to call a senior Labour councillor from Bradford, who was apparently selling for the organisation for a number of years?
  The Prime Minister: I can answer for Government officials, for the regulators and for the Bank of England. They will all be available; others must answer for themselves.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question. Furthermore, there is a debate on this very matter later today. I shall call for three more from each side and then move on. We have two other statements today as well. I call Mr. Bell first.
  Mr. Bell: The House will accept that the Prime Minister did not see the auditors' reports by Price Waterhouse. May we take it that the terms of reference of the inquiry will be as we have heard them today; and will Lord Justice Bingham be able to look at the competence of a whole series of Ministers of the Crown, including the Secretary of State for Employment, who sent the letter to the wrong address, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who did not get the letter, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who claimed that he had no knowledge of it, and the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who also claims that he had no knowledge of it? Does not this go to the heart of Cabinet government and responsibility to the House?
  The Prime Minister: I repeat that this was a serious fraud. The letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred contained no information previously unknown to the regulator, the Bank of England.
  I have already answered the substantive parts of the hon. Gentleman's question several times, but I reiterate that it is clear from the terms of reference that Lord Justice Bingham will consider whether the action taken by the United Kingdom authorities was appropriate and timely.
  Mr. Alistair Burt: Will the inquiry have powers to concern itself with the knowledge held by a certain number of investment brokers and with their relationship to the BCCI? In particular, will it be able to consider the amount of commission that they were paid by the BCCI to ensnare certain unwise local authorities—they never investigated the position—into investing in the bank?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the Government may wish to consider the implications of the point that my hon. Friend raises, but I am not sure whether it entirely falls within the remit of Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry.
  Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a significant difference between the public publication of the outcome of the inquiry and the public examination under oath of witnesses before the inquiry? Why have we not had the latter?
  The Prime Minister: For the very practical reason that I do not want to take any action that may prejudice criminal investigations by the Serious Fraud Office—there is a danger that that would happen. Given the seriousness of the fraud, I am sure that no one would want that.
  Mr. Jack Ashley: The Prime Minister said a moment ago that all relevant information would be made available to the inquiry. Did he know that the United States authorities asked for information from the Bank of England some two years ago and that the bank replied that it could not disclose confidential information because of the Banking Act 1987? Did the Prime Minister agree with that judgment? If he did, and if that excuse is used at the special inquiry, does not that mean that the truth will never be revealed?
  The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear, and I reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman, that all the information required by Lord Justice Bingham will be made available to him. I understand that the American authorities are now satisfied with the assistance and information that they have had from us.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I called two Opposition Members, and I shall now balance that.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the City of London understands the need for an inquiry and approves of it, but that it does not understand and will not condone the specious private notice question put down by the Leader of the Opposition?
  The Prime Minister: I believe that the City of London will make up its own mind about that matter, and I suspect that it will agree with my hon. Friend.
  Sir Peter Hordern: Will Lord Justice Bingham be empowered to investigate international bank regulation as well as our bank regulators?
  The Prime Minister: I think that he may well make recommendations, since the scope of his inquiry may lead him to believe that it would be appropriate for him to do so. Where he does so we shall of course consider those and, if appropriate, take them up with other bodies as well.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Not now. I again remind the House that we are to have a debate on this matter later.

  Citizens Charter
  4 pm
  The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the citizens charter White Paper.
  The Government have consistently extended competition to raise standards and to give the citizen wider choice. We have introduced privatisation and competitive tendering, reforms to give new choice in health and education, and measures to give new opportunities in housing. These have worked to the benefit of the consumer. The White Paper that I am introducing today will build on those measures.
  Action will be expected from all public services on a number of fronts. First, I shall deal with standards. We will expect public bodies to publish explicit standards of performance and the results that they actually achieve. Targets will be set for improvement year by year. Secondly, on accountability, full, accurate information must be made readily available, in plain understandable language, about services provided. We will make it simpler to compare the performance of one body against another. That will put pressure on each to emulate the best and provide consumers with a basis for making choice. Except where their safety is threatened, public servants should no longer be anonymous. We will expect them to identify themselves to the public, by the giving of names on the telephone or in letters and, where appropriate, by the wearing of name badges.
  Thirdly, in the area of redress, where problems occur people are entitled to an explanation, and to know what to do. Avenues for complaint should be well publicised and simple, and when that does not suffice, there should be clear routes to compensation or redress.
  The citizens charter initiative will cover all our public services, as well as those large utilities which are now in the private sector. It is the widest ranging and most comprehensive ever undertaken by Government. It will involve more privatisation, wider competition, further contracting out, pay more related to performance, published performance targets—local and national, comprehensive information on standards achieved, more effective complaints procedures, tougher and more independent inspectorates and auditing, and better redress for the citizen when things go badly wrong. The citizen is also a taxpayer. Public services must give value for money within the tax bill that the nation can afford.
  The White Paper is only the beginning of the charter process. Nevertheless, it contains well over 70 specific measures to raise standards in public service. I shall set out some of the main measures in the White Paper, the first of which is on education. I commend to the House two old-fashioned concepts which are the benchmarks of success—reports and results. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Opposition, particularly those who sit on the Front Bench, that they really should give a lead and set an example to their Back Benchers.
  The Prime Minister: They do give a lead—that is the point.
  I repeat, I commend to the House two old-fashioned concepts that are the benchmarks of success—reports and results. From the new school year, parents will be
  764
  guaranteed a school report on their child's progress. Parents have a right to be able to discuss this progress with their children's teachers, and we shall ensure they know how to exercise that right. We shall also require schools to publish in standard format results achieved, and we shall ensure that tables comparing schools on a number of measures are published locally, and not just on exam results.
  There will also be significant reform of schools inspection. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) will be publishing detailed proposals later this summer, but I can tell the House today that there will be regular inspection of all schools, carried out with the help of independent people from outside, as well as inside, the education profession. Results of inspections will be distributed to parents. Tougher, more rigorous inspection will be the result.
  I move, secondly, to housing. This Government have given new rights to millions of householders, but we are determined that those who remain in public sector housing should secure a better deal. For housing associations, there will be a stronger tenants' guarantee. For council tenants, we shall update and improve the tenants charter that we first published 10 years ago. We shall examine ways to simplify and to strengthen the procedures giving tenants a right to have small but urgent repairs done speedily. We are ensuring that they receive proper information on the standards of service that they can expect. For the first time, we shall consider bids directly from tenants on the worst run estates who want to form housing action trusts. No longer will the improvement of their estates be frustrated by the opposition of the local council.
  We are particularly concerned at the low standard of management of housing. We shall therefore bring forward proposals to extend compulsory competitive tendering into public sector housing management. The citizens charter will end, once and for all, the patronising of tenants by incompetent town halls.
  Thirdly, on health, we have already introduced new contracts in the health service to raise the standards demanded of hospitals. Under the citizens charter, we shall expect publication of clear standards for patient care right across the health service, and we shall begin by taking two further specific steps for the benefit of national health service patients.
  For out-patients, we shall require new procedures on the handling of appointments. This will mean that the practice of calling many patients to an appointment at the same time, which has been widely deplored, will be brought to an end.
  For in-patients, there have been substantial improvements in the quality and quantity of care provided. Nevertheless, a minority of people still have to wait too long for treatment. We therefore propose that, from next April, guaranteed maximum waiting times for in-patient or day care treatment should be published. The initial focus will be on those treatments for which waiting lists are longest, and where the pain, discomfort and general reduction in quality of life are most significant. I have in mind hip replacement, hernia repairs, and cataract removals. Guaranteed maximum waiting times are being negotiated now, but could range from only a few months to over a year. If it appears that the treatment cannot be provided in the guaranteed time, the health authority or board will seek provision elsewhere, including, if appropriate, from the private sector.

  765
  Fourthly, I move on to transport. For road users, we will tackle the nuisance caused by road repairs. We will use new powers to make utilities digging up local roads co-ordinate their activity and complete work more swiftly. For large-scale road repairs, we will extend the use of "lane rental" incentives and penalties in order to reduce time taken for repairs. We will end the unnecessary coning off of miles of motorway when no work is being done. [Laughter.] I only wish that the country outside could see the Opposition Front Bench.
  There are still too many long stretches of motorway without proper service areas. In order to speed up the provision of those facilities, we will end the present system under which the Department of Transport is solely responsible for identifying sites. In future, we will allow developers to take the initiative in selecting sites to provide the facilities that motorists need. We will reduce the delay in getting a driving test, and make it easier to book appointments.
  The deregulation of coach services in the early 1980s has enabled a huge explosion to take place in cheap long-distance travel. Outside London, the deregulation of buses has brought in new operators and better value for money. In the light of that better service, we have decided that the time has come to deregulate bus services in London.
  Travellers on railway and underground services have in too many cases been expected to endure sub-standard performance. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I repeat that those outside are very interested in hearing about these matters. Hon. Members should not interrupt the Prime Minister in this way when he is making a statement.
  The Prime Minister: It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker—they do not care about customers.
  Travellers on railway and underground services have in too many cases been expected to endure sub-standard performance. The Government believe that here, too, further competition is desirable. We therefore expect to set out later this year detailed plans to privatise British Rail. British Rail's monopoly of the network will be ended. We will also set up a new independent regulator to ensure fair access to the network and protect the customer.
  The Government will expect both British Rail and London Underground to be more open about standards of performance and methods of redress. British Rail will improve its compensation arrangements. It has been asked, as a start, to develop a new scheme, starting with annual season ticket holders. For the first time, where service over the previous year has been poor, passengers will be entitled to discounts when their tickets are renewed.
  The Government want to relate pay to performance in all aspects of public service. For example, on the underground and the railways, we shall expect records of punctuality and absenteeism to be taken into account, where relevant, in packages of pay for drivers, guards, signalling staff and others whose service impacts most directly on the public. Dedicated workers should receive a better reward than those who fail the public.
  Fifthly, I turn to local authorities. Many of the measures that I have already outlined will help to improve
  766
  their performance. However, there are two further steps that I wish to announce today. We shall strengthen the powers of the Audit Commission. It will be empowered to publish comparisons which name local councils and education authorities. In future, they will also be required to publish a formal response to auditors' reports. We will also extend the scope of compulsory competitive tendering in local government.
  Sixthly, in central Government we will promote more market testing, and extend contracting-out into new areas in the national health service, such as distribution, warehousing and non-emergency transport. We will publish a White Paper on this in the autumn. Government activities should not enjoy immunity from inspection and enforcement on such matters as health and safety. Except where national security is involved, all future legislation will ensure that Crown bodies are subject to the same inspection and enforcement procedures as others.
  Seventhly, we have new proposals on the Post Office. We will ensure that clear standards for service to the public are widely publicised. A new regulator will be appointed who will arbitrate on complaints, monitor performance and advise the Secretary of State on setting standards and protecting customer interests. Here, too, we believe that further competition would benefit the public. We will therefore narrow significantly the level under which the Post Office has a monopoly for letter delivery. We will reduce it from the present £1 to a level much nearer the first-class stamp.
  All these measures will bring direct benefits to our citizens, but we want to ensure that they have all the support that is needed in exercising the new opportunities the citizens charter will give. We will therefore act to strengthen the powers of the regulators of the public utilities on standards of service. We will ensure that the powers available to each will be brought up to the levels of the strongest. They will thus be able to set guaranteed standards and require compensation to be paid when those standards are not met. We will also enable them to required fixed appointment times for customers, for whom that is self-evidently important. We intend to end the annoyance caused to people waiting in all day for someone to call.
  In the public services, effective inspection is the key to maintaining standards. I have already outlined our proposals for inspection of schools. The Government will also introduce an independent element into other inspectorates. As a first step, more lay members will be appointed to the inspectorate of constabulary later this year, and there will be a full review of the independence and effectiveness of the social services inspectorate. Detailed proposals will be published later this year. We will also be consulting on the introduction of a new concept, the introduction of a network of lay adjudicators. These will be people who can help the citizen to get a swift resolution of those small but irritating complaints which cause so much frustration.
  Finally, the public are entitled to expect that essential services will not be damaged or interrupted by industrial action, which has not been put to the test of a ballot or which is unlawful in some way. At present, if the employer does nothing, the citizen is powerless. We therefore propose to amend the law. We will give a new right to individual members of the public to seek an injunction to halt unlawful industrial action affecting services covered by the citizens charter.

  767
  This White Paper is only the beginning of the charter process. Over the next few months, separate charters for specific services will be published, and we will be introducing a new charter standard for quality in public services. Only those who can meet the high standards that the public expect will earn the right to display a new charter mark.
  We will introduce legislation, wherever necessary, to bring about the changes proposed. In addition, to drive the reform process through, I will be setting up a special unit in the Cabinet Office, and I will be appointing a panel of independent advisers to identify new areas for action to help carry the programme forward. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that its first chairman will be Sir James Blyth, director and chief executive of Boots.
  The citizens charter initiative will be fundamental to the Government's policies for the 1990s. It is a programme that will carry on through a decade. There is much that is good in our public services. They contain a fund of talent, energy and commitment. Our new measures will release more of those qualities so that we can raise standards up to and beyond the best that is currently available. The charter programme will find better ways of converting the money that can be afforded into even better services. I want the people of this country to have services in which they as citizens can be confident and in which public servants themselves can take pride. I commend the proposals to the House. [Interruption]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. I ask the House to settle down.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: For 12 years, the Government have presided over, and often prompted, reductions in the standards and provision of public services. They are still doing so. Having heard the Prime Minister's proposals this afternoon, it is possible to conclude only that they are a mixture of the belated, the ineffectual, the banal, the vague and the damaging.
  Where are the practical policies in this White Paper for the action that is needed to tackle our crumbling schools? Where are the practical policies to reduce hospital waiting lists, which are now 40 per cent. higher than when the Government took office? And where are the practical policies, to be implemented now, to make up for the years of under-investment in a transport system that is increasingly congested and increasingly costly? Where are the practical policies for dealing with the growing housing crisis—after 12 years of record high mortgage repayments, a cut of 80 per cent. in the number of houses built for rent, and a trebling in the number of homeless families?
  Where are the practical policies in the citizens charter for reducing the number of people living in poverty, which has increased threefold in the lifetime of this Government? Why does the citizens charter not contain a commitment to a freedom of information Act? Why does it not improve access to legal aid? Why does it not provide necessary rights for the millions of disabled people in this country? What is there in this document, or indeed any other Government policy, to improve Government accountability to the people of this country? Where, for instance, is the costing of these proposals? The Prime Minister is sometimes interested in that aspect of things. Is this not yet another Conservative pig in the poke which will be unconvincing?
  768
  Will the Prime Minister accept from me that, although any action to improve standards of safety, performance and accountability is welcome, giving people some compensation for poor service is no substitute for developing good services? Where is the commitment to improved training for those working in and managing services in the public and private sectors? Indeed, where is there anything to improve standards of provision and service for the 14 million people who every year have cause for serious complaint about the standards of goods and services produced by the private sector? Where is the mechanism in the charter for improving quality in local services?
  The statement, quite correctly, says:
  "The citizen is also a taxpayer. Public services must give value for money within the tax bill that the nation can afford."
  What value for money did the Government give when they wasted £14 billion of taxpayers' money on maintaining a poll tax that nobody wanted? What compensation will the Government offer for that monumental act of waste and injustice?
  Two months ago, the Prime Minister promised that his citizens charter would be a "revolution". What we have is not a revolution but a massive evasion. What is being offered is very little, very late, very limited, very slow and, after 12 years of a Government who have run down so many public services, very unconvincing.
  The Prime Minister: What was unconvincing was the fact that the right hon. Gentleman talked about everything except what was in my statement. We know that customers do not matter to Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is the rambling rose of politics, but he certainly cannot stick to the subject matter.
  The right hon. Gentleman talks of crumbling schools. In which education authorities is the worst education? Labour education authorities. In which housing authorities is the worst housing? Labour housing authorities. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. He talks of costing. He should have read the document and turned to page 38. He would have seen there the difference in value for money between the best and the worst local authorities, and the improvements that can be made within the increasing resources that we have made available. He should look also at all the detailed matters that I have announced in the document which will directly affect the individual lives of people at present facing frustration. They will find those frustrations removed and their quality of life improved.
  It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about what he would do. He would do nothing. Labour opposed privatisation, opposed contracting out, opposed competitive tendering and opposed every increase in individual rights that we have introduced in the past 10 or 11 years. We want competition in postal services; Labour does not. We will extend performance-related pay; Labour will not, because Jimmy Knapp will not allow it. We will require education authorities to provide the information and education to parents which they want for their children; Labour will not do that and will oppose it. We will strengthen the powers of the Audit Commission; Labour seeks to abolish the Audit Commission. Labour can say nothing to us about public services. Wherever Labour is in charge, public services are a shambles. We are determined to ensure that that will not be tolerated any more.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I suspect that we shall have plenty of other opportunities to debate this matter. Today is a private Members' day, and no doubt these issues can be raised on the motion for the summer Adjournment. I will allow questions to continue until 5 pm, when we will move on to the next two statements. I will give precedence first to those who were not called on Friday.
  Sir William Clark: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should treat the carping criticism from the Leader of the Opposition with the contempt that it deserves? Does he agree that the charter will be widely welcomed by passengers, parents, patients and post office users because it will give the citizen more rights, more freedom, and more value for money? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the speeches made over the weekend by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) about utilities not being included merely show how ill informed the Opposition are?
  The Prime Minister: It certainly does. Some of the widely trailed leaks that we have had from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in recent weeks are ill informed. I suggest that our colleagues and friends in the press get a better class of leak in the future. There is no doubt that the proposals will be widely welcomed. What has so piqued the Opposition is that they cannot match our proposals.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The Prime Minister was reticent about the privatised industries, notably gas, electricity and water. Will the same criteria apply to those industries as will apply to the public sector? What we have heard this afternoon is not so much a citizens charter as an election address from the Conservative party.
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman reads page 44 of the document, he will find that the same criteria are applied to the privatised industries. On the success of privatisation, prices of electricity, gas and telecommunications have all fallen against the retail prices index, to the benefit of the consumer. The taxpayer also benefited from privatisation receipts to the extent of nearly 3p off the standard rate of income tax.
  The Opposition seem deeply split on the question of privatisation. Even the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen apparently recognise that it is a good thing. I remind the House that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said recently: "I am against privatisation." He was then asked why it was necessary in Liverpool. He said:
  "because the Liverpool people deserve a proper service."
  If it is right for Liverpool—and it is—it is right for the rest of the country, whether the right hon. Member for Salford, East believes it or not.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: May I first of all congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his outstanding achievement last week in international affairs? May I also congratulate him on his outstanding statement this afternoon on domestic affairs?
  Will the protection for railway passengers be extended to airline passengers? Can my right hon. Friend say something about the consumer in terms of those who travel on British Airways and those affected by the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority? Will those people get the same rights as railway passengers?
  The Prime Minister: At the moment, different circumstances apply because of the range of competition that exists in attracting airline passengers. To that extent, there is not the same monopoly position—something which I believe has been the subject of some publicity in recent days.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Prime Minister accept that, when the country has time to read this puce paper it will recognise that matters of some importance are contained in it, including proposals to extend competition? If they are to be of benefit to the travelling public, they are to be welcomed. The document also contains many trivial matters, such as lapel badges, and focuses on motorway services when there are parts of the country, such as my constituency, that are living in the mediaeval period in terms of road transport. Other matters are unformed, including the proposals for lay adjudicators. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the real obstacle to giving citizens redress for grievances is the outdated, overcentralised political system over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, which offers no constitutional reforms to protect the true interests of the people of this country?
  The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on his third point, but I am grateful to him for drawing the attention of the official Opposition to the many matters of real importance contained within the document. As the hon. Gentleman has said, I believe that those matters will be very welcome to the travelling public and also to the public who are treated in hospitals and to parents whose children use our national schools. They and many others will welcome what is in the document.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, there are smaller matters in the document, but I do not agree that they are trivial, because frustrations and difficulties for customers are not trival. They cause immense difficulty and we in the public service, and those of us who are responsible for it, should be in the business of removing those complaints. If they are trivial, let us get down to dealing with them, and that is what we propose to do. The hon. Gentleman mentioned particularly motorway services under the heading of trivial matters. I think that many drivers who travel many miles along motorways and find no services whatever would not regard the provision of more motorway service stations as a trivial matter.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: The House knows that the Labour party hates good news, and the leader of the rubbishmongers on the Opposition Benches has confirmed that this afternoon. The charter is excellent news for a great many different groups of our constitutents, and they will welcome it. The House should welcome the charter most particularly because it redresses the balance of advantage in favour of the people who pay for and use public services and against the traditional socialist forces of incompetence, arrogance and indifference which are so well represented on the Opposition Benches.
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether I need to add anything to what my right hon. Friend has said. The Labour party is officially concerned about the producers of services, whereas we are concerned about the users of services.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Prime Minister noticed the state of disorder and anarchy in social

  771
  security offices throughout the country? There are more delays than ever before because the computerised system does not work and the overworked staff are using the two systems—manual and computer—together. Should he not get his own house in order before he advances on the Walter Mitty dreams in his statement?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is singularly ill informed. Otherwise, he would know of the Benefits Agency and its work to improve the service to social security claimants.
  Mr. Steve Norris: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a charter which gives powers to the regulators of public utilities? Did my right hon. Friend see the article in The Mail on Sunday by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), which said:
  "the real test will be how he handles the public utilities"?
  On the basis of that test, does my right hon. Friend agree that his charter has passed with flying colours?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that it passes on the basis of that test and many others. The Opposition have been saying for some time that the test would be whether to increase powers for regulators. They are being increased but, for some curious reason, the Leader of the Opposition neglected to welcome it.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a general welcome for plans to make public authorities accountable, as they are usually the greatest offenders? Is he further aware that there will be satisfactiion that he has included housing authorities in the list? Housing authority staff will welcome the fact that something is to be done to redress the top-heavy bureaucracy, which exists in housing authorities despite the efforts of many dedicated members of staff.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I believe that they will be widely welcomed throughout the country.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: Of all the positive and practical proposals that my right hon. Friend has announced, the stripping away of the anonymity of the officials with whom one has to deal on the telephone will probably be the one most welcomed by the ordinary citizen. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that proposal is not watered down by the public service unions and those whom they sponsor? Personal responsibility, or a measure of it, is the greatest guarantee of efficiency and courtesy to the public.
  The Prime Minister: I will, Sir—with the solitary exception of cases where it is judged that there may be some personal danger to the person concerned. Only in those circumstances will we sanction the anonymity that previously existed. In the light of the question asked by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) a moment ago, I should say that the members of the new Benefits Agency have already started to identify themselves by wearing name badges and ensuring that people are aware of whom they are dealing with.
  Mr. John Fraser: Does the Prime Minister agree that the giving of citizens' rights is empty unless those rights can be enforced and unless they are properly understood? Will he therefore reverse the process whereby millions of people have been denied access to legal aid?
  772
  Will he tell the Lord Chancellor straight away to stop his withdrawal of legal advice and assistance to some of the most vulnerable people, will he end the wholesale closure of law centres and advice centres, and will he place a duty on local authorities to have a comprehensive network of advice centres to assist ordinary citizens?
  The Prime Minister: This is a continuing programme, and there are many sectors that we still wish to look at. Those rights will be enforced, and will certainly be understood.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many teachers and local government officers will welcome the charter programme? Does he also accept that, because the targets are public, people will be able to see progress, what problems remain and identify the points for action so that everyone may gain? The Labour party makes a mistake in opposing the charter, because many people who vote Labour want to see such improvements.
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about that, and people will see improvements. I am surprised that the Opposition scoff at the sort of additional improvements and rights that will be available to, for example, parents in the education sphere, where there will be independent inspection reports, a detailed prospectus, comparative information on exam, national curriculum and truancy results, summary results in local papers, annual reports on their child's progress, annual reports on the work of the school and comprehensive admissions booklets. Those are the new powers and rights for parents that the Opposition oppose.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Prime Minister accept that some of us would wish to give consideration to the document before offering detailed criticism, much of which I hope will be constructive, particularly during the legislative process? Does he accept from me that a preliminary glance through the document reveals that its terminology is England-based—reference is made to the Department of Education and Science, the Home Office and the Department of Transport, and the illustration given in relation to motorways refers to Watford as the most northerly point? Will he give an assurance that our legal and educational systems will be given further consideration and that a separate document will be produced on those matters?
  The Prime Minister: I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. A separate charter will be published for Scotland in the autumn, covering a wide range of matters. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saying that some consideration would be necessary before reaching a conclusion on what is in the document—a policy that is not widely welcomed. Indeed, it would be a novel principle for some right hon. Gentlemen.
  Mr. John Bowis: Is not the reaction of Opposition Members due partly to the fact that they have realised that they wished that they had come up with a charter, and partly because they realise that their union bosses would not have let them do so? Is not the lesson of my right hon. Friend's statement the fact that, to have quality control, one must separate the quality controller from the provider of the service? Is that not exactly the lesson of privatisation in the past decade? But has not my

  773
  right hon. Friend left out one major plank in consumer protection—ensuring that, after the next election, this Government continue in office?
  The Prime Minister: I have some confidence about that, so it was not necessary to state it explicitly in the White Paper. My hon. Friend scores a bull's eye when he makes the point about regulators. It is also exactly true to say that the Opposition could not have come up with the proposals.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the parts of the citizens charter that will be most closely scrutinised are those aspects dealing with the national health service. Within the citizens charter that he has proposed today, will the low priority given to people over the age of 65 requiring hospital treatment cease?
  The Prime Minister: There is no such low priority for people over the age of 65—the hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. In my statement, I said that we were going to produce guaranteed maximum waiting times for many treatments where the quality of life is significantly reduced—for example, hip replacements, cataracts and hernia repairs, which often specifically impact on the lives of elderly people. To that extent, there will be a direct improvement specifically, but not exclusively, for them.
  Mr. David Martin: I welcome the maximum waiting times for operations that my right hon. Friend mentioned, but how practical would such action be if there were no Government health reforms to build on—reforms that the Opposition opposed throughout?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Such actions would certainly be far more difficult, as the improving service offered by the national health service illustrates.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Prime Minister accept that the carefully packaged statement that he has given to the House today has far more to do with the likelihood of an early general election than with the content of the announcement? Does he also accept that it is one thing to receive complaints, but another to act on them? What we need from the Government, as they are responsible for the public services being run down, is an influx of capital into the public services that will satisfy the complaints that the consumers are making. It is not enough simply to receive those complaints.
  The Prime Minister: The purpose is to set up a mechanism to ensure that those complaints are acted on, rather than leave people with the frustrating feeling, which they have often felt in the past, that their concerns are not being dealt with. I detected an air of nervousness in the hon. Gentleman's remarks when he said that he thought that the charter might have something to do with the election—clearly, he thinks that it is an election winner.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Is it not a fact that, for years, the debate on public services has been dominated by the providers of those services, and the significance of this Green Paper is that it redresses the balance and gives a voice to the user? Would not my right
  774
  hon. Friend also agree that the fatal flaw in the case put by the Leader of the Opposition is that he is controlled by the worst vested interests in the public sector organisations?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right to draw the distinction between providers and users of the service. We act very much in the interests of those people who use the services, which is why we are determined to see through the action that I have announced today. As for the Opposition, their position of being in baulk as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the trade unions is well known.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Would the Prime Minister recognise that there are millions of citizens in this country who have had to stand 11 years of Conservative government, when all the matters, services and values in which they have faith have been taken away? Has the Prime Minister spoken to the Secretary of State for Education and Science because, as we debate the citizens charter, the recent education White Paper intends to take away the rights of hundreds and thousands of men and women in adult and continuing education, who are writing letters every day telling us that they know that the Government have no concern for their needs? Why should people today believe that the Prime Minister is genuine in what he has to say?
  The Prime Minister: On the first point—it is 12 years, not 11 years. Secondly, if people are so dissatisfied, it is curious, is it not, that they keep re-electing this Government to power?
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Bearing in mind that the excellent reforms in the public service can succeed probably only against the opposition of public sector unions, does my right hon. Friend think it remarkable that he should be subject to criticism from a shadow Cabinet—[Interruption]—in which 16 out of the 22 are supported by public sector unions—[Interruption.]
  The Prime Minister: Over the hubbub from Opposition Members, I did not entirely catch the drift of my hon. Friend's question, but I suspect that it related to the large number of Labour Members who are sponsored by trade unions. Certainly, the Opposition policy owes a lot to that.
  Mr. John Cartwright: Although there is much to commend the Prime Minister's proposals, is he aware of the scepticism felt by the thousands of my constituents who have to deal with a council which keeps them waiting months on end for essential repairs, fails to answer their letters, and keeps needy people waiting up to a year for rebates? As none of them benefits in any way from the work of the Audit Commission, contracting out, or the tenants charter—all of which were supposed to solve such problems—why should my constituents have any more faith in the Prime Minister's proposals?
  The Prime Minister: The council to which the hon. Gentleman refers is, of course, Labour-controlled—I make that point in case any right hon. or hon. Member had overlooked it. The proposals that will directly affect council tenants in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere are the right-to-repair proposals. I understand the frustration that many citizens feel, because for years they have been unfairly treated by their local councils. It is only when improvements begin to be seen that they will

  775
  accept the value of the charter. Whatever it takes, and however long it takes, we will get it operating to the benefit of consumers.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the charter will be welcomed by all consumers of public services and that, as usual, Labour has made a fatal miscalculation in opposing it? The charter provides what every parent in the country wants—reports which show how well their children are doing in class, how well that class is progressing relative to others in the school, and how well the school itself is performing relative to others throughout the country.
  The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the charter will be welcomed. It puzzles me that Labour Members affect to deride the proposals. while the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) kept shouting earlier, "That's our policy." Which is it?
  Miss Joan Lestor: Bearing in mind the concern felt by the whole country at revelations of an increase in reported cases of child abuse within the family and at places of safety, the growing number of missing children, and the rising number of those sleeping rough on our streets, how do the Government justify the cut made by the Department of Health in its grant to the National Association of Young People in Care? If the Prime Minister is really concerned about citizens and a charter, why has he failed to take the action that we promise, and to appoint a commissioner for children as recommended by the Gulbenkian Foundation? Is it because children have no votes?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady's last remark is unworthy of her—at least, I hope that it is unworthy of her. The purpose of the charter proposals that I have announced, and of those to come—a great deal has yet to come in the years ahead— is to build up and improve services to ordinary people throughout the country. I know that social services, for example, are of concern to the hon. Lady. The review of the social services inspectorate and the intention to include lay people among its membership show that we are determined to ensure proper inspections and to prevent a recurrence of some of the problems that have arisen in the past. That is a significant move forward.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Does the provision for guaranteed maximum hospital waiting times mean that a hospital or health authority which fails to provide an operation in time will be required to purchase that operation from the private sector?
  The Prime Minister: It certainly can mean that. The option will be there for an operation or treatment elsewhere in the national health service, or, if that is not possible, in the private sector. The guaranteed maximum waiting time will be honoured wherever the treatment is provided.
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: What redress will be offered under the citizens charter to an applicant to the social fund who is refused a loan not because his needs are not recognised but because the local fund has been spent up for the year? Will such an individual have any redress against the local fund for not managing it well
  776
  enough? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that example shows that no citizens charter can compensate for the fundamental problem of underfunding?
  The Prime Minister: Were any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to find themselves in the situation that he describes, the right place for them to go would be to the hon. Gentleman, as their Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Derek Conway: When the whingeing from the Opposition has died down, will not my right hon. Friend's announcement be recognised as a milestone for this nation? Will his advisory team continue extending the powers and capabilities of the local government and parliamentary ombudsmen, so that their respective judgments against bureaucracy will be given some teeth?
  The Prime Minister: It is a milestone for us, but I suspect that it will be a headstone for Labour.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the Prime Minister help me with his definition of a citizen? Who will benefit from this great charter of his? Will Commonwealth citizens who are not settled in this country benefit from it? What about European Community nationals, or refugees and asylum seekers—from whom the Government removed the right to legal aid and assistance? Will they benefit from the charter? If not, what about a charter for them?
  The Prime Minister: Everyone properly resident in this country will benefit from it.
  Mr. Michael Lord: Although the charter may not be good news for Opposition Members, it is very good news for my constituents, many of whom have to struggle with miles of traffic cones when driving on the A45 or when travelling to work from Norwich to Liverpool Street every day. It is crucial that those who serve the public should not be allowed to remain anonymous, and I urge my right hon. Friend to try to cut through all the jargon and to remove unintelligible job titles. Finally, is it too much to hope that, one day soon, we may have a matron in every hospital?
  The Prime Minister: I missed my hon. Friend's last point, but I will ask him about it later. I agree with his other points, and that the bogus opposition displayed this afternoon represents a grave misjudgment by Labour Members.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Which page of the charter gives rights to private sector tenants not to be abused by Rachman-style landlords? Which page gives rights to people receiving social security benefits, such as those students who this year will enjoy a zero income between now and returning to college? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman forgot, in his rush to appear on television this afternoon, to provide any information on those two groups. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister's proposals are not a citizens charter but a privatisation charter? We all know what privatisation brought—higher prices, poorer services, and big pay rises for those who run the new companies.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Gorton is in favour of privatisation, so why is the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) so upset? The hon. Member for Blackburn keeps saying, "That's our policy." Clearly,

  777
  Labour is much more deeply split than I had previously thought. If the hon. Member for Makerfield had listened and understood my previous comments, he would know that this is a charter for the public sector and for public utilities. The hon. Gentleman, like the Leader of the Opposition, talks about everything except the subject under discussion.
  Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the important role to be played in his admirable proposals by the Comptroller and Auditor General? Will my right hon. Friend hold discussions with him, to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports reflect not only value for money and the efficiency of accounting but those aspects covered by the citizens charter, and that he reports to the Public Accounts Committee accordingly?
  The Prime Minister: We plan to discuss those matters with the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I will act as my hon. Friend suggests.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Prime Minister aware that many consumers of gas, electricity and water services feel that the regulators' present powers are far too weak? Why has the right hon. Gentleman vetoed an increase in the powers of even the strongest regulator—I refer to page 44—and the provision of a consumer ombudsman or of some other form of proper consumer representation?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman was one of those who was leaking inaccurate information before the statement was made. Now that the proposals are public, he cannot continue to produce the same rubbish. If he reads the White Paper, and if he reads what I said earlier, he will find that we are increasing all the powers of the regulators
  778
  to the level of the most compelling powers they have. That will give them extra powers which go beyond those currently available to them. That is precisely what the hon. Gentleman said that we would not do, and precisely what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said was the test of the charter.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost everything that he has said this afternoon will be welcomed by most normal people throughout the country? I will give an illustration. An elderly and frail constituent of mine saw me at my surgery on Friday. She has had recently to change her doctor. She has been told by those responsible for the bureaucracy of the health service that she will have to wait three months for her medical notes to be transferred. Is that the sort of case in which action can be taken?
  May I add one note of caution on railways? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government do not rush into any decision on railway privatisation until he is certain that at least as good a service will be offered to the public as a result of any changes that might be contemplated?
  The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I announced, we propose to introduce a regulator to ensure that the service is adequate and in the interests of those who use the rail lines.
  The first point that my hon. Friend raised is not in the charter at this stage, but it is among the matters that we shall wish to consider.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Some of those hon. Members who have been rising in their places are seeking to participate in the summer Adjournment motion debate, and I shall endeavour to call them. I shall be able to call a great many more hon. Members if their contributions are brief.

  Rail Crash (Glasgow)
  5 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the railway accident that occurred at Newton, near Glasgow, yesterday evening, Sunday 21 July.
  At about 22.00 yesterday evening the 20.55 Balbach to Motherwell electric multiple unit train collided head on with the 21.55 Newton to Glasgow Central train near Newton station, between Glasgow and Motherwell. I understand that four people were killed, including both train drivers, and more than 30 people were injured.
  The House will, I know, want to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the bereaved and injured; and our thanks to the emergency services.
  British Rail is carrying out its own full technical investigation into the circumstances and cause of the accident, including the signalling, track and trains. British Rail will be holding a formal inquiry, starting tomorrow. The results will be made available to the Health and Safety Executive. The railway inspectorate, now part of the HSE, has already started its investigations. An inspecting officer has been on site overnight and a second inspector with specialist knowledge of signalling electronics has travelled to the scene to assist with the investigations.
  After consultation with the Health and Safety Commission, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has today appointed Mr. Robin Seymour, Her Majesty's chief inspecting officer of railways, to carry out an inquiry under the Regulations of Railways Act 1871. His inquiry will be wholly independent. It will be held in public. The report will be published and we have asked him to report to us as quickly as possible. British Rail will, of course, act immediately should the need for any urgent measures emerge during the various investigations.
  The cause of the accident is not yet clear. The House will agree that it would be wholly wrong to speculate on any conclusions that the inquiry may reach as to the cause of the accident.
  Mr. John Prescott: On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of the four people who died. Two of them were the drivers of the trains, who are inevitably in the front line when these terrible tragedies occur. I offer also our deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who were injured in yesterday's terrible accident.
  Once again, we who speak about our transport industries express our unfailing admiration of the emergency services, which responded so swiftly and with such skill and courage. We pay tribute to their professionalism and dedication.
  I express regret that the Secretary of State for Transport, who was here but a few minutes ago, was not here to make an announcement, which is the normal course of events. We recognise that he has many calls upon his time, but it was an error of judgment not to stay to make a statement.
  Is the Minister aware that, according to the railway inspectorate's safety reports, significant collisions between passenger trains have increased by over 60 per cent. when comparing the first part of this decade and the last part of
  780
  the 1980s, and that in 1989 there was a 100 per cent. increase on the average for the previous four years? That is a grave and growing area of concern which has caused me and others concern during the past four years. The increase in these collisions is alarming and I ask the Minister to tell us whether he is aware of it.
  Has the Minister read the report of the inquiry into the Bellgrove accident, which took place in March 1989? There are certain similarities between that accident and the one that we are now considering. It involved new track alignment, converting double track to single-track crossovers, which in the event of failure, either human or in the signalling system, put trains on to a head-on collision. Will he recognise the acceptance by those carrying out the inquiry that replacing double crossover points with single ones is a cheaper option and that the justification for doing so relied solely on everyone observing the signal procedures? The Minister must be aware, however, that over 60 per cent. of railway accidents are due to human error. Therefore, the judgment to use the cheaper option is, to my mind, faulty.
  Did the Minister note the recommendation in the Bellgrove report that any such changes should be allowed only on the condition that an automatic train protection system should be implemented of the sort that was fitted to some trains in the 1970s? I ask the Minister to tell the House whether the recommendation that the Secretary of State's permission must be granted before any further schemes are implemented will be put into effect. It is clear that the scheme to which I have referred had to be considered. Did the Secretary of State agree that it should be implemented? Was he satisfied with it on safety grounds? Was he concerned to see whether any automatic protection systems were built into it to avoid the inevitable head-on collisions that arise from the changes that I have described?
  The Minister has told the House that an inquiry will be undertaken after consultation with the Health and Safety Commission. The inquiry will be headed by the chief inspecting officer of railways. Will the Government now launch an independent investigation into whether British Rail is pursuing cheaper options that are reducing safety standards, which have led to an alarming increase in significant collisions between passenger trains? We should not have to ask the same question after another 12 months have passed. What are the Government prepared to do about it?
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions. The first one related to the number of significant collisions between passenger trains. He was doubtless referring to the recent report from the railway inspectorate. The table in that report sets out the average number of collisions between passenger trains. For the years 1984 to 1988, the average is six per annum. In 1989, there were 12 collisions. That figure includes six railway trains—the rest of the collisions involved trams. I do not believe, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman or the House can draw any conclusion that there is a deteriorating trend in accidents—
  Mr. Prescott: I spoke of a 60 per cent. increase over the 1980s.
  Mr. Freeman: The plain fact is that in 1989 there were six accidents involving collisions between passenger trains, and that equalled the average for 1984 to 1988.

  781
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Bellgrove inquiry. He is right to say that there are clear similarities between the tragic accident at Bellgrove and the accident at Newton. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 129 of the inspector's report on the Bellgrove accident. The inspector said:
  "We consider that single lead junctions"—
  the single-lead junction was the delineation of the track at Bellgrove and at Newton—
  "are acceptable in principle of safety grounds and we do not accept that improvements in the efficiency of operation and maintenance are intrinsically at variance with the maintenance of an adequate standard of safety."
  So the Bellgrove report did not state that single-lead junctions are inherently unsafe. Clearly their safety depends on proper operation, including the drivers of trains and signalling equipment at single-lead junctions. The Bellgrove inspector's report did not state that such junctions were inherently unsafe.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether permission had been given for the conversion of the line at Newton to a single-lead junction. Provisional agreement for British Rail to operate that single-lead junction had been given by the railway inspectorate. Of course, it said that its final judgment on the operation of the single-lead junction would depend on its subsequent examination, and that has not yet taken place. However, I can confirm that the railway inspectorate specifically gave permission for Brritish Rail to operate a single-lead junction service at that station.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about safety, the implication being that in some way BR or the Government did not place safety at the top of their list of priorities. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the year 1990–91, BR spent £140 million on safety measures. For this year, 1991–92, we anticipate that BR will spend about £200 million on safety measures. That clearly shows that BR believes that safety is a top priority of passengers, and the Government support BR appropriately with funds.
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: As the constituency Member affected, I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to ask an early question. I wish to place on record my strong objection to and resentment of the absence of the Secretary of State for Transport. He was in the Chamber only a few minutes ago, and I regard his departure as an insult not only to those casualties of the tragic accident, but to the front-line services that were involved.
  I mean no disrespect to the Minister; I accept his sincerity in expressing sympathy to the relatives of those who died in the accident. I endorse all that he said about the emergency services. I would include the ScotRail staff, who played a significant role. I managed to go to the scene of the accident for an hour in the early hours of the morning, and the emergency workers were doing a first-class job. I also commend the local residents living adjacent to the scene of the accident who, despite risk to themselves, were the first over the fence to try to help those trapped in the carriage. As the local Member of Parliament, I am proud of them.
  The newspapers this morning quoted the Secretary of State for Transport as saying that the Newton collision was a tragic accident. How could he say that when he does not have the results of the inquiry? What is he afraid of?
  782
  His comments are the pathetic hallmark of a Cabinet Minister trying to shuffle away from his responsibilities. The fact is that single tracking is being pushed as a way to reduce costs and a route to privatisation. Can the Minister confirm that, if single tracking had not been introduced, those two trains would have been on separate lines and the collision would not have occurred?
  Mr. Freeman: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the emergency services. Anyone who has attended a railway accident, as I have, will have found it traumatic. We all appreciate the suffering of the 30 injured passengers. We also appreciate the fact that passers-by, third parties and those living nearby did all that they could to help. I pay tribute to the emergency services and to all who rendered assistance last night.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to say that if there had been a double lead, the trains would not have run into each other. That is obvious. However, a single-lead junction—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, should not be confused with a single track—is a feature of British Rail's operations at very many junctions. The inspector, Mr. Robin Seymour, is the same inspector who produced the Bellgrove report. In preparing his report on the Newton accident, I am sure that, yet again, he will examine the use of single-lead junctions. I shall not speculate on the cause of the accident, but I am sure that in investigating the possible cause, and in the light of his Bellgrove report, Mr. Seymour will look afresh at any lessons that can be learned from this tragic accident.
  Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Minister aware that we have not yet been given an answer to the reasonable question of why the Secretary of State is not here to reply to our questions? It is a reasonable question, and we are entitled to an answer.
  Will the Minister specifically ask Mr. Seymour whether he was correct, at the Bellgrove inquiry, to say that single-lead junctions were inherently safe? In view of the number of dead and injured, the empirical evidence points to the opposite being the case.
  Mr. Freeman: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I hope that he has not been misled. I did not say that in the Bellgrove report Mr. Seymour had said that single-lead junctions were inherently safe; what I said was that they were not inherently unsafe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is an important difference. I quoted paragraph 129 in full, and I shall repeat it. It stated:
  "We consider that single lead junctions are acceptable in principle on safety grounds and we do not accept that improvements in the efficiency of operation and maintenance are intrinsically at variance with the maintenance of an adequate standard of safety."
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Minister appreciate that many hon. Members represent towns and communities on the fringe of the great city of Glasgow, and that many of our constituents commute daily to that city? Does he accept that the accident, following so quickly after the accident at Bellgrove—and given the incidence of railway accidents to which he referred—perhaps makes the case for a wider inquiry into safety on the railways and the condition of the tracks, the signalling equipment and the rolling stock?

  783
  Would not that reassure the travelling public that everything humanly possible was being done to ensure safety on the railways?
  Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the railways, compared with almost any other mode of transport, are relatively safe. They can never be completely safe because of the possibility of human frailty. The statistics show that in 1989—the last full year for which we have figures—total fatalities, excluding those who were trespassing or who had committed suicide on the railways, were 69. That figure is close to the average for the previous 15 years, which is the period for which I have figures.
  I know that the aim of Sir Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail, is for total safety on the railways. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also wants that. Indeed, Sir Bob Reid recently confirmed that aim in a document entitled "Rail Safety". which I commend to the House. The aim might be impossible to achieve, but it is laudable.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I wish to offer my deep sympathies and those of my colleagues to the bereaved relatives of those who were killed, and also to the injured. I, too, pay tribute to the rescue services, which I understand worked swiftly, with a calm and determined air, throughout the night.
  I welcome the public inquiry. Will it consider the matter of training? With all the new, sophisticated signalling equipment, is it not essential that everyone involved with trains should have proper training? We should know the type of training, its length, and how often it is available. Will the Minister or, indeed, the inquiry tell us whether the signalling system was installed to try to reduce the time of the Glasgow-London trains by four and a half or five minutes?
  Mr. Freeman: On the first point, the hon. Lady may know that British Rail commissioned a study, carried out by the Royal Holloway and Bedford new college and by British Rail research staff, of incidents of signals passed at danger and seeking to draw common threads and to make recommendations. British Rail has accepted the report's findings. One of its principal recommendations was on the provision of better driver training. The report recommended that, rather than having a driver afraid of committing the offence of passing a signal at danger, possibly losing his job and being disciplined, there should be a much more positive culture among British Rail staff about signalling and awareness of the dangers in dealing with modern signalling systems faced not only by drivers but by their passengers. I welcome British Rail's response to the report. If the hon. Lady is interested, I shall send her a copy.
  Mr. William McKelvey: Does not the Minister understand the worry of some Opposition Members at the fact that the person who conducted the Bellgrove inquiry is to conduct this inquiry? If that person made mistakes in the report, he might duplicate them and he might not feel that it was appropriate to recognise any mistakes that were made. It has been said that the present system is not inherently unsafe. That may be all right as a matter of principle, but, although I do not wish to prejudge the inquiry, twice that has proved to be totally unacceptable.
  Mr. Freeman: The officer who has been appointed to conduct this inquiry is the chief inspecting officer of British
  784
  Rail, Mr. Robin Seymour. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have total confidence in Mr. Seymour. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not casting any aspersions on him. He is independent, and the railway inspectorate is now part of the Health and Safety Executive.
  As for the wisdom of appointing the same man to conduct an investigation into a similar accident, I should have thought that the House would believe that there were certain advantages in enabling Mr. Seymour to reflect on conclusions that were drawn from the Bellgrove incident. I believe that uppermost in hon. Members' minds is the question: is this a pattern that can be avoided? It is important, and appropriate that the same officer who completed the Bellgrove report should report on this incident. That will allow any lessons learned from the first incident to come much more quickly to the fore.
  Mr. John McAllion: I again ask the Minister this question, because the House has still not had an answer: what important business persuaded the Secretary of State for Transport, who represents a Scottish constituency, to be absent from the Chamber during this important statement about a serious, fatal rail accident in Scotland?
  Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the safety recommendations made by the inquiry into the Clapham rail disaster in 1988 included the recommendation to install automatic train protection systems, which would have introduced fail-safe braking for trains? Has that recommendation been implemented; if not, why not? It might have reduced the casualties and deaths that occurred in this terrible accident.
  Mr. Freeman: The recommendation to introduce automatic train protection—ATP—followed the Clapham accident. British Rail is trialling automatic train protection on Chiltern lines and on the Great Western railway. When lessons from those two trials have been learnt, British Rail will be able to draw up a standard for the introduction of ATP throughout the British Rail network.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: The Minister seems to be avoiding a question. He should know that it is deeply offensive at least to many Opposition Members, that the Secretary of State for Transport, who was here a short time ago mouthing his ritual "Hear, hears" in statements on other matters, is not here for a statement on deaths in a railway accident in Scotland. In the light of of the Minister's answers, the decision by the Secretary of State becomes all the more regrettable, because there is confusion to be cleared up.
  Mr. Seymour's report on the Bellgrove collision recommended:
  "British Railways should submit all proposals for the conversion of double line junctions to single line junctions for approval by the Secretary of State irrespective of whether they are stages of major works."
  Is it correct that the Secretary of State did not accept that recommendation? Is it correct that the inspector was told to go away and that it was his responsibility to deal with such transfers? Following a further fatal tragedy, has the same inspector been asked to report on what appear to be similar circumstances and to come back to the Minister with precisely the same recommendations that the Secretary of State has already turned down? If that

  785
  inspector comes back with the same recommendations, will the Secretary of State accept them? What a pity that the Secretary of State is not here to give us the answers.
  Mr. Freeman: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with responses from me. I have direct responsibility for the railways—I am the Minister responsible for the railways.
  To answer the hon. Gentleman's two specific points, while the Bellgrove inquiry was under way, there was a moratorium on conversions to single-lead junctions. Once the Bellgrove inquiry had reported, that moratorium was lifted. Provisional agreement was given for the operation of a single-lead junction at Newton, and the railway inspectorate did not withdraw that agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] By the railway inspectorate.
  Mr. George Foulkes: If I ask the Minister courteously whether he can tell the House what business keeps the Secretary of State away from the House and makes him unable to make this important statement, will he have the courtesy to tell the House? That is the sixth time that that question has been asked.
  Is the Minister aware that £5 million has been spent on this portion of the line and that the line could not be used for some time after completion of the work? Was that due to twisted or damaged rails, as was reported, or to some other cause? What was the cause? If the problem was rectified, when did that happen and who certified that the line was safe to use?
  Mr. Freeman: I am not aware of any report of twisted rail on this section of the track before the incident. It is true that there is a report that the train passed the signal and damaged the junction. Clearly, details will come out in the report.
  786
  The hon. Gentleman is right about recent investment in the line. This section of the track has been extensively resignalled, and the resignalling has only just come into operation. The railway inspectorate, an independent body, is responsible for safety on the railways. All the necessary approvals, provisional in the case of the single-lead junction, had been given for the running of the trains.
  Mr. Foulkes: What about the Secretary of State?
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that most people recognise him in his position as Minister for Public Transport as not only competent in his job but extremely courteous? He has taken more trouble than any other Minister in my recollection to understand the problems involved in railway operations, and he is accompanied on the Government Front Bench by a Scottish Office Minister.
  There has been much discussion about single-lead junctions. Does my hon. Friend agree that reversible track may reduce costs, but it cannot increase safety? I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on British Rail's safety record and for confirming that, over the past 15 years, the annual number of fatalities has been less than the three-day average toll of carnage and death on our roads.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.
  Mrs. Irene Adams: As the Minister seems to have great difficulty answering two-pronged questions, I shall put one simple question to him. Will he do the House the courtesy of telling us what urgent business has taken the Secretary of State for Transport away this afternoon?
  Mr. Freeman: This is urgent business. I am the responsible Minister and I hope that I am giving the House clear answers.

  Water Supply (North-west London)
  5.29 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the failure of disinfection over the weekend in water supplied to the public by Three Valleys Water Services plc.
  The company draws water from the Thames for treatment at Iver and supply through two of its subsidiary companies—Colne Valley and Rickmansworth—to some half a million people in north-west London and adjacent parts of Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire. At about 3.50 pm on Saturday instrumentation suggested that part of the chlorination equipment might not be operating normally. It took time to diagnose the fault and assess its consequences, but by Saturday evening it was cleat to the company that some 2 million to 3 million gallons of water had been put into the distribution system without the level of chlorination needed for satisfactory disinfection. The company informed the appropriate local and health authorities, and at about midnight began to seek the assistance of the police and the media in order to warn its customers to boil water for at least a minute before using it. An extensive programme of sampling was also initiated within the distribution network on Saturday night.
  The drinking water inspectorate in my Department was informed of the incident by the company at 11 pm on Saturday. The inspectorate has already started a thorough investigation in order to satisfy itself that the company responded in a timely and appropriate manner. It will also wish to identify the causes of the incident, and any improvements in equipment or procedures that ought to be made to prevent any possibility of a recurrence. If there is evidence that water unfit for human consumption has been supplied, the inspectorate will consider whether to recommend a prosecution.
  The company has told us that, apart from chlorination, the remainder of the treatment process appears to have been functioning normally. The company has also informed us that the preliminary results of its sampling show that, despite the failure of disinfection, residual chlorine was present in all samples tested, and that only a small proportion of samples showed traces of any bacteria. My advice is that boiling the water in accordance with the company's guidance should have been an effective protection against any bacteria present.
  I understand that the situation has been reviewed this afernoon by the water company in consultation with the local authorities and the health authorities, and I have just heard that those bodies have unanimously agreed that customers in the area no longer need to boil drinking water. The decision was made in the light off continual satisfactory sampling throughout the area.
  The Government have established a system of independent statutory regulation of the water industry. We believe that the regulators have the necessary powers to deal with a situation of this kind. But, if it is shown to be necessary, we shall ensure that those powers are further strengthened.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Minister for his statement, and for giving the House the latest information about what has happened. Unfortunately, the statement leaves many questions unanswered.
  788
  I hope that the Minister will explain several matters to the House. First, will he tell the House why, if the incident occurred before 4 o'clock on Saturday afternoon, the public were not notified until the early hours of Sunday morning, and indeed, in many cases not until more than 12 hours after the incident? Will the Minister tell us, too, who will pay for the police time spent patrolling the affected areas to warn people of the dangers of drinking the contaminated water?
  Will the Minister tell us more about what has happened in the past 24 hours, and what is known about the health impact of the incident? Will he confirm that several children have been taken to hospital, and that local doctors and chemists have been exceptionally busy?
  In connection with the causes of the incident, is monitoring of chlorination not one of the simplest procedures in the treatment of water, carried out on a continuous basis, with continuous assessment, so that any company should know of any problem within seconds of something going wrong? Can the Minister tell us what went wrong not only with the procedures but with the fail-safe devices? Were those devices not adequate, despite the assurances given by the company only weeks ago?
  Will the Minister confirm that this is not the first time that the companies forming Three Valleys Water Services plc have had to advise consumers to boil water? Will he acknowledge that Three Valleys is among the companies that were responsible for no fewer than 34 incidents of microbiological contamination of drinking water in 1990?
  Perhaps the most serious implication of recent events is the fact that such incidents show that the entire system of drinking water regulation is inadequate. Is it not a fact that the drinking water inspectorate—the so-called drinking water watchdog—did not even visit the company for its inspection, but subcontracted the work to the consulting engineering company Watson-Hawksley?
  The drinking water inspectorate report published only last week said that the company's procedures were satisfactory. If the procedures were satisfactory, why did the incident take place? If they were not satisfactory, why did the report not pick up that fact? Does that not prove the need for the drinking water inspectorate to consist of more than a couple of dozen civil servants in the Department of the Environment? We need an independent regulatory body with teeth.
  Finally, does the Minister accept that, if the water supplied had to be boiled before it could be drunk, it cannot be deemed to have been fit for consumption, but must be considered unfit? Will the hon. Gentleman, who has the power to prosecute the company, tell us whether he intends to do so? Will he take the opportunity to tell us whether he intends to prosecute the other companies that charge consumers record prices but do not provide the service that all consumers have a right to demand?
  Mr. Trippier: I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for her opening remarks. I should not be making a statement to the House if I were not entirely satisfied with the information to hand. I believe that it was necessary for an inspection to take place, and the investigation is being carried out by the drinking water inspectorate. The hon. Lady would not expect me to prejudice the findings of the report. Clearly, the decision whether to prosecute will be made in the light of the evidence that comes to hand.

  789
  In reply to the hon. Lady's general question about prosecution, Environment Ministers will not prevaricate if the necessary evidence is available for a court case to be undertaken and won. I must remind the House that, after all, it was the Government who set up the drinking water inspectorate in the first place.
  I am not aware of any provision for the company to be charged for police time.
  The hon. Lady asked what had happened during the past 24 hours. The most significant event has been a meeting between the local authorities and local health authorities. I am delighted, as the hon. Lady will be, that the unanimous decision has been taken that there is no further need to boil the water. It may seem strange that, within 48 hours of the first warnings being sounded, the company has lifted the restriction, but I understand that it has made a statement this afternoon to the effect that it genuinely believed that, if there were the slightest danger to health—serious or not so serious—it was right to impose the restriction. On that point, I am happy to concur with the company's statement.
  I question whether the hon. Lady was right to suggest that a mistake at a plant should or could have been put right within seconds. That is stretching credulity to breaking point.
  The hon. Lady was correct about the last visit made by the inspectorate. The inspectorate used consultants—that is quite common. That is the way most of its work is carried out. Such consultants still have to conform to the same regulations, whether national standards or standards imposed on us by the European Community. I do not think that that matters. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that when the inspectors visited the plant at Rickmansworth during 1990—this was referred to in the report published by the DWI last week—it concluded that the disinfection arrangements were satisfactory.
  There seemed to have been a number of questions about delays in informing the public. They are precisely the questions that I hope will be dealt with by the investigation.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: My constituents will be grateful to learn that their water supply, as my hon. Friend said, will be back to normal some time today. They will not be very pleased to hear, however, that the delay still cannot be explained.
  My hon. Friend has said that the problem started at 3.50 pm. The expert who belatedly came on LBC yesterday morning said that it started at about 9.30 pm. There are eight hours between 4 pm and midnight, but this expert said that it was dawn before an attempt was begun to contact the media.
  I listened to LBC from 8 am to midday, constantly trying to—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend will know that I was doing the ironing. LBC said repeatedly that it was trying to contact the water authorities but getting no response. After invitations from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and me, a spokesman miraculously appeared to say that he could give some information.
  I hope that we shall find out what went on and why. Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I am worried about previous instances, and I hope that we shall find out exactly what went wrong. The comments made yesterday
  790
  by the company chairman on LBC were useless, and one wonders about the quality of management in the organisation when it can put forward someone who bumbles and mumbles like him. I hope that my constituents can be assured that if, God forbid, such a thing occurs again, they and all the authorities involved will be immediately informed.
  Mr. Trippier: It is precisely my hon. Friend's last point that concerns me. I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks: the investigation will be principally concerned with the problem of information and of delay.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We should already have learnt the lesson of the inability to plan for this sort of incident from the toxic waste pollution in Norfolk and from the Camelford example—we tried to close the stable door in both cases after the horses had bolted. Emergency civil planning and the ability to communicate information failed again, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) said, partly because the media could not be reached when needed and partly because the water companies could not be reached when they were needed.
  When, eventually, announcements were made, we find that some people were still getting leaflets through their doors this morning—written in gobbledegook for those who speak English, let alone the many in the area who do not. The leaflet described "an operational incident" and referred to
  "partly treated water being put into supply".
  People needed to be told that the water was not fit to drink and that they should not drink it unless it was boiled. They did not need these sorts of half-truths concealing what they wanted to know.
  If people were responsible for polluting, they should pay. If people were harmed, they should be compensated. Will the citizens charter apply to this sort of defect in consumer services?
  Mr. Trippier: I concur with a number of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I share his worry about delays—no one in any political party has a monopoly of concern in this matter—but I have some difficulty reconciling what happened at Camelford with what happened in this case. I can see many differences, and the hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not agree with his parallel.
  As for compensation, the hon Gentleman may have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister refer in the statement this afternoon to the role of Ofwat and the responsibilities that it will carry under his initiative. My right hon. Friend said that we will introduce legislation to make sure that the regulators have adequate powers to require the award of compensation in response to legitimate customer complaints.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents take this major lapse at the Iver water treatment works, based in my constituency, very seriously? Is he aware that I only heard about it from the church pulpit at 10 o'clock yesterday morning? It is unacceptable that more than 12 hours should have elapsed before my constituents were notified. There should be proper procedures to ensure that the customers affected are immediately notified. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the inquiry looks into that and sets in place procedures to make certain that such immediate notification is given in future?
  Mr. Trippier: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, given my statement and subsequent answers, I share his anxiety about this matter and I take it seriously.
  We must look at what can be done to improve communications and not expect such information to be disseminated in the form of parish notices from the pulpit.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: What are the requirements by the controlling body governing the numbers of people on duty and the chlorination mechanism? Is the latter automatic or visual, continuous or periodic? Secondly, did the system depend on service reservoirs; was it direct or indirect, or a mixture of the two? Thirdly, is the company wholly owned by shareholders in the United Kingdom, or is it a subsidiary of a large water undertaking outside the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Trippier: The answer to the last question is that a French company has a large holding, not that I know what difference that can make. This is not a privatisation issue—the company has been privatised for a considerable time.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, and I hope that the investigation will establish whether enough people were available to deal with the problem. I am entirely satisfied that, once the communication was made to my Department and to the drinking water inspectorate, there were enough people in place to notify Ministers and others so that the necessary regulatory action could be taken—which, of course, it was.
  Mr. Richard Page: I very much welcome the decision to set up the inquiry, which is the right way to ascertain what happened. Will it ex amine what is possibly the most serious aspect of the case? The company had agreed a rectification policy with authorities such as the DWI. Then, just before midnight, it tried to contact the local media and rang local radio stations. Those that replied—not all of them did—were not interested. When the company got hold of the television studios, they said that the matter was not of national interest. It was certainly of interest to my constituents. Fortunately, the problem was not serious in this case, but I hope that the inquiry will see whether there is some immediate way of using broadcasting stations, which must recognise that they have a social duty to the public and my constituents.
  Mr. Trippier:I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend's last point. I too have heard evidence to the effect that a number of broadcasting stations said that they were not interested because this was not of national interest. I question whether that is a responsible attitude to take.
  Whether or not the drinking water inspectorate deals with this problem in its investigation is irrelevant, because I assure my hon. Friend that I shall deal with it.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Minister make clear his concern about the obvious ineptitude and tardiness of the water company's response in this matter? We do not need an inquiry to reveal that. My constituents found that they had to inform each other of the danger by word of mouth—indeed, my own household did so. They encountered mind-boggling complacency on the part of the water authority. It is time that the Minister expressed his concern in the clearest and most strident terms, so that
  792
  those who might be tempted to go down this path in future will be deterred. The inquiry must not become a whitewashing exercise.
  Mr. Trippier: Although it is repeating what I said earlier, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that I would not have made the statement or answered questions on it unless I was concerned about this matter. We would not have called for an investigation by the drinking water inspectorate in the way that it will be carried out unless the whole of the Department of the Environment and the drinking water inspectorate were concerned about it. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and will appreciate that I cannot say that the company has been dilatory or complacent in the way that he suggests, or make any such comment, until the investigation has been completed.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that this incident has caused great concern to my constituents in Uxbridge and Hillingdon? Will he ensure that the inquiry will look into the means by which these automated systems operate and whether there is a suitable trigger mechanism to alert the company, its management and the emergency services in the event of a failure of this kind? Will he assure the House not only that Three Valleys will learn the lessons but that they will be applied to every water company in the country, because the possibility of much more serious faults than the one that occurred in this instance is very alarming?
  Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police, who from the early hours of Sunday morning, did an absolutely first-class job in notifying consumers by the use of loud hailers and leaflets so that the vast majority of people in the area were aware of the incident? They knew by the time they got up in the morning that they had to boil their water. Will he please look at the kind of notification that water companies are obliged to send to consumers to ensure that it is written clearly, so that everybody can easily understand it?
  Mr. Trippier: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks about notification and undertake to look at that. I join him in congratulating the police on the wonderful role that they played in responsibly informing people in the area to the best of their ability. My hon. Friend asked about the lessons to be learned and about an adequate trigger point. I assure him that we shall look at that in particular with a view to replicating throughout the country anything that needs to be done as a result of the lessons learned from this experience.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank the Minister for his detailed statements, which will go some way to reassuring people. None the less, we can all thank the Almighty that a major disaster has been averted: one can only imagine what might have happened. I join him in paying tribute to the police for their rapid response, and I pay particular tribute to the police in Harrow for the way in which they acted and patrolled the streets.
  Local health authorities also acted promptly but, as hon. Members have said, we need a cogent and detailed explanation about the company's delay in notifying the public and the media. Will the Minister consider the need for a further statement, bearing in mind that the House is soon going into recess, to deal with that matter? On the assumption that the Iver works, which has been

  793
  mentioned, deals primarily or exclusively with Thames river water, may we have a proper explanation to reassure the public about the way in which that water is treated and an assurance that the contamination coefficients will be properly sorted out by the regulatory authorities and the company?
  Mr. Trippier: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall have to return to this matter. I entirely accept that there must be a cogent explanation about precisely what happened in terms of the delay and what went wrong in the plant. My hon. Friend will understand that some of that information might have to be used as evidence if a prosecution were taken out by the Department of the Environment. Therefore, one might have to handle that carefully. I assure my hon. Friend that I intend the report to be made public at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and for the announcement of the inquiry by the drinking water inspectorate. It is important for the inspectorate to look at what happened and why it happened, at mechanisms that exist to stop it happening again and, in particular, at the matter that has already been raised with my hon. Friend, about informing people about what went on. From what my hon. Friend has said, I am even more perplexed than I was yesterday, and my constituents will also be perplexed.
  Every time I listen to a radio or television bulletin, I hear different times being mentioned and different versions of what happened and when attempts were made to inform the public. Apparently, the company was able to inform the drinking water inspectorate at 11 o'clock but started to try to tell people who were likely to drink the water at 12 o'clock. That is unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the inquiry will examine that specific aspect? Lastly, but most importantly, may I be assured that the report of the inquiry will be made entirely public so that people can assess for themselves what has been done in their name?
  Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend may not have heard my assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about the information that has come to light. I repeat that assurance—that it is absolutely essential that the information arising from the investigation should be made public. There is an interim stage at which we shall have to decide whether a prosecution may be necessary or appropriate.
  I understand my hon. Friend's concern about information supplied to customers/consumers in this matter, and I assure him that the investigation will be especially directed at that. The timings in my statement are
  794
  definitive because we have gleaned them from several sources and they have been confirmed and reconfirmed, in contrast to the speculative timings that my hon. Friend may have heard elsewhere.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: May I add my thanks to my hon. Friend for reassuring the House? The investigation should look into the problem of notifying people of such emergencies at weekends, because that was the real cause of the difficulty. Not all members of the public are as assiduous as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) in listening to the radio, nor are they all as indulgent as I was in going to buy my little son an ice cream, when I found in the shop a leaflet notifying me and other residents of my constituency of the dangers. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the police and other services have the necessary manpower to inform the public of such emergencies at weekends?
  Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Much of the problem associated with this matter arose from the fact that the incident occurred at a weekend. I hope that the investigation will specifically address the matter of the problems that can arise at weekends.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: My hon. Friend has rightly observed that this is a regrettable incident. Does he agree that one of the main advantages of privatisation of the industry is the complete separation of the provider of services from the regulator of standards, the so-called poacher-gamekeeper relationship? That will stand us in good stead in this and perhaps in any similar matters in future.
  Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I was somewhat surprised by the intervention of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who did not pay a compliment where I thought that one was appropriate. The regulatory system that we have set up and of which I am enormously proud brought about the separation of the poacher and gamekeeper roles. That is essential. The House and the country can draw comfort from the fact that the investigation being carried out by the independent regulatory body set up by a Conservative Government will be open, frank and of high quality. We certainly did not have such a body when the last Labour Government were in office.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.),
  That the draft Magistrates' Courts (Remands in Custody) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question put and agreed to.

  Points of Order
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Oh, my goodness. Does the hon. Gentleman want to be called in this debate?
  Mr. Madden: I have not applied to speak in the debate, Mr. Speaker. If you remember, I said several hours ago, at the end of the private notice question on BCCI, that I wished to raise a point of order. A number of my constituents have lost their life savings as a result of the collapse of this bank, and others face redundancy because companies have collapsed as a result of the closure of the bank. They will resent the Prime Minister's charge that those who are seeking the truth about the reasons for the collapse of the bank are muck-raking.
  You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the exchanges on the private notice question, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) referred to a senior Labour councillor in Bradford as a salesman for BCCI. I have attempted to contact the hon. Member for Dorset, South by letter and telephone since he made those remarks. It will be known to many in Bradford that he was clearly referring to Councillor Mohd Ajeeb, a former lord mayor of Bradford, who was an adviser to the bank, but severed his links with it in 1989.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That may well be, but what is the point of order for me? I cannot possibly know things like that, especially if names are not mentioned.
  Mr. Madden: The point for you, Mr. Speaker, is that it was clearly an inaccurate smear and a slur, in the best traditions of muck-raking. I hope that you will require the hon. Member for South Dorset to withdraw those rather serious allegations.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible, as I have said several times, for what is said. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) may have been inaccurate—I have no knowledge of that—but he was certainly not out of order.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you for causing you offence during the supplementary questions to the private notice question. It was a heated moment, when the Opposition were extraordinarily irritated by the Prime Minister's accusation of muck-raking. I draw your attention to the fact that, in the Parliament in which Lord Callaghan was Prime Minister, when he made a remark that was offensive to the then Leader of the Opposition—the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—the Opposition withdrew their facilities and cross-party co-operation. The Leader of the House is here, and in front of him I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not in the service of Parliament that personal insults should be traded between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. No doubt those who have ears can hear.
  Mr. Speaker: That may well be so, but many rough things are said in this Chamber, particularly in July and particularly as we approach the end of a Parliament. These things are often forgotten when we go into recess.

  Adjournment (Summer)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House, at its rising on Thursday 25th July, do adjourn until Monday 14th October.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I am not able to impose any limit on speeches, but if speeches could be limited to not more than 10 minutes, and preferably a little less, then every hon. Member who wishes to be called will be able to speak and, I hope, will go away contented for the recess.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker, to respond to your strict injunction, and to be brief. Had you not been so stern, I might have suggested that one reason why the Adjournment should be diminished by one day, with the House rising on Friday rather than Thursday, is that we badly need an opportunity to debate the excellent record of the Government and particularly that of the Prime Minister. I do not expect that the bad losers on the Opposition Benches would agree with that, but then they wouldn't, would they?
  As I shall not carry the Opposition with me on that subject, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to turn his attention to a different and rather less important matter, which nevertheless concerns me and I hope him, too. I am sure that my right hon. Friend reads The Times and that he will have had a chance to read the leading letter in it today, which calls attention to a matter that I have raised on previous occasions.
  That is the strange reluctance of Departments and Ministers to carry through what many of us understand to be their obligation, under the Salmon Act 1986, to prepare and produce a report on the north-east drift-net fishery. The letter, which is signed by a distinguished collection of heads of angling bodies in England and Scotland, focuses on the continuing absence of statements on that subject. There was recently a brief series of exchanges in the House of Lords on the subject, and I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, at business questions on 11 July, whether he expected to be in a position to clear up some of the obscurity that surrounds the matter.
  As the letter in The Times shows, this is an important matter. The letter begins by stressing that there is an obligation, and by regretting the absence of a positive response by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in particular. In the absence of a Government decision on the matter, England and Wales are virtually isolated in continuing to allow drift-net fishing for Atlantic salmon with monofilament nets. Scotland banned their use as early as 1962 and only Greenland and the Republic of Ireland permit this indiscriminate, wasteful and damaging practice, which entraps and kills sea birds and mammals as well as the creatures at which it is presumably aimed, the fish.
  The provisional figures show that in 1990, the north-east drift-net fishery was the only salmon fishery in the United Kingdom to increase its catch, taking more than 51,000 fish and accounting for 60 per cent. of the salmon caught in the whole of England and Wales. As the letter says:

  797
  "It is widely acknowledged that over 80 per cent. of the salmon taken by this fishery would otherwise have returned to their native Scottish rivers. There has been a serious decline in the Scottish catch, which was only 145,000 fish in 1990, compared with 278,000 in 1989, itself not a good year."
  Sir Hector Monro: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. He might like to know that we debated it in some depth on Thursday 11 July in the Scottish Grand Committee. While the decision has to be made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Scottish rivers are bearing the main brunt of the drift-net fishing. I agree that we should have an early answer from the Government on this point.
  Mr. Onslow: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's valuable support. I know what a close interest he takes in this matter in Scotland. I am sure that he will agree that one of the ironies of the situation is that, whereas those who support the north-east drift-net fishery claim that it has a traditional status, as long ago as the 1950s, which is before it began to reach today's serious proportions, it was catching only 2,000 fish a year. The traditional catch from Scottish rivers has been much more than that for many years.
  As the letter says:
  'There is widespread international concern over the dramatic decline of salmon catches in the North Atlantic, with a drop of over 60 per cent. in the last 20 years. Conservation measures are now urgently required to reduce all forms of indiscriminate interceptory fishing and to restrict the catching salmon to their native rivers, where the level of fishing by traditional net or rod and line can be locally managed.'
  Incidentally, the value of the salmon there is many times what it is in the sea.
  It is a matter of great regret that at the time when Mr. Orri Vigfusson in Iceland has obtained the agreement of the Faroese fishermen to take a compensation payment in return for not fishing their deep sea salmon quotas, there is an apparent decision vacuum at the ministerial level.
  Although the financing of compensation payments might have to come from private sources—principally from owners, tenants and others fishing the rivers most affected by the measures—it will be difficult for anyone to raise money for the purpose as long as there is no serious sign of any attempt by the Government to cut down on interceptory fishing. The immediate danger is that a failure to raise the British share of the finance for the Faroese agreement could cause the whole initiative to collapse. There were signs of that at the recent eighth annual meeting of the North Atlantic salmon conservation organisations in Edinburgh.
  The letter continues:
  "We now publicly urge the government to come to a decision on the north-east drift-net fishery."
  I support that plea. If my right hon. Friend cannot give us much more information today than he gave me on 11 July, I hope that he will at least try to explain the cause of the delay, Is it due to a departmental difference that cannot be resolved? If so, that is a pity; if an arbitrator is needed, I am sure that there will be no shortage of volunteers. The reason may be more deep-seated, however.
  If the delay continues, the position will grow not better but worse. We shall find ourselves up against deadlines. The net limitation order must be renewed in 1992, unless the whole arrangement is to become a free-for-all again.
  798
  Many of us are worried about the absence of the necessary drive to represent British interests at EC level. I I am sure that Mr. Heinrik Schmiegelow, a Danish EC official, does his best to represent our interests, but a greater impetus is needed closer to home. I hope that we shall see some sign of that soon.
  Let me echo the plea that others have already made for the announcment of a date by which a decision will be made—and an early date at that—so that we can see some prospect that this important matter, which should not be allowed to drag on, will be dealt with.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am sorry that I missed the first minute or so of my hon. Friend's speech.
  I was a member of the Committee that was promised Government action. All too often, my right hon. Friend—and, subsequently, other Committee members—received no proper explanation in response to their requests for information. One reason for our not delaying the passage of the Bill was an assurance from a Minister that we would be given a report and that it would be published. Astonishingly, there has been no hint of a reply to our questions—and certainly there has been no report.
  Mr. Onslow: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend; he has enabled me to shorten my peroration. I well remember what was said in Committee, and I believe that Committee members have been disappointed by the lack of progress. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure us.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Stan Crowther: I am pleased to have this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 1035, which deals with disruption of the licensed trade and has the support of no fewer than 121 hon. Members on both sides of the House. I at once declare an interest, as parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association.
  Let me stress immediately that many of the actions being taken by the big brewery companies, which are causing a great deal of distress, were not made necessary by the Beer Orders of December 1989, which followed a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has rightly drawn attention to that more than once. It is true to say, however, that that legislation acted as a catalyst; and, in that sense, those who signed the early-day motion believe that the Government have some responsibility to take remedial measures, although that may mean new legislation.
  The fact is that the MMC, in its report, made a fundamental error, which was reflected in the Beer Orders. It did not appreciate a simple point, which I am sure that all hon. Members who are present will find easy to understand: people do not travel 50 or 100 miles to buy a pint of beer, even if it is a little cheaper there. To the customer, it does not really matter how many tied houses throughout the country are owned by a single brewery company. The degree of choice depends on the number of different breweries that supply beer in the area where the customer lives.
  The legislation that was addressed to the national position, which required brewery companies to reduce the number of tied houses that they owned nationally, was irrelevant to competition in the retail market. But, because

  799
  the large companies must now divest themselves of about 11,000 tied houses, they are taking steps to ensure that they make more money out of those that they are allowed to keep. They are doing that at the expense of tenants and customers: that is at the heart of the problem.
  Sir Anthony Grant: The hon. Gentleman has touched on a matter that I may mention later. Not only tenants and customers, but those living in the area surrounding a public house will strongly object to the change of user that will result from the rather shabby way in which the brewers have treated their tenants.
  Mr. Crowther: I am sure that that point is valid. There is no doubt that literally thousands of pub tenants are now under notice to quit, and that is causing a good deal of distress. Many are being offered—in place of the traditional tenancy—a long lease at a rent that may be two, three or even four times as much as the present one, with full liability for repairs and renovations, but still tied to the brewery. If a tenant feels unable to accept the terms that are offered, his only option is to get out and to abandon a business which, in many instances, has been built up over many years, leaving his home at the same time. Almost uniquely, in this trade, business premises are virtually always the family home as well.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: As one who signed the early-day motion, I have followed the dispute with interest.
  I am advised that notices to quit are merely a technicality under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. What advice would the hon. Gentleman give individual tenants who find themselves in difficulties and who are offered long leases that are apparently very uneconomic?
  Mr. Crowther: This is precisely why I have raised the matter in the House. I hope that, in due course, the Leader of the House will convey all these points to the Secretary of State; action is certainly needed.
  I wish to be fair to the Secretary of State. He wrote to hon. Members very recently, setting out his position. I feel, however, that legislation will ultimately be needed. Until now, only one of the major companies has agreed to independent arbitration to assess a fair rent—Grand Metropolitan, which, perhaps ironically, is no longer a brewer, having transferred its breweries to Elders in return for an interest in the former Courage houses. At least it had agreed to independent arbitration. The problem for the tenant is that if—for reasons of age, for example—he does not feel able to accept a long lease, even at a rent fixed by an arbitrator, he will not be entitled to compensation and will be thrown out on the street without a penny. The other companies, however, have not even agreed to any form of arbitration. If, as they claim, the rents that they are demanding are fair, what have they to fear from independent arbitration?
  If a licensee accepts a tied lease, at an enormously increased rent, certain consequences must follow. First, he will have to push up his prices to pay the extra rent. The first to suffer will be the customer. However, the tenant will still be competing with managed houses belonging to the same brewery company and with the working men's clubs. Trade is bound to decrease. The loss of trade that will be suffered by the brewery company will be compensated for by the extra rent that it will get out of the pub, but the
  800
  tenant will be squeezed between customers complaining about his prices and the brewery company charging an excessive rent. In those circumstances, many tenants will inevitably be squeezed out of business.
  In other cases, especially in the case of the Bass empire, hundreds of tenants are being abolished and the houses taken back for management. That does not reduce the number of tied houses. A managed house is even more tied. Everything in a managed house—from the wines and spirits to a box of matches or a packet of crisps—will be supplied by the brewery company. Although the number of tied houses will not be reduced, the most profitable ones can then be run by an employee of the company rather than by a tenant in charge of his own business.
  Many a Bass tenant, including many in my constituency, have spent years and a lot of money on building up sound businesses. They now face the choice of applying to buy or lease a pub somewhere else, which Bass will be putting on the market, or going out of the trade completely and losing their homes, with very little compensation, or applying for the job of manager, in which case Bass will graciously send somebody to interview them to see whether they are good enough to be appointed as managers of the pubs that they have been running for 10 or 20 years or more. That is literally adding insult to injury.
  Unless the position changes dramatically, many tenants who have given good service to the public for years will be out on the street, either with no compensation at all or with the inadequate compensation provided for in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. To his credit, when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met, at his own request, representatives of the National Licensed Victuallers Association, he undertook to speak to the heads of the big brewery companies and explain to them his views on what he believes to be the stress and damage that their actions are causing. The Secretary of State has circulated a letter to all hon. Members setting out his position, very reasonably and moderately, and I thank him for it. The only problem is that I doubt whether the brewery companies will take any notice of it. Unless we obtain an undertaking that there will be legislation early in the new Session, I fear that nothing will save the tenants.
  The stated intentions of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Government have been completely frustrated by the brewery companies. We were told that one of those intentions was to give customers a better deal, through more competition. Ministers often talk of "sharpening" competition. When the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report was published the four biggest brewery companies had 58 per cent. of the market, but today they have nearly 70 per cent. of the market. It is difficult to see how competition has been sharpened. Beer and lager prices have rocketed in the meantime, and I am afraid that they will continue to go up for a long time yet.
  The second of the stated intentions was to provide better security for tenants. Unfortunately, when the Government were dealing with what is now the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Act, they refused to bring forward the implementation date. They left that long gap during which brewers were able to move in and serve their notices to quit. The future of thousands of tenants, I am afraid, is very insecure. With the best will in the world, the Government got it wrong. I do not believe that anybody

  801
  loses credit by admitting that they made a mistake. The Government should admit that they made a mistake and take swift action to repair the damage.
  6.24 pm
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I should like briefly to raise two issues. The first is that the north of England feels that it is not getting its fair share of the Housing Corporation budget. On 3 July, a group of representatives from north-west housing associations came to visit the north-west group of Conservative Members of Parliament. They put their case very well indeed. We felt a great deal of sympathy for them. As chairman of the group, I promised that I would press their case. I thought that tonight's debate would be an ideal opportunity to do so. Little did I realise at the time that today there would be not just a private notice question but three statements before we reached this debate.
  Nobody disputes the value of housing associations. All of us agree that they perform a great service in providing affordable housing. Housing associations are funded by the Housing Corporation. I am told that its budget is due to grow by almost 100 per cent. during the period 1990 to 1994. During the same period, the number of dwellings provided will increase from about 19,000 a year to just under 40,000 a year.
  That is very welcome news for those in housing need. However, the concern of the housing associations is that the three regions in the north of England—the north-east, the north-west and Merseyside—will get only a 7 per cent. share of the increased growth, with the other 93 per cent. going to the rest of the country. That flies in the face of urban policy, whereby resources are targeted on those areas in the greatest need. Whatever statistics one cares to examine—whether they be city challenge, the urban programme, the urban development corporations or estate action—the pattern is the same, with the north being awarded the major share. Therefore, these housing associations were at a loss to understand why their housing allocation over this period is so low.
  This Government firmly believe in a policy of value for money, which I completely support. The greater the efficiency and the better the use that is made of resources, the more that can be done for those in need. Waste and inefficiency help no one. On the question of value for money, £1 million would provide 20 homes in the north, compared with 16 in the west and only 13 in London. Therefore, more homes could be provided for the same amount of money in the north. There is a desperate need for new housing in the north, because a larger proportion of pre-1919 housing stock is to be found there. Much of that stock is now in need of clearance or major repair.
  In passing, may I point out that in the immediate post-war years we made a great mistake by building more and more council estates on the edges of towns and more and more multi-storey blocks of flats. We could have made much better use of what I, for want of a better word, would call the Coronation street type of terraced houses. If we had spent money on modernising them and putting them into better shape, people would have been much happier. They would have remained close to their place of work and within the tightly knit communities to which they had belonged for so many years.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about housing policy immediately after the war. Is he aware that in Norwich, particularly under the Labour-controlled city council, over-large council estates were built that have led to very serious problems? Due to lack of imagination, the council is not moving on to new policies involving housing associations. Is my hon. Friend aware of that fact, and does he agree that that is not a good policy?
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I agree with my hon. Friend. On every issue, we see eye to eye. In fairness, however, I must point out that what happened in the post-war years is a matter of history. We have to look to the future.
  There is doubt in the north as to whether the Government's new policies for housing renewal areas can be delivered. That is because the communities there tend to have low incomes. Their ability to trade up and remain owner-occupiers is limited. Those problems are compounded by minimal levels of capital receipts from asset sales.
  Perhaps the greatest remaining challenge in public sector housing is the unused stock of local authority estates, which unfortunately is mainly in northern England. The housing needs index, which decides the flow of housing association resources, does not have an indicator that recognises stock condition problems in the local authority sector.
  For many years, housing investment programme allocations enabled authorities to maintain existing stock only, and the amount of finance available has not allowed major repairs to be made. That is why the estate action scheme was created, and housing action trusts were expected to tackle the worst problems. I regret that, for political ends, housing action trusts were not as successful as they should have been.
  Housing associations play an important part in the estate action initiative, and adequate resources will be necessary if the problems of local authority estates are to be properly tackled. Hulme in Manchester will have the help of five housing associations in replacing all local authority stock, using the five-year rolling programme of targeted housing association grant. The Government seem to accept that housing associations have an important part to play in regenerating local authority estates in the north, but I wonder how that can be squared with inadequate funding for northern housing associations.
  Nobody denies that the major problem is homelessness and that it is most severe in London. After all, it is the capital city and, like all capital cities, it tends to be a magnet. However, should we not be considering the underlying causes and trying to prevent young people from migrating to London from other parts of the country? To achieve that, we need better employment prospects, a better environment and better housing conditions in the north, which surely are the core objectives of urban policy. I am told that 30 per cent. of London's homeless people—the largest single group—come from the north. Therfore, it makes sense to improve prospects in the north, in the hope that it will reduce the number of young people who decide to head for London.
  The housing associations that visited our group on 3 July were particularly concerned about the housing needs index. They believe that it distorts the distribution of housing association resources, in contrast with urban policy initiatives by other Departments. They believe that

  803
  it is a device of officialdom. It is a set of indicators, however inappropriate, that have been arrived at and will be maintained unless they are challenged, which is the reason for my speech.
  I do not want to go on about the north-south divide, because I recognise the problems that homelessness poses in the south. I wonder whether the Government have considered releasing a larger percentage of capital receipts in southern-based authorities, which could be channelled into tackling homelessness.
  I pay tribute to the work of housing associations, which have achieved much in improving the quality of life and in tackling housing shortages, but I was asked to draw attention to the distribution of housing association resources because it is feared that the north will be seriously under-resourced at a time of growing need.
  The second point that I want to raise is the implementation of the Ibbs report. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say how many jobs will be lost in the House and which departments will be affected? I am told that many of the Badge Messengers are concerned about job losses. I am particularly concerned about consulting those whose jobs are at risk. I have been told of someone who has worked in the House for more than 20 years and has never been carpeted or warned about his work. That person is concerned about rumours that his job will be advertised. Last week, he sought a meeting with one of the Clerks and was told that his post was to be upgraded, that head-hunters had been asked to do a search and that the post would be advertised nationally in September.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Cruel.
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is absolutely cruel.
  Apparently, the interview board will be chaired by a civil servant and will include Officers of the House. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has got the picture. That amounts to a casual approach to the job of somebody who has loyally served the House for many years. If an employer outside the House behaved in such a way, there would be severe criticism from many hon. Members. We would all be indignant, and I am all the more indignant that we are behaving in this way. It shows a complete failure of human relations, and it is unworthy of the House.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give me satisfactory answers to the two points that I have made before we rise for the summer.
  6.34 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: I wish to raise briefly a matter that we should discuss before we rise. On 22 May, I asked the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whether the Government would be willing to argue in the European Community in favour of the EC taking on a role of mediation in Yugoslavia and perhaps helping to provide part of a peace-keeping force. He said:
  "I do not think that the European Community should play such a role."—[Official Report, 22 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 919]
  He further said that the only way of pursuing the matter was through the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.
  In that respect, the Foreign Office lacked forethought, because that is not what has happened. I therefore raise the
  804
  matter because I am afraid that the situation has not significantly improved, and we should discuss it before we adjourn.
  I lost two constituents in the Gulf war. When I was Liberal foreign affairs spokesman, I repeatedly said that the Government should be much more stringent and critical in their trading and general relations with Iraq. I do not want to see another crisis, such as a war in the Balkans resulting in yet more unnecessary deaths, which is a possibility that one cannot put aside.
  I spoke on the telephone last night to a lady in Zagreb called Lidija Jorkovic, who is a Croatian Liberal Democrat. She attended the annual congress of the European Liberal Democrats in Poitiers in June to draw attention to the gravity of the situation. She told me that there was the most enormous fear and anxiety in Croatia about the intentions of the Army and the Serbian hierarchy. There was much killing going on, some of which was not reported in the press.
  It is noticeable that, in term of media coverage, the issue has gone off the boil because it is not exciting enough. We are not getting much coverage, but it is going on. The withdrawal of the Army from Slovenia was welcomed by the Liberals in Croatia and by President Tudjman, hut it is suspected that the reason for that was to give the Army more freedom to act in Croatia.
  The European Community, acting in a way that in May the Minister of State told me it had no business to be doing, has so far made a valuable if limited contribution. It has succeeded in negotiating a three-month breathing space, and has sent in observers to try to monitor it. That is good, but we would be foolish to think that it has solved anything. I want to be assured by the Leader of the House that the Government are taking this matter exceedingly seriously and are doing something positive.
  One of the outcomes of what took place in Iraq and Kuwait is that the two basic concepts on which our international relations were founded—non-interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state and the territorial integrity of all states—are now outdated. We interfered in Iraq because of what was happening to the Kurds. Indeed, we are still interfering and are liable to do so again.
  We have reached the stage when all nations can look to the possibility of the United Nations becoming much more involved in breaches of human rights in other countries than it did before. After all, national boundaries throughout the world have been drawn not by consent, but by war and imperial conquest. Yugoslavia is quite a dramatic and tragic example. Many of the lines are in the wrong places, and they will have to be reviewed at some stage.
  In the end, it is not a question of just holding things together. The question is what is right, what people want and what is fair. If that question is not put, international justice has no meaning. That is the background against which we are operating.
  Immediately now, Britain as part of the European Community must give active consideration to the matter. I do not expect the Minister to declare details, but I want some assurance that the United Kingdom, in co-operation with its Community colleagues, is giving a lot of thought to the matter. We may require to provide a peace-keeping force to keep the two sides apart. People should think seriously, in conjunction with the Yugoslavs, about redrawing boundaries in Yugoslavia. That has all been said to be terribly complicated and awfully difficult, but in

  805
  many places it is not as difficult as all that. If there is to be peace between Serbia and Croatia, and between Serbia and Albania, that will have to be done.
  As we go into recess, I hope that the Government are giving thought and attention to those matters, and to the tragedy that is going on in which we might, as a country, be involved at some stage. I want to prevent that happening and I want a peaceful outcome to be achieved. I am still not satisfied that the Government are giving as much priority to the matter as they should.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. John Ward: I wish to detain the House for a short time to ask that we consider the role of the present regulations if one local authority—in my case, Dorset county council—seeks to dispose of land that it regards as surplus to educational requirements and says that it is required by Government regulation to sell the land for the best possible price. In practice, this means that Poole borough council would be unable to purchase the land for recreational purposes.
  I can best illustrate the problem by giving two short examples. In the Canford Heath area of my constituency, there has been much housing development in recent years and recreational facilities are limited. In the Bader road area of Canford Heath, there is a strip of land some 150 m wide, which for many years has provided a buffer between the houses and industrial development, and it is laid out as a sports area. It is an important green lung for the Canford Heath residents. It has wildlife, wild flowers and hedges, and is much valued by local people.
  The county council has declared some 3.8 hectares—about two thirds of the total—surplus to educational requirements, and there is concern that the county council will give itself planning permission for industrial development, thus raising the price of the land to a level well beyond what Poole borough council could afford to pay for it.
  Apart from the loss of the open space, the residents of Bader road now have the prospect of industrial development right up to the boundary of their property. If that happens, the recreational land will be lost for ever to the people who are supposed, after all, to own it.
  We complain frequently when young people roam the streets and get into mischief, yet here is a proposal to deprive hundreds of youngsters of a place in which to play and to develop their interest in sport. Some 136 football matches were played there last year, in addition to the normal training sessions. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Poole borough council—rightly, in my opinion—has shown the area as a public open space on the local structure plan.
  I turn now to the second case. Parkstone grammar school—in my constituency—has taken advantage of recent Acts to reverse the previous fall in pupil numbers and considers that it is now short of playing fields, as calculated by the regulations of the Department of Education and Science. The parents of pupils at the school have recently voted by an overwhelming majority to seek grant-maintained status and it is important to them that they start off with the right and adequate facilities.
  An area of playing fields previously used by the school has now been designated by the county council as surplus
  806
  to educational requirements and, by giving itself planning approval for industrial use, the county council has enhanced the value of the land. With increasing numbers at the grammar school, the governors are of the view that the land in question should be returned to them.
  The county council's reply to complaints about its actions in both cases has been twofold—first, that the money is needed for capital expenditure and secondly, that it is required by Government regulation to obtain the highest possible price for surplus land.
  The first reason—the need for additional capital—can, in my view, be met by other disposals. The county council's 50 per cent. share in Hurn airport is one thing that comes to mind. To sell would make more sense than depriving the people of Poole of one of the last open spaces in the area available for organised games.
  The second reason—the matter of Government policy—is more complex. I understand that the Secretary of State for the Environment can give his specific consent to exempt a local authority from the need to maximise the cash received from the sale of assets. I have already written to the Secretary of State about this, and I hope that he will consider that course of action very carefully, as I have clearly shown that the land is needed by local people, who own it anyway.
  I know that the Government already advise local authorities to consider community needs before disposing of surplus educational land for development and that they propose to reinforce that advice in a planning policy guidance note on sport and recreation, which they hope to issue shortly. I hope that the county council will reconsider its position in light of the forthcoming guidance note.
  There is, I believe, another reason for the Secretary of State to intervene. There is a feeling—I put it no higher than that—that there is not a universal welcome at county hall for local suggestions that some of the district councils in east Dorset—Poole among them—will seek to become unitary authorities under the proposals for the reform of the structure of local government. In the case of the grammar school, there is concern that the grant-maintained status proposal will not make negotiations over land with the county council any easier.
  The House heard the Prime Minister describe the citizens charter this afternoon—a welcome proposal that I fully support. I believe that the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for the Environment must consider carefully their policy on the disposal of local authority land, especially in urban areas. In the cases that I have detailed, I hope that they will come down on the side of the citizens of Poole. That would truly be the citizens charter in action.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to my constituents. I felt that it was important that the House should have the matter before it before adjourning for the summer.
  The Rover works at Cowley started its summer recess, as it were, on Friday of last week. Unlike this House, they will be back in two weeks' time. As is often the case just before the works holiday, there were accouncements that cast a shadow over the autumn ahead, in the form of staff

  807
  redundancies at Cowley of 180, and the news that production of the Montego and Maestro is to go on a four-day week from 16 September.
  The redundancies are part of 1,300 job losses, also affecting workers at Longbridge, Swindon and Gaydon. Those are justified by Rover in terms of the ratio of white-collar to production staff and the need to ensure that the company operates at its most competitive in comparison with Japanese producers.
  However, the four-day schedules, which also affect Longbridge production of the rover 200 and 400 from mid-August to October, are a product of the depression of sales right across the industry, itself a direct result of Government policies of high interest rates, the Budget increases in VAT, the other Budget measures that added to the cost of motoring and the special car tax.
  It needs to be stressed to the House and to Government just how serious this slump in demand is. In the first six months of this year, new car sales in the United Kingdom were down 24 per cent. on the same period last year, itself a bad year. Sales for the industry as a whole have slumped from 2·3 million in 1989 to an estimated 1·55 million last year. As The Independent on Sunday put it yesterday:
  "Britain's car industry is in the deepest recession it has ever known."
  The particular tragedy for my constituents is that, against that background, Rover has been doing relatively well. In the light of last week's announcements, it is important to put that on the record. The company has some of the best models it has ever produced, and a new model in the top-of-the-range Rover 800 series, produced at Cowley, will be launched this autumn. Industrial relations, quality and the commitment of the work force to efficient production have never been better, despite the painful cuts in the labour force which, in the past 12 years, have seen employment at Cowley fall from more than 20,000 to around 5,000.
  As I am sure the House will understand, I am extremely concerned that those remaining workers should have a prosperous and secure future. On the sites that Rover is vacating at Cowley, I am also concerned that there should be the closest co-operation between the company, the local council, the business community and the trade unions to ensure that high value-added jobs, including manufacturing jobs, are provided for those workers who would otherwise have looked to Rover for emploment.
  Through the depths of the recession, the company's performance has held out hope for the future. I have already referred to the quality of its cars and their production. Indeed, in the first six months of this year, Rover increased its penetration of the United Kingdom car market from 14·1 per cent. to 15·1 per cent. However, the recession has meant that this is equivalent to a bigger share of a much smaller market, so that Rover's United Kingdom car sales have, in fact, fallen from 150,000 last year to 121,000.
  Export sales have been doing well, with particularly impressive performances in Germany where sales were up in the first half of this year by 39 per cent. on the same period last year. Sales were up in Italy by 44 per cent. and by 54 per cent. in Spain. However, as The Times reported last week:
  "Even buoyant export sales have not been enough to prevent production cuts."
  In the same article, Rover was quoted as saying:
  808
  "The weak home market is having its effect, so that although we are doing well in relation to our competitors, there are simply not enough sales there to prevent these cuts."
  All the signs of a very deep recession are present right across the industry. Other producers' sales are sharply down, and Ford at Halewood has been on a three-day week. Price and advertising wars have broken out, fleet orders are down, and many car dealerships are in desperate difficulty following on the heels of the 340 that went bust in the year to March.
  In those circumstances, I think that the very least that is required from the Government is an acknowledgement of the grave slump that they have brought about and a commitment to an urgent review of the impact of their policies on the industry.
  The Budget added a £1,480 million taxation burden to motoring costs on the current year, and an estimated extra burden of £1,715 million next year. The VAT increase put up the tax take on new cars to 27·5 per cent. That included the incredible double taxation of VAT being levied on the special car tax itself. That 27·5 per cent. burden compares with the effective rate of tax on new cars of 14 per cent. in Germany and 22 per cent. in France.
  The Government are always claiming that lower tax rates can increase the total tax take. Why have they so conspicuously failed to apply that logic to car tax? In present circumstances, the special car tax is a nonsense which the Transport and General Workers Union, in its welcome campaign, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders deserve praise for exposing.
  That high rate of taxation compared with major competitors puts Rover at a particular disadvantage, because it depresses car sales in its domestic market, which is invariably a crucial foundation for successful performance. As things stand, the Government's policies of recession and high car tax are desperately damaging the entire British car industry. The Prime Minister should change course before still more damage is inflicted.
  As for Cowley, I shall be meeting Sir Graham Day this Friday to put the following points. First, faced with the sales position, which is not of the company's making, I applaud the fact that the four-day production schedule in the autumn is to be used to provide training on the fifth day for workers on the new Rover 800 model. One very important lesson we must learn in Britain is the importance of training during a recession so that we are better placed for the upturn. I greatly hope that that training can be organised on the fifth day at Cowley in such a way that the workers do not lose bonus earnings.
  Secondly, there must be close collaboration on planning the development of those sites at Cowley that will be surplus to the company's future requirements. That must be done in such a way that former Rover workers, their families and those who would have looked to Rover for employment get their full and fair share of the opportunities that the development of those sites provide.
  Thirdly, I repeat the calls that I have made in the past stressing the importance to Cowley of securing investment in new models in addition to the excellent Rover 800 range. In view of the record on industrial relations, productivity and quality at Cowley, the skills of the work force and the available capacity, there is a strong case for another model to be produced there.
  That would be a further vote of confidence in Cowley's future following on the investment in the Rover 800. No one at a car plant is ever happy with dependence on a

  809
  single model, however successful, for the very good reason that the whole future of that plant is up for grabs every time a decision must be taken on updating or replacing that model. However, that will otherwise be the case at Cowley when Maestro and Montego production eventually end.
  I believe that it is beyond doubt that Cowley, which the company has repeatedly said should be its executive production centre, deserves the vote of confidence that a new model represents. The depth of a recession might seem to some a curious time to be advocating new investment. However, I simply say that history shows that it is those who invest wisely in the recession who are ready to meet demand in the upturn.
  That investment will be supported by the economic and fiscal policies of the next Labour Government that will remove the ball and chain at present sabotaging my constituents' hard work.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I want to use the opportunity of this debate to protest here on the Floor of the House of Commons against the abysmal failure of the educational authorities in the North Down area, which I represent, to provide proper facilities for primary school pupils.
  Time after time, I have complained bitterly about the abnormally large number of primary schools that have to make do with temporary classrooms in huts or in portakabins. This afternoon, the Prime Minister launched the citizens charter with tremendous fervour and publicity. I fully support such a charter, which may help to give some muscle to the citizens in confrontation with the power of colossal commercial organisations or faceless bureaucracy. What about the rights of parents who are shamefully denied proper educational facilities for their boys and girls?
  Every primary school in the North Down area that I have visited has one or more temporary classrooms, usually in wooden huts that were meant as a short-term emergency measure. In the name of the parents in my constituency and their children, I demand decent classrooms for those boys and girls.
  I want to refer to one such primary school, Kilmaine primary school in Bangor. That school has an excellent reputation because of the dedication and ability of the principal, the staff and the parents who take an active interest in it. Kilmaine primary school has an enormous number of pupils many of whom have to be accommodated for lessons in portakabins. The primary school has a catchment area that includes Ballycrochan, Silverbirch and Ashbury.
  Ashbury is an area of vast private housing developments with a high percentage of young married couples. One of the major reasons why those young married couples bought their homes in Ashbury was that they had been promised a new primary school. I have pressed for such a school for some time. I had also urged the provision of a health centre in Ashbury. A large notice was erected some years ago promising a new primary school in 1990. The notice is still there, but the promise has never been fulfilled. I repeat my demand for a clear assurance from the Government that they will redeem that
  810
  promise. I solemnly urge the replacement of all portakabins and wooden huts with permanent, purpose-built classrooms in North Down. Furthermore, I call for the building of a new primary school for the boys and girls of Ashbury and the surrounding area. New primary schools are also needed in other areas of my constituency.
  Finally, may I make a plea on behalf of those boys and girls who are not of primary school age. There is no nursery school provision in, for example, Ashbury and many other parts of my constituency. Despite the fact that many homes in Ashbury are owned by young people with toddlers or a family on the way, there is no nursery provision there. Something should therefore be done to make provision for a nursery school or pre-school playgroups in Ashbury, other parts of Bangor and the entire North Down constituency.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: So that there is a linkage in the debate, may I say that I agreed with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) when he referred to the possibility that some people who have been employed in the House for many years—he quoted an example of someone who had been employed for 20 years—could face redundancy. That is totally unacceptable, and I hope that, when the Leader of the House winds up, he will reassure us on those points.
  In some respects it seems a little unreal for this Parliament to be continuing. In 1983 and 1987, the election had come and gone by this time in the lives of those Parliaments. The fact that, this time around, no election has taken place after four years is not surprising. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know why. The explanation could not be clearer. The Government have not had the courage or confidence to go to the country, or there would almost certainly have been an election and the date would probably have been June.
  We shall go into the summer recess with the recession deepening and unemployment continuing to grow throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) referred to the redundancies in his constituency. We all share the anxiety about those redundancies, as well as those that are occuring in so many parts of the country.
  It certainly gives me no joy to say that, in the west midlands, we are experiencing yet again the large-scale redundancies, closures and dole queues that we saw under this same Government 10 years ago. We were then told that it was a once-for-all operation because we needed leaner industry. Enough people then lost their jobs, and some of the companies that were closed have never been reopened. Unfortunately, the tragedy is happening all over again in the west midlands and causing deep concern to the people there—above all, of course, those directly affected and their families.
  Unlike 10 years ago, the present recession is also taking place in the south-east, with more people having to face all the difficulties of redundancies and the tremendous obstacles of trying to find new jobs in the present economic climate. I tried to introduce a Bill, which the Government did not support, which would have made it illegal to discriminate in job advertisements on grounds of age. The present economic difficulties affect not only the young but many people in the age group of many hon. Members now present—
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend should speak for himself
  Mr. Winnick: With some exceptions. In some cases, those who have been made redundant will know that they are unlikely ever to work again because they have reached the age of 50 or perhaps just over.
  The press tell us that the Prime Minister was in an upbeat mood last Thursday when he addressed the 1922 Committee—I see Conservative Members nodding—with all the praise of the Tory press ringing in his ears. The position is perfectly clear: if the Prime Minister feels so confident and upbeat, why does he not call an election? Let us get it over and done with. The Prime Minister should let the electorate decide. With the citizens charter announced earlier today, we would imagine that the Government had been in office for only a few months. They have been in office for 12 long years, and if they believe that they can hoodwink the electorate with a few gimmicks, they will find the situation very different and difficult. I shall not shed any tears for them.
  May I deal now with an issue that is far less controversial, if controversial at all? I refer to the three grenadier guardsmen who lost their legs during a training exercise abroad in July 1989. All those who have heard about the case, which has been publicised particularly in the past few weeks, have come to the same view as hon. Members on both sides of the House—that adequate compensation should be paid. I raised the matter again during business questions last Thursday, and asked for a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence before this Thursday. It is important that there should be a satisfactory conclusion to this matter as quickly as possible.
  I welcome the talks that have taken place between the solicitor acting for the three grenadier guardsmen and Ministry of Defence officials. Last Monday, The Times referred to the case, and the leader said that it supported the campaign for adequate compensation. It also contained a story about the three guardsmen, one of whom, Sean Povey, is a constituent of mine. The article quotes another of the guardsmen, Adrian Hicks, who has now left the Army, as saying:
  "They should see the performance I have to go through when it's trouser changing day … First, take old jeans off artificial legs. Squat on the bed while pulling new jeans onto artificial legs. Insert stumps into artificial legs. Wriggle trousers into position. You're sat up trying to do this and you're top heavy, unstable, because you don't have the weight of your legs while you're pulling and heaving. I really hate doing that job, I hate it!"
  He continues:
  It can take 25 minutes and I'm always sweating at the end of it. I'll crawl around half the morning, to and from the bathroom, rather than face up to it."
  He says that the frustration occasionally becomes too much and he throws the legs across the room. He also says that, since he was discharged from the Army last December, he has twice tried to get a job but has been interviewed for neither application, and he is still trying to find a job.
  We all know, and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has told the House, that a pension is being paid, but the Minister has confirmed that the three soldiers were in no way responsible for what occurred. They were on a training exercise and a shell exploded while they were digging a trench, causing the three soldiers to lose their legs. My constituent, Sean Povey, is still in a military
  812
  hospital two years after the tragedy occurred. As the Minister said, whoever is responsible, it is certainly not the three soldiers.
  The soldiers joined the Army for the very best of reasons. I have already told the House what the teacher said about how proud Sean Povey was to join the Army, and how he came to the school in his uniform. There is no doubt that he, like the other two, would have continued in the Army for many years to come.
  The three soldiers were not victims of a terrorist attack or anything similar, but were involved in a training exercise that went horribly wrong. I believe and, in the light of a number of signatures on various motions, it is clear that the majority of hon. Members believe, that compensation should be paid and justice done. I am reasonably hopeful that justice will be done, but do not let us delay or let the weeks and months drag on, adding to the mental anxiety of the three soldiers who have already suffered so much and are crippled for life. Let us achieve an honourable and satisfactory settlement as quickly as possible—I hope that it can be concluded before the House rises for the summer recess.
  7.11 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: As an old Dragoon guardsman, I hope that the Government will heed carefully what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said. I think that the whole House hopes that something can be done for those unfortunate soldiers. At the same time, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will totally disregard the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which we could well have done without.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter that started in my constituency and has wider ramifications. In 1987, the Department of the Environment effected a change in the planning law that had considerable adverse effects. I refer to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988—in particular, the new class A3 on food and drinks. The effect of the orders was to put what were previously different activities into the same class. They placed restaurants, public houses and takeaways in the same class, which meant that planning permission was not required when the use of a building changed from one purpose to another within that class.
  The reasons for the orders are obscure, but may have something to do with speeding up development. When someone tells me that the reason for a change is to speed things up, I am profoundly suspicious and certain that something unpleasant will follow, and so it has. It is interesting that the change has never been debated in the House. It was ordered under delegated legislation and we never had a chance to consider it. The results have been all too apparent, as I can illustrate by explaining a case in my constituency.
  My constituency contains the lovely village of Shelford, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) is familiar, and with which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are not wholly unfamiliar. The case was brought to me by Councillor Mrs. Brenda Bishop and a large number of other constituents. There is a pleasant rural pub called The Chequers, which the brewers sold. The purchaser proposed to change it into a Chinese fish and chip takeaway, which caused an outcry among all those in

  813
  Shelford who had fears about smells, litter and parking problems. They made representations to the local authority, but, as a result of the change in the law, it was absolutely powerless even to consider the representations and anxieties of the citizens that it represented.
  The residents would much prefer to have the public house. Not all public houses are wonderful; where I live in Cambridge there is one pub that I would willingly exchange for a Chinese takeaway. However, pubs generally, certainly in my constituency and I expect in many others, are part of the village scene and contribute to the character of a rural community. I have 57 villages in my constituency.
  There was a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the shabby treatment by brewers of licensees—a case powerfully made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), with whom I wholeheartedly agree, and whose early-day motion I signed. As a result of that shabby treatment, I believe that there may be many more pubs in the same position and many more villages, not only in my constituency but in many rural constituencies throughout the country, which will be adversely affected as a result of the change in the planning laws, which have wide repercussions. I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has—as the hon. Member for Rotherham said—written to all hon. Members to urge brewers to have more consideration for their licensees. I hope that that pressure will continue.
  There has been concern about the issue. The Department of the Environment ordered art inquiry into the effect of the changes in the Use Classes Order. A firm called Wootton Jeffreys, Consultants, investigated the problem. I do not know how or what that firm did, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning answered a written question by saying:
  "Although the researchers found some evidence of increased traffic generated by more intensive use of former industrial land, no other adverse effects on amenity or the environment were associated with the business use class. I am therefore satisfied that there is no case on environmental grounds for amending the business use class."
  I am not satisfied. My hon. Friend continued:
  "I have concluded that to amend legislation which applies uniformly throughout England and Wales in response to these concerns would not be justified."
  My hon. Friend continued:
  "The research revealed evidence of some local controversy resulting from changes of use involving fast-food and take-away outlets within the food and drink use class. I am also aware of some misgivings over changes of use to and from public houses within that use class. I am not persuaded that a case has been made for adjusting the present scope for changes of use in the high street sector, where the researchers found that market activity has been generally subdued"—
  whatever that means—
  "since 1987 … There is some very localised evidence of harm to amenity, through increased traffic and general activity, associated with the conversion of hostels into hotels, but this is insufficient to merit amending the Order … However, the Government propose to continue to monitor closely the effects of the Use Classes Order and General Development Order and we are minded to commission further research in another three to five years."—[Official Report, 13 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 619–20.]
  I am fond of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is an excellent fellow and does a marvellous job, but that was a remarkably complacent
  814
  reply, and I am not satisfied for one moment. I do not think that the response is good enough, particularly as that case occurred in a conservation area. I do not believe that the consultants' inquiry considered the effect of the change in the law in conservation areas, for which special consideration should be given.
  There has never been an opportunity to raise the problems on the Floor of the House, as the legislation was done through ministerial order and written answer. I have no objection to written answers, but this was too important a matter to be swept away. My hon. Friend should look at the matter again, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will convey my strong views to my hon. Friend the excellent Minister for Housing and Planning.
  7.18 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I wish to speak on the effect of the Government's so-called education reforms. I took the trouble to contact local primary school heads in my constituency for an end-of-term report on the effect of implementing the Government's education changes, especially those in relation to local management of schools and the standard assessment tests. As a consequence of the many replies that I have received, I have written to the Secretary of State for Education and Science asking for a number of changes to be made.
  There is an urgent need for the Government to reinstate the salaries of staff to be paid from the central funds rather than schools having a devolved budget, which contains only average salaries. Although schools with fewer than 200 pupils are protected from the damaging and unpopular salary rule, the comments that I received from many head teachers make it clear that protection should be extended to all schools. Far too many of those letters read as follows:
  "Because of pupil-driven funding, we are having to lose two full-time members of our teaching staff",
  or:
  "The final situation regarding this school means that it has to reduce its staffing level by 1·5 teachers by redeployment."
  I wholeheartedly agree with the head teacher who wrote:
  "Pupil-led funding will inevitably lead to the employment of younger, less experienced staff because of the need to cut costs. A single small school unit is too small to create a proper staff-cost distribution."
  Another head wrote:
  "You will appreciate that all heads have a high regard for those experienced and dedicated teachers who have given loyal service and still have a great deal to offer, and it is their contribution that is being denigrated in that their actual salaries are not a composite part of the formula. We feel that we are being penalised for the quality and experience of our staff."
  Yet another head teacher wrote:
  "We did, however, take finances into consideration when making recent appointments"—
  although he quickly qualified that by adding:
  "but I can assure you all other aspects were equal"—
  ending ominously with the rider,
  "on this occasion."
  The same head teacher added:
  "I agree that to have to consider finance first would be a very sad day for this profession. We have a very generous special needs budget at this school, which we had to deploy, in part, to support this year's staffing. It is very wrong not to have actual salaries allocated to schools."

  815
  I agree. Those statements are moving and desperate. The effect on special needs budgets especially gives food for thought, and that head teacher's comment was not unique.
  Another head teacher laid bare the real impact of local management of schools so eloquently that it is worth quoting him at length:
  "This school is in an area of social disadvantage and deprivation and high unemployment, and the majority of our children could be said to have special needs: emotional, behavioural learning difficulties. To meet those needs, we need to be able to employ experienced and therefore expensive teachers. We had more than £20,000 put into our budget for special needs, although that has been subsumed in staff costs, and as far as practical usage is concerned, it does not exist. Our main concern is that although we have successfully integrated children with special needs, and statemented children in the past, we shall be unable to continue to do so. Staff are now having to cope with large classes in a deteriorating environment and with constant external vandalism. We feel as though we are in a downward spiral, which can only result in the limiting of educational opportunities for our disadvantaged children and greater stress for our staff."
  That reveals a sad state of affairs, and one that the Government should seriously consider. It is a damning indictment of their reforms.
  What is the justification for devolved budgets with only average salaries? Recently, the Department of Education and Science stated:
  "Pupil-led funding is one of the key principals of LMS because it ensures that schools have a clear incentive to attract pupils by offering the best possible education."
  In the light of the letters that I received from head teachers, that sounds like meaningless rhetoric, and it bears no relation to the facts. The Department's letter added:
  "It is misleading, to say the least, to say that schools are funded on the basis of average teaching salaries; the LMS formula does not fund the teachers, it funds the pupils."
  That is such a weasel-worded argument that it adds insult to injury for those head teachers who took the trouble to write to me. It appears that indifference and ideology have taken over from common sense and compassion.
  I question whether a systematic attempt is being made to create a two-tier education system in which schools are tempted to opt out by the lure of a better system of resourcing. Is the aim to have good and bad schools, not just for those aged from 11 to 18, as was the case under the old grammar school system, but for children from the age of five? That is a chilling and unhappy prospect. The question of actual salaries centrally funded, as opposed to average costs within a devolved budget, requires urgent review. If it is thought necessary and right to protect schools having fewer than 200 pupils, why is it not thought necessary and right to protect all schools?
  The standard assessment test seems to be constantly under review—if not by the Department of Education and Science, then at the personal instructions of the Prime Minister. This comment was made by almost every head teacher who wrote to me:
  "They were completely successful but involved a great deal of disruption for the children, who have as a result not been educated for a full school year due to the inordinate time spent on testing. They also caused unnecessary worry for the teachers. When the aggregations were finally resolved and the results obtained, it was evident that they provided no more information about the children's progress and development than teachers already knew from their own assessment and recording practices."
  Another point mentioned was the availability of national curriculum books in local bookshops at a cost of around
  816
  £200 for the full set. Clearly, the children of parents who can afford to buy their own enjoy an advantage. That is something that the Department should also consider.
  The Government's so-called reforms are a sham and they are damaging the education of many children. It would be a good idea if the Prime Minister turned his attention to the serious problems that I described, instead of messing about with his so-called citizens charter. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to be the pooper scooper of the Thatcher years, I suggest that he takes a good look at what has been done to our schools.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that has been perplexing me for some time. Over the past few months, and virtually unreported by the world press and therefore unnoticed by the public, President Gorbachev has quietly been signing a series of defence treaties with the Heads of Government of the leading nations of Europe—in particular, Germany, France, Italy and, two weeks ago, Spain.
  Article 3 of the Soviet-German treaty signed on 9 November 1990 between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev reads:
  "Should either side become the object of an attack, the other side will not afford any military support or other assistance to the aggressor."
  That wording is almost identical to that included in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 23–24 August 1939:
  "Should one of the contracting parties become the object of belligerant action by a third power, the other contracting party shall in no manner lend its support to this third power."
  Article 2 of the 1990 Soviet-German pact reads:
  "They"—
  that is, the Germans and Soviets—
  "regard and will continue to regard as inviolable the frontiers of all states in Europe as they exist on the day of signature of the present treaty."
  One must assume from that Germany's agreement to the present status of the Baltic states. It, too, has echoes of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact—specifically, the first of their secret protocols.
  Article 8 of the Soviet-French treaty signed on 29 October 1990 reads:
  "In the event that one of the sides wishes to establish relations of co-operation with an international organisation of which it is not a member, the other side shall lend it its assistance."
  Does that mean that France was bound by treaty to act on President Gorbachev's behalf for a seat at the G7 summit? That might be one reason why France and Italy do not want their treaties with the Soviet Union to be in the public domain.
  Many issues are raised by the treaties, which have been signed bilaterally by some of the most ardent proponent nations of a federalist Europe. Time permits me to focus on only one of the issues, and that is the extent to which the Soviet-German and Soviet-Italian treaties undermine the NATO charter. My view is that they undermine it seriously. If, for instance, the Soviet Union were to attack Norway, Britain would be bound under its NATO obligations to go to the assistance of the Norwegians. In that event, and under the terms of the Soviet-German treaty, might not the Germans be inhibited from assisting us? [Interruption.]
  One view is that under the terms of article 5 of the NATO charter an attack on one NATO state is deemed to

  817
  be an attack on all the allies, and that it would therefore be possible to argue that, in the example that I have just put before the House, Britain would be engaged in a defensive action and that the terms of the Soviet-German agreement would not then be activated. [Interruption.]
  There are now two treaties that govern Germany's response to military tension, and that must weaken the deterrent value of NATO. Given the enormous—this is an answer to the sedentary interjections of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—qualitative and quantitative improvements in the Soviet armed forces in recent months and the generally unstable nature of that country, surely these matters cannot be taken lightly.
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he will arrange, before the House adjourns later this week, for a full analysis of the Soviet treaties to be placed before the House so that we can judge whether they affect any vital British interests. It is important that their full implications can be assessed in the context of the intergovernmental conference discussions leading up to the Maastricht meeting in the autumn. I shall be grateful to know what treaty overtures have been made to the British Government by the Government of the Soviet Union and the response of our Government if, as I have cause to believe, such overtures have been made.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: We have just heard a blast from the past. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) must be one of the few who is determined to try to keep the cold war alive. His questions—I agree that they are pertinent—could have been directed to Mr. Gorbachev last week. After all, the Prime Minister was walking up and down the Terrace introducing Mr. Gorbachev to hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman could have obtained some pretty direct information from Mr. Gorbachev. He has raised matters that no Opposition Member is especially worried about at this stage, and I suspect that that goes for many Members on the Government Benches. We must all be grateful for that. We must be particularly grateful to Mr. Gorbachev and for the monumental changes that are taking place in eastern Europe.
  I wish to register my protest that we are having such a long summer recess. It is well understood by hon. Members that the recess is not a holiday, but that is not understood by some outside this place. It is certainly not understood by those malevolent, brain-dead journalists who insist that the summer recess is a long holiday and that as soon as we finish on Thursday we shall all decamp to Caribbean islands where we will stay until we are summoned back to this place on 25 October. It is—[HON. MEMBERS: "14 October."] I shall probably miss the first week back as I shall be continuing to sip my ping colada on a Caribbean beach.
  For regular attenders of the sittings of the House, such as myself, the summer recess provides an opportunity for hon. Members to catch up with all the work that perhaps we wanted to do that does not relate directly to our constituencies. The theory goes, however, that our job is to hold the Executive to account. I know, of course, that that
  818
  is only a constitutional theory. In practice, things do not work out quite like that. We can, however, make life difficult for the Government.
  That can be done as well by some of the more stroppy Conservative Back-Bench Members. For example, the Government were forced to announce that there would be an inquiry into BCCI. Another example was the private notice question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. These examples show that it is possible for hon. Members on both sides of the House to put pressure on the Executive.
  It is absurd for the House to shut down for about 12 weeks, especially when we know that the Government will not be shutting down for that period. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I wish that they would shut down permanently. We know that the announcement has gone out from Conservative central office and No. 10 Downing street that there will a summer of great political activity for Ministers. That will undoubtedly ruin any holidays that they might have arranged.
  The political programme started today with the citizens charter. It is described as a White Paper, but in reality it is a plum paper. The Prime Minister put in his thumb, pulled out a plum and said, "What a good boy am I." Certainly that was how the right hon. Gentleman behaved this afternoon.
  I look on the document as a long confessional note, not as a White Paper. We have had about 12 years of Conservative Government and it is a bit rich for the Prime Minister to tell us that a host of things will be done because of the rundown in the public services, when Conservative Governments, of whom he has been a prominent member for some time, have been active in running down those services. We are getting the flavour, however, from the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon and from all the other things that are going on. It is clear that the Government will be extremely active during the summer recess.
  The House exercises no real check on the Government's actions. Surely it is important that we should exercise some control through questions and speeches and by securing statements from Ministers. When the Leader of the House replies to the debate, I hope that he will say whether he is personally in favour of a more evenly spaced legislative year, which would be appreciated by many Members on both sides of the House. When the Select Committee considers sitting hours, I hope that it will look into Sessions as well.
  During the summer recess, and perhaps beyond that, there will be endless speculation about the date of the general election. We are coming towards the end of the 1987 Parliament and people are becoming restless and, at times irritated. We are at the fag end of the Parliament. There are many who are experiencing difficulty when planning. It is a debilitating process, and not only for hon. Members. In this context, I am not bothered about the convenience of hon. Members. I am more concerned about the climate of uncertainty throughout the country, which is experienced by members of the business community, those who are involved in commerce and by the public generally when it comes to taking decisions. Often their decisions will be based on which party will be in power and on the date of the general election. A climate of uncertainty is created at home and abroad, and it is about time that the practice was brought to an end.

  819
  It would be naive in the extreme for me to expect the Prime Minister to announce the date of the general election. I suspect that it will take place after Christmas. No doubt the Prime Minister does not want to run any risk of not being at the intergovernmental conference in December, and that is a legitimate position for him to take. I have made my estimate of when the general election will take place, but who knows? Only one person knows, and that is the Prime Minister. It is unsatisfactory.
  We need fixed election dates. Other countries have managed their affairs effectively with fixed-date elections, and we have fixed dates for local elections and EEC elections. The principle should be extended to general elections. It would ensure that Governments of whatever colour do not create windows of opportunity by manoeuvring mini-booms in the knowledge that difficulties will arise in the following two months. If a Government know that conditions are due to worsen, there is every likelihood that they will make a rush for the polls in the hope that they will gain an electoral advantage.
  The ability of a Prime Minister to decide almost alone when there will be a general election gives him or her enormous power. It is far too much power. The House should always be jealous of giving too much power to any Prime Minister, whoever he or she happens to be. Such power keeps the Opposition on the run and guessing, and perhaps that is fair enough, but it keeps members of the governing party guessing as well. Great pressure can be put on recalcitrant Government Back-Bench Members if there seems to be the threat of a rebellion and an election is hanging over them. Nothing concentrates the minds of Members of this place more wonderfully than the idea that they and their party might lose a general election. That demonstrates the enormous power of a Prime Minister, who can call an election when he decides that it is right to do so.
  It is time that we moved towards fixed election dates so that we can ensure that party-political advantage is not put before the interests of the country as a whole. If my arguments curry any favour, I hope that hon. Members will support me when I introduce a ten-minute Bill in October, subject to there not being a general election in the meantime.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that there should be fixed election dates. However, I am not sure that the choice of an election date gives tremendous power to a Prime Minister. It is often a great burden because they invariably get it wrong. Lord Wilson of Rievaulx in 1970, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in February 1974, and Lord Callaghan of Cardiff in 1979 are three recent examples. Prime Ministers might actually be glad to be relieved of a choice which so often turns out to be a burden. It certainly does not give them immense power because they so frequently get it wrong.
  I wish to make the speech that I had hoped to make during our Army debate three weeks ago today. This will be my last opportunity to do so before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence makes his statement on Army restructuring, which is expected tomorrow afternoon. I support the Government's planned reductions in the armed forces in response to the
  820
  tremendous changes in eastern Europe and the fast-declining threat from the Soviet Union. The plans to reduce the strength of the Army from 156,000 to 116,000 by 19 battalions are both desirable and necessary. However those reductions must be carried out sensibly and fairly. That is my concern, and that is the basis of my speech.
  The task of selecting regiments for amalgamation or disbandment was passed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Army Board, which in effect delegated the decisions to the councils of colonels of regiments at infantry division level. It would appear that, within the Prince of Wales division, the seven English regiments outvoted the two Welsh regiments, and it is believed that the colonels decided to recommend the amalgamation of the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Cheshire Regiment. That recommendation was encouraged by the chief of the general staff, General Sir John Chapple, who by saying that regiments should not be called upon to undergo a second amalgamation in the same military generation, immediately targeted those 12 regiments that had survived earlier reductions.
  I want to argue against the recommendation for the amalgamation of the Royal Welch Fusiliers with the Cheshire Regiment—or, indeed, with the Royal Regiment of Wales—on four grounds. The first ground is recruitment. The Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Cheshire Regiment are the most strongly recruited regiments in the Prince of Wales division. It is those regiments that find it hardest to recruit that should be amalgamated. That is the logical action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should take.
  Wales provides 8 per cent. of the Army's infantry recruits, although it comprises only 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population. In fact, it provides almost 50 per cent. more recruits than its percentage of the population warrants. I understand that the Principality produces more recruits proportionately than any other part of the United Kingdom. Wales has no difficulty in providing manpower for its three regiments. In fact, it subsidises other regiments in the Prince of Wales division that do not attract sufficient recruits on their own merits.
  Cross-border amalgamation with an English regiment could have a serious impact on recruitment from Wales. The traditional territorial recruiting link would be broken. That point was made effectively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) during the Army debate three weeks ago, when he referred to the last major Army restructuring, in relation to the Cameronians, and the subsequent detrimental effect on recruitment from Lanarkshire. Currently, of the 150 new recruits a year to the Royal Welch, 100 come from north and mid-Wales. There is an especially strong bond between the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the county of Clwyd, where my constituency is, and the county of Gwynedd. Young men could be put off embarking on an Army career if they have to join an English regiment.
  A further argument for retaining the Royal Welch as an independent regiment is its professionalism and morale, which is extremely high. Some 67 per cent. of the soldiers are serving on engagements of nine years or longer, with a further 19 per cent. committed to serve for six years. Even with the reduction from 55 to 36 battalions, the contribution of Wales to recruitment justifies the retention of all three Welsh regiments. In recruitment terms, it would not be fair to amalgamate the Royal Welch

  821
  Fusiliers, and it could seriously damage future recruitment from the Principality, especially from north and mid-Wales.
  The second ground on which the Royal Welch Fusiliers should not be amalgamated is territorial fairness. I am looking quickly around the Chamber to make sure that no Scots are present—[Interruption.] I am referring to Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will remember my last speech in an Adjournment debate, when he made clear his dismay that I had forgotten his nationality.
  There is a feeling that Scotland is likely to be treated more favourably than Wales, although we will not know that until tomorrow. Scotland provides 11·6 per cent. of infantry recruits, compared with Wales's 8 per cent., although Scotland's population is twice that of Wales. Scotland has nine battalions, including two battalions of the Scots Guards. I understand that the plan is to reduce the Scots Guards to one battalion and to reduce the remaining battalions by two. That would leave Scotland with six battalions, but on its recruitment record and potential, it should have only four.
  I am not asking for more Scottish battalions to be disbanded or amalgamated—that would be a brave thing for me to do. However, there is a feeling that Scotland may be treated more favourably than the Principality. Under the plans envisaged, Scotland will be left with 50 per cent. more than its fair share, whereas Wales, if it loses one regiment, will be left with 26 per cent. less than its fair share.
  The third ground is the economic and employment impact of the amalgamation of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. Obviously, the amalgamation or disbandment of any regiment has a potentially serious impact on the local economy wherever the regiment is based. Up to 1,000 people, including civilian personnel, could lose their jobs in this case. The Royal Welch Fusiliers has its headquarters at Hightown barracks in Wrexham, so amalgamation or disbandment would hit an area where unemployment has increased by 35·7 per cent. in the last year. That area—like my constituency, which is adjacent to it—has suffered tremendous structural unemployment during the past few years.
  I want to say how glad I am to support the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on this issue. Sometimes to our mutual embarrassment, we have seen eye to eye and campaigned together on several local issues. Whatever our political differences, I have the highest respect for the hon. Gentleman as a constituency Member. I have been glad to work with him and, indeed, with members of other political parties in Wales to try to preserve the Royal Welch Fusiliers as an independent regiment.
  The fourth ground is historical and cultural. The Royal Welch Fusiliers is the senior regiment of Wales, with the longest and, arguably, the strongest connection with the Principality. I shall not relate its history to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as that would take rather a long time. It was raised in 1689, and in the 300 years since it has been involved in almost every British military campaign. As I said, in recruitment it has a strong connection with north and mid-Wales, and with Clwyd
  822
  and Gwynedd in particular. The Royal Welch Fusiliers Comrades Association is the strongest regimental association of its kind in the United Kingdom, with more than 2,500 active members.
  My constituency is a case in point, demonstrating the strong connection between the regiment and different parts of the Principality. It was granted the freedom of the borough of Delyn in April 1976. I was present twice in the towns of Flint and Mold in my constituency when the regiment exercised its right to march through the borough with bayonets fixed.
  It is also important to remember that almost 40 per cent. of the regiment is Welsh-speaking. That proved useful when trying to outwit the Japanese in Burma and, more recently, when the regiment was stationed in Northern Ireland.
  There is a strong historical, cultural and linguistic bond with Wales that should be preserved, not just for sentimental reasons but on the practical ground of recruitment.
  Cross-border amalgamation with the Cheshire Regiment is viewed by many people in Wales as an insult to the Welsh people. Even my right hon and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell, a former Secretary of State for Wales, has described the potential amalgamation in those terms. I have said in the House several times that the Conservative party in Wales appears too often no more than a branch of the Conservative party in England, with no distinctive identity of its own. If the Royal Welch Fusiliers are amalgamated, that unfortunate impression will be underlined and perpetuated. Like all Welsh Members, I am prepared to let the case rest on recruitment and retention in particular, because if they are the paramount criteria, the Royal Welch Fusiliers will have nothing to fear.
  The campaign in and outside the House to preserve the Royal Welch Fusiliers has been an all-party one. The Welsh Conservative parliamentary group, like groups in other political parties, has worked hard to preserve the regiment. It has met my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for the Armed Forces. We have done all that we can through correspondence and meetings with Ministers to put the regiment's case.
  Every such campaign has its hitches, especially when it must be organised—as this one was—at extremely short notice. I regret that we as a group were not informed some weeks ago of the lobby of the House by the Royal Welch Fusiliers Comrades Association because, had we been, we would have attended to give our strong support to the regiment.
  Last Wednesday, I was glad to receive from the mayor of the borough of Delyn a petition with no fewer than 11,500 signatures—by far the largest petition I have received in my eight years as a Member. I was glad also that I was able to arrange to receive that petition with colleagues from the three other political parties in the Principality. It emphasised, if that were necessary, that the Royal Welch Fusiliers are seen by all of us as part of the Welsh family—one symbol, among many, of the distinctive identity of the Welsh people. If Ministers ignore the logic and common sense of retaining the Royal Welch Fusiliers as an independent regiment—let alone the emotional attachment of the Welsh people to the regiment—they will o so at their peril.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) put the most novel argument I have ever heard for bilingualism. He adverted to the great advantages that the ability to speak Welsh apparently gave Welsh prisoners in the last war. That was a short-lived advantage. The Japanese have caught on to it, and the welcome Japanese residents of the Principality are learning the language. I understand, however, that they have set themselves a target of achieving full articulation with 10 per cent. less vocabulary.
  Like Welsh Members from all parties, I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Delyn about the Welsh regiments. As he will confirm, it is an unusual course that can attract 100 per cent. support among the parties involved in Welsh politics. Self-preservation leads me to dissociate myself from the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Scots.
  I wish to pursue the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) about the problems created in the brewing industry by the brewers' attitude to their tenants. Again, in this matter, hon. Members on both sides of the House supported the arguments against the brewers' actions.
  To put this matter in a slightly wider context, one should understand that the brewers are responding to the fact that they have been rumbled on what was once a tax concession and is now a great tax fiddle. Duty on beer is applied early in the production process. That feature was introduced in 1880 by Gladstone. It was recognised that 6 per cent. of the beer was wasted during refinement. Throughout the intervening years, brewers enjoyed a marvellous tax gift of 6 per cent. of the amount of tax that they should have paid. This year, it amounted to about £125 million.
  The National Audit Office, which conducted an investigation and reported to the Public Accounts Committee, discovered that the biggest brewers, using expensive new equipment, could reduce that 6 per cent. wastage to 3 per cent. That may not sound a lot, but we are talking about £125 million of tax concessions—the big brewers account for £100 million of that tax benefit. According to the Brewers Society, all the top brewers use the same technology. For much of this decade, the brewers have been ripping off the tax man and the British public to the tune of up to £15 million a year, because technology has overtaken the concept of the relief on the old duty given for wastage.
  I come to the main subject of my speech. Although this is a constituency issue, I wish to ask colleagues to consider the way in which they would react if there were identical circumstances in their constituencies. A quango in my constituency decided to close the night casualty unit at my hospital. Despite enormous opposition from the city council, the county council, local Members, 82 per cent. of local voters—as revealed by a survey in the South Wales Evening Post—and the 30,000 people who signed a petition which I organised and presented to the Secretary of State, that quango said, "We will close the casualty unit." There is enormous anger in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, yet it is ineffective, because the quango is virtually doing what it likes.
  That same detested quango, West Glamorgan health authority, closed the casualty unit in the early 1980s. For a couple of years, it consulted about changing casualty
  824
  from a major to a minor unit. Overnight, it closed the unit, without any consultation on that option. Even the Welsh Office was horrified. With the support of Ministers, we worked to thwart the authority's proposals and the unit was reopened—although only on the basis of having a minor casualty unit, operating during the day.
  The health authority is now at it again. It is in the middle of a fraudulent exercise of so-called consultation before it goes ahead with a decision that it has already made. I describe that exercise as "fraudulent" because the health authority is deceiving the public and is withholding or wrongly presenting information.
  The health authority said to the people of West Glamorgan, "If you let us close the night casualty unit, we will be able to carry out 400 more cataract operations a year." To pensioners and the elderly, that is clearly an important consideration, but the health authority has not explained that it will cost £333,000 to introduce the extra ophthalmic capability. The authority will save only £74,000 from closing the unit.
  The health authority is telling the people of West Glamorgan, "Save £70,000 in the casualty unit and we will give you £333,000-worth of cataract operations." Everyone can see that that is nonsense. The saving about which the authority talks would provide about 80 extra operations a year.
  During the past week, the health authority ran a full-page advertisement in a newspaper promoting its measure as a health gain for the community. It said that cataract operations represented a health gain compared with the casualty service. Although 1,460 people used the casualty unit last year, it will disappear shortly if the health authority has its way. The trade-off—if this is to be seen as a trade-off—is that a mere 80 cataract operations will be funded by the closure of the unit.
  Of course, the health authority does not explain that the Welsh Office is establishing a cataract unit 20 miles away, at Bridgend, to deal with the backlog of cataract patients on waiting lists in south Wales.
  Something else has come to my aid today; I noticed that in his statement on the citizens charter the Prime Minister said that dealing with the backlog of cataract operations was to be one of the elements in the White Paper. Naturally, we assume that the right hon. Gentleman realises that that can be done only if the resources are there, so we assume that the Government will provide resources. That is another reason why there is no need to close the casualty unit.
  Furthermore, the health authority does not point out that, since it counted the number of people using the casualty unit overnight, two major departments—paediatrics and gynaecology—have been transferred from another hospital. It is absurd that, under the proposed new system, if a 999 call were made, for a spontaneous abortion, for example, the patient would have to be taken to another hospital in Morriston where there will be a casualty unit, and then brought back to Singleton, where the gynaecology department now is, and where there is now a casualty unit—but that unit is about to disappear.
  The same consideration applies to children's illnesses, too. Children with major complaints will have to be taken out of Swansea and then brought back again.
  It is especially galling to us in West Glamorgan that the Welsh Office recently produced a formula under which each health authority is given a percentage of the total budget available for Wales determined by the size of the

  825
  population and by need. On the Welsh Office's own admission, West Glamorgan already receives £2·2 million less than it is entitled to in the current year. We are to lose a night casualty service for the sake of saving £74,000, yet the Minister admits that the Government owe us £2·2 million for this year and will owe us the same amount next year, because that deficit will not be put right in the short term.
  I said that the so-called consultation was fraudulent because the health authority had already made up its mind. That much is clear from the fact that the authority has already advertised in the British Medical Journal for a consultant to fill the ophthalmic post whose existence is supposed to be contingent on the decison to close the casualty unit.
  There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that West Glamorgan health authority has already made up its mind. In the meantime it is sending officials to other parts of the county—to Neath, for example, where there is a casualty unit, and to Aberavon, which uses the Neath unit. The officials say to pensioners' groups that if they support the closure of Swansea casualty unit—the unit that those people do not use—the health authority will be able to give people the eye operations that they need. That is cynical and contemptible, and it is happening in the name of a quango that ignores local public opinion.
  We believe that that distortion of a consultation process should be exposed for what it is. Ministers should tell West Glamorgan health authority that it is clear from all the evidence that the consultation is a sham, and that when the decision goes on appeal to the Welsh Office, as it most certainly will, Ministers will throw out the health authority's case.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. David Nicholson: As a native of Cheshire, but with English parents who reside in north Wales—I shall visit them next week—I believe that I have sufficient historical knowledge of the rivalries between those two tribes to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) said about the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Cheshire Regiment.
  One general reason why the House should not adjourn is that both sides of the House, expecially Conservative Members, would welcome a debate on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's citizens charter, produced today. Conservative Members would especially like to explore the motives underlying the churlish and sterile response of the Labour party to my right hon. Friend's statement. I welcome my right hon. Friend's personal commitment to providing decent standards in public education, public health and public transport—that commitment is an essential part of his political philosophy.
  I shall discuss two aspects of that commitment—first, standards in the teaching of English. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) eloquently pursued the same subject in Friday's debate, but I hope that neither my hon. Friend nor the House will mind if I now support his case. It is a sufficiently important subject to be worthy of support by more than one hon. Member.
  My attention was drawn to concern over the teaching of English a few weeks ago, on 30 June, by an article in The
  826
  Sunday Telegraph, which quoted from the vexed £20 million document produced under the auspices of the Department of Education and Science on the teaching of English language and literature. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham effectively took the document to pieces on Friday, but he did not refer to the following quotation from it:
  "grammar should be seen as 'a series of options from which the speaker or writer should make choices dependent on context and intention."'
  It is worrying that
  "this study is already being used to train English teachers in state schools how to implement the national curriculum. That does not mean, of course, that all English teachers"
  support the "progressive" intentions of the document, but
  "merely that all are got at by the thought police",
  as described by Nicholas Farrell, in The Sunday Telegraph. Chief among the "thought police" is
  "Terry Eagleton, the Marxist recently appointed Professor of English at Oxford University. He describes himself as the 'barbarian in the citadel' … At a conference two weeks ago at Ruskin College, Oxford, attended by 400 like-minded progressives and called to discuss the struggle for English"—as they call it—
  "He said: 'There's an enormous amount to play for and we're the only people in the arena."'
  We understand that
  "21 of the 25 regional co-ordinators of the suppressed English teaching study are members of the … left-wing pressure group"
  supporting this approach.
  In connection with the implementation of the citizens charter, there is considerable concern about standards in state schools. Conservative Members are committed to maintaining standards—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had his own spell seeking to raise standards and thus to fulfil our commitment.
  I must commend a study known as "English, our English" published by the Centre for Policy Studies a few weeks ago. It states in its introduction:
  "When children leave English schools today, few are able to speak or write English correctly. Even fewer have a familiarity with the literary heritage of England and it is not hard to see why, because among those who theorise about English teaching there has developed a new orthodoxy which regards it as a conceptual error to speak of correct English and which rejects the idea of a literary heritage. And this new orthodoxy has now come to influence every aspect of English in schools."
  I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement today about the introduction of outsiders to the inspection of schools. They will replace the insider HMI system because Her Majesty's inspectors have made reports that endorse and carry forward these somewhat subversive thoughts about English. Hitherto, they have said how it should be taught and what the aims of teaching should be, and the recommendations of Her Majesty's inspectors have largely reflected the tenets of the new orthodoxy.
  Equality of opportunity, to which Conservative Members are committed, is facing one or two difficulties and distortions in Taunton. Because of the way in which the town and the school structures have grown, 62 per cent. of pupils in Taunton live south of the railway but only 28 per cent. of secondary school places—at Castle school—are to be found in the south. As I have learnt from recent constituency cases, that has left many families unable to have the first choice of school and it has generated dissatisfaction with the service and created difficulties for the schools in the north which have to receive pupils from disaffected families. Inevitably there

  827
  are many cross-town journeys and more children have to be transported by car who would walk or cycle if their schools were close enough to home.
  For some time the education authority, the county council, has been pursuing a scheme to build a new school in the south of the town and it was envisaged that the scheme would obtain substantial support from the DES—as well as from the Church, because it involved a Church school. The announcement in April that the DES would not support the scheme caused dismay among members of the county council. The chief reason given by the DES was the size of the sum required, but that would have been apparent to the DES from the start of the project, yet it was not mentioned until late in the day. So my constituents and those in the education system in Taunton and in the county have some reason to feel aggrieved about the lateness of the DES's decision.
  I have made Ministers aware of this problem and I have raised it in the House. I hope that the DES will be as supportive as possible of the efforts being made to rectify the imbalance in school provision in Taunton—for educational, social and environmental reasons.
  The second matter that I want to raise has consequences for the environment. I welcome the new approach of the Secretary of State for Transport to transport of freight, and his new emphasis on the role of the railways. I welcome his recent announcement on section 8 environmental grants for environmentally sensitive roads. My right hon and learned Friend and I had an exchange on the matter on 11 July at column 1103. I commend to him and to the House a study produced some time ago by Somerset county council on the consequences of moving, within the EEC, to a 40-tonne upper limit for heavy lorries. That will have consequences for many counties. In Somerset, almost all bridges on minor roads would have to be strengthened to take the extra loads—one reason why the 40-tonne limit is not to be introduced until January 1999.
  I understand that the Department of Transport is carrying out a bridge survey which it expects to take another two years to complete. The Department estimates that 10,000 bridges need to be strengthened, but we understand that it is not prepared to estimate the cost of the operation. It is estimated that in Somerset alone 400 bridges will have to be strengthened at an approximate cost of £8 million, at 1990 prices.
  In my constituency the small towns of Wellington and Milverton are both outstanding heritage settlements. Five hundred HGVs will pass through Wellington every day, and 70 through Milverton.
  I know that other Members want to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I am glad that Somerset county council has produced proposals to resolve this problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) spoke for well over 10 minutes.
  Somerset county council recommends that all lorries over an agreed weight and length should be restricted to motorways and A roads, and it proposes the development of lorry parks, warehouses and trans-shipment parks at motorway exits—that will assist the trans-shipment of freight to smaller vehicles. I hope to return to this matter in the autumn on an Adjournment motion, but it merits the attention of the House today.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: We have heard many good reasons why the House should not adjourn, not least those, including the subject of education, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson). I too want to discuss education this evening.
  This afternoon, when the Prime Minister introduced the citizens charter, an excellent document which I trust has the full support of the whole House, he raised the question of educational standards. Earlier, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to brain-dead journalists. I shall not take up his subject or pursue his line about how journalists nearly always get matters wrong, except to say that Members and journalists also get it wrong far too often by emphasising the negative. Just for once, and in the space of three or four minutes, I want to discuss something that has gone well—
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: One minute will do.
  Mr. Thompson: Two or three minutes will be quite enough.
  Between 1 and 9 July this year, the international physics olympiad was held in Cuba. It took place in Britain back in 1986 and it began in the eastern bloc in 1967. It is an opportunity for young people from this country to achieve in science, especially in physics. In The Times Educational Supplement of 28 June, Dr. Cyril Isenberg, secretary of the British physics olympiad, was quoted as saying:
  "The competitive spirit in education, despite what we hear, is not dead."
  The physics olympiad is a way of ensuring that our young people can compete and achieve excellence in education.
  Earlier in this debate, we heard about the importance of ensuring that education is good for all children, an idea that I support. What I want to say in no way contradicts the principle of a good state education service for all. Last year, Alexander Barnett, who attended Manchester grammar school, at which I was privileged to teach for five years, was awarded the gold medal in the international physics olympiad. Thirty-two countries took part. We did not do quite as well this year in Cuba, but K. Reavell of Bedford school won the silver medal, and we obtained four other awards. This year, a Russian student gained the top placing. I am sure that that pleased President Gorbachev, and I would have spoken to him about it if I had had the chance last week to meet him on the Terrace.
  The achievements of these young people are marvellous. In this country, about 500 students from some 200 schools compete to become members of the five-strong team which will take part in the international physics olympiad. This year's British winners who will go forward to the olympiad took part in a presentation ceremony at the Royal Institution, at which the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was present.
  The competition generates enthusiasm for physics and science generally, and the number of A-level standard entrants to the competition increases by 30 per cent. a year. In this country, there are six times as many state schools as independent schools, but the number of entrants to the competition from independent schools is equal to the number from state schools. That supports the point made

  829
  by some hon. Members, that we must encourage excellence in our state schools more than we do, so that the number entering the competition from state schools is six times as great as the number entering from independent schools. When that happens, we shall be able to say that we have achieved what we set out to achieve.
  I have raised this subject to give publicity and encourage support for real scientific and educational achievement. In the press, and perhaps even in the House, too much attention is paid to the trivial and the way-out, astrology rather than astronomy, and it is important to put good scientific achievement on the record. Parliament should hear about such achievements as well as about achievements in other spheres.
  While improving overall standards, we need to encourage competition and excellence in education. I know that the Leader of the House, who is in his place, agrees. I was grateful for his support when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science and we were trying to make sure that single sciences were still taught in our schools. Therefore, I do not need to take any more time trying to persuade him of my argument. I urge the Government to support the principles of the British physics olympiad and the House to take every opportunity to support such activity and our young people who do so well.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes rose—
  Mr. Patnick: Oh.
  Mr. Haynes: The Government Whip should not sound surprised. I am entitled to contribute to the debate.
  I feel as though I have not been to bed because, not many hours ago, I was speaking to the Leader of the House. He has been a fair Leader of the House, and I hope that he will be fair on many of the questions put to him in the debate.
  A few weeks ago, I put a question about Cyprus to a Minister in the Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and asked him to get stuck into the job. He is new to the post; he was appointed by the right hon. Lady who used to occupy No. 10, who hoped that he would do a good job, especially on the quesiton of Cyprus. Last week, we had a first-class meeting in Room 14, which was packed solid with Greek Cypriots. Many others could not get in. Turkish troops from the mainland invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, and the only attempt to sort out the problem has been gas-bagging. There has been no action whatever.
  I was a little disappointed to hear the President of the United States say that Turkey was a good boy for the way that it helped to overcome the problems in the Gulf. That lot invaded northern Cyprus and created a big problem. Many people are missing and many of us want to know where they are. The Government are one of the guarantors of Cyprus, and they should take some action instead of sitting round a table and gas-bagging, as they do in the Chamber. We want the Government to make some concrete decisions about how to solve this problem, but they have not done very well up to now.
  The 1974 invasion was allowed to happen. I accept that, at that time, Labour were in power, but this problem has
  830
  gone on for 13 years, and talking for that length of time is not good enough. We need some action to remove the Turks from the island, because the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots want to live together in peace.
  The population of northern Cyprus is growing by the day. People have been flittered there from the mainland to take over the place. We have a base in southern Cyprus in the Greek Cypriot area, and if matters are left for too long, the Turks will cross the green line and decide that they want the whole island. I hope that the Leader of the House will have something to say to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and especially to the Minister of State who is responsible for that area. I hope that he will also let the Foreign Secretary know.
  Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has been doing a lot of talking. He has been trying to help, but he cannot make the decisions. Other people have to make them and he has to carry them out. The Leader of the House should take some action and the Government should sort out the Cyprus problem, because it has been going on for far too long.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. William Powell: As always, this debate has so far raised a fascinating range of topics, to which I have listened with considerable interest. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) thought that our break to 14 October was far too long. I disagree. I think that it is far too short, and would prefer to have more time with my constituents than will be possible because of the fact that we shall return here immediately after the party conference season.
  If I had longer, I should like to have developed four points, but I shall merely articulate them and allow time for other hon. Members to speak. On 22 October last year, at about 8.20 in the evening, a young constituent of mine, Miss Susan James, was travelling with a friend in a taxi in Corby. The taxi was involved in an accident, and Miss James and the driver of the taxi were killed and the passenger was very seriously injured. The driver of the taxi, who quite coincidentally was well known to me, had been driving continuously for some 16 hours. That cannot possibly be right.
  In all circumstances, drivers who are conveying the public in coaches or lorries—but apparently, not in taxis—are governed by regulations setting out how long the driver is allowed to drive. This accident gave rise to issues apart from the length of time for which that driver was driving. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Minister for Public Transport is conducting an inquiry into the various regulations, but it is important for members of the public to be assured about all aspects of safety when they travel in taxis. That must include the hours that taxi drivers work.
  I do not think that taxi drivers are, in general, working for anything like that period of time, but it cannot be right that, after this case, this lack of restriction should be allowed to continue. I hope that my hon. Friend will reach a conclusion urgently. He is perfectly aware of my feelings on this matter. It is so clear that it cannot be right for taxi drivers to work continuously for 16 hours, and that it is a danger both to their passengers and other members of the public if they do, that this anomaly must be corrected as soon as possible.

  831
  The House is aware of the scandal of timeshares and the way they are sold. If I had had longer, I should have set out the evidence that comes to light almost every day. The House will agree that, in all categories of junk mail that our constituents receive, the most junk-like is that for timeshares. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to come to the House as soon as possible after we have returned with proposals to put an end to this scandal.
  I have two other short points to make, both of which are rarely raised in the House. In recent years, there has been controversy over the quality of our judges. One aspect of this controversy is the retirement age. Under the Judicial Pensions Act 1959, High Court judges are allowed to retire at 75. Under Courts Acts, Crown court judges are allowed to retire at 72 and magistrates at 70. The burden that our judges, particularly our High Court judges in the Court of Appeal, carry, with the huge weight of appeals going through, is immense. I cannot help feeling that there should be serious discussions to review whether that retirement age is any longer appropriate, given the conditions in which judges have to do their work. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends, and my right hon. and noble Friends, will give urgent consideration to this matter.
  My final point is about the payment of parish clergy of the Church of England, which is a matter of concern to the House. There have been reports that clerical stipends will be reduced in the coming year because of the financial difficulties that the Church of England is having in meeting its stretched budget. However, we should pay some attention to the costs of bishops and suffragan bishops. It is estimated that the cost of a diocesan bishop is £100,000 a year. That includes salary, staff, a home, a car and so on. For a suffragan bishop, the cost is nearly £100,000 a year.
  The Crown has the task of nominating bishops to the dioceses of Wakefield, Bradford and Gloucester. I hope that nominations will be postponed for as long as is possible, perhaps even a year or two. Furthermore, there is no need for suffragan bishops in this day and age. They exist to confirm people, but confirmations are down to only half a dozen candidates—a world away from the days when Archbishop Wakefield confirmed 4,000 people at a time. The cost of sustaining suffragan bishops is immense.If some savings could be made by the Crown delaying appointments to sees and to suffragans, it is possible that money will be made available for the parish clergy, who are the people who really matter in staffing the parishes of the Church of England.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I hope that before the House adjourns for the summer recess, we shall consider the case for hospital radio to have its own broadcasting frequency. Each year I suggest that hospital broadcasting equipment should be zero-rated for VAT. I have been disappointed on that, but I was led to believe that hospital radio would be granted its own frequency. There has been a delay of six months in setting up the pilot scheme with 10 hospitals. I hope that, through the good offices of the Leader of the House, we can chase up the Radio Authority to make sure that this experiment goes ahead and that, when we have the annual meeting of the hospital radios in my constituency later this autumn, we can celebrate being given our own frequency.
  832
  Secondly, my constituents are hard pressed with the Fenchurch Street line, as are other Essex Members of Parliament, so much so that, tomorrow evening in the House, we shall be forming the Basildon commuter group. There are continual complaints about delays, lack of communication and a tardy service. I hope that we can do something about that.
  I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said about timeshares. About seven weeks ago, I initiated a debate on this matter to which one of the Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry responded. It would appear from the literature that I continue to receive that I and my wife will be spending the whole of the summer picking up our cars, televisions and cheques for £2,000. There will be a short delay while she has a baby, but I promise the House that I shall come back with all these goodies, and perhaps we can share them out and have them as prizes at fetes.
  Finally, I hope that before we adjourn for the summer, a cure can be found for hay fever, because I should like to hear about it.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: As usual, the debate has covered a breathtakingly wide range of subjects. I can encapsulate what hon. Members have been asking for by saying that it all adds up to a demand for a citizens charter, but one that I fear bears no relationship to the document that was presented earlier today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) was concerned about conditions in the licensed trade and the way in which the brewers operate. He made a powerful argument for a citizens charter for tenants.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) has a great deal of specialist knowledge of the motor industry, about which he spoke. If there was a citizens charter message in his comments, it concerned the need for some respect for the desire of people to have security in the industry in which they work. There is not much of that in the Government's citizens charter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) touched on a number of subjects but specifically raised the question of the three guardsmen who were crippled in Canada. Mercifully, he was not wearing a top hat when he spoke, and his points were all the more effective for that. He also raised the most important need of a citizen—his right to vote rapidly in a general election.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) touched in particular on the requirements of children with special educational needs—another subject not mentioned in the citizens charter, as far as I could discover from a brief reading of it.
  I am not sure that there was anything in the citizens charter that related to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). For once, I disagreed with him. I must admit that I find the prospect of American-style four-year-cycle fixed Parliaments, when two of those years are spent conducting an election campaign, pretty horrendous. However, there are "swings and roundabouts" arguments on all those matters.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) spoke powerfully about the absence of a citizens charter for the rights of NHS patients—something which the Government have long neglected.

  833
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)—the only Labour Member to speak about foreign affairs, although the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) spoke about them—raised the continuing problems facing Cyprus.
  One would expect many requests for citizens charter-type benefits from Labour Members. I found it intriguing that Conservative Members made continuing demands for Government regulations and controls, and rights to benefits, after 12 years of Conservative government. I will not go into them all in detail, but the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) spoke about the need for stricter regulations on the sale of educational land. The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) was concerned about education, particularly nursery school provision. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) spoke about changes in planning laws and the need for greater protection there. Many of these subjects related to new rights for citizens, new Government intervention and additional Government resources.
  I make no apology for concentrating on the citizens charter, which I looked at when not listening to this evening's speeches—although, like most hon. Members, I have not had much time to read it. I find it deeply ironic that the Government should introduce such a charter just when an inquiry into the BCCI scandal is taking place. One of the central issues is, of course, the failure of Government Departments even to respond to citizens' letters.
  When the Government start lambasting local authorities, publicly owned bodies and privatised monopolies about the services that they provide, I think, "Physician, heal thyself." The Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Transport and the Treasury—in the days when the present Prime Minister was there—failed to deal with serious queries about the way in which a bank was operating. Let us have a better response from Government Departments and a bit of ministerial accountability. Let us end this business of blaming a secretary who did not deal with a request from the public. Let us see Ministers take some responsibility for a change: that would be a welcome innovation. Although the citizens charter suggests that junior officials should name themselves, it does not mention ministerial accountability.
  I think that the Leader of the House fancies himself as a bit of a number cruncher. We should be very interested to know how much the proposals in the charter will cost to implement. So far, the Government seem very vague about that. We know that they have the resources to give precise costings very rapidly; every time we issue a policy proposal, they put their civil servants to work spelling out the cost. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman some specific questions: no doubt he will get out his calculator and give me some answers. Page 10 of the citizens charter refers to "a charter for patients". One of the crucial aims is the provision of a maximum waiting time for operations. We would all say amen to that, but how much money is being committed to it?
  Page 13 refers to "a charter for parents". One of the key promises is
  "to raise standards in education for all pupils".
  That is an excellent objective, but how much will it cost? I am sure that the Leader of the House will tell us.
  834
  Page 15 talks about "a charter for tenants". We would all subscribe to the charter's desirable objectives, such as speedy repairs, but what additional resources do the Government plan to make available to local authories so that they can implement those promises?
  Page 17 deals with transport, and mentions, for example, rebates for season ticket holders who do not receive a proper standard of service. It is a bit difficult for British Rail to provide such a service when it has not the money to refurbish trains and coaches. How much additional money will it be given?
  Page 19 lists some laudable objectives in connection with driving tests. These are good, common sense proposals: the Government suggest driving tests in the evenings and on Saturday afternoons, for example. But what will be the cost, and who will pay?
  Page 20 contains one of the richer parts of this thin document, "a charter for jobseekers". The only sort of charter that job seekers need is a charter that would provide jobs. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know all about the scourge of joblessness: at any rate, Conservative Members are slowly beginning to learn about it. If last week's unemployment figures provided one grim consolation—and, my word, there were very few; I take no pleasure in saying that, because I do not wish unemployment on anyone—it was the news that the biggest rise in unemployment had taken place in the south-east. As those of us in the midlands, the north, Wales and Scotland are well aware, the region has often been cushioned in the past. I hope that that brings home the true meaning of unemployment to Conservative Members.
  Of course we all want people to look for jobs in
  "pleasant, well-designed office interiors",
  but those people want jobs. There is no point in being interviewed in a pleasant, well-designed office interior if there will be no job at the end of it. What a ludicrous citizens charter this is.
  Even more absurd is the section on social services, on page 21. It speaks of the need for "nationally promulgated quality standards". No one would disagree with that, but I do not know how the Government can deliver social services other than by providing local authorities with the necessary resources. We are all in favour of benchmarks and we all wish to improve standards, but the question remains the same: how much additional money will be made available?
  The charter mentions the Benefits Agency, and the need for better social security provision. There is more silliness here. The charter refers to the need for "a clean office environment". No one is arguing with that, but what really counts is the level and availability of benefits.
  I have heard Prime Ministers give a few pathetic answers, but I was struck by the answer that the Prime Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) today. I shall repeat the question in case the Leader of the House can do any better than his boss did. My hon. Friend asked what redress would be available under the charter to someone who, towards the end of the financial year, asked his local DSS office for a benefit payment under the social fund and was told that the social fund had run out, but that he undoubtedly deserved the benefit and qualified for it under any reasonable criterion. The Prime Minister replied that the claimant should go and see his local Member of

  835
  Parliament. What a fatuous answer! I hope that the Leader of the House can do a little better.
  Page 24 of the charter deals with a subject beloved of Ministers, the police. We all know that crime has soared under the present Government, but everyone in my constituency—and, I suspect, everyone in other constituencies—would support the following laudable objective:
  "We will expect all police forces to set and publish target times for answering telephone calls, and arriving at the scene of incidents which require rapid reaction".
  How much will police authorities be given so that they can accomplish that?
  I am not surprised that the document is a peculiar plum colour. At least the Government had the sense not to make it blue; they knew that, if they did, the citizens would rip it up. Perhaps they hoped that they could usher in a Tory manifesto in the hope that some people might mistake it for a Labour manifesto. They may have thought that a few more people would read a document of this colour, because they would have more faith in a citizens charter delivered by the Labour party. The Opposition feel deeply grateful to the Prime Minister—as, I suspect, do the citizens of this country—for spelling out so eloquently the result of 12 years of Tory failure to deliver citizens' basic requirements.
  We are at the end of a Session. This fag-end Government are well past their sell-by date. The only charter that the citizens of this country want is a general election.
  8.49 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): One difficulty of this debate is that, in order to enable as many hon. Members as possible to speak, those who sum up give themselves a very short period in which to do so. I cannot, therefore, cover all the points, but those that I fail to cover will be passed to the appropriate Minister.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), and my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) asked about salmon fishing. They know that I have more than a passing interest in the subject. May I point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking that I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food following our previous exchange on 11 July. The Minister told me that he will be in a position to make a statement during the overspill period. One problem is that the latest figures are not available now. If, therefore, a statement were made this week, it would not include the latest figures. I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that the fact that a statement will be made when the House returns after the summer recess is an advance.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) referred to publicans. The hon. Gentleman fairly said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had set out his position in a recent letter, so I shall not waste valuable time by quoting it again. He will know, however, that my right hon. Friend said that he has already urged the brewers to keep to a minimum the number of notices to quit and to explain that the notice to quit is simply a technical step which is designed to open up negotiations on new leases,
  836
  which I understand is one of the problems. The hon. Gentleman also made it clear that he is to have a meeting with the brewers, in the light of the representations made to him.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for an undertaking that legislation would be introduced early in the next Session. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made the position clear: legislation on the subject was enacted only recently. The Beer Orders have not yet been laid before Parliament. Therefore, it would be premature to expect new legislation in what I can assure hon. Members will be a busy and crowded fifth Session of Parliament.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) referred to housing associations in the north-west and the Housing Corporation's programme. That is set to rise significantly, from about £1·1 billion in 1990–91 to over £2 billion in 1993–94. My hon. Friend referred to the north-west's share. He will know that resources are now being distributed between regions on the basis of need, as measured by the housing needs indicator, not on the basis of past expenditure. That is a fairer way to distribute the increased resources.
  Although the northern regions stand to gain from the Housing Corporation's expanding programme, their share of it may fall. However, the gain is the important point. This year, the north-east, north-west and Merseyside regions received allocations that enabled them to approve new schemes for rent and for sale worth £346 million. The Housing Corporation's projections show that next year that figure will rise to £502 million, and in the following year to £564 million.
  My hon. Friend also asked about one part of the follow-up to the Ibbs report. There will be consultations with representatives of the staff who work here about any implications of the Ibbs reforms for staffing in general, which the House has welcomed. I do not want to refer to the specific case that my hon. Friend raised, but I shall write to him about it.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) asked about Yugoslavia. He knows that last week the economic summit participants supported the Community's involvement in the Yugoslav crisis. We must hope that all the parties can use the breathing space provided by the ceasefire agreement on 8 July to reduce the tension and begin talks on Yugoslavia's future. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that British representatives are included in the European Community monitoring that is taking place. I can assure him that the United Kingdom will play its full part. I am also sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in the longer term it is for Yugoslavia to decide its own future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) asked about a number of local cases. I appreciate the issues involved in the sale of land. My hon. Friend showed that he is well informed. I noted that he has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Local authorities have powers to dispose of land in whatever manner they wish, but where they are selling for less than the best price reasonably obtainable they will need the Secretary of State's consent under the Local Government Act 1972. That is reasonable. It is important that the best prices are obtained for land which has been

  837
  acquired with public funds. Planning status is a different question, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is well equipped to follow up that point.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked about Rover and its decision to lay off staff and go to a four-day week, which reflects its desire to reach productivity levels similar to those of the Japanese and also the great pressures in the car market worldwide. I fully share his disappointment about that, but I hope that he recognises the improvements that are taking place in the car industry. It is to the credit of our car industry that the volume of car exports is 45 per cent. up to the previous year. In particular, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed in the latest trade figures, out today, that, compared with May, car exports are up by some 22 per cent. Therefore, the car industry is doing extremely well by improving its exports.
  That enables me to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). He referred to the fact that we do not concentrate enough on the good news. No Opposition Member drew attention today to the fact that the June 1991 figures show a small current account surplus and a surplus in manufactured goods. The export performance of the car industry is particularly impressive. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out today, there is every prospect, given present trends, that we shall be running a surplus in car exports by the mid-1990s, compared with a deficit of about £6 billion in 1989. Therefore, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the performance of the car industry. Had I the time, I should have liked to say much more about it.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) again referred to the three Grenadier guardsmen. He knows that I have frequently expressed great sympathy for the three guardsmen concerned. He knows that there was a full and useful discussion of the merits of the case at the meeting on 9 July to which he referred and to which I have referred before. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers are continuing to give this matter their urgent attention. A further meeting with the solicitor took place last Friday. The discussions are continuing and we must hope for a successful outcome.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West referred to use class orders, with which I recall having something to do myself. I understand that the purpose of the change is to enable businesses to respond to the changing patterns of consumer demand. As my hon. Friend requested, I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to his particular lack of satisfaction in this case, but I shall also draw his attention to my hon. Friend's considerable tribute to him in every other respect.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised two points about the education reforms. I totally disagree with her views about them. I believe that the education reforms are excellent and that they will contribute greatly to the improvement of standards. They are much welcomed in many respects by the schools.
  The hon. Member for Halifax mentioned local management of schools and actual salaries versus average salaries. There is no doubt that the greater freedom and responsibility that LMS gives schools is broadly
  838
  welcomed. It leads to better funding decisions and to a considerable improvement in morale. Pupil-led funding is an important part of the citizens charter, because it enables parents to express their views, and schools can respond to them. Listening to the hon. Lady, one would not think that resources for education had been increased. What is important is how they are deployed by schools.
  Testing and the standard assessment tasks at the age of seven are important for schools, pupils and their parents. This has been the first year of national testing. I knew when we were conducting the pilot survey of 2 per cent. of schools that we could not expect to get everything right from the outset. I share the view of many schools—I still visit many schools—that there have been some problems in managing tests in the classroom and that the work load was too heavy. This summer's tests are being evaluated extensively. We acknowledge that next year the tests must be more straightforward for teachers to administer and mark. I am sure that the principle is right.
  I detected a note of desperation in the voice of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) at the thought that we might be rising very shortly and that that would enable Ministers to make much play over the summer. We shall not be on holiday for the whole period. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not wish to take a holiday, but quite a lot of hon. Members wish to go on holiday with their families. The party conferences take up much of September and October, and that must be taken into account.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West asked whether the timetable for the parliamentary year could be considered by the Procedure Select Committee. The answer is yes, the Committee can consider that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) commented on hay fever. I read in one of the Sunday newspapers that research suggests that hay fever is something to do with sexual excitement. I do not know whether that links with his earlier comments or whether there is any validity in the argument, but I could not resist saying it.
  The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) made much of the citizens charter. He ignored the tremendous strides that have been made in the past 12 years by contracting out and privatisation in increasing choice and in lowering costs and prices to consumers. Many other initiatives have been taken in the past 12 years. The 70 measures in the citizens charter, which the hon. Gentleman ignored, are building on that record. We shall develop that firmly over the summer.
  In this Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has firmly established himself on the national and international stage. His leadership during the Gulf war—
  Mr. George Foulkes rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has not been here; he can sit down.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led this country to a successful conclusion of the Gulf war and dealt with so many other issues, including the leadership of last week's successful summit. He has developed our approach to the two important European negotiations. Inflation is coming down and he is presiding over so many other successes on the economic front.

  839
  We believe that this has been a successful Parliament. The morale of Conservative Members is high. In the coming months, we shall be drawing attention to the enormous defects that have emerged in Labour's policies in the past few months.
  Mr. Grocott: What about the costings?
  Mr. MacGregor: It is rich of the hon. Gentleman to talk about costings when he does not cost his programmes. That is why we heard a commitment worth another £35 billion from him.
  We shall be pushing all those points as well as the merits of the citizens charter and our other policies. On that basis, we are happy 10 have this adjournment, but look forward to coming back shortly.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, at its rising on Thursday 25th July, do adjourn until Monday 14th October.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With permission of the House I will put together motions Nos. 2 to 7.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    That the draft Companies House Trading Fund Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
    That the draft Patent Office Trading Fund Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
    FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY
    That the draft Forth Ports Authority (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.
    CALEDONIAN MACBRAYNE LTD.
    That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.

    STATISTICS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    That the draft Statistics (Confidentiality) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Speaker: With permission of the House I will put together motions Nos. 8 and 9.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    OIL CRISIS MEASURES
    That this House takes note of European Document No. 10445/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Energy on 8th July 1991 relating to oil crisis measures and contingency oil stocks; supports the Government's intention to ensure that member states can retain their existing stockholding arrangements; and urges it to resist the proposed increase in the Commission's powers.

    POLYBROMINATED BIPHENYL ETHERS
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4658/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 8th July 1991 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of polybrominated biphenyl ethers; and supports the Government's objectives of ensuring more than adequate protection for human health and the environment and a flexible and positive approach to the adoption of alternatives.—[Mr. Patnick]
    Question agreed to.

  Orders of the Day

    Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

    Latin America
    9.4 pm
    Mr. Ray Whitney: I am especially grateful to have the opportunity to initiate this debate on relations between this country and Latin America. I express the gratitude of all of us, expecially those of us on the all-party Latin America committee, for this opportunity, which is the fourth annual debate we have had on Latin America. The debate is much valued by our committee, and we believe that it is greatly valued by the Governments in Latin America.
    We all recognise that the affairs of Latin America are not prominent in the affairs of the House. The exciting times in which we live draw attention to many other areas of the world. Before I go further, I welcome to our deliberations today my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). This is his first appearance in this capacity. A rounder peg has never been found in a rounder hole. The contribution that my hon. Friend has already made to relations between this country and Latin America is well marked and demonstrated, and we much applaud that.
    What has happened over the past two years in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the sad developments in Yugoslavia, the developments in the middle east and the hopes that we all now have of the possible outcome of a middle eastern conference have been exciting and headline-grabbing. They have accentuated the absence of attention that we and western Europe as a whole pay to Latin America. It is important that, from time to time, the attention of the House and of Britain generally should be directed towards that important continent.
    In the 1980s in Latin America, it was conventional to say that it was the lost decade. In economic terms, that is probably, and sadly, a fair description. However, it was not a lost decade in terms of democratic development. Anyone who is in the least aware of what is happening in Latin America will understand that the implant of democratic processes and democratic change has taken firm root in virtually all the countries of Latin America.
    We members of the Latin America committee have been privileged to entertain a stream of Latin American parliamentarians who have come through London to exchange views and experiences with us in the working of democracy. We were especially gratified that only a week or two ago, parliamentarians from Paraguay visited us.
    842
    Only a short time ago, Paraguay might have been thought to be the last on the list. Through the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, we had a happy exchange. We like to think that they took away from the House, in an all-party context, an important experience of what we can offer—the pluses and minuses of a functioning democratic system.
    It is important that we should ensure that our constituents understand what is happening, including the positive things, in Latin America. I was especially struck recently by the recent report of the United Nations Development Programme on the human development index, or HDI. It is a complex attempt to measure the economic progress of a country by per capita product, also taking account of other factors such as longevity, access to education and many other complex indices. It is important to recognise how highly Latin American countries scored in that register. The report recorded that the progress in those general areas of human development in Latin America was "impressive". However, it was not universally impressive, and we all understand that, in too many Latin American countries, the gap between the very rich and the very poor is still too great. However, progress has been made.
    Another area in which one should recognise the progress that has been made is in the stability of the democratic regimes. I applaud the decision taken a month ago in Santiago by the Organisation of American States. In effect, they agreed to joint action should there ever be an anti-democratic military coup or whatever against any American regime.
    I believe that the wave of democracy in Latin America is strong. The concentration on freedom and on the rights of the individual has now been firmly established. In historical terms, that is a relatively new development in Latin America. We all have a duty to do what we can to ensure that that wave of democracy, which encompasses the establishment and entrenchment of human rights, is sustained. That can only be done, as we already know from experience of other countries, if the right economic conditions are developed. In that regard, the United Kingdom on its own and as a member of the European Community has a part to play.
    The economic progress has been good and exciting. Inevitably, the human condition being what it is, that progress is not without its blemishes. However, just as so many other parts of the world, notably eastern Europe, have finally come to understand that socialism does not work and that the market economy produces wealth as well as freedom, that lesson has also been accepted by virtually all the Latin American countries.
    In economic terms, Chile has led the field, but a raft of privatisations are also taking place in Peru, Argentina, Brazil and other Latin American countries. Some Opposition Members may seek to unlearn that lesson—some people are impossible to teach—but that lesson has now been learnt in Latin America, as it has been in eastern Europe.
    That economic progress has also been reflected in the handling of debt. We all know that such debts were a serious overhang of the old economic conditions of Latin America. Although we are by no means out of the wood, progress has been made. The Brady approach has been accepted, and Chile, Colombia and Venezuela are now part of the international commercial market. Companies

    843
    and loans are being floated on straight commercial terms. That shows that economic health has returned to those countries and to the continent.
    The economic progress has given rise to great optimism as it is felt that, with that progress, it will be possible to cement the democratic progress that has already been achieved. The best international 'estimates suggest that, next year, the rate of economic development in the continent will grow by about 3 per cent.
    A further phenomenon is the regional centres of economic co-operation, such as the Andrean pact, the Mercosur and the free trade area between Mexico and the United States and Canada. I welcome those developments, but with two caveats. First, those of us who are familiar with Latin America will understand that, to some extent and depending on the region, we have been here before. In the past 20 years or more, many attempts have been made in respect of such regional groupings. Although there are still many hurdles to be overcome, I believe that this time they will succeed.
    Secondly, as we mentioned to the European Community, it is important that those regional economic groupings do not become blocs that create trading wars with other blocs. We should all favour free trade, and I am optimistic that that lesson is well understood. Latin America has a strong mercantilist-protectionist tradition, but that has led to the frustration of trade and the denial of economic growth. An increasing number of people throughout the world understand that, the freer the trade, the greater the growth and prosperity for all who participate. That message is now increasingly understood in Latin America, and Europe has a duty to foster and develop that understanding. That means that our particular duty is to ensure that we get the negotiations right for the Uruguay round of GATT.
    I was delighted with the outcome of the G7 meeting in London last week, thanks, to a significant extent to the important role played by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As my right hon. Friend said—this is one of the more significant points that emerged from the G7 meeting—
    "All the summit leaders recognised that the world cannot afford a failure in the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. We committed ourselves to completing the round by the end of this year. Crucially, we committed ourselves to remain personally involved to ensure that that happens to resolve any disputes."—[Official Report, 19 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 663.]
    That is indeed crucial. I am delighted that that development took place, because we must promote the essential partnership between the United Kingdom and western Europe on the one hand and Latin America on the other, because it will be to the advantage of us all.
    The United Kingdom has a particular role to play in the European Community. Most hon. Members will recognise that there has always been a suspicion and fear that, in creating a single market in 1992, we shall create the old cliché of a fortress Europe. One of the prime contributions that the United Kingdom has made and will continue to make is to ensure that we create not a fortress Europe but a dynamic market of 320 million people, which is politically stable, makes a contribution to world peace and creates the opportunities for greater trade among all the countries of the world, not least Latin America.
    I am delighted that the Community has taken yet further steps to increase our collaboration. The Asian/Latin American programme, which has recently
    844
    been granted 2·75 billion ecu, of which 1 billion ecu is to be spent in Latin America in the next five years, is a welcome development.
    The United Kingdom has stepped up its technical co-operation for the next three years. That is significant because, in global terms, the per capita gross national product of Latin American countries is relatively high. The demands of Africa and countries of the Indian sub-continent have a much stronger claim to our necessarily limited aid funds. The Government's decision significantly to increase—albeit from a low level— technical co-operation funds for Latin America is to be applauded.
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State needs no hectoring or cajoling from me to make him understand the importance of our developing relationship with Latin America. That has been demonstrated. The participation of a number of sectors in British society in the life of Latin America is increasing. I particularly commend the work of Canning house, which is supported by the Government. I hope that those companies that are aware of what is offered in Latin America will continue and increase their support of Canning house, which is a splendid example of how a British institution can achieve great effectiveness at a low cost.
    However, there is one issue that I shall put to my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the hope that he will pass on to his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Education and Science: the need to increase the teaching of Spanish in our schools. The issue is an old hobby horse, not just of mine, but of all of us who are enthusiastic about developing contacts with the Hispanic world in general, and we keep knocking on the door of the Department of Education and Science. However, I am not convinced that we have got very far.
    I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science on the subject three years ago, when only 1·5 per cent. of schools in Britain offered Spanish. About 90 per cent. of the language teachers in schools taught French. There were 22,950 teachers qualified to teach French, 74 per cent. of whom taught the language, compared with only 3,200 who were qualified to teach Spanish, of whom only 46 per cent. taught Spanish. The British Government could take quick action on that. The framework of the national curriculum creates a setting in which action could be taken sharply.
    Argentina, of all the countries of Latin America, is perhaps the most difficult, given the position in the Falkland Islands. During the past 12 months, relations between our two countries have developed well. The important step of establishing diplomatic relations has much more than justified itself in the development of trade, cultural and sporting contacts, and the exchange of ministerial visits.
    I hope that, as we proceed, it will be possible before long to work with the Buenos Aires Government to find an outcome to the problem of the Falkland Islands that will provide a satisfactory resolution of the problem, for the islanders, Argentina and Britain. I realise as well as anyone how difficult that is, and I hope that that problem will not be put in the margin or forgotten. It needs to be solved and, given good will and statesmanship, of which the Government are capable, it is susceptible to resolution in the medium term.
    I remind the House, and, I hope, the country, that we are talking of an exciting subcontinent of 422 million

    845
    people, which even two years ago had a gross domestic product of $900 billion. It is not an area that we ought to neglect, but one in which we should take an increasing and positive interest. I am certain that, under the leadership of the present Government, Britain will continue to do so.
    9.24 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This debate has become almost an annual institution, which I welcome because it is important to debate a continental issue—and such occasions are rare.
    I take a different view of Latin America from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney)—and I am sure that he would be shocked if I did anything else. The hon. Gentleman conveys the image of a subcontinent that is booming economically and where everyone is deeply in love with market forces, and that we have only to look to the future, to the day when that mystic belief in market forces will bring relief to all concerned.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was not very long ago that the Workers party of Brazil lost the presidential election by a hair's breadth, after allegations of corruption against the Government, in preventing supporters of that party from voting. Lula Ignacio, the Workers party presidential candidate, is certainly not someone who is in favour of market forces, but represented the aspirations of their victims—who can be seen begging on the streets, sleeping in the slums, and selling trinkets around the airport and tourist hotels. In the forests of Latin America, and particularly in those of Brazil, the victims of market forces see their homes destroyed by the voracious appetites of the multinational mining companies. That is the lot of millions of people throughout Latin America.
    There is a thirst for a share in the great prosperity that exists in Latin America, but it cannot be achieved merely by pumping in more multinational capital, when it only flows out at a faster rate. I remind Conservative Members that the Latin American people's contribution to the rest of the world represents an enormous bonus. It takes the form of the profits of multinational companies, debt repayments, and deliberately low prices for the subcontinent's primary products. The people who suffer for that are the very poor, who are represented by the Workers party of Brazil and similar organisations throughout the subcontinent.
    No one denies that the past few decades have seen enormous changes. Haiti is a little outside Latin America, but I include it as part of the subcontinent for the purposes of this debate. At least the legacy of Papa Doc has been removed and there is hope for the survival of a democratically elected government in Haiti. However, if that is to happen, and if there is to be real change for the people of that country, a literacy rate of 35 per cent. does not provide much of a basis—and Haiti must be given a great deal of economic assistance. Otherwise, poverty will continue there in its awful grinding way.
    Not all the changes of the recent past have been so wholesome. The United States invaded Panama and dragged away President Noriega to face trial in the American courts, but I fear that his deep knowledge of the workings of international finance, and his numerous past meetings with former CIA heads—including George Bush—make it extremely unlikely that General Noriega
    846
    will appear in televised United States court proceedings revealing the truth about the Iran-Contra scandal, the region's drug trade, and the banking links that go very deep.
    It is a fact that the war continues in El Salvador. The killing continues and the lack of conclusive negotiations continues to be a problem.
    The hon. Member for Wycombe used the Group of Seven conference as a sort of springboard for what he had to say towards the end of his speech. The G7 conference of last week has been hailed as a great success for the Prime Minister, but it is extremely unclear to me what the great success for him is. He obviously got through the conference extremely well. No doubt he enjoyed all the lunches and dinners, and he probably behaved well at the dining table—no one has faulted his table manners anywhere—but what was achieved at the conference for the mass of the world's population? The issue of the world's environment took up 15 minutes of the conference; 15 minutes for the most crucial issue facing humankind. Debt is a major issue for two thirds of the world's population, but the matter was merely referred to the Paris Club.
    We were told that the Brady and Baker initiative is working well and that the Trinidad round would be extended. The Trinidad round sounds all very well, with some write-off of debt, but the reality is that it is not removing the debt burden or the causes of the burden. In fact, it is making the indebted countries even more deeply indebted. There is talk about debt for equity swaps, but the result is a loss of national self-esteem as countries are forced to cut public spending if they are to go along with the plans that are imposed upon them by the International Monetary Fund.
    The views which were expounded by the hon. Member for Wycombe would not be especially popular in the barrios around Lima, where people are dying of cholera. They know that the World bank has blocked a scheme of water purification plants for that capital city. They would not be particularly happy to be told that market forces are their salvation and therefore they must cut public spending as they see their hospitals programme cut, the programme for medical dispensaries cut and the living conditions in the shanty towns around Lima becoming worse and worse. That is the reality of life for many people throughout the region.
    In his initiative for the Americas, George Bush talks about giving economies a clean bill of health or otherwise. Presumably his main adviser is Dan Quayle, who is noted for his economic expertise. He flies around the continent telling people whether he thinks that their market forces are working adequately. I draw the attention of the House and that of Vice-President Quayle to an interesting speech that was made recently by Noam Chomsky. He said:
    "In the international order the South is assigned a service function. Its role is to provide raw materials, cheap labour, investment opportunities, markets. High level US planning documents emphasise that the major threat to the US is independent nationalism, Governments that respond to popular pressure for the raising of living standards and diversification of production for domestic needs."
    It seems that Chomsky has quite a good understanding of what many United States policies are all about in Latin America.
    All those who are likely to speak in the debate know Latin America quite well and have visited it quite frequently. There is the opportunity to talk to people who

    847
    are living in great poverty in countries such as Honduras. There are children who are under-nourished. Behind their shacks, or nearby, are enormous barbed wire fences that protect fruit plantations that are ready to export their produce. Other fences protect beef cattle that are ready for export.
    The economic plan that has been put to Latin America in the name of market forces is to produce for export and to cut public spending. Those two objectives mean that many children go undernourished while good food is exported to those who perhaps do not need it so much. The balance of payments assumes a god-like mysticism over the needs of people in the regions.
    The unity that developed against debt in the early 1980s resulted in desperation in the United States. There was an attempt to break up the unity of Latin American countries against debt, but that unity basically still exists. There is still a great desire to see an end to the system of indebtedness of poor countries to the richest countries. Latin America is not as badly off as Africa in comparative terms, but if someone is living in poverty in a slum near a major city with no possibility of growing his own food, and no possibility of doing anything other than hawking goods or going into the drugs trade because that provides a way out of the problem, or choosing to live in great poverty in the countryside with cash crops producing a very small return, one can understand that person's position and the power of the durgs barons in those circumstances.
    We can understand why people end up producing for the drug market, and why the drugs end up with the desperate kids on the streets of New York, Paris, my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). That is the nasty, sorry circle. We must think a little more about the complexity of the situation and the need for a different approach to the needs of the very poorest people in what are potentially the richest countries in the world.
    I wish to make a number of specific points. The first is Nicaragua. Before Conservative Members start cheering about the election result some time ago, when the Frente Farabundo Mari de Liberacion Nacional lost the election and the Unión Nacional Opositora Government were elected, I remind them that the FMLN brought democracy to Nicaragua. The elections would not have taken place without the FMLN. Had the policies of the United States continued, Somoza would never have been defeated. That same dictatorship, that same oligarchy, would have remained in power. The FMLN brought about enormous changes in the lives of the people of Nicaragua. It brought the hope of a universal education, a universal health service, a universal self-respect, and a respect for the people's own culture.
    The UNO Government are not finding it easy to bring in the concept of free, unfettered market forces because the people of Nicaragua have other views. What I find astonishing is the pressure now being put on the UNO Government by the United States—which is reneging on its promises of aid given during the election campaign—to drop the International Court decision in favour of Nicaragua over the mining of the harbours. That is disgraceful. I hope that the Government will show their support for the International Court's decision and its belief that the United States should pay compensation for the damage that it did to Nicaragua during the terrible years of the Contra war.
    848
    In neighbouring El Salvador, where so many lives have been lost and so many families destroyed by the civil war, there is pressure not to increase military aid to the army in El Salvador, but for negotiations with the FMLN, which alone can bring peace and social justice to that country. The two go together.
    On other occasions, Conservative Members have been keen to point out that Cuba is somehow a complete anachronism within the region. I have had the opportunity to visit Cuba—at my own expense, I hasten to add—and I have spoken to many Cuban people and seen much of what happens there. We should take Cuba as a whole over the past 30 years and recognise that a country that was extremely poor, extremely corrupt, and where the livelihood of most people was rather thin, to put it mildly, now has a universal education service, a universal health service and a better level of food productivity. It is no longer an American playground dominated by drugs and prostitution. it is a place of which many Cuban people are now extremely proud. The fact that its relationship with the USSR has changed considerably suggests that there should be greater trade and trade preferences between the EEC and Cuba. We should not continue to be part of what is, in effect, a United States embargo against Cuba, which has been in place for the past 30 years.
    Chile has known the horrors of a fascist dictatorship since 1973, when Pinochet came to power and murdered Salvador Allende and many thousands of other people. The removal of Pinochet as president was achieved by a mixture of international pressure and the demands of people on the streets of Chile. Many died in prison and many are still missing because of the activities of the Pinochet regime.
    There have been enormous changes. Many hon. Members who are present for this debate were in Chile when the Government changed in March last year. We saw the limits of the power of the new Government and the new presidency. We saw the determination of the Ministry of Justice and others to free political prisoners. I hope that, if nothing else, this message will go out from the debate: we do not want political prisoners in Chile and we want full democracy restored there.
    There is more to be done. Pinochet still retains enormous power. It is a great shame that this country allowed him to buy arms from British Aerospace. If ever anything lowered this country's esteem in the eyes of the world, it was when we allowed the butcher of Santiago, who used British planes to murder Salvador Allende, to come back into this country to buy more arms. That man should be shunned throughout the world and admitted nowhere because of all that he has done.
    In essence, the continent faces issues involving justice, liberty and the livelihood, of poor and ordinary people. Some issues, particularly the environment, span the continent. Those who promote market force economics should remember that, in the long run, those forces mean the destruction of forests, savanna grassland and the environment. Dr. Luzenberg, who has been appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency in Brazil, has made enormous efforts, but the Brazilian rain forest is being destroyed at a terrifying rate—12 million hectares on the continent have been destroyed this year, the majority of it in Brazil. There must be stronger policies to defend the rain forests and to use them as a renewable, recyclable resource, rather than destroying them rapaciously.

    849
    This is an important debate. I look forward to the British Government taking a view that takes more account of the poor of the continent than of the mystic economics of market forces, which the Government seem to believe offer the solution to problems everywhere in the world. If they are such a solution, why are so many people starving or sleeping on the streets?
    Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to be able to call the Back Benchers who are rising. If they speak for 10 minutes each, they will both be able to speak in the debate.
    9.42 pm
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on leading this important debate. He did so as chairman of our British-Latin American parliamentary group, which does so much to develop relationships between the Parliaments of the new democracies of Latin America and our Parliament.
    The debate is relevant to the United Kingdom as a major trading nation. The House should never overlook the size of Latin America. Latin America's gross domestic product is more than twice that of Africa—it is larger than that of Africa, the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia combined. In Latin America, the two largest economies—Brazil and Mexico—together eclipse those of east Europe, in which the House takes such a close interest.
    Latin America is a vital area of opportunity for Britain. It has a free enterprise economic tradition, management expertise and an economic infrastructure to go with it. In common with us, it has a European cultural and linguistic heritage and a historical and sentimental reservoir of good will and friendship towards this country.
    We should never forget that Britain was the midwife of Latin American independence. In the debate on the Address on 12 December 1826, our Foreign Secretary, George Canning, said that he had
    "called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the old."
    Illustrious Britons fought alongside the freedom fighters in the war of independence in Latin America. Admiral Lord Cochrane played a vital part in the independence of Brazil, Chile and Peru, and O'Higgins became the first President of Chile. A British legion of veterans of the peninsular wars made up the backbone of Simon Bolivar's liberating armies in Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador. For many years we have been closely involved in the development of that part of the world.
    I venture to add another, contemporary advantage: the Minister of State responsible for United Kingdom relations with Latin America, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), speaks fluent idiomatic Spanish, has a good knowledge of Latin America and appreciates the region's importance. The combination of his responsibilities for Latin America and for the European Community has an added advantage for us, because perhaps the most vital issue before us this year is the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and
    850
    trade. That will be vital for Latin America's economic revival, and the European Community will play a pivotal role in the outcome of those negotiations.
    Many Latin Americans worry about the development of the European Community and its common agricultural policy, and many have expressed their concern that a new protectionist wall may be erected around the Community to create fortress Europe. We should be reassured by the emphatic and clear statement by my hon. Friend the Minister to the conference on Latin America in the City on 10 May:
    "The Community has repeatedly made clear that there will be no 'Fortress Europe'."
    The single European market was a British initiative based on our belief in free trade and in the dismantling of barriers. I wish my hon. Friends on the Front Bench well in continuing to press our European partners for the widest possible access for all—especially the Latin American countries—to that huge market of some 320 million people.
    There will therefore be no fortress Europe, but Europe remains an obstacle to the successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round. The Community must put its agricultural reforms into order and then into effect. But Europe is not alone—Japan's rice farmers and the United States farm lobby also represent massive obstacles. Despite the undertakings given at last week's G7 summit in London, the prospects for a GATT settlement do not look rosy.
    If we fail, the fear is that that would let loose the forces of worldwide protectionism and GATT, which settles disputes between its members, would lose influence, and free trade would gradually give way to protected blocs. We can already see that developing in Latin America. President Bush is developing his "Enterprise for the Americas", taking in Canada and Mexico. The Caribbean Latin American states will be tempted to apply. In the south of the continent, the southern cone countries are developing Mercosul, a market consisting of Brazil—the industrial giant—Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. The Andean pact is developing along the same lines. Those arrangements reflect a commitment to international co-operation, but they could become a base for protectionism with high barriers around each bloc. The perils for British trade are clear. We have a challenge to fight for worldwide free trade.
    The 1980s were the decade of democracy in Latin America. Peru, Bolivia, Argentina and Brazil all put their military dictatorships behind them. Chile and Nicaragua, from opposite poles, followed suit. All the Latin American republics, with the notable exception of Cuba, have returned to democracy. That is a regional example of worldwide significance.
    Colombia, despite the onslaught of political terrorism and powerful drug barons, has preserved and indeed strengthened its democracy. I pay tribute for that achievement to the courage and determination of former President Barco—now the Colombian ambassador in London. In a speech last week in London, he called the 1980s the decade of democratic renewal and the 1990s the decade of economic renewal.
    That renewal is already under way. Increasingly, the problems of debt are being coped with, and debtworthiness is returning to an increasing number of Latin American countries. Last year, private companies in Venezuela and Mexico were securing loans in the

    851
    Euro-bond market, Colombia has completed its fourth refinancing, and Chile has obtained the first fully voluntary unsecured bank loan to a Latin American country.
    All those factors point to massive opportunities for British business. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend about the steps being taken to assist British business men to grasp these opportunities. I also echo the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) that my hon. Friend should encourage the Secretary of Slate for Education and Science to widen the teaching of Spanish and Portuguese in our schools. Conversely, I hope that my hon. Friend will give even greater emphasis to the work of the British Council and to its offshoot, Cultura Inglesa, in Latin America, in its efforts to teach good "English" English to the future leaders of the region.
    Over the past 10 years our relations with Argentina have been severely strained as a result of the south Atlantic crisis in 1982 We should record our high regard for President Menem's political courage in putting our disagreement over the Falklands to one side in order to re-establish the long-standing warm relationship between our two countries. The rapid growth in bilateral trade and in exchanges of many types is testimony to the success of that approach. Credit is due not least to the two ambassadors concerned.
    Latin America is again on the move. I hope that this debate will ensure that Britain sees that movement, and that this country will again play a major role in the progress of that region.
    9.51 pm
    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) for introducing this important debate and for his experience and knowledge of Latin America, born of his time in Government service in Buenos Aires and then of his parliamentary endeavours on behalf of Anglo-American relations through the British-Latin American parliamentary group, of which he is chairman. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has also made a notable contribution based on personal experience and his work as secretary of the group.
    Parliament is fortunate in having in another place my noble Friend Viscount Montgomery, president of Canning house, who also has great personal experience of south America and who introduced an important debate on it in another place on 19 December last year.
    I wish to add my special appreciation of the recent visit by the Paraguayan delegation. It was well organised and the delegation members enjoyed it and learned a great deal. We benefited a great deal from it, too. We hope to deepen the burgeoning relationship with the parliamentarians of Paraguay. The Costa Rican deputies who came here a few days ago also enjoyed a worthwhile visit.
    We look forward to the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Santiago de Chile in early October. Those who go will be extremely fortunate and I am sure that members of the delegation on their return will understand, if they did not fully appreciate it before, the great importance of Anglo-Chilean relations and of British parliamentarians contributing to the development of good understanding between the United Kingdom and Latin America. Our British-Chilean group of which I have the
    852
    honour to be chairman, has more than 20 members already; when the delegation returns, we hope to have a few more.
    Interest in Chile was heightened by the successful official visit to the United Kingdom by President Patricio Aylwin and his ministerial team. Such official Head of State visits from Latin American countries should be encouraged by the Government. I know that the Minister of State does good work in that regard, but he needs back-up and encouragement from all Her Majesty's Ministers. If it is possible to organise them in the near future, I look forward to visits from the Venezuelan, Uruguayan and perhaps also the Costa Rican Heads of State, because the comprehensive programmes organised for such official visits are extremely useful to incoming heads of state.
    The United Kingdom has not only an historic interest in south America and good relations with Latin America as a whole, but an interest of strategic importance which should not be neglected. The Falkland Islands and their dependencies are of strategic interest to us and are symptomatic of the way in which we have always developed our relationship with Latin America—through sea power and commerce. We must not neglect that maritime dimension. That is why our strategic interest in the Falklands and their dependencies and in Antarctica is fully compatible with our interests in Latin America as a whole.
    The Government's support for free trade through a more liberal policy, which we hope will emerge from the Uruguay round, deserves to be backed. I know that the Government will back it and I hope that they can persuade the rest of the European Community to do the same. In terms of the Community, it would be a mistake for the United Kingdom to look to the two Iberian peninsula countries, Spain and Portugal, almost alone to develop relationships with Latin America. It is necessary for their historic interests, balanced by ours, to be carried forward into the next decade. That is why it is important for every assistance to be given to British trade and investment in south America.
    Chile is newly democratised, as it was bound to be, and everyone takes pleasure from that. It now has a strong and diversified economy which it did not have during the Allende years. There are great opportunities for investment in Chile's manufacturing sector and not just in the more traditional sectors of mining, communications and agriculture.
    I hope that those who are timorous will take heart from the achievements of the Chilean economy. Those who wish to test the waters of south America could make their first tentative or trial investments in Chile and could do so with confidence. The Government must effectively support our business men and our strategic aims to maintain a fruitful relationship with Latin America as a whole. That is difficult to do if, at the same time, the Government are reducing our diplomatic presence and cutting posts in our embassies. Too many posts in south America have been cut to the bone and some south American countries do not have a fully manned British post. That is also true of central America. I hope that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) will be able to persuade other members of the Government of the importance of maintaining a good British diplomatic presence throughout Latin America.

    853
    While there are good grounds for optimism, the House and the British people must be alerted to persisting risks, some of which are extremely grave. I emphasise the risks of terrorism, insurgency and guerrilla warfare, which put in jeopardy the economies and the whole way of life of some south American countries. The insurgencies in Guatemala and El Salvador are like grumbling appendices. Insurgency in Colombia is, of course, strongly linked to certain aspects of the drug trade, but there are also ideological dimensions.
    For the past 11 years the Sendero Luminoso insurgency in Peru has put at risk the state itself, and we should not underestimate the dangers there. A report in The Independent of 28 June states:
    "A rocket-propelled grenade smashed into Peru's economy ministry. A car bomb killed a civilian and wounded six marines. A letter bomb blew off the head of a politician. A yacht was dynamited and a naval base attacked. A factory manager, an army officer, a student activist and a trade union leader were assassinated. Peasants were massacred. Scores of rebels and troops died in ambushes. Three men were killed by police in anti-rebel sweeps around Lima. Guerrilla strike decrees paralysed many towns.
    Last week's political violence, in which at least 60 people died, was the climax of a two-month offensive by the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerrillas."
    That is the sort of risk that threatens Latin America. The Latin American people deserve our support. Their parliamentarians deserve the closest possible liaison with us. I am sure that they will get it. I am pleased that Her Majesty's Government, through my hon. Friend the Minister, are taking an increasing interest in this region.
    10 pm
    Mr. George Foulkes: I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who requested, and then succeeded in getting, this debate. We both participated in an historic debate on South America one Saturday in early April 1982, a debate that neither of us will ever forget. I agree with his description of the Minister as a round peg in a round hole. The hon. Gentleman sounded surprised that the Government had managed to do that. That does not mean to say that I agree with all the Minister's analyses of the situation in Latin America, but it is helpful to have someone who understands the problems.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe that one of the problems is getting attention for this subject in the House. That can be shown by the lack of attendance not just today but on other occasions. Paradoxically, as greater peace and democracy are established in Latin America, and as stories slip out of the headlines, it becomes even more difficult to get attention for this important continent, as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) so rightly said.
    I can understand why many of the ambassadors and representatives at Latin American embassies become frustrated as they try to draw attention to the problems and needs of their area. That is particularly so when winning democracy and peace, as they have in so many countries, and establishing trade and economic reform are only the start of the task, as they so rightly say.
    There has been relatively little coverage of the Guadalajara summit in the press in Britain and western Europe, but it was one of the most significant events in
    854
    Latin America in recent years. It was perhaps more significant and constructive than the media circus of the G7, which took place in London at about the same time. This historic two-day summit, attended by 23 heads of state, focused on the integration of Latin America. As the hon. Member for Gravesham said, the catalyst was principally the integration of Europe in 1992, together with free trade area talks in North America. Both have aroused great concern about trading and co-operation.
    The final declaration of the Guadalajara summit was both constructive and notable. It emphasised the importance of human rights, something that is still a problem throughout the continent. It called for a united war against drugs. We have heard little from Conservative Members about that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) raised the subject. The important problem of the war against drugs is preoccupying many of our friends in Latin America.
    Another important factor was the establishment of the fund for indigenous people—the forgotten people. Christopher Columbus was supposed to have discovered the new world, but it was there a long time before the Europeans arrived, and many of the indigenous people have been persecuted by those who came from the old world. It is right that this fund has been established.
    The Ibero-American chamber of commerce was set up. A great deal of progress on the economic front was emphasised. It is ironic that, at the same time that the United Kingdom Government are neglecting our Commonwealth, notably in the Caribbean with its exports of sugar and bananas, as my hon. Friends have said, Spain sees the benefits of establishing a good relationship, along similar lines, with Latin America. It has pledged $7 billion of credit and $7 billion for investment in Latin America. It sees the advantages of co-operating with its former colonies.
    I want to concentrate on the development of democracy in Latin America. As Carlos Menem said at the summit:
    "What is essential at this very moment is democracy—for which all Latin Americans have suffered."
    The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned Paraguay. It is significant that the democratic revolution has extended that far. Notably, the mayoral elections in Ascuncion resulted in the election of an independent candidate. That shows that the power of the ruling party is loosening as democracy develops. I, too, was pleased to welcome the parliamentary delegation from Paraguay.
    In Mexico, on 18 August, an interesting test will take place: we shall see whether the Permanent Revolutionary party—that name always strikes me as a contradiction in terms—has introduced real democracy. It is often forgotten, especially in the United States, that until now, the Opposition have not accepted that real democacy has existed in Mexico.
    Let me express the hope, especially to Conservative Members, that the conditions in Cuba will soon allow a move towards pluralism. I strongly deplore the continuing confrontational attitude of the United States, which is hindering such a development.
    The hon. Member for Gravesham and I have visited Colombia. I am sure that he agrees that its new constitution deserves to succeed. For far too long, the drug barons have blackmailed and bribed their way to power;

    855
    many brave people have stood out against that, especially in the judicial system. President Gaviria's bold move must receive our full support.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Foulkes: No; time is short.
    Above all, I want to mention Chile, which has experienced a wonderful transition to democracy under President Aylwin. I had the privilege and joy of witnessing that transition at both the plebiscite and the presidential and congressional elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, it is marred only by General Pinochet's continuing status as head of the army. The affront of the general's visit was alleviated only by the fact that it had to be short and clandestine, because he was so manifestly unwelcome even to his hosts, British Aerospace.
    Already, Chilean politicians are positioning themselves for the next elections in 1992. What could be a better illustration of the fact that democracy is now well established in that country? Our relations with Chile are improving in a number of areas, especially trade. We feel very strongly, however, that the arms trade is the least appropriate area for development. There are many other ways in which we can improve bilateral relations. I pay tribute to the important part played by Ambassador Cerman Riesco in improving relations between our two countries.
    Following the aberration of the Falklands war, diplomatic relations with Argentina are now fully restored. Visas are no longer required and the traditionally, historically good bilateral links between our countries have been re-established. Ambassador Camporo has played a distinguished part in that process. Argentina is now in its second term of elected government, and, although—like us—it is not without its economic problems, there are signs that democracy is firmly established there.
    It would be a great pity if unilateral action by Britain on the draft legislation on oil exploration submitted by the Falklands Islands Council to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office disrupted this process. Any proper attempt to exploit Falklands offshore oil will require great co-operation with Argentina in terms of surveying and drilling operations. Multinational oil companies are unlikely to want to invest billions of pounds in disputed waters, especially with the horrendous weather conditions there. I urge the Government to go slowly and warily, and to remember British interests as well as the legitimate interests of the Falkland Islanders.
    Further progress towards democracy in central America depends to a great extent on the successful outcome of the peace talks in Guatemala and El Salvador. My recent discussions lead me to believe that in El Salvador there are now real hopes for peace. I have been impressed by the sincerity of some of those on both sides in the talks that I have had with the Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberacion Nacional and the El Salvador Justice Minister, who made the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) look like a real right-winger. I think that the Justice Minister was pleased to be seen to be moderate compared with the hon. Gentleman.
    Although there are some who clearly have a vested interest in the continuation of the conflict, I think that there is now real hope for progress. It is, however,
    856
    regrettable that President Bush has overriden the congressional freeze on military aid to El Salvador. I want to repeat and underline the urgency of the successful prosecution of the killers of the six Jesuits. We provided Scotland Yard help in that investigation. We should urge the American embassy to obtain testimony from the 10 American citizens. Their testimony is vital if the killers are to be brought to justice.
    After the second set of democratic elections in Nicaragua, which I also had the privilege of observing last February, we in Britain hear much less now about that persecuted country. It still needs a great amount of assistance if it is to recover not just from the earthquake damage of so long ago, let alone the ravages of the American-sponsored aggression.
    The Nicaraguan Foreign Minister came here seeking assistance. I told him that I wanted Britain and Europe to help Nicaragua's recovery in every possible way but that he should also get off his knees and remind the American Government in no uncertain terms that they have still to comply with the judgment of the International Court in The Hague and pay the $17 billion reparation for the damage inflicted.
    Mrs. Chamorro may not have fulfilled the American ambitions. She may not have become the puppet that the Americans would have liked, but she deserves the support of all of us in her policy of conciliation—conciliation pursued, despite the reactionary forces within her own Administration. The Sandinistas also deserve our support and encouragement in their transition from a revolutionary party—essential in the 1970s to get rid of the dictator—to a modern democratic party of the 1990s, towards which they showed they were moving at their recent congress in Managua.
    I have two other points to put to the Minister. If he cannot reply to them now, I hope that he will say that he will do so in correspondence. The first point relates to HMS Endurance, which has been raised persistently in another place by Lord Shackleton. When the Minister of State was in the Falkland Islands he gave a pledge—not to the council, as I mistakenly put in a question to him, of which he took advantage by giving a clever reply—but, I gather, to a public meeting in Port Stanley, that HMS Endurance would remain. That assurance is important for the Falkland Islands and also for Antarctica. I hope that he will repeat tonight the assurance that, if HMS Endurance is not serviceable, a replacement for it will be found. It is important to the whole of the south Atlantic.
    In the discussions on the defence budget, now taking place, the Government must maintain their commitment to the garrison in Belize, which is still performing a useful role. As long as it is required by the Government of Belize, the garrison should remain there. If the Minister cannot give us that assurance tonight, I hope that he will do so on another occasion.
    I should like to mention many other matters about this important continent, but time prevents me from doing so. I want to give the Minister adequate time to reply to the important points that have been made.
    Democracy has been achieved in almost all Latin American countries. The lives of ordinary people were lost fighting against dictatorships, some of which were supported from time to time by some Conservative Members. Those achievements should not result in increased poverty and increased unemployment because of unfettered market forces. Like us, they need a balance of

    857
    economic and social planning and a free market tempered by social concern. That will give hope to the people of Latin America. That is what Labour will bring them when we form the Government after the next election.
    10.15 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on initiating the debate. I pay tribute to his work not only as a diplomat in Latin America but as a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is one of my more distinguished predecessors. He and his parliamentary committee, many of whose members are in the Chamber, do much not only to draw the House's attention to Latin America but in the important work that they, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and others do in travelling to Latin America. Many of them supervised elections and now receive an increasing number of parliamentary delegations from many Latin American countries.
    I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe in highlighting the importance of the teaching of Spanish. As he and others will know, Spanish is the second most widely spoken language in the free world. Three or four years ago, the teaching of Spanish in the United Kingdom was in serious danger. Thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, however, we have begun to turn that around. Next year, Bushey Hall school, an important school in my constituency, will begin to teach Spanish, which is being well received by people in the area. I hope that that will be repeated throughout the country.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) mentioned not only our history in Latin America, but the importance of our cultural affinity. It is extraordinary that, for 10 or 15 years, a continent which produced writers of the calibre of Octavio Paz, Garcia Marquez and Vargas Llosa should have pretended to be part of the third world. Essentially, hon. Members have welcomed the way in which democracy and market economics have returned to Latin American countries and brought them back into play.
    I hope to be able to answer most of the points that have been made by hon. Members, but I apologise if I do not cover them all. I shall write to hon. Members about the points that I do not answer.
    If I may say so, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is a sort of parliamentary Sandinista. He seems to support almost any lost cause. I shall not answer all his points, but he mentioned General Pinochet's visit to this country. I remind him that no Minister in this Government fawned on General Pinochet in the way that Ministers in the previous Labour Government fawned on the dictator Ceausescu. Nor did we advise Her Majesty the Queen, as that Government did, to pin a medal on his breast.
    The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley takes a considerable interest in Latin America and has attended many of the elections. He cannot resist the odd swipe at the United States of America or joining the hon. Member for Islington, North in supporting the Sandinistas. In the course of this year, the Government
    858
    have authorised the Commonwealth development corporation to open up shop in Nicaragua, and it is enormously excited by and interested in the prospects there. It is giving the kind of aid that Nicaragua wants, by helping business men to set up businesses and to create jobs in the economy. I only wish that the Sandinista party would give Mrs. Chamorro's Government the support that we in the House feel that it should have.
    I now pick up points made by all my hon. Friends. The political and economic changes that have taken place in eastern Europe, which we all welcome so much, have in many ways drawn attention away from the hugely important revolution and transformation that have taken place in Latin America. All my hon. Friends have referred to that. One by one, authoritarian regimes have given way to constitutionally elected Governments. Concern for the rule of law, respect for human rights and participatory political structures has now become a common feature across Latin America.
    Only Cuba holds out against the tide. I am happy to pay tribute to the steps made in education and in health in Cuba. If a country has been receiving $5 billion of annual aid from the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that it should have made progress in one or two areas. Even Mussolini managed to get the trains to run on time in Italy. It does not alter the fact that a substantial number of Cubans, intellectuals and others, have had to flee that country, a substantial number of people remain imprisoned there and the country's leader continues to deny his people the opportunity of free elections and open democracy, which we believe hold out hope for the whole of Latin America.
    Of course the problems of poverty to which the hon. Member for Islington, North referred exist, as do the environmental problems; but if one looks to eastern Europe and to the regimes with which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends travelled along for so many years, one can see what the failure of socialism can do not only to the morale of the people and in creating real poverty, but also in destroying the environment.
    Conservative Members and many Opposition Members believe that it is the combination of freedom provided by liberal democracy together with market economics that will deal with the cardboard cities and with the appalling poverty—
    Mr. Foulkes: It has not done so far.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I know that the hon. Gentleman also follows Latin America closely. He will be aware that it is only very recently that we have been able to say that the whole of Latin America is now under democratic rule and that all the countries there are following market economic policies. The problems of that continent have been built up over many decades of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes which often pursued economic policies that no Conservative Member would wish to support.
    One of the latest examples of the commitment to real democratic practice is Colombia. A number of my hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, referred to that. A new constitution broadening the democratic process was endorsed earlier this month. We applaud the courageous efforts of President Gaviria in that respect. I am confident that the change will make a significant contribution to representative Government in that country.

    859
    In parallel with the trend towards greater democracy, the newly elected Governments are increasingly adopting more pragmatic economic policies to reduce the role of the state, to lower tariffs and to give more scope to market forces, including foreign investment. We should recognise that the scale of the adjustments required by societies with limited social infrastructure, which are still burdened with debt, calls for a great deal of courage, commitment and ingenuity. I will say a word about debt later.
    Nowhere is the political transformation more marked than in central America. The region is now barely recognisable to anyone who had dealings with it 10 or even five years ago. The presidents of the central American states from Guatemala to Costa Rica recently held their latest summit meeting, with Panama taking part for the first time as a full member. When their predecessors met in 1986, central America was a region synomomous with civil war, east-west rivalry and political repression. The only feasible objective of regional co-ordination seemed to be damage limitation. Yet now peace is consolidated in Nicaragua and. I share hon. Members' optimism about the prospects in El Salvador. Peace negotiations are well in train in Guatemala under the wise guidance of President Serrano.
    The Central American focus has shifted towards more forward-looking if less eye-catching themes of economic integration and trade liberalisation. Britain and its EC partners can claim a modest share of the credit for those improvements in central America. The San José dialogue, begun in 1984, provides a forum for both political and economic co-operation between the EC and central American states. The seventh San José conference, which I attended last March in Managua, agreed on EC involvement in regional programmes to promote human rights. Where abuses occur, whether in central or south America, we naturally have no hesitation in condemning them. But now we are starting to go beyond condemnation, by helping to create the conditions that should prevent human rights violations in the first place.
    The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to the Jesuit murders and to the sterling work done by Scotland Yard on that matter, which was much appreciated by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe referred to the increases that we have managed to find in our aid programme for the next three years. It is a rolling three-year programme. I must emphasise that those increases do not represent new money. They are a deliberate decision taken by the Government to support the efforts for good government in Latin America.
    To put it bluntly, those moneys are taken away from other parts of the world whose efforts in that respect we do not believe come up to the mark. It is important to stress that the Government have deliberately moved to support good government in Latin America. Many of the programmes that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has set up through the Overseas Development Agency are deliberately focused on attempting to work with our friends in Latin America to reinforce systems of justice and the very backbone of a liberal and democratic society.
    Our condemnation of human rights abuses is now tempered with the knowledge that we are dealing with democratic societies whose leaders condemn those abuses as strongly as we do. We must bear in mind the fact that
    860
    those countries often do not have the institutions to enable them to attack those problems in the way that they would wish. We must help them to reinforce those institutions.
    As we approach the 500th anniversary of Columbus's landfall in the new world, it is appropriate that the EC's economic support for and co-operation with Latin America continues to increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe also referred to that.
    I recognise that the debt burden still lies heavily on many Latin American countries. Most Latin American debtors are in the middle income category, and owe their debt largely to commercial banks. While arrangements for dealing with this debt must be a matter for banks and debtors to negotiate between them, Her Majesty's Government welcome the increasing willingness of banks to include a measure of debt reduction in the agreements they reach with debtor countries under the Brady plan.
    A century ago, this country enjoyed a pre-eminent position in Latin America, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham referred. Over the years, that situation changed with the arrival of more nationalist, authoritarian regimes which were intent on putting up barriers. Britain, for its part, was simultaneously defining its own new, less expansive role in the world.
    It is particularly felicitous that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, who is a staunch defender of market economics in this House and in the rest of the country, should lead this debate and carry the banner of free trade between Britain and Latin America on which our so successful relationship was based more than 100 years ago. I am absolutely convinced that the way forward for Britain in its relationship with Latin America is based upon free trade.
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has said that I am unduly optimistic in hoping that the Minister will deal with one or two of the points that I have raised. Could he deal in particular with the issue of HMS Endurance? He gave a specific assurance on that when he visited the Falklands. My noble Friend Lord Shackleton has also raised the issue elsewhere. Could the Minister try to deal at least with that point?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Member may recall—I am sure that he will have been in his place at the time—that I answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) on that very matter. The position on the Endurance remains exactly as stated —it is scheduled for replacement in about 1996. As for the hon. Gentleman's other question, there are no plans to reduce the garrison at present.
    It is particularly significant that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe should be leading the debate because the prospects for Latin America and our relationship with it depend so much on trade. All my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate have underlined the achievement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in extracting from each leader of the G7 a personal commitment to ensure that the GATT round reaches a successful conclusion this year. All hon. Members who visit Latin America will know that no issue matters more to the countries of Latin America than the ability to sell their products, particularly agricultural products, in this important market.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister accept that there must be an increase in the basic commodity prices paid to most Latin American producers if the drug war is to be defeated and real poverty eliminated?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes, of course I accept that. That is why the GATT round is so important to Latin America. Many of its food products would be enormously well received by British housewives, who currently pay approximately £16 per week over the odds for their food. The ability for Latin America to send its products into the European market is extremely important.
    The Government are giving political support and recognition to the progress that has been made. We have significantly increased the funding available for aid, co-operation and good government in the region. High-level contacts between this country and Latin America are becoming more frequent. The visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to Brazil and the visit of President Aylwin of Chile to this country, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred, are just two recent examples.
    It is especially gratifying that so much progress has been made in little more than a year in re-establishing our traditional links with Argentina. In many ways, Argentina represents the new mood in Latin America. The isolation of the past 20 or 30 years and the pretended third worldism were dramatically brought to an end when President
    862
    Menem took the courageous decision to join the international coalition in the Gulf by sending two Agentine naval vessels. He is to be congratulated on that decision, which may symbolically have underlined Latin America's desire to join the mainstream of world politics again—and how very welcome they are. Argentina is pursuing courageous economic policies, too.
    The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked about prospecting for oil in the Falklands. On that subject, as when we were discussing the fishing round in Argentina, we intend to ensure that the Argentine Government are not faced with any surprises.
    The wind of change that is sweeping through Latin America has brought with it a renewed urgency for the process of regional economic integration. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe touched on that subject and I share his optimism that groupings which are now coming together will succeed. Those groupings may finally realise Bolivar's dream of a united Latin America. In that process, the continent of Latin America can rest assured that Britain will use every effort available to us to support its democratic processes and build up our trading relationships with the continent. We shall bear in mind the fact that Latin America did better 100 years ago when it had an open trading relationship with Europe and with Britain in particular, and we shall use every effort to recover that and to support Latin America in its efforts to sustain its democracy.

    Cambodia
    10.34 pm
    Mr. Bernie Grant: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss a contentious subject, which has not been debated in the House for a considerable period.
    There can be few countries in the world which have suffered as much as Cambodia in the past 20 years. The Labour party has repeatedly called for a reversal of British policy towards that country, but to no avail. It is to our great shame, 11 years after the Khmer Rouge's devastation of Cambodia ended, that the west has continued to punish one of the poorest countries in the world by denying it both bilateral and multilateral aid. Only after repeated pressure from the Opposition has a small amount of aid been channeled to Cambodia through non-governmental organisations.
    The Khmer Rouge was driven from Cambodia in 1979 by the Vietnamese after the Khmer Rouge had murdered up to 1 million of Cambodia's people. Since then, the military factions opposing the Cambodian Government have, at various times, been given United Nations recognition, supplied with sophisticated weapons, food and even military training. At least 20,000 people are said to have had limbs amputated as a result of mines set by the Khmer Rouge inside Cambodia. Thousands of others have been killed.
    Over the years, the British Government have repeatedly denied supplying military training to any of the factions fighting the Cambodian Government. Many questions have been tabled by hon. Members in an attempt to get at the truth, and hundreds of letters from constituents have been passed to Ministers for answer. Now, after years of denial, Her Majesty's Government have finally admitted, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 25 June this year:
    "From 1983 until 1989 Her Majesty's Government provided training to the armed forces of the Cambodian non-communist resistance, that is the Khmer People's National Liberation armed forces and the Armée Nationale Sihanoukienne."
    They said:
    "There has never been and will never be any British assistance or support, military or otherwise, for the Khmer Rouge. Since 1989 Her Majesty's Government have not been involved in any way in training, equipping or supplying the forces of any of the Cambodian parties. In accordance with normal practice no further details about this training or any information about the nature of this training will be given." —[Official Report, 25 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 454.]
    We hope that tonight the Minister will give further information in answer to a number of questions from my hon. Friends and me. If the Minister is not prepared to give that information, he should say why.
    Over the years, at least seven Ministers deceived Parliament. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), told my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd) in a letter dated 10 October 1990:
    "There is no British Government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operation, with the Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them".
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley had asked the then Prime Minister for an inquiry into repeated allegations that the Government were involved in such training, but the ex-Prime Minister dismissed that suggestion as "unfounded". But for a case that was due to go before the High Court the following week, in which
    864
    three Ministers—the right hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) and for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)—were served with subpoenas, the truth might never have emerged.
    Why were the Government so reticent, and why were they prepared to gag witnesses in court? To ensure that neither of the two Defence Ministers could be called as witnesses, the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) issued public interest immunity orders. The Government continued to deny that they ever assisted the Khmer Rouge, and in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale admitted that the three factions—the KPNLF, Sihanoukists, and Khmer Rouge—
    "co-operate on an ad hoc basis."
    In other words, British soldiers taught terrorists mine laying and guerilla techniques, and the Khmer Rouge benefited from that training.
    After being inundated with letters from my constituents, I wrote to the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Brabazon of Tara. He replied on 22 Febraury 1990:
    "We have never given any form of support to the Khmer Rouge. We were one of the first governments to expose their brutal regime when they were in power. We are now doing what we can to prevent Pol Pot and his cronies from returning to power."
    It is strong language for a Minister, to refer to
    "Pol Pot and his cronies".
    The KPNLF and the Sihanoukists are indeed the cronies of the Khmer Rouge, and the British Government have admitted to training them.
    I will conclude shortly, as a number of my hon. Friends who are much greater experts on the subject wish to contribute. The Government should apologise for deliberately misleading the House for at least eight years. Most of all, they should apologise to the innocent men, women and children of Cambodia who suffered as a direct result of the Government's policies in that region of the world. We want answers to a number of questions tonight, and I hope that the Minister will provide them.
    10.42 pm
    Mr. John Bowis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on securing this debate, which concerns a subject in which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have taken a close interest over the past few years. We certainly ought to examine British policies and those of the international community, as we seek to learn the lessons of the past and to secure a peaceful and stable future for the peoples of Cambodia.
    We shall not achieve that objective simply by seeking to trip up British Ministers. Britain has a role to play in that part of the world, if not a major one. As the only permanent member of the Security Council that does not have a great past there, we at least can play a part in the region's future. We should look beyond the narrow issues raised by the hon. Member for Tottenham, such as the comparatively marginal question of the training of Khmer Rouge allies acknowledged in a parliamentary answer.
    The House, the country and the international community should never forget what occurred in Cambodia. As monstrosity follows monstrosity around the world, and as tyrant succeeds tyrant, it is all too easy

    865
    to put Cambodia to the back of our minds as someone else captures the headlines—be it Saddam Hussein, or someone from the South American continent that was the subject of the previous debate. Somebody will come along and people will seek to talk about that rather than the great horror of world history to which the hon. Member for Tottenham has referred.
    We must never forget 1975–78, during which, as I think history will show—partly because of ancient rivalries and hatreds between the peoples of Thailand, China, Vietnam and Cambodia, and partly as a result of American foreign policy and disagreements in the post-Vietnam war period between the State Department and the White house—the Americans decided that it was more important to seek reconciliation with the Chinese Government than with the Vietnamese Government. As a result, the Khmer Rouge were given free play by their paymasters, by their gurus in Peking, to wreak havoc on the people of Cambodia. We saw Cambodia, that ancient, proud and civilised country, torn apart by the Khmer Rouge. As the hon. Member for Tottenham said, it was torn apart by Pol Pot and his henchmen. The wheels ceased to turn, towns were emptied, the fields were made barren, and even bicycles ceased to roll around Phnom Penh.
    Then there was the period when the Vietnamese came to the rescue of the Cambodian people, and in so doing they brought some stability. No one suggests that they came in without their own atrocities and breaches of civilised law, but they enabled a sad country to pick itself up again. We should pay at least some tribute to the Vietnamese who enabled that to happen, even if we are critical of some of the practices employed.
    We have now moved on to a period when we can begin to look forward to a solution of the problem, even though there are many question marks attached to it, through the promising getting together in recent weeks and months of the Phnom Penh Government with Sihanouk, and with some of the other members of the Khmer Rouge coalition —but not, one hopes, with Pol Pot, Ieng Sary or the worst of those—who are seeking under the Supreme National Council to find a way forward with the assistance of the international community.
    The world is taking a gamble, but if the hon. Member for Tottenham is right, as I think he is, and there has been a world conspiracy against the people of Cambodia—it is not east versus west, north verses south or communist versus non-communist, but the world as a whole, including the United Nations community, China and the Soviet Union, developing and developed countries and many Asian countries—but that the world is saying now that it will learn from the past and try to ensure that peace can return to Cambodia. We should say that we shall give the gamble a try.
    The hon. Member for Tottenham is right to raise questions about the gamble, as I have described it. We must ask questions of the international community. We must ask how we shall ensure that the ceasefire is monitored. If we can monitor the ceasefire in Yugoslavia through the European Community, we can surely find ways of doing that for Cambodia, whether through the United Nations or through some other international grouping. If there is to be confidence, it is crucial to ensure that the ceasefire lasts.
    866
    We must also ensure that there is confidence that the Khmer Rouge will be disarmed. It is clear that some of their leaders and groups are entering Phnom Penh—not Pol Pot, but some of the others—having left their arms outside. How can we be sure that, if things go wrong for the Khmer Rouge, they will not leave the conference table, dig up their arms and resume murdering people from their bases in the jungle? That sort of reassurance must be sought if we are to give the people of Cambodia confidence.
    The hon. Gentleman was also right to mention the mines that have been laid around that area. Figures vary, but I have heard of 250 casualties, and some 80 amputees, a month. It does not matter now who was responsible for laying those mines; the world must come to the aid of those who are digging them up and trying to make them and the area safe once again. The world is ignoring that appalling catastrophe and those limbless people. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that he will work with the international community to solve that problem.
    The hon. Member for Tottenham spoke about trade and aid. Bringing Cambodia back into the world community must involve the reopening of trade and aid links and the removal of the embargoes with Vietnam and Cambodia. Japan is already well involved; it is Britain, America and the other western nations that are standing back. Because of that, the £44 million for aid in the United Nations development fund remains frozen.
    I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the international community to find ways to ensure that trade and aid are pumped into Cambodia, at the same time as we are monitoring and assisting in the disarming of the Khmer Rouge. We must never relax. We must never forget that history. Even in the past few days, Khmer Rouge plans have been found that show that their tactics are still a mixture of a campaign of intimidation and a campaign of changing history through a propaganda war to persuade the Cambodian people, and then the world —although I hope that the world is not gullible enough to believe it—that the genocide of those 2 million people was nothing to do with the Khmer Rouge but was the result of Vietnamese atrocities. We will not believe that. We will support the Cambodian people.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham on raising the matter and I look forward to the assurance of my hon. Friend the Minister that he, the British Government and the British people will play our part in returning peace to Cambodia.
    10.52 pm
    Mr. Chris Mullin: You, Mr. Speaker, may have noted that when my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) said that he hoped that the Minister would give us more information on this issue, and with greater frankness than in the past, the Minister cheerfully shouted, "I certainly shan't." That summarises the attitude taken by a succession of Ministers towards Parliament and towards the taxpayers whose money they have been spending on nefarious projects. It also tells us that we are not likely to hear much from the Minister tonight other than the bluster and diversion that has become standard in such debates.
    I pay tribute to John Pilger, David Munro and Central Television for a succession of programmes that have done

    867
    more to bring this issue before the public in Britain and throughout the world than has been achieved by anybody else who has taken an interest in the matter. I was a journalist in my previous incarnation. Inquiring journalism is a dying trade in this country, and those who practise it expect to be vilified. I framed some of the better attacks on me and they hang on my wall—"Loony MP packs bomb gang", "Mr. Odious", "Twenty things you didn't know about crackpot Chris", and so on. None of that surprised me, and I note that a number of similar articles are appearing about John Pilger. I am sure that he and Central Television will not be intimidated.
    I regret that Mr. Colvin, a senior civil servant in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is not here. He has taken a detailed interest in this subject over a long period. He has more knowledge and shoulders more responsibility for our policy than any of the 10 Ministers who have been responsible for it in the past decade. I notice that Mr. Colvin has started to circulate some of these articles. Such action from a civil servant is reprehensible, and I hope that it will stop.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later. He represents interests that are quite different from mine, and not necessarily just those of the Conservative party.
    I know which version of events I prefer—that told over the past decade or so by Mr. Pilger, Mr. Munro and Central Television. When the history of this unhappy little episode is written, they will be entirely vindicated.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, on 25 June the Government admitted what some of us had been alleging for the past three years. They did so rather quietly in a planted written answer buried in Hansard, which confirmed that, from 1983 to 1989, British soldiers based in Thailand had been training Khmer terrorists.
    That allegation has been repeatedly put to Ministers over the years and they have always answered with bluster saying how much they hate the Khmer Rouge and how wicked and terrible the Khmer Rouge are. They have never faced the issue that terrorists are people who plant bombs in public places. If it is wrong for the Irish Republican Army to do that, it is wrong for people who happen to be "friendly" terrorists. Thousands of people in Cambodia would not find it as easy as the Minister does to distinguish between terrorists of the Khmer People's National Liberation Front and the Khmer Rouge, to which they are so closely allied.
    All those points have been put to Ministers. Parliament has been misled over a long period. On 13 March 1989, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the shadow Foreign Secretary, said to the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), then briefly the custodian of Government policy on Cambodia:
    "If the Government want to avoid a protracted civil war in Cambodia, why are they providing special forces training to one of the participants in that war?"
    The Minister replied:
    "As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I will give no answer".—[Official Report, 13 March 1989; Vol. 160, c. 49.]
    The subject came up repeatedly in our debate on this subject on 26 October 1990. The Minister—happily, the
    868
    hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who has record tenure in justifying Government policy on Cambodia—said:
    "I am personally completely satisfied that the explanations that I have been given are comprehensive and accurate."
    He declined to share those explanations with the House and said:
    "I cannot say more than I have said … I must place it clearly on record that the British Government, of course, utterly and clearly refute the allegations made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and by Mr. Pilger in his programme."—[Official Report, 26 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 692.]
    The burden of the allegations was that British soldiers based in Thailand, funded by British taxpayers' money, were training terrorists. Such reports did not originate with Mr. Pilger; there is a wealth of other material on the subject, some of it from unlikely sources. On 24 September 989, The Sunday Telegraph reported:
    "British Army teams—almost certainly from the SAS—have been training guerrillas of the Sihanoukist National Army of Cambodia at a secret training base in Thailand for the past two years."
    Mr. Allason: Almost certainly.
    Mr. Mullin: I had not realised that that was controversial.
    On 30 September, Jane's Defence Weekly referred to
    "the creation of a 250-man KPNLF sabotage battalion prepared by four Cambodian instructors … The latter were graduates of the UK-led courses, though this was not noted at the time"—
    in the previous report—
    "members of the sabotage battalion were taught how to attack installations such as bridges, railway lines, radar stations, power lines and substations … Small group tactics and use of improvised explosives were also covered."
    Jeremy Stone in The New York Times, in an article in November 1989, said:
    "The US is waging a secret war in Cambodia against the Hun Sen Government—knowing full well that none other than the genocidal Khmer Rouge"—
    I hope that the Minister is listening to this—
    "are likely to be the ultimate beneficiaries. Even as White House officials shed crocodile tears over signs of the growing military strength of the Khmer Rouge, they are continuing to use US financial and intelligence resources to weaken the Vietnamese-installed Hun Sen Government, the only faction capable of preventing a military takeover of the Khmer Rouge."
    It then goes on to describe a secret organisation set up in Bangkok called the Cambodian working group, through which all aid for the various terrorist factions was to be funneled. It says:
    "The United States pays $24 million annually"
    that is in 1989—
    "to support the resistance, and the Son Sann group is getting $150,000 a month for operating expenses alone … Through a Thai intelligence entity called 838, the Cambodian guerrillas receive weapons, food and other support."
    Jeremy Stone goes on to say:
    "So the irony is exquisite. We are redoubling our efforts to overthrow Hun Sen even while we announce that such a result would produce a Khmer Rouge takeover … From every objective point of view we are allied with the genocidal Khmer Rouge."
    Those are not allegations made by Mr. Pilger, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South or any other hon. Member; that is The New York Times. It has been widely remarked upon. It is clear that the non-Khmer Rouge factions of the so-called phoney alliance are almost entirely the creation of a handful of western Governments, principally the United States, but by no means entirely the

    869
    United States. Britain has had a part to play in that operation. I think that the French have had a part to play in it. The Thais have had a large part to play in harbouring all three factions. It is a matter of record that the Khmer Rouge themselves have a large number of facilities on Thai Government soil.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, over the years successive British Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, have misled the country and the House on the issue. As my hon. Friend said, the Prime Minister wrote to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on 17 October 1990 saying:
    "I confirm that there is no British Government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with the Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them."
    That may have been true on 9 October 1990, but what the Prime Minister omitted to say was that we had been training them up to a year before that. The phrase—the wording is always identical—
    "or those allied to them"
    appeared in a succession of ministerial letters around that time. The Foreign Secretary and various other Ministers wrote that, and they all did so in the knowledge that the training had been going on and had stopped only just before that. That is being rather economical with the truth.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Lying.
    Mr. Mullin: No one has actually lied to the House, but no one has told the truth. All of them knew the truth but despite repeated opportunities they deliberately misled the House.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mean that the House has been deliberately misled.
    Mr. Mullin: I am prepared for the possibility that the House might have been inadvertantly misled, but misled it certainly was.
    I look down the long list of Ministers who, during the past decade or so, have had responsibility for this disastrous little venture, and I wonder which of them was in charge at the time of this particular training scheme—a rather unfortunate expression—at the time the Special Air Services were introduced into the Thai border.
    As I look down the list, my eye lights on the name of the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) who was, between August 1982 and February 1983, the Minister responsible for Cambodia. This was exactly the sort of crazy scheme with which one might expect him to be associated. It was what is known in the parlance as a "touch of the Cranley Onslows". Perhaps he was not the one, however. The Minister responsible between August 1983 and November 1985—for over two years—was none other than the present Foreign Secretary. All those people must have known at the time—they must have been consulted when the scheme came into operation—yet they chose not to tell the truth.
    We are told that, when he became Foreign Secretary, the present Foreign Secretary found out about all this and decided to do away with it immediately. If so, I am grateful to him for that, but he was responsible for these matters for two whole years earlier on, while the SAS were actively training the terrorists in Cambodia.
    870
    The statement that we were given in the planted written answer on 25 June was far from the whole truth. It failed to tell us what kind of training was provided. Taxpayers are entitled to know that. My information is that it included planting sophisticated, delayed-action mines of the sort that were certainly responsible for many of the hideous injuries inflicted on military and civilian personnel in Cambodia.
    I read in The Independent last week that two little girls fishing in a river in Kampot hooked a floating mine which blew their arms off. I do not know whether it was a Khmer Rouge mine, or a KPNLF mine. I do not know whether we trained the terrorists or whether someone else did; but as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) pointed out, 20,000 people in Cambodia have had limbs blown off by mines. The whole west of the country is a vast minefield, and I have no doubt that some of the mines were planted as a result of training received by the terrorists from British soldiers.
    It is more than tragic that the good people of Oxfam and the Red Cross should he attempting in Cambodia to repair the damage and run hospitals to provide the amputees with some means of survival, while on the other side of the border, people employed by Her Majesty's Government are attempting to destroy those same civilians.
    The statement of 25 June did not tell us the location either. My information is that some of the training occurred at the border in a camp known as site B. Some of it took place in Malaysia, too. We first started training Cambodians in Malaysia in 1970, shortly after Prince Sihanouk was overthrown in the coup organised and inspired by the United States. When the United States and British Governments tell us how urgent it is that the prince should be back in Cambodia, it is worth recalling that we helped to overthrow him in the first place and that we celebrated his overthrow and exploited it.
    I am told that a gentleman who until 1989 was based in the British embassy in Bangkok, a Mr. Dennis Galwey, was responsible for overseeing the British role in military training in Thailand. In The Spectator of 4 May, Derek Tonkin—the British ambassador to Thailand until 1989 and thus in place while much of all this was going on, and whom I had challenged to deny that British soldiers based in Thailand had been training Khmer terrorists—wrote:
    "Mr. Mullin invites me to deny it. I deny it."
    How does that compare with the Government's answer of 25 June?
    Did operations really cease in 1989? The Government say that they did, but they have told us all sorts of things over the years. Perhaps the matter was privatised, because such operations, when they become embarrassing, have a long history of being put out to people who call themselves ex-SAS or ex-this or ex-that. There are many bogus airlines in south-east Asia which operate for the Central Intelligence Agency. Bird Air was the big one in Cambodia, but Air America is the most famous in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
    I do not know and do not allege that the operation was privatised, but if it was a good idea before the autumn of 1989 and remained a good idea for six or seven years, why did it suddenly stop being a good idea? If the Minister intends to shed light on anything, perhaps he will at least say why the operation was wound up, because that is a

    871
    puzzling question. If the truth was leaking out, that may have been a motive for stopping, but I suppose that the Minister will have a more sophisticated explanation.
    Exactly what is still being covered up? I have a letter from the Treasury Solicitor which was addressed to the defendants in a recent libel case involving two shadowy figures whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Lester) ran into in Cambodia in September 1989. The letter states:
    "It is the Crown's view that the public interest"
    public interest, my foot—
    "… requires that only certain information can be disclosed in court. That Information is contained in a statement made this afternoon to the House of Commons by means of a written answer "
    That is the answer of 25 June to which I have referred.
    "The text of that answer is attached to this letter. It is accepted that this information, but no more, may be made public without damage to the public interest. Any further information would attract a claim for public interest immunity."
    That is not exactly the level playing field that we have come to expect from the Government. It seems that one side in that recent libel case was playing with its arms tied behind its back, while the other side had at its disposal the full resources of the British state. I have here an affidavit sworn by the Secretary of State which also became available for the purposes of the libel action. It states:
    "As will be seen in the statement to which I have referred"—
    that is, the answer of 25 June—
    "it contains no details of the training given to the armed forces of the Cambodian non-communist resistance. The statement has been carefully limited so as to disclose no more than can in the considered opinion of the Crown be disclosed without injury to the public interest. In my opinion the making of any further disclosure whether or not by evidence given by any person orally or by reference to any documents concerning the involvement of specialist Crown personnel in any covert activities or security operations or as to their nature, method, circumstances or the identity of any person engaged in them would cause damage to the public interest for the reasons set out below. It is my judgment that any such further disclosure would cause unquantifiable damage to the Crown's ability to conduct any such activities or operations currently or in the future."
    The affidavit goes on to say that the information would be of value to foreign powers.
    I am unable to see how British people learning about the activities of British soldiers based in Thailand, some 8,000 miles from here, could possibly be a threat to national security. What are the Government trying to hide? We shall shortly hear a great deal of bluster from the Minister. The Government cannot have much confidence in their case when they have to issue affidavits of that nature in an at tempt to gag witnesses and fix the outcome of the case. I regret that that case was settled, because if a jury had found out the truth about what was going on, the outcome might have been somewhat different.
    If the past is anything to go by, the Minister will be at pains to assure us that the Government have not supported the Khmer Rouge. He will even generate a little synthetic indignation at that suggestion. He is deluding himself. It is a matter of record that the organisations that we have been supporting—the KPNLF and the Army of Sihanouk—are closely allied to the Khmer Rouge.
    I have here a report from The Sunday Correspondent of 5 November 1989. It speaks of Prince Norodom
    872
    Ranariddh, who is the son of Prince Sihanouk. Those of us who have met him know that he is a chip off the old block and can bullshit in about four languages. It says:
    "Prince Norodom Ranariddh, the son of the nominal leader of the resistance coalition, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, said last week that links between the non-Communist groups and the Khmer Rouge were closer than ever. Combat co-operation was total he said, and the Sihanoukists celebrated Khmer Rouge victories as their own."
    So much for funding the non-Khmer Rouge elements.
    I know that, a couple of months ago, there was a meeting at the Foreign Office between Lord Caithness and the former Prime Minister of Thailand, who was recently overthrown in a military coup, and some of his close advisers. Mr. Colvin of the Foreign Office was also present. One of the advisers said that, in the field, the Khmer Rouge is in command of all three factions. All those there said nothing—they just sat there and nodded. The Government cannot say that they do not know.
    Secondly, as the Minister knows, between 1979 and 1982, the British representative to the United Nations supported the seating of a Government formed solely by the Khmer Rouge. The fraudulent coalition did not come about until 1982–83. The Minister cannot say that we did not support the Khmer Rouge, because we did. For the following seven or eight years, we supported the fraudulent coalition, which was dominated by the Khmer Rouge. The Cambodian representative in the UN was Mr. Thioun Prasith, whose brothers occupied three of the top 10 posts in the Khmer Rouge between 1975 and 1979.
    Thirdly, we provided food aid, through the UN border operation, much of which found its way into the terrorist resistance. Film has been shown of Khmer Rouge porters carrying that food away. Pol Pot was once housed in the Erawan hotel in Bangkok, although the Khmer Rouge leaders now stay at the Sheraton. All this went on quite openly, under the noses of many people over a long time.
    The Government have got themselves into a sad and embarrassing situation. The hon. Member for Battersea said that we should look forward and not backwards, and I am inclined to agree with him—but before one can look forward, one must first face the truth. It is therefore necessary for the Minister to face the truth. So long as he cannot do that, he must not be surprised that there will be those of us who attempt forcibly to draw his attention to the truth.
    11.18 pm
    Mr. Rupert Allason: In my aborted intervention, I wanted to ask the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), when he spoke about his work as a researcher and investigative journalist and drew parallels between it and that of John Pilger, whether he had ever got his facts wrong, whether they had been challenged in the courts, and whether he had been forced to withdraw and apologise. I have followed his career with interest. He is an assiduous researcher and a doughty campaigner. I do not recall his ever having had to do that.
    Having listened to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), I cannot believe that this proposition was based on an action that was lost in the High Court. The plaintiffs won, and received an apology. If such remarks were made outside the Chamber, another action for defamation would be brought.
    I do not believe that there is a parallel between the hon. Gentleman and John Pilger. I think that the hon. Gentleman is being immodest. He says that he is sorry that

    873
    the case was settled. I know something about the laws of defamation, having been on the receiving end of a libel case in the not too distant past. Indeed, I am in a rather difficult position: on that occasion, I appealed to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who will be answering tonight's debate.
    There is a parallel here, in that my case involved someone who had lied—and whom I knew to have lied —about his military record during the second world war. With the greatest regret, Ministers said that a precedent was involved in relation to public immunity. I subpoenaed people to give evidence for me. The issue concerned events that had taken place years before—before 1963, and, in the case of the war record, before 1945—but it was not aired in court, because of a certificate issued by the Secretary of State.
    The John Pilger programme, which I watched, was built on supposition and innuendo. It contained no concrete facts. As a journalist, I was somewhat ashamed, and hoped that rather more facts existed to back up what I saw on the screen. After the programme, I asked my hon. Friend categorically whether SAS personnel were deployed in Cambodia. I was given a categorical assurance that they were not.
    Let us consider what has taken place in court recently. John Pilger was challenged by the people whom he identified. It was not a question of any kind of settlement; he agreed that he had been wrong, and apologised—as did a Member of the European Parliament who had made similar baseless allegations. The two individuals concerned were British observers.
    I have followed the aftermath of the case. Bearing in mind what William Shawcross wrote in the Sunday Telegraph last week, I am surprised that John Pilger has the temerity to continue to pursue the matter—and, indeed, that the hon. Member for Tottenham should be prepared to do so. The answer has been given.
    I do not think that any hon. Member would support the Government for a moment if he believed that the Khmer Rouge were receiving support, or that children's limbs were being blown off, because specialist SAS personnel were training the Khmer Rouge. Certainly I would not do so. I simply do not believe that that is happening, and I accepted my hon. Friend's word when he gave me an assurance in the House. It is common knowledge that training was given from a base in Thailand, but the proposition, or conspiracy theory—constructed on the basis of an acknowledgement in a written answer—that all sorts of nefarious activities have taken place in Cambodia, and are continuing to take place, defies belief.
    Both the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and the hon. Member for Tottenham have done themselves a disservice. When they look back on this episode, I very much hope that they will see that it is a case study of a left-wing ideologue, John Pilger, who has simply got it wrong. He was also proved to have got it wrong. He admitted that he had got it wrong. He apologised to the persons concerned for getting it wrong. Now it is being produced once again. I very much regret it.
    I hope that I shall be allowed to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in urging the House to look to the future. By trade, I am a historian. I believe that what took place in the past is of enormous importance
    874
    —it rightly influences our current perceptions and our future behaviour. But the hope, surely, for that tragic, war-torn country in south-east Asia is that it should return to peace as soon as possible. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give us that assurance.
    11.25 pm
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) says that Mr. Pilger was proved to have got it wrong.
    Mr. Allason: He admitted it.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: He agreed that he had got it wrong. There is a difference between the two phrases which perhaps the hon. Gentleman—knowing the detail into which he invariably goes—will wish to consider.
    The programme "The Betayal" lasted, I understand, some 30 or 40 minutes. The greater part of it was correct and will be proven to be correct. It may be that part of the programme contained an error. Mr. Pilger and his colleague, Mr. Munro, have apologised. The hon. Member for Torbay should view the whole programme in the context of its overall message. He should not allow himself to be influenced by a particular part of it, about which there is some controversy.
    In the course of the libel action, which began on 2 July and ended on 5 July, John Pilger and David Munro argued that reference to these two men was not meant, in the film they produced, to suggest that they themselves were involved in training the Khmer Rouge. It was the judge who ruled that, in his judgment, he was satisfied that the words used in the film were capable of the interpretation that Mr. Geidt and Mr. de Normann placed upon them —that they were involved in military training.
    The trial was abandoned after an out-of-court settlement was agreed between the parties. The hon. Member for Torbay should recognise why it was agreed: because the judge ruled that certain evidence was inadmissible in the trial. I agree with the judge that, as the law stands, that evidence was inadmissible. I disagree with Mr. Pilger, as he would tell the hon. Member for Torbay, if he were to meet him. He should not seek to misrepresent what happened, which was that an out-of-court settlement was arrived at because Mr. Pilger and Mr. Munro were unable in any way to put their evidence, which they believed would have influenced the jury if it had been heard.
    Following the trial, Mr. Pilger and Mr. Munro issued a press statement which stated:
    "It should be made clear that these two men"—
    their words—
    "who sued us played no part in guerilla training."
    Since December last, I have always argued that, as absolute evidence did not exist proving their involvement, Geidt and de Normann would win their action. Indeed, because of that, I argued in favour of an out-of-court settlement. But Mr. Pilger and Mr. Munro have always sought to argue that they never alleged such involvement, and that on such a premise they would base their whole defence.
    I want to deal with what happened in that trial and its bearing on British foreign policy on Cambodia. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Bailey (Mrs. Clwyd) first met Geidt and de Normann in Phnom Penh in September 1989, in the company of the hon. Member for Broxtowe

    875
    (Mr. Lester). The Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), told the House:
    "Those two men did not visit Indochina at our behest or as representatives of the Government. They went privately, at the invitation of the Institute for International Relations at Hanoi … Through the institute, they were introduced to the Phnom Penh authorities. Those authorities then invited them to witness the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia".—[Official Report, 26 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 691.]
    The public should be aware that much argument surrounds the activities of those two men, but it is argument that they have brought upon themselves because of the way in which they conducted themselves and because of the statements that they made. Their public statements have been most unconvincing. Nevertheless, I agree with the statement that Mr. Pilger and Mr. Munro made. Those two men made highly unconvincing statements, and I hope that the hon. Member for Torbay will research what they said.
    In a covering letter to the Vietnamese embassy, de Normann was listed as a personal assistant to Geidt, as if he was from the Royal United Services Institute. That was untrue. I challenge Mr. de Normann and Mr. Geidt to question what I am saying.
    In the same letter, Geidt said that he was part of an official two-man delegation. That was untrue. Group Captain David. Bolton, director of the RUSI, denied that they were representing the RUSI. It was not an official delegation.
    Geidt referred to himself in his letter to the Vietnamese and Cambodians as assistant director of RUSI. That was not true and had never been so. He was an assistant to the director—a very different role indeed. They both contended, as did the Foreign Secretary, that they were invited by the Hanoi Institute and the Phnom Penh Government. That was not true. They sought to be invited by the respective authorities, and evidence exists to show that.
    In a letter to Central Television, lawyers for Geidt said that he was not military. That was not true. Mr. Geidt had links with military intelligence and had served in the regular Army.
    Why did they make these statements if they were not true? Has not it dawned on them that, when such statements are made and people subsequently find out the truth, they begin to question the identity of those involved, from which was born much of the programme "The Betrayal". If they had been truthful in everything they had said to the appropriate authorities, there would have been no reference to that in the programme. In many ways, they were responsible for what happened.
    It is not surprising, with the truth so easily denied on such a scale, that Central Television felt it prudent to spend what is rumoured to be £350,000 defending Pilger and Munro in a libel trial. Notwithstanding such errors fact, when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), was asked about contacts between Geidt, de Normann and the Ministry of Defence, he stated:
    "The only contact with the Ministry of Defence in relation to the visit that has been traced was a routine inquiry by Mr. de Normann prior to departure to check on the regulations governing visits by ex-service personnel to communist countries."—[Official Report, 18 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 923.]
    876
    That was a perfectly acceptable request to make. But what happened? That answer was quickly amended when it was realised that the libel trial was proceeding. On 13 May, the story changed. The MOD, out of the blue, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin):
    "More recently it has come to light that Mr. Mackenzie Geidt had an informal discussion"—
    the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) knows all about such discussions and he has written many books about them—
    "with an MOD officer in October 1989 on his return from Indochina"
    Cambodia—
    "during which he passed on some impressions he had gained about the political and military position in Cambodia which he thought would be of general interest to the Department."
    Perhaps the hon. Member for Torbay can tell me what that means. I think that I know what it means. The hon. Gentleman has written many books on such subjects, and I am sure that he could extrapolate within the remit of fact.
    Mr. Allason: I am as good at conspiracy theories as the next man, but I think that you are going a stage too far—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am quoting a Minister.
    Mr. Allason: But you are quoting so terribly selectively. You are saying that a letter written by a legal representative to the television company was incorrect and you say that he had links to—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer his remarks through the Chair.
    Mr. Allason: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are talking about the ministerial reply. Perhaps he misunderstood what I said.
    None of those matters ever came out in the libel trial. In many ways, it was perhaps right that they should not have done so because they may not have been relevant once the judge had taken his decision. The onus was on Mr. Munro and Mr. Pilger to prove their facts conclusively before the trial, with all the evidence available. Of course, it was not quite possible in the circumstances.
    None of those matters ever came out in the trial, because the judge, for reasons that I perfectly understand, on the basis of the law as it stands and following representations from the Government, ruled such material inadmissible. Pilger and Munro were very angry about the cloak of secrecy surrounding the trial. Throughout the trial, the Government did their utmost to hide the facts behind Government policy. They even quoted "Spycatcher".
    The hon. Member for Torbay will remember that debate. He and I were on the same side and he argued my case. He argued then that the Government should never use such a defence in a court of law. On this occasion, does he think that they should have done? The Government intervened to block five subpoenas on three Ministers and the head of the Special Air Services, with the use of public interest indemnity orders in the name of the Secretary of State for Defence—I understand that he signed them. The jury were totally unaware of those matters and if required to make a judgment—which they were not—would still have remained unaware of them, because they were inadmissible in the courts.

    877
    The truth is that, if it had not been for the trial, the public would never have known the truth of Britain's involvement in Cambodia between 1983 and 1989. Every answer over all those years always avoided identifying where the money was going and where the military support was being given. The Government did not want the truth to come out. It was only the libel trial which extracted from the Government on 25 June the statement that we had all the time been supporting two of the three factions in the non-communist coalition, but not, the Government maintained, the third—the Khmer Rouge.
    However, I believe that the answer that refers to "ad hoc arrangements" and the statement of Prince Sihanouk's son suggest that some co-operation went on. The Government may have believed that they were not supporting the training of the Khmer Rouge, but the Khmer Rouge were infiltrating the camps of the two other factions in the coalition and were securing training through the back door without official knowledge and approval of the British Government. That is why they could answer all the questions in the way in which they did over all those years. If the Minister were to concede that tonight, it would make a lot of difference.
    It has cost £350,000 to establish the fact that the Government trained the non-communist resistence in Cambodia. The Government could have admitted that years ago. As for Geidt and de Normann, they became the unnecessary casualties of the whole exercise. That never should have happened and it cannot be excused, but to some extent they brought it upon themselves by failing to be more forthcoming and truthful about their activities. I am not convinced that those individuals are too unhappy with the results of their actions.
    11.39 pm
    Mr. Jim Lestor: I apologise to the House for not being here earlier, but I have spoken in every debate on Cambodia since the issue was taken up.
    The debate is about the Government's policy towards Cambodia. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that we should now be trying to look forward as things are looking far more healthy following the recent meeting in Peking with the Supreme National Council.
    We have heard a great deal about the military and about the re-running of the Pilger film. It was a profound disappointment to me to learn from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that we had given miltitary training from 1983 to 1989. I had defended the Government in the House against that claim on many occasions. I had argued that I did not believe that such training was possible because we believed in the Foreign Office's policy by objectives.
    I could not see any possible Foreign Office objective in training two elements of the coalition force against the Phnom Penh regime. It was a profound disappointment to discover that the claims about such training were true. The Government statements were economical with the truth, and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is now investigating the matter, because we do not feel that the manner in which those statements were given was correct.
    We should now look forward. Following the conference in Peking, attended by the Minister's representatives,
    878
    where do we stand now? Where do we stand in terms of aid to Phnom Penh and Cambodia? The Supreme National Council will form in the capital and it will represent all the groups. What are the priorities in terms of aid? I believe that there are three.
    The first and foremost priority, as we understand it from representatives of the Phnom Penh regime, is English language training. They are desperately anxious for that, and we could undertake that relatively quickly. Secondly, it is equally important that a de-mining programme is undertaken soon. It is essential that the many mines that were laid in that poor country by all sides, and which are extracting terrible casualties from the civilan population, should be removed quickly. Thirdly, plans should be drawn up to bring in United Nations organisations to restore the infrastructure—the roads and the telecommunications system—as quickly as possible.
    We should plan to act on those essentials as quickly as possible once the Supreme National Council resumes its role in Phnom Penh.
    11.42 pm
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Those of us who have taken a long interest in Cambodia would have a lot to say tonight if there were time to say it. However, I am anxious that the Minister should have time to answer in detail the questions put to him by my hon. Friends. It is important that he should set the record straight today.
    Over the years as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said, the Government have all too often been economical with the truth. They have misled Parliament continuously, and at least seven Ministers are responsible for that.
    Although I share my hon. Friend's disappointment and anger about what happened in the past, I want to talk about the aid and future needs of Cambodia. Cambodia has 20,000 mine amputees for whom we bear considerable responsibility, and 86,000 displaced people due to the ongoing civil war, for which we also share much of the responsibility.
    Last April, a consortium of non-governmental organisations called for $12 million. So far, the response has been $500,000. The Government and the European Community should respond to that request. The 300,000 refugees on the Thai-Cambodian border have been there since 1979, and we now hope that they will have a future in a peaceful Cambodia. It is encouraging that the factions are talking and that there is an agreed international ceasefire.
    However, Ministers must be accountable to Parliament. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made that point in the House just a couple of weeks ago. Other democracies do not have the same paranoia about national security as our Government seem to have. They seem to be able to accommodate secrecy and security without dashing for cover and invoking public immunity orders at the drop of a hat. It is ironic that former eastern bloc countries are looking at ways to make their security services accountable to an independent body. Even the KGB now has a press officer.
    As Melanie Phillips said in The Guardian last Friday:
    "The law in Britain at the moment makes it a criminal offence to disclose anything about the security services … but a law which puts an arm of a State outside the law is immoral, undemocratic and wrong."

    879
    In a democratic country there should be one test—whether people are allowed access to enough information to meet their needs as citizens and to ensure that their servants are running the country properly. Although we all recognise that secrecy is sometimes in the public interest, we should also expect that, in a democracy, disclosure can sometimes be in the public interest. Until that is recognised, the elected members of the Opposition are in no doubt that the Government's first priority has been to mislead Parliament and the public continuously between 1983 and 1989 over their activities in Cambodia. As my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) have said, the Government owe us an explanation and, most of all, they owe the people of Cambodia an abject apology.
    11.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on raising this important subject once again. I am pleased that we are debating it again this evening. It is not a subject for which I am responsible in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but, each time that it comes back for debate, I find that my interest for and concern about the subject grows.
    I am on good personal terms with virtually all hon. Members who have participated in the debate, even when they allege a cover up, which I utterly refute. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason) for saying that we should look to the future, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester).
    The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that he would be met with some bluster by me. I wish to say something that will be controversial, but I shall say it at the outset because I do not seek to shirk it. I shall not elaborate tonight on the written answer of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces..
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why not?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Well, I do not believe that anyone thinks that I shall do so, because, at the end of that written answer, my right hon. Friend said that that was as far as the Government were prepared to go at that time.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that that was a blocking answer under our parliamentary procedures?
    Madame Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for debate.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Obviously, I recognise that hon. Members in any quarter of the House may criticise me for what I am saying, but that is the position, and I am prepared to face that criticism. Furthermore, I shall not comment on the libel actions, including the one with which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was involved, which has not been mentioned by anyone.
    I wish to comment on the interesting developments that have been taking place in the past few months. Last November, the permanent five and the co-chairmen of the Paris conference on Cambodia between France and Indonesia met in Paris to complete the task that they had already begun. of turning the five's framework into a fully worked-out draft settlement document. That document
    880
    became known at the United Nations plan. It comprises those elements which the permanent five and the co-chairmen consider essential components of a comprehensive political settlement.
    Hon. Members will recall that, in September 1990, all four Cambodian parties agreed to form a Supreme National Council, but because they could not agree on a chairman, the SNC could not function. Nonetheless, the Paris conference co-chairmen decided to present the draft document to SNC members in Paris on 20 and 21 December 1990. The response was mixed. There was unanimous Cambodian support for the five's framework; and the resistance members of the SNC accepted the document in its entirety. But Hun Sen and his colleagues had reservations.
    Much time and effort was spent in the first six months of this year in trying to bridge the gap between the Phnom Penh regime and the resistance coalition, so that the peace process could move forward again. It was not an easy task. The resistance coalition refused to contemplate amendments to the draft settlement document, but Hun Sen could not accept the document as it stood.
    A number of countries, notably the co-chairmen, Australia and Japan, suggested various ways of attempting to meet Hun Sen's concerns without alienating the resistance. But none of their proposals was wholly acceptable to the Cambodians, who appeared unwilling at that stage to compromise for the sake of peace.
    In late April, however, the Paris conference cochairmen rightly concluded that it was important to restore momentum to the process if it was not to stall altogether. They therefore proposed that, although the SNC was still without a chairman, they and the SNC should meet in early June with the aim of clarifying and, if possible, resolving the issues dividing the Cambodians. More significantly, they also called on the armed forces of all the Cambodian parties to observe a temporary ceasefire from 1 May, at least until after the meeting, to enable it to take place in a constructive atmosphere.
    Against the expectations of most observers, all four Cambodian parties committed themselves to observing the ceasefire—the first time that they had all agreed on such a move. That was a milestone and, as more recent events have demonstrated, a turning point in the peace process. We warmly welcomed the way in which the Cambodians were finally heeding repeated international calls for self-restraint. For the most part, the ceasefire held, to the extent that the co-chairmen and the United Nations Secretariat felt able to dispatch a small "good offices" mission to observe it. Its report was encouraging.
    The success of the temporary ceasefire made the outcome of the co-chairmen's meeting with the SNC, in Jakarta on 2 and 4 June, all the more disappointing. There was continued intransigence both on the part of Hun Sen and the Khmer Rouge. Hun Sen presented extensive amendments to the draft settlement document, but the Khmer Rouge refused to accept a deal between Prince Sihanouk and Hun Sen which would have resolved the problem of SNC's chairmanship. The Khmer Rouge also threatened to resume fighting in Cambodia from 6 June.
    Behind the scenes, however, it was clear that Prince Sihanouk and Hun Sen were making progress towards some kind of personal rapprochement. There were also signs of a shift in China's position, perhaps indicating growing unwillingness to support the Khmer Rouge at any cost. At any rate, Prince Sihanouk seized the opportunity

    881
    to assert his authority over all the Cambodian parties and convened a meeting of the SNC in Thailand from 24 to 26 June. That meeting achieved welcome, but largely unexpected, success.
    It was agreed that Prince Sihanouk should be de facto chairman of the SNC—a major breakthrough—and that he should lead an SNC delegation to this year's United Nations General Assembly. Most important of all, the meeting agreed that the forces of all four Cambodian factions would continue to observe an unlimited ceasefire; and would, moreover, not receive further outside supplies of weapons. We warmly welcomed the outcome of that meeting, and congratulated Prince Sihanouk and all the Cambodian parties on their constructive and positive approach.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister confirm or deny that military training is still being provided by the British Government to the non-communist resistance?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I stand by the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), which was absolutely clear. I must get on—I will not give way again.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As this is my debate. having been granted to me by Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have a right to ask the Minister to answer the debate. He is stating some obscure Government policy, but he is not answering the questions that were raised.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman may feel frustrated, but the points that he makes are not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, he does not show his desire to see progress made in Cambodia. I should like an opportunity to continue describing what is happening.
    We regarded the unlimited continuation of the ceasefire and agreement on the functioning of the SNC as important steps in the peace process, and we urged all the Cambodian parties to work for the comprehensive political settlement, which, we believed, remained the key to a lasting solution to the Cambodian conflict.
    Despite that notable achievement by the Cambodians themselves—the first time that they had met on their own initiative—we and others could not fail to notice that they had not addressed the contentious issues that have for so long divided them. If there is to be a durable peace settlement, those problems cannot be ignored. Given the history of false starts that plagued the Cambodian peace process for so many years, we must avoid the temptation to be over-optimistic.
    The Cambodians' willingness and ability to co-operate and achieve compromise may yet fail. None the less, the developments in Thailand did give cause for hope that we may finally be on the verge of a breakthrough that could, in the foreseeable future, bring an end to the misery and suffering of the Cambodian people.
    The latest events reinforce that hope, although we continue to be cautious. Last week, an informal meeting of SNC members took place in Peking, again under Prince Sihanouk's chairmanship. It continued to take decisions in the spirit of the earlier, formal SNC meeting in Thailand.
    882
    The issue of the SNC's chairmanship was finally resolved when Prince Sihanouk was unanimously elected its president. The SNC is therefore now a properly functioning body.
    The meeting also agreed that Hun Sen, Hor Nam Hong, Son Sann, and Khieu Samphan would accompany Prince Sihanouk to this year's United Nations General Assembly, and that the SNC would represent Cambodia at meetings of the Mekong committee, an important body in the development of Indochina. It decided too that the next formal meeting of the SNC would take place in Bangkok in late August. In pursuit of its previous commitment to observe an unlimited ceasefire, the meeting agreed that Prince Sihanouk should ask the United Nations to send an appropriate number of UN personnel to control the ceasefire and the cessation of foreign military aid, preceded by a survey mission to establish how that control would take place.
    Mention of Mr. David Colvin has been made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. Mr. Colvin was in Peking from 16 to 20 July. He is still on a foreign trip, and that is why he is not here. He attended, first, in the margins of the SNC's informal meeting on 16 July and then later as one of the United Kingdom's delegates at the meeting of the permanent five and co-chairmen. His record of involvement in the search for a comprehensive political settlement is exemplary, and I wish to defend him tonight.
    The permanent five and the co-chairmen had already decided to take advantage of the Cambodians' meeting in Peking to hold one of their own there immediately afterwards, and they did. The five and the co-chairmen welcomed the SNC proposal that a United Nations survey mission go to Cambodia to begin the process of preparing for the military aspects of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and to consider how the United Nations Secretary-General could use his good offices to help maintain the present ceasefire.
    They welcomed the Cambodians' self-imposed ceasefire and ban on receiving arms supplies and undertook to respect this decision themselves. They also agreed to meet again in Bangkok on 29 and 30 August following the SNC's meeting there, and to hold discussions with the SNC. Finally, the five and the co-chairmen "viewed positively" the sending of diplomatic representatives to the SNC after it establishes itself in Phnom Penh "in the expectation of" free and fair elections under United Nations auspices, as part of a comprehensive settlement.
    I am delighted to be able to report these positive developments. Not only is there renewed and sustainable momentum in the peace process. All the Cambodian factions have at last recognised the need for co-operation, consensus and compromise if there is to be peace in Cambodia. They are demonstrating this in their willingness to work together. Their commitment to ensure that the fighting stops and cannot begin again will create the right atmosphere for negotiation, and relieve the suffering of the Cambodian people.
    Much work remains to be done. The Cambodians have still to tackle the divisive issues, and a major task of the five and co-chairmen in coming weeks will be to encourage constructive discussion of these difficult areas. But the more the Cambodians can agree among themselves, the easier the task for the United Nations will be. The Cambodians have been left in no doubt that, if they want the support and assistance of the international community, they must work together with the permanent five, the

    883
    co-chairmen and, in due course, the Paris conference on Cambodia to produce an agreement which is acceptable to all, Cambodians and the United Nations alike. In practice, that means a comprehensive agreement, including all the elements which the five and the co-chairmen have already judged indispensable.
    We shall continue to play our full part, both as a permanent member of the Security Council and with our other friends and partners, in these renewed efforts to end 12 years of conflict. A settlement would not just mean a permanent end to fighting in Cambodia and the prospect of legitimate and representative government in Phnom Penh. It would open the way to the large-scale multilateral reconstruction and development aid that Cambodia so desperately needs.
    We hope that Cambodia can very quickly reap the benefits of a functioning SNC. The United Nations secretariat has already indicated that it may be willing to do business with the SNC as a government structure. The sooner the SNC takes advantage of this the better, for this in turn could enable the United Nations development programme to implement a country programme using the funds set aside for Cambodia during the past 10 years.
    As my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear to the House in the past, we shall be ready to play our part with other donors in contributing to Cambodia's aid needs in the context of a comprehensive political settlement. Meanwhile, we shall continue to support the humanitarian work of British organisations and the international agencies in Cambodia.
    Our commitment to Cambodia remains undiminished. We shall do our utmost to ensure that the current momentum towards a peace settlement is sustained and strengthened. We shall continue to contribute to meeting the urgent humanitarian needs of the Cambodian people. We are committed to playing our part in implementing an internationally agreed comprehensive settlement, and we shall provide every support we can to all the Cambodian leaders who now accept that, despite the work of others, peace can be achieved only if they themselves co-operate.

    Abortifacient Drug (Licence)
    12.3 am
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for this opportunity to talk about the drug RU486. The purpose of the debate is to call the attention of the House and the country to this abortifacient drug, which is manufactured by Roussel Uclaf, a subsidiary of the international company, Hoechst, which is based in Germany. As an active campaigner on pro-life issues, I took an interest in the drug mainly because it was one of the first drugs developed purely and simply to kill—and against that background we should consider it very seriously. I am sure that hon. Members will listen carefully to the objections to the drug.
    The purpose of the debate is to call for the withdrawal of the drug, which was licensed on 1 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It is planned to introduce it into the national health service in the near future. I do not want to concentrate on the pro-life arguments this evening—they are perfectly clear. I want to discuss the other factors that are being ignored by many of the people who are considering this matter.
    The first is the insufficiency of the research into RU486, which is a danger to the health of the women who take it. The long-term costs of the NHS could be vast because the chances are that the drug will produce deformed and damaged children. Britain is being used as a guinea pig by the manufacturer to set an example to the rest of the world, and especially the third world, where it could be used with disastrous consequences. Only two countries currently license RU486. One is France, where the drug is manufactured and the French Government have 40 per cent. of the shares in the manufacturer.
    On the question of insufficient research, Dr Turchen —a member of the United States Public Health Association and a well-known pro-abortionist—has claimed that all but one of the studies on the drug have been financed by the manufacturer. In answer to a written question two weeks ago, the Minister of State, Department of Health, said that no independent studies had been carried out in the United Kingdom by the Medicines Control Agency. By implication, that must mean that all the research programmes on the drug that were considered by the agency were carried out and paid for by the manufacturer.
    As a consequence of the lack of independent research, there is no evidence to show what the long-term effects will be for women who use RU486. It has been described as a powerful steroid. It has neoplastic qualities, so in simple terms it is cancer-causing. In a recent study on 11 normal, healthy male volunteers who took the drug twice a day for seven to 14 days, one developed adrenal insufficiency, which is potentially fatal, and a further eight developed widespread, unpleasant skin rashes. In another study, four women developed hirsutism, a male pattern of baldness or menstrual irregularity. That was after only a short period taking the drug.
    Tests on animals in the United Kingdom have shown that the drug is cancer-causing. The chemical cocktail of the drug works away in the body of the woman. The long-term effects are not known, as is admitted by the drug's supporters. This House, the Medicines Control

    885
    Agency and the other agencies throughout the world with responsibility for licensing RU486 all agree that we cannot predict the long-term effects of the drug.
    According to an answer to a written question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), drug licences are granted in this country within, on average, 19 months, and only when the matter is not referred for examination to the drug committee of the Department of Health. RU486 was fast-tracked—it was licensed within 10 months. The only reason given is that it will save money for the national health service.
    The Chinese carried out a study into RU486 involving 3,000 patients. The conclusion was that the drug was three times more expensive than a clinical abortion. The Chinese totally reject the argument that it will be cheaper. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that a clinical abortion will cost the NHS £270, whereas the use of RU486 will cost £182. I do not believe that four appointments at a hospital, four lots of treatment—involving taking RU486 and then taking prostaglandin, the second process in 15 per cent. of cases—will cost the NHS only £182.
    Many more tests have been carried out in the United States than in the United Kingdom. The United States has banned the import of RU486. The Food and Drug Administration warned that the drug
    "could pose a risk to the safety of the user."
    The FDA refused to license Opren. We did so, and are experiencing the consequences.
    Recently, representatives of the Pro-Life medical committee, which advised a group of hon. Members, went to Germany and talked to Hoechst, the holding company for Roussel Uclaf, and asked whether it would seek to license RU486 in Germany. The company did not suggest that it would attempt to do so.
    I recently had a debate at the Oxford Union with Professor Baird from Edinburgh university, who has carried out research into RU486. He claimed all sorts of wonderful side effects. I refer him and the House to Dr. John Seward of the American Medical Association Trust, who said that published conjecture that RU486 might be an effective treatment for a variety of illnesses was not based on any substantial test of the drug.
    RU486 is certainly not a contraceptive. It does not do anything to treat cancer. It cuts progesterone and probably stimulates the growth of breast cancer. It is of use only for strangling and killing a child in the womb. It is useful only as an abortifacient. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will say that it has only been licensed as such in the United Kingdom.
    My major concern is the danger to women's health. In March this year, a woman died in Lens, in France, from taking RU486 followed by an injection of prostaglandin. The drug licensed in France is called Nallodor. There is evidence that two women in France had serious heart attacks as a consequence of taking it. It is clear that RU486 stimulates some types of breast cancer, although it is fair to say that it puts others into remission. We must seriously consider that factor.
    It would be wrong of me not to examine the French experience of taking RU486. If I correctly read the notes attached to the licence, it is proposed to replicate in the United Kingdom the clinical usage in France. In France, there are four visits to the hospital or the clinic where the
    886
    drug is taken. On the first occasion, the blood count is taken. If the patient is anaemic or a heavy smoker, she is rejected. The child is examined by ultrasound. In France, the woman who is to take the drug signs an eight-page document, a waiver which absolves the manufacturer, Roussel Uclaf, from liability if the woman refuses to continue with the full treatment and goes on to have a deformed child.
    The woman returns one week later and takes RU486. She returns a third time, 48 hours later. If the child has been aborted she has to bring the remains with her. If she does not return, she is fetched. If I read my hon. Friend's notes on the licence correctly, in Britain the patient will not be brought back—she will be lost in the community, irrespective of any medical complications that may arise.
    In 75 to 85 per cent. of cases, RU486 works, but that leaves between 15 and 25 per cent. Those patients need to take prostaglandin. In the United Kingdom, that will be taken by way of vaginal suppository. In France, if the child is not aborted by late afternoon, the women is taken into theatre and a surgical abortion is carried out.
    There is some dispute about how effective the drug is. Dr. Turchen of the United States says that the drug is only 90 per cent. effective, and that in 10 per cent. of cases surgical abortions will be required. Roussel objects to that and says that it is 95 per cent. effective. But its data depend on the duration of the pregnancy. The longer the pregnancy, the less effective is RU486 and the greater the number of failures.
    We must also consider bleeding. Professor Baird at Edinburgh came to the conclusion that women could bleed for up to 44 days. The average is 13 days. In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine of a large number of women who took RU486, one in 1,000 needed a blood transfusion and, more importantly, one in 100 needed a surgical dilation and curettage to stop the bleeding. One can imagine what that involves. It has been described by Mr. Sakiz, chief executive of Roussel, as
    "an appalling psychological ordeal".
    Roussel is using Britain as a springboard to the third world. If a woman is anaemic, or suffering from some other disease, and she bleeds for up to 13 days, where will she find a clinic or hospital in the outback of Zimbabwe or the uphills of Ethiopia to provide the necessary treatment? She will bleed to death. There will be many fatalities in certain parts of the world if the drug is licensed there. Those people look to us, and we shall carry the responsibility. They do not have the sophisticated licensing facilities that we have. They will follow our lead, and we shall be responsible if people die as a result.
    Unlike a surgical abortion, the user of RU486 removes the remains of the child herself after the abortion. It is not like a clinical abortion where the foetus is removed under a general anaesthetic. The woman has to take part in the abortion. We cannot underestimate the long-term psychiatric effects, particularly when we consider the guilt that women may suffer, as has been shown in psychiatric research which proves that post-abortion syndrome is very much a reality. Professor Alan Templeton of the university of Aberdeen has found that women are distressed at the sight of their aborted babies. We should not underestimate the long-term psychiatric troubles that will come to many of these women as a result of post-abortion syndrome.
    Most important of all are the deformities that may result if women start the process of taking RU486 and then change their minds and do not take prostaglandin, Their

    887
    children will be born with congenital abnormalities. Tests on rabbits have shown that the drug can give rise to a condition known as sirenomelia, in which the legs are fused together. There may also be effects on the skull and head. If such children are born here, they will not be the subject of signed waivers as they would be in France. Their relatives will sue the NHS, and out of its budget will have to flow the hundreds of thousands of pounds necessary to provide those children with the lifelong treatment that they will require.
    We have seen the same happen after mothers have taken other types of drug. This means that money will not be spent on treating other people but will go to meet the needs of children whose deformities could have been avoided. The drug should be withdrawn now. Already an example of this syndrome has been noted in France. The child in question was so badly deformed that it was aborted after 19 weeks. Before this goes any further, it should be stopped, thereby preventing the vast costs to the people of this country that will ensue if it is not.
    When a drug is approved in the United States, those involved in the Food and Drugs Administration produce a summary of their findings on the drug, detailing why it has been approved, for the public to see. All that happened here was an answer to a written parliamentary question and nothing more. We have been given no details of clinical research into the drug or into past-abortion syndrome occasioned by it. The United States has a much tougher regime and is more careful about licensing drugs. We need the same in this country in order to know where we stand.
    We know too little about this drug, and it is too dangerous. The risks involved are too great. Now is the time to draw back and recognise that we should examine the matter further before British women are used as guinea pigs in trials of the drug.
    12.23 am
    Sir Bernard Braine: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on his tenacity during the past few weeks in persistently bringing this matter before the House, and now on successfully enabling what I am sure will turn out o be a major debate o take place.
    I am sure that every hon. Member knows my views on abortion. Everybody also knows that, for a quarter of a century, I have fought unceasingly for the protection of the unborn child, the most defenceless of all members of the human family. However, during that time, nobody has ever heard me single out any abortion technique and demand its withdrawal. The reason for that is simple. I am concerned about the destruction of human life, not the means of bringing about that destruction.
    However repugnant I feel abortion to be, the House made it legal, and some technique has to be used. Some techniques are quite revolting, but at least we know something about the long-term effects on the mother. RU486 is totally different. It is the first drug to be produced with the single aim of killing, and we have no idea whatever of its long-term effects on children in cases where the abortion fails or upon the women to whom the drug has been given.
    One of the most worrying aspects of the matter is that the drug was supposedly examined and evaluated by the Medicines Control Agency, a body governed by the
    888
    Medicines Act passed as a result of the thalidomide tragedy, when Parliament and public opinion were unanimous that we should never allow such a disaster to happen again. But here we have a drug that was approved behind closed doors and of which the manufacturers have had to admit that they have no idea of the possible long-term effects.
    How many hon. Members have noticed a singular lack of enthusiasm demonstrated by the National Abortion Campaign, which since its inception has fought for abortion on demand up to birth? its supporters are not opposed to the principle of abortion, but they are quite categorical that the purpose of treatment is to benefit the woman. On that at any rate we can respect the views of people who say that in certain circumstances, abortion is justifiable.
    Nobody knows what the long-term effects of RU486 might be on women. One would think that the fact that the manufacturers admit the possibility of sequelae which could be absolutely disastrous to those who were afflicted, would have encouraged the Medicines Control Agency and the Department of Health to proceed with caution. I very much regret that the Secretary of State for Health is not here to reply to the debate. If he were, he would be left in no doubt about how some of us feel about the way in which this matter has been managed.
    Such has been the unseemly haste in giving approval that one might almost think that our Government, like the French Government, had 40 per cent. of the shares in the manufacturing company Roussel Uclaf or in its parent company, Hoechset. I hope that we shall be told that there is no such connection here as there was in France.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell)indicated dissent.
    Sir Bernard Braine: At least we have gained one admission right at the beginning of the debate.
    Since Roussel Uclaf applied for a licence to market the drug in September, stories have been leaked to the press that the Department of Health was "fast tracking"—that is the term that was used—its progress to ensure that it would reach the marketplace with such speed that one would hardly notice its arrival.
    On Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) tabled a question asking the Minister how many drugs had received product licences in the United Kingdom in the last year, and how long each took to receive its licence. The answer is interesting: it showed that new drugs took 19 months, and that established drugs also took 19 months, unless referred to a committee established under the Medicines Act, in which case the period was 23 months. That is surprising, because the process took only 10 months in the case of RU486.
    By the most remarkable of coincidences, the company just happened to have organised, for the second half of July and the beginning of August, a series of seminars to take place all over the country, to promote the use of the drug. As a former Minister in the Department of Health, I know that seminars take a great deal of organisation, requiring considerable advance planning. However, the company was able to send out letters to every gynaecologist in Britain, on the very day that the licence was issued, inviting them to seminars, the first of which was to take place within days of the letter being posted.

    889
    Neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister saw fit to inform the House. They both know that there is a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament that holds a watching brief in pro-life matters. They know, especially from the debates last year, that there is considerable interest in the subject on both sides of the House. But all this was done in secret. No sooner was the licence granted than the company moved. The seminars had been organised, and everything was ready to go ahead.
    Such is the scenario that a fair-minded person would wonder whether the company could assume in advance that a licence would be issued. We insist on having a clear answer on whether the company was told this in advance. If we do not have the answer tonight, we must have it from the Secretary of State. If the answer is no, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to draw up new rules to ensure that there is no repetition of such indecent haste in introducing a drug that it known to be dangerous, and is banned in other countries such as the United States and Germany. We are being used as a guinea pig for the vaster markets in countries which have a policy of restricting population growth.
    What is more, as the Secretary of State knows, the drug has long aroused deep suspicion in the minds of parliamentarians and leading medical authorities. We were finally informed that the licence had been issued only because of the persistent questioning of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West. By the time that the question was answered, the licence had been issued. Such indecent haste demands an explanation, especially when one looks at the data sheet to examine the admissions that both the company and the licensing authority deigned to make.
    As I have said, the Medicines Act was passed to ensure that never again would we experience another tragedy such as that caused by thalidomide, yet this drug was licensed behind closed doors, in record time, when, as we learn from the company's data sheet, it could result in the child being handicapped in the case of a failed abortion.
    The data sheet says that, in such cases, the woman should be informed of the dangers, and it stresses that it is essential that the termination is carried out by another method. The manufacturers do not explain just how dreadful these abnormalities might be. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West has said that rabbits treated with RU486 developed sirenomelia—in plain English. mermaid syndrome—where the child's legs are fused together, quite apart from other gross deformities of the organs.
    Let us be clear about this grave matter. Let us weigh carefully what the Department of Health has done. It may be said that the Department proceeded to license the drug in a fit of absent-mindedness, but I do not believe that for a moment.
    We know that, in France, at least one baby exposed to RU486 was aborted at 19 weeks because its legs were fused. Its mother had changed her mind about having an abortion, but then the child developed such horrendous abnormalities that she clearly felt compelled to end the pregnancy. I use the phrase "at least one baby" advisedly. The case was cloaked in such secrecy that, when the story leaked out from the hospital, it took months for any real
    890
    details to filter through. We have no idea whether information about similar cases has been successfully suppressed or not.
    We need to know exactly what independent investigations, if any, were carried out by the Department of Health before it granted the licence. Both the manufacturers and the licensing authority have left unsaid things that most people would consider they ought to have said in explaining the possible handicaps that children who survived exposure to the drug might develop. They have also failed to make any reference to other abnormalities that could be just as dangerous, or even more so, since they could be passed down from generation to generation.
    I should explain that I have been advised on such matters for some years by a committee whose membership includes some of the most distinguished medical figures not only in this country but in the world. RU486 is not dissimilar to another drug—DES, or diethylstilboelstrol —which was originally produced with the laudable aim of preventing miscarriage. In this country, it was given to some 10,000 pregnant women between 1940 and 1970.
    Apart from the fact that it was not effective in preventing spontaneous abortion, the drug was finally withdrawn from the market when it was discovered that teenage girls who had been exposed to it in utero had developed cancer of the vagina. It was also discovered that 25 per cent. of males and 40 per cent. of females who had been exposed to it had developed abnormalities of the reproductive tract, none of which had been apparent at birth.
    As if that were not tragic enough, it has been discovered in the past few years that the third generation may also have been affected. People who had been exposed to the drug in utero, but were apparently normal, have now produced children with urinogenital tract deformities, or children who have developed cancer in their teens or twenties. As a distinguished embryologist told me recently, the chemical time bomb ticks on; we can have no idea whether a fourth generation will be affected, or how.
    Having considered the children who may be affected by RU486, let me now turn to women who, in their dilemma, may now be subjected to it. Admittedly, the manufacturers warn that women taking the drug could have heart attacks. At least one unfortunate patient has died in France from a heart attack, and at least two more have suffered severe cardiac trauma. The manufacturers have persistently stated that the drug should never be used in cases of ectopic pregnancy; that is also one of the contra-indications of the licence.
    When a woman is being considered for an abortion by RU486, it should be mandatory for her to be given a scan to confirm an intra-uterine pregnancy; otherwise, her life will be in danger. As a number of our medical advisers—including gynaecologists—have pointed out, a woman suffering from pain and bleeding after taking the drug might well believe that the symptoms were related to her abortion, rather than being the early signs of a rupturing ectopic pregnancy, which could be fatal.
    In this connection, it is of supreme importance to note that ectopic pregnancies have increased. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that they have increased and are a significant cause of maternal deaths, yet nowhere in the Department of Health circulars on the subject of RU486 is scanning considered to be mandatory.

    891
    We consider that to be absolutely scandalous. I hope therefore that we shall hear that there are plans to rectify that omission quickly. I require a precise answer to that.
    I have been an opponent of abortion for a quarter of a century, but this is the first time that I have ever called for the withdrawal of a drug or for the banning of a technique to terminate a pregnancy. I do so now for one reason only. Far from being a simple, easy, new method of abortion, this drug, introduced by ministerial decree, is potentially very hazardous, and there has been almost no independent research on it.
    I call upon the Secretary of State for Health to withdraw the licence and to order a proper scientific and wholly independent investigation that is not financed by the manufacturers. I should have preferred to say that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I expected him to be here, since this is the most important subject that we have debated today. It relates not only to the health of women but to our children's futures. The Department is represented by the Under-Secretary of State. I hope that he has been fully briefed on the subject, for he will have to answer a great many questions. I hope too that he will pass on the message that I should have preferred to see my right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench.
    It will take great courage by my right hon. Friend to withdraw the licence, but for him to admit the possible dangers and to do what, in the circumstances, is right will enhance, not weaken, his reputation.
    12.42 am
    Ms. Jo Richardson: I intervene early in the debate because a number of Conservative Members want to speak. If I do not do so now, I may be squeezed out.
    The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and my old adversary, if I may so describe him, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, have spoken against RU486. The right hon. Member for Castle Point made his usual somewhat exaggerated condemnation of this very important development. Both of them—and doubtless those hon. Members who will speak later in the debate—are obsessed anti-abortionists. They have made a number of very misleading statements and—I was going to say half-truths, but I do not want to be ruled out of order.
    Mr. Hind indicated dissent.
    Ms. Richardson: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West shakes his head. I want to try to put the record straight.
    I am glad that the Government have decided, after the most rigorous checks, to grant a product licence. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will explain those checks. It is unusual for the Under-Secretary and me to be on the same side, but in this case I fully support the Government's licensing of this product.
    We believe that RU486 is a step forward. It is the culmination of a research programme that was initiated in 1975 by Roussel. In 1982, the first clinical trials were carried out in Switzerland, since when it has been used by more than 100,000 women in more than 20 countries. In France, about which so much has been said, it was introduced in January 1989 as an integrated part of the women's health care programme. More than 90,000 RU486-induced trimester abortions have taken place.
    892
    A large-scale British multicentre trial of RU486 began in 1987 with the recruitment of volunteers from 13 NHS hospital gynaecological units in Scotland and England. The findings, which were published in 1990, confirmed the effectiveness of the sequential use of oral mifespristone and vaginal prostaglandins in inducing pregnancy up to the 63rd day of the pregnancy. That is the limit to which it can be used.
    British-based Roussel Laboratories applied to the Department of Health for a product licence in September 1990. It was granted on 1 July 1991, nine months later—that magical figure of nine months.
    Roussel Laboratories is running a series of seminars—the right hon. Member for Castle Point referred to the seminars; I presume that he means the same thing—in Leeds, Bristol, Nottingham, Glasgow and London to ensure that gynaecologists are familiar with the drug before it becomes available. It is doing so under conditions of the tightest possible control within the NHS and in other places approved by the amended Abortion Act 1967.
    RU486 is not a morning-after pill, as so many people have said in the run-up to the debate; it is an abortifacient. It will be available under the terms of the 1967 Act. Its use will be confined to approved places and, as with other methods of abortion, will require the agreement of two doctors who will have to give their signature in good faith. It is not abortion on request. A leader in the Daily Telegraph today—other hon. Members doubtless will refer to it—said that it is, but it should get its facts right.
    Despite what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West said, no deaths have been recorded that were attributable to RU486, and more than 100,000 women have used it since 1982. One woman died in France earlier this year during the course of a medically induced abortion shortly after receiving an injection of sulprostone, which is an injectable form of prostaglandins. She was an exceptional case. She had had 12 previous pregnancies and was a heavy smoker. In this country, the injectable form is not used. The prostaglandins analogue is given in pessary form.
    RU486 is now in its 10th year of clinical use.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton rose—
    Ms. Richardson: I do not propose to give way, as there is so little time for this debate.
    There is no evidence of any long-term health risk. We have heard many scare stories this evening, but we should stick to the facts. The drug is taken as a single dose, perhaps once in a woman's lifetime. It goes through the metabolism quickly and is eliminated quickly from the body. Nothing could be simpler and safer than that.
    Women in this country can obtain legal abortion despite the vigorous attempts by some hon. Members to close that option. We have never debated what methods of abortion should be legal—should women be entitled only to vacuum aspiration abortions, or would D and Cs be the most appropriate? It is right that we have not debated that, because we need to leave the decision on the safest and most appropriate method to doctors and women to decide between them case by case.
    I welcome the product licence for RU486 in Britain, because it extends the choice to women and to doctors. It has proved safe in clinical trials, despite what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West has said, and I believe that many women will prefer it. Of course it is not without risk—no drug is. Conventional methods of abortion are not

    893
    without risk either, but they are all safer than a pregnancy which carries quite a lot of risk, as I am sure hon. Members will recognise.
    In 1988, Roussel announced in France that the distribution of RU486 would be suspended. We now know that that was as a result of pressure and threats from the anti-choice movement against both Roussel and its parent company Hoechst, which is based in Germany and in the United States. It is to the very great credit of the French Government that they responded with the now famous phrase:
    "RU486 is the moral property of women."
    More than 100,000 French women are very grateful.
    I am delighted that the forces of ignorance and fear have not been successful in Britain either and that Roussel has been granted its licence. RU486 is not a wonder drug. There will always be some women who prefer an abortion under an anaesthetic. Although I would like abortions to be carried out as early as possible, I recognise that some second trimester abortions are necessary. RU486 is not available for use in later abortions; it is simply for the first three months.
    RU486 has the potential to improve national health service abortion facilities, which are currently inadequate and have too great a regional variation. The drug has the potential to cut delay because the woman does not need to be scheduled for surgery and because the prostaglandins which accompany RU486 can be administered on the ward.
    The drug will save theatre time and theatre staff. It will save the surgeon's time. It will save anaesthetists, theatre nurses and anaesthetic nurses. It will save porters, equipment and anaesthetic agents. I hope that that considerable saving of resources and the freeing of resources will be redirected into providing a comprehensive national health service for abortion, with less delay for women. I have heard some Conservative Members talk at length in previous debates about the difficulties. I accept that delays cause great problems for women.
    Here we have something that is safe, or it would not have been licensed. It has been properly tested, or it would not have been licensed. Yet those hon. Members resist the drug because of their obsession with their anti-abortion feelings. Far too many women are forced out of the NHS and have to go privately because the NHS is not good enough. I want the NHS to become good enough. I believe that RU486 will liberate a number of women.
    I support self-referral for abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. I realise that that view is not shared by everyone. That practice would ease NHS delays and, for the first time, would give women rights to decide whether to continue with a pregnancy. That would be in line with public opinion, as a recent Harris poll showed that 81 per cent. of adults support that proposal. In that context, RU486 would mean that women who wanted abortions could get them very quickly.
    Do not let us be deflected from making progress along this difficult and sometimes muddled path by the scare stories and the myths that are constantly put about by those who are anti-abortion anyway. Whatever the developments in the next decade, those anti-abortionists will be there to argue that such developments are unsafe and unwelcome. I believe that they will be wrong, as they have been in the past.
    894
    On this occasion, the anti-abortionists are using the potential benefits of RU486 to so many women to throw a cloak over their real intention of outlawing abortion altogether. The right hon. Member for Castle Point admitted that he was anti-abortion. I am sure that hon. Members will not be deluded by the comments of the anti-abortionists. Hon. Members have not been so deluded in the past, when they voted decisively for the improvements to the Abortion Act 1967.
    It is not often that I agree with the Government, but I welcome their decision to grant the product licence. I am sure that women will also welcome that decision and the additional choice that RU486 will bring.
    12.57 am
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: I shall try to be brief, because I know that many hon. Members who are against the product licence want to talk about this important issue.
    It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) for introducing this important debate. It is difficult to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) as we always seem to be totally opposed. The hon. Lady has said that, in her opinion, the drug is perfectly safe for the women of this country to use. In 10 years' time I hope that the hon. Lady will not have to eat those words, which are now on record. The hon. Lady believes that the drug is safe—I do not, and I believe that the medical evidence will prove me right.
    I am amazed that the drug has been licensed in such record time, almost with unseemly haste. All the excellent pharmaceutical companies associated with my constituency—ICI, Wellcome, Fisons and Ciba-Geigy—would love to know the magic formula to put the product licences that they want on the fast track for acceptance. What do they have to do to make that happen? The House should consider the speed with which the licence has been granted.
    Tonight we have the opportunity to register our concerns. The hon. Member for Barking made great play of the fact that Conservative Members are opposed to abortion. I am opposed to social abortion. It is regrettable that in this day and age, with better education, better living standards, and free contraception through the national health service, the lives of unborn children are taken away merely because they happen to be a social inconvenience. Rather than discussing women's rights, I wish that hon. Members would say more about their responsibilities and, for that matter, about men's responsibilities for the children that they father.
    Initially, family planning was introduced to plan families, not to destroy life. So-called family planning has been abused and there is abortion on demand in this country. We have the most liberal abortion laws in Europe and I am thoroughly ashamed of them.
    The drug has been marketed very cleverly as a wonder drug—a morning-after pill—which is easy to take and will solve the dilemma of young women who find themselves pregnant and want to do something about the matter. The drug has been promoted as a cheap alternative to surgical abortion. I was dismayed to hear the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) advocate that it was so good and cheap and would save surgeons' time. She was really advocating the cheapest possible method of ensuring that

    895
    women have abortions. That is an insult to women and I am appalled to have heard those words spoken in this House.
    RU486 will not be cheap. It has been promoted on the ground, for example, that it will save the national health service between £15 million and £23 million. Why has the Birth Control Trust, which actively promotes the drug, subsequently revised the figure down from £15 million to zero? I suggest that it is because there must be at least three appointments with the doctor who will prescribe the drug. At the beginning there will be no scan, which would immediately put up the cost. I believe that a scan is essential. Neither is there a costing of the pathological assessment for anaemia and other illnesses. Furthermore, the costs of the drug itself, the prostagladins and the surgical abortion when the drug fails in its purpose have not been taken into account. There are hidden long-term costs of treatment for, for example, post-abortion syndrome, the possible cancers that the women may develop in the long term and the cost of a child who is damaged if a woman has a change of heart halfway through the treatment.
    The licensing of the drug shows a cavalier attituded towards women's health, and ignores the possible long-term damage, both psychological and physical which may be inflicted. There is no doubt that insufficient independent research has been done on the long-term effects. Most countries have rejected the drug, and it is licensed for use only in France and Britain. France has a vested interest because the drug was developed there, and at that time the French Government had a 40 per cent. holding in the company, but Roussel needs the United Kingdom licence to promote and market the drug elsewhere and to give it credibility. Women in this country are therefore to be used as guinea pigs to help market the drug. People reject research on animals—yet this drug involves research on women, and the Government are backing it and introducing it as fast as they can.
    We must get the message across to women that, due to insufficient research, no one knows whether the use of the drug will cause cancers in the future. No one can predict the side effects that patients may experience. Opren was introduced and licensed and, in the majority of cases, it did what it was claimed that it would do—but in a minority of cases it reacted adversely, ruining the lives of several of my constituents. So an example already exists.
    It cannot be predicted whether the woman will abort quickly or easily, or whether she will suffer much pain alone and unsupervised when the abortion takes place. She may—more often than not, she does—suffer considerable bleeding. On top of that, the drug may not work—if it is not administered early on, the maker's claim for a failure rate of only 5 per cent. does not apply. If the pregnancy runs to 63 days, as it will be allowed to in the United Kingdom, the failure rate rises steeply to 20 per cent., so 20 per cent. of cases could be presented for surgical abortions, thus increasing the cost.
    I am possibly the only woman who has had children to speak in the debate, other than the hon. Member for Barking. At the beginning of pregnancy, most women have ambivalent feelings about the baby. A young, unmarried woman who finds herself pregnant and is horrified at the prospect may go to her local doctor or to one of the clinics advertised on the tube for what is commonly known as counselling, which is absolutely worthless because it is not
    896
    independent. There will, however, be some discussion of the woman's dilemma, and she may then decide to have a medical termination.
    The woman will go to a doctor to be given RU486, be told to go home, and to return in 48 hours. In that time, she may change her mind and decide not to return for the prostaglandin. What will happen then? It is perfectly true that the baby that she is carrying will most likely be severely damaged by the RU486 that she has already taken. In addition to the physical damage done to the women, she may suffer psychological damage. Post-abortion syndrome is well chronicled and recognised by the medical establishment, but there will be additional trauma for a woman who undergoes a medical termination and has to deal with the products of her conception and then return with that to her doctor.
    If a woman has a surgical abortion, at least it is quick. She is admitted to hospital, is given an anaesthetic and does not see the baby, and the trauma is kept to a minimum. The same is not true of a medical termination, when she may be left alone and totally unsupervised for a considerable time. How on earth is she supposed to cope with that while working or carrying on her normal life? It seems quite intolerable.
    I do not know why the information that my hon. Friend the Minister has laid down for general practitioners does not state that a scan is essential before the treatment is administered. No young woman keeps the date of her last period regularly, which is the only way to work out by how many weeks she is pregnant. Unless a scan is undertaken to ensure that the baby is not more than nine weeks and that there is no ectopic pregnancy—which can kill the woman—it is disgraceful to allow the drug to be administered.
    The hon. Minister for Barking spoke of the rigorous checks made by the committee which licensed the drug and the way in which it was introduced in France, where restrictions were put on its use. Is she happy that in France people who smoke heavily, whatever that may mean, or have a heart condition will not be allowed to have that drug, but that in this country no such restrictions are placed on its use? It seems appalling that women in this country should be allowed to take the drug without meeting the conditions that apply elsewhere.
    I genuinely believe that the drug is being introduced at far too great a pace. We need much more independent research. Despite the fact that, as was said by the hon. Member for Barking, I do not believe in social abortion, I am concerned about the long-term health of women, I believe that we shall rue the day that RU486 was introduced into this country.
    1.8 am
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on being called at a comparatively reasonable hour, but I find it difficult to agree with him, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), or with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), all of whom expressed concern about women's health and said that RU486 should be withdrawn because it is not safe. I suspect, however, that they feel that drug will make abortion too easy, and that they want RU486 to be withdrawn because they oppose abortion.

    897
    I am surprised that lay persons should so question the work of the Medicines Control Agency, which is held in the highest regard and undertook proper testing. The drug has been available for some 10 years, so I do not accept that it has been on any fast track. My right hon. and hon. Friends want its more widespread use delayed because they oppose abortion—not because they are really interested in the woman's point of view.
    I found myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton when she spoke of the need for parental responsibility. No one wants abortions in the first place. Surveys in this country have shown that 1 million women are at risk of unplanned pregnancy, and that in the course of a year one third of them become pregnant. More than one half of unplanned pregnancies end in abortion, and the remainder in the birth of a child that was not planned. No doubt some of those children are unwanted.
    Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend says that such children are unwanted, but that is not so. Many childless couples in this country would love to adopt them. Surely it is much better to do the honourable thing and to give birth to one's child, even if one cannot bring it up oneself.
    Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend knows that few children are given up for adoption. I am sure that people do not want to see children born who are not wanted in the first place, and who might then become the victims of abuse.
    There needs to be more and better family planning, and improved sex education in our schools—and that should begin at an even earlier age than now. We are all aware of the phenomenon of gymslip mothers. Only the other day, The Sun published a picture of a 14-year-old mother of two children. It seems as though sex education ought to be introduced in our primary schools, if we are to bring home to children what are the real choices in this world.
    It seems to me that RU486 is a safe drug and that its use ought to be considered on that ground and not rejected. The drug's provision by the health service ought to be considered in the light of today's statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a citizens charter. On the subject of the principles of public service and choice, it states on page 5 of the charter:
    "The public sector should provide choice wherever practicable. The people affected by services should be consulted. Their views about the services they use should be sought regularly and systematically to inform decisions about what services should be provided."
    It follows that women ought to be given the choice of using a drug that I am satisfied is safe. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that that is so, and that RU486 should be made available to women under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967—that is, when two doctors agree that it should be used.
    1.13 am
    Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on initiating this debate, but I wish that it had been held before RU486 was licensed. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in her place, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), because I know that he, too, has strong feelings on this matter.
    898
    I was appalled by the speech of hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). I do not know why anyone who regards life so cheaply should serve as a Member of Parliament. She spoke about life in a way that I found deeply offensive.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on initiating the citizens charter today, and I hope that as it develops we shall learn what price is placed on the unborn citizen.
    Like an increasing number of my colleagues, I am appalled at the manner in which the Medicines Control Agency is allowed to reach its decisions on drugs behind closed doors. I am well aware that much of the material must remain confidential because of pirating, but the United States Food and Drug Administration is required to publish the summary basis for approval, which any member of the public, not to mention parliamentarians, can scrutinise.
    I call on the Government to withdraw the licence allowing the marketing of Mifeggne until it has undergone substantial independent clinical trials, rather than allowing the women of this country to be used as guinea pigs. I and other colleagues intend to campaign for a change in the law to make it mandatory for the Medicines Control Agency to publish the summary basis of approval each time it licences a drug, and for that summary to be available for public scrutiny.
    1.16 am
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: With the leave of the House, I should like to contribute a few words to the debate.
    The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) was perhaps ill advised to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), as the argument about RU486 is far more complicated than he suggests. Four years ago—I remind the House that my maiden speech was on abortion and that I have always been in the life lobby in the House—I addressed a conference of about 2,000 people in Central hall, Westminster. I believe that the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was there. I told him then, and all the others who were present, that I believed that the drug would divide the life lobby.
    The drug raises a huge principle, and it was one that the right hon. Member for Castle Point and I had to examine in the debate in which we were involved. If we are devoted to ending the practice of late abortion but recognise that there are millions of women who, however much we object, will demand abortion, we must find a way around the dilemma that they as women face. The principle of a morning-after pill, while it may be unpalatable to many in our lobby, may to some extent appease our consciences. I know that that is not the purists' position, but we must deal in the world of reality.
    I understand the concern about the placing on the market of a drug which seems to me to be untested, and I understand also that much evidence has been produced in the debate to suggest that that is the position. We should be careful, however, about how we deploy our arguments. There is an argument for delay, but in the longer term this drug—or one of this nature—may well resolve the great dilemma confronting the right hon. Member for Castle Point and me, and all in this place who are part of the great life movement of which he is a member.
    1.18 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): It is common ground among all those who have participated in the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has raised a major issue by talking about the licensing of RU486. I regret that my presence in the place of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been interpreted by some as signifying a downgrading of the importance that the Government attach to the drug. I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the House in general that that would not be a correct interpretation of the view of the Government or of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There is no argument about the importance of the issues that are raised by the licensing of the drug.
    I shall begin my substantive reply by briefly sketching the background against which I approach the problem. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that we are talking in any sense about a morning-after pill. We are discussing a method of abortion. As it should be seen clearly as an abortion method, its use must be governed by the provisions of abortion legislation, and principally the Abortion Act.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is licensing the drug only for use in conditions that are clearly set out in law—that is to say, that the prospect of an abortion must be agreed to by two doctors. It must be on defined grounds within the terms of the Act, it must be in licensed establishments—there is no question of it being available for use in unlicensed establishments by general practitioners—and it will be available for use only where a pregnancy has run for a maximum of nine weeks.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: How does my hon. Friend intend the length of pregnancy to be confirmed, unless a scan is carried out? Will he give an assurance that a scan will be carried out on every woman before the drug is administered?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend earlier asked me to answer that specific question, and I shall do so now. If a clinician is to use RU486, the conditions of the licence require him to be satisfied that the pregnancy has not run for more than nine weeks. In those circumstances, the clinician may be satisfied by the woman giving details of her normal menstrual cycle. However, if the woman does not know the details with sufficient accuracy, clearly the clinician would have to satisfy himself by some other means that the conditions of the licence were being fulfilled. The conditions are clear and unambiguous, and the drug is licensed for use only for abortions before the expiry of nine weeks of pregnancy.
    In the Government's view, the drug is an alternative method of carrying out an abortion, and we leave the choice of the method principally in the hands of the clinician, although, as with all clinical choices, the clinician will use the discretion vested in him in consultation with the patient. I emphasise that we do not envisage the use of RU486 as a cost-saving exercise. Even if we did, it would be arguable whether it would be an effective cost-saving approach.
    I wish to distance myself from one of the comments of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), although I was grateful for her support on some matters. There is
    900
    certainly no commitment by the Government that any savings that did accrue from the use of RU486 would be made available to increase the availability of NHS abortions. That is a matter to be decided by individual district health authorities against the background of their own choices and decisions about health priorities in their districts.
    In considering whether a clinician should use that method of abortion or any other, the primary concern must be the welfare of the patient. One of the considerations that was not given as much weight by some of my hon. Friends as I had anticipated is the relative risks for the woman of an abortion by taking a drug or an abortion requiring general anaesthesia. Neither routine is risk-free, but it is a legitimate exercise of clinical judgment to make the choice between those two methods of carrying out the legal act of procuring an abortion.
    Dr. John G. Blackburn: My hon. Friend referred to the clinical welfare of the woman. As has been said, some 588 cases were reviewed. Is my hon. Friend aware that 37 of those women required surgical evacuation as a result of taking the drug?
    Mr. Dorrell: I cannot confirm that statistic, but it is true that, if a woman changes her mind halfway through the course of treatment with RU486, or if its use is found to be ineffective, the guidance from the manufacturer is that there is an appreciable risk of a foetal deformity and that an alternative method of abortion should be considered. That is clearly stated as part of the supporting literature on the licensing of the drug.
    Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has just made an important statement. Is he saying that weight is given to what the manufacturers say? Has my hon. Friend grasped the main point—which has been made by all Conservative Members who have spoken, save one—that independent research is needed before we are committed to a method that is largely, if not wholly, unproven?
    Mr. Dorrell: If I may, I shall come later to my right hon. Friend's point about independent research. I was trying to establish common ground between Health Ministers as the licensing authorities and those who are worried about the use of the drug. If an abortion is not completed as a result of the drug being administered, there is acknowledged to be a risk of foetal deformity, which must lead the clinician and the woman to consider what further steps should be taken to complete what I emphasise is a legal abortion routine.
    I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and many of my hon. Friends fundamentally disapprove of the procurement of the abortion in the first place, but if the law allows the woman and the clinician to contemplate that action, and the initial steps taken in using the drug were ineffective but rendered the foetus liable to deformity, it is clearly legitimate for them to consider alternative ways of bringing the contemplated abortion to a successful conclusion.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West said that there had been insufficient research into the drug. In responding to that point, I shall answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point about independent assessment of the evidence used in the licensing process. Under the licensing system, it is for the applicant in the case of any drug to substantiate the

    901
    application against the tests of safety, efficacy and quality that are laid down in statute. It is not for the taxpayer but for the drug company to pay for research into a new drug and to demonstrate to the Independent Licensing Authority—the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Control Agency, giving advice to Ministers—that the proposed new drug passes those tests.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point correctly pointed out, that was the system set up as a result of earlier failures of medicines licensing. That system, seeking to learn the lessons of those earlier failures, gave my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State unambiguous advice that this drug should be licensed for the purpose, and on the condition, set out in the licence.
    I assure the House that there was no fast-tracking of the application; it was considered according to the normal processes laid down in statute and it passed the tests, set out by Parliament, of safety, efficacy and quality.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Did the Government inquire into why the drug is banned in the United States and Germany, two highly civilised countries with established medical professions, from whose ranks have come some of the greatest medical scientists in the world?
    Mr. Dorrell: No, the Government did not inquire into that, because, if we had done so, we would have been acting outside the Medicines Act. Parliament sets out the test that a new medicine must pass in order to secure a licence.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Why not come to Parliament in the first place?
    Mr. Dorrell: The Medicines Act sets out the tests of efficacy, quality and safety which the producers of a new drug must pass.
    My right hon. Friend asked me whether the company had had notice of the issuing of the licence. I am advised that the company had no such notice. The seminars, which my right hon. Friend correctly said would have been prepared before the licence, were organised by the company at its own risk.
    My right hon. Friend also asked me about the investigation of mermaid syndrome, and I will, if I may, write to him on that.
    Mr. Hind: Was any research carried out by Roussel Uclaf and submitted to the Medicines Control Agency on post-abortion syndrome?
    Mr. Dorrell: The information that is tendered by a company to the MCA is, as my hon. Friend knows—not least because my hon. Friend the Minister for Health has responded to him on the specific point during parliamentary questions—confidential within the MCA and the published information on the drug, as was also referred to during parliamentary questions, appeared in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and in the New England Journal of Medicine, both of them containing scientific papers on the background to the drug.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) asked about the supervision of a woman, particularly if she changed her mind or if there were problems associated with the use of the drug. It is clearly true, and unavoidable, that, with a drug which involves the use of several stages some days apart, there is the risk that the woman will change her mind during the course of the treatment. I have already acknowledged that a half-completed use of the drug leads to a risk of foetal abnormality, and I have dealt with the consequences that flow from that.
    The guidance that has been issued makes it clear that, if an abortion has not occurred in the expected time and if the patient leaves the treatment centre, she must be given a specific contact name and told where to go in the event of any problems. A follow-up visit must always take place within eight to 12 days after the administering of the drug to verify that the abortion has been completed and that vaginal bleeding has stopped or substantially reduced. Persistence of moderate vaginal bleeding at that point or later could signify an incomplete abortion, and appropriate investigation and treatment would therefore have to be considered.
    But we must remember that it is always true that any treatment of this nature is voluntary. We have no power, nor should we have, to compel a woman to return. We should make it as easy as possible and stress to her the clinical need for her to ensure that such signs are followed up in her own interests.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  1.33 am
  Mr. Keith Vaz: No one would have anticipated that the closure of a bank would result in riots, disorder, or such anxiety, anguish and public concern as followed the decision that fateful Friday 5 July to close down the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. But this is the stuff of which fictional best sellers are made. We have all heard of the bank that likes to say yes. This is the bank that refuses to die. It is a story straight out of the Arabian Nights—of a bank, a sheikh, a governor, a political crisis and a Prime Minister who claims to have known nothing.
  Every day and every hour, there seems to be some development or some new information about BCCI which occupies the top of our political agenda. It has dwarfed all other issues and events. It therefore seems remarkable that the Government refuse to give parliamentary time for a full debate, although we have had two statements, one private notice question and the announcement of a public inquiry as well as debating amendments to the Finance Bill last week. I welcome this debate and I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have helped to form the action committee on BCCI, especially the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles).
  In the past few days I have had meetings with thousands of depositors and members of staff. They are in a time warp. It is like talking to victims of some terrible disaster. They are worried, perplexed and anxious. Many have lost their life savings, and many will be ruined. The reputations of some business people with even the most tenous connections have been put at risk. For the staff —12,000 of them worldwide—the situation is bleak indeed. They have lost jobs and deposits and they are at risk in the employment market because they have to some extent been ridiculed for working for an organisation that has been so bitterly attacked.
  Those who have acted improperly ought to be brought to justice, but there have been no arrests or detentions and no prosecutions. We should like to know when they will start.
  What action is being taken to support initiatives to help members of staff to keep their jobs? What arrangements can be made to help members of staff to clear their names? It would be ungracious not to welcome the establishment of the committee of inquiry announced by the Chancellor on Friday, but will the Minister explain why the Governor of the Bank of England told Members at 8 pm on Thursday that he did not favour an inquiry as it was not in the interests of depositors or the liquidator, but by Friday lunchtime had changed his mind? What persuaded him to do that?
  Did the Governor meet the Chancellor before the two occasions that I have mentioned? The Prime Minister today announced the chairman of the team of inquiry, Lord Justice Bingham. Will the Minister confirm that the commission of inquiry will have full judicial authority, including the right to subpoena and examine all accounts and transactions of all BCCI banks and related activities throughout the world? The commission should also have full access to all information from Ministries, Depts and
  904
  regulatory authorities, and the right to decide issues of compensation, the period for compensation, and any appeal procedures.
  Will the Minister accept that the commission's main responsibility will be to undertake a thorough examination of all the events leading to the Bank of England's decision to close down the BCCI's operations and to assess whether the Bank of England examined all possible options to contain the situation? Will the commission of inquiry undertake an analysis of the economic and social consequences of BCCI's closure both in the United Kingdom and throughout the world? Will it be able to propose essential reforms, including reforms of the Bank of England and the other authorities? Will it be able clearly to identify the criminal and civil responsibilities of all concerned, including the auditors? Finally, will the commission be able to give us an interim report so that any findings can be the subject of parliamentary debate or legislation?
  I pay tribute to the frankness of the Governor of the Bank of England, who I believe will eventually become the unfortunate scapegoat for the whole problem. In the two meetings that he has held with hon. Members, on Wednesday 10 July and on Thursday 18 July, to which he readily agreed and at which he was unfailingly courteous and frank, he gave us details and answered questions about events. However, if there has been a failure to regulate, no matter how nice and courteous the Governor may be, he must take full responsibility. He knew the seriousness of the situation. That is why he went to Downing street on 28 June to give the news of the proposed closure. We are entitled to know whether the bank, as the watchdog, had carried out its duty adequately —not whether it acted too early or too late, but whether it acted properly. The same considerations apply to Ministers.
  The Bank of England has certain statutory responsibilities, and while the rest of us can raise rumours and other points of concern, the bank has the power to act. For example, did the Governor know about BCCI's alleged terrorist links? What action was taken after the two Price Waterhouse reports in March and October 1990? We know from our meeting with the deputy Governor on 10 July that 10 special reports were commissioned by the Bank of England, ending with the report of 25 June.
  Does the Minister unequivocally endorse the role of the Bank of England? Is there nothing that it did or failed to do which causes the Government concern? The Chancellor said in his statement on Friday:
  "I have no reason to doubt that the Bank acted properly and promptly in the best interests of the depositors."— [Official Report, 19 July, 1991; Vol. 195, c. 716.]
  Does the Minister agree?
  It is also important to know when Ministers and Treasury officials knew, and what action was taken. Last year, in a debate in another place, the noble Lord Henley said:
  "Treasury officials have been in touch with the Bank of England to emphasise to it the degree of public concern about the case, not least that expressed by noble Lords, and to ask it to take full account of the concern in its continued supervision of BCCI. The Bank of England has confirmed that it is doing this and will continue to do so."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 April 1990; Vol. 518, c. 421.]
  What action did the Treasury take to ensure that the situation was being monitored? When the Price Waterhouse report was received in October 1990, the

  905
  Governor told us that it did not contain any fraud or anything to warrant the action now being taken. Does the Minister agree?
  Yesterday in the House, there was an exchange between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. On Thursday, I chaired two cross-party meetings. At the meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England, the Governor clearly stated when pressed by two colleagues that he always kept the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully informed of all major developments. He said that it was his job to do so, but that he could not divulge the nature of the conversations.
  That course of action was confirmed in a written reply to me this evening from the Minister. I asked the Chancellor to list the dates on which we had discussed the trading position or other matters relating to BCCI with the Governor of the Bank of England in the past two years. The Minister replied that the Chancellor had discussed a number of supervisory cases, including BCCI, with the Governors of the Bank of England on a number of occasions since becoming Chancellor, but was not aware until 26 June that fraud had been uncovered.
  Clearly the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, had similar meetings with the Governor. It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister was not informed of the circumstances of BCCI. BCCI was going through the most important development of the time, which resulted in the resignation of the president and chief executive of the bank, and a major reconstruction of the bank was taking place. At that time of hostilities in the Gulf, the Chancellor would have wanted to have that information and to act on it in defence of the leader of a friendly Gulf state. The Prime Minister must return to the House and make a statement about his true knowledge of events. He cannot keep hiding behind the old lady's skirts.
  I accept that the Prime Minister did not know about the fraud until 28 June, but he has been reticent about telling the House what else he knew. The final report from Price Waterhouse arrived on 25 June. By 26 June, the gist of the report had been given to a Treasury official, John Geeve. On 28 June, a special meeting was held at Downing street, which was attended by both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and both were informed of what was to be done. There is then an extraordinary seven-day gap, in which there was no political or diplomatic initiative.
  It is beyond belief that the Prime Minister, who a few months ago had been fighting on the same side as the sheikh, could not even pick up a telephone or send an official to visit the sheikh to see what could be done to save the bank. That crucial gap, that seven-day silence, has still not been explained. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor must have known the consequences, both financial and political, of that gap. They had a duty to act. The shiekh makes it clear that, had he been asked, he would have provided financial support to save the bank, but no approach was made.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Listening to the hon. Gentleman, anyone would think that the head office of BCCI was regulated by the Bank of England. It was not —it was regulated by the Luxembourg authorities. As we know, the bank operated in a large number of different countries. Is not the reason why there was some delay once the Bank of England had decided to act in the United
  906
  Kingdom the fact that it had to communicate with all the regulators so as to ensure that there was concerted action throughout the world?
  Mr. Vaz: As the hon. Gentleman will find out from my speech, negotiations were taking place and the College of Regulators was already fully informed of what was being proposed.
  BCCI Holdings is a member of a substantial group of companies which carried on a banking business in over 60 countries, where it had more than 1.25 million depositors and approximately 12,000 staff. his Highness Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan an-Nahayan has always maintained that he was more than prepared to co-operate with any scheme and any initiative by the Bank of England to maintain BCCI. Can the Minister confirm that he has no information which casts any doubt on that statement? Last Thursday, the sheikh went to the trouble of taking out full-page advertisements in national newspapers citing his outrage at what had happened. The statement speaks of his shock at the abrupt action taken by the Bank of England, without any consultation with either the shareholders or the central bank of the United Arab Emirates.
  The sheikh, as the majority shareholder, was well aware of the troubles in the bank, and he tried to implement new measures. Their implementation involved close cooperation and consultation with the Bank of England and other members of the College of Regulators. As the investigations were pursued, further losses and certain irregularities were uncovered. These were reported on a regular basis to the College of Regulators to keep it informed of the developing situation.
  In the light of those discoveries, Price Waterhouse was instructed by the sheikh to prepare a refinancing and restructuring plan designed to reorganise the group on a sound footing. A first draft of this plan was presented to the College of Regulators in October 1990. Members of the college, and the Bank of England, made it clear that they welcomed and were willing to co-operate fully in implementing the proposals for restructuring on the basis that this would best safeguard the interests of the group, depositors, shareholders and staff, and avoid the other alternative. The other alternative was liquidation, which, it was recognised by all concerned, would have catastrophic effects, given the size and extent of the group's liabilities.
  In a letter to the department of finance dated 11 April 1991, the Bank of England stated:
  "The college did form the view that the proposed overall framework of the new structure appears to acceptable basis for restructuring … All the relevant supervisors stand ready to engage in the necessary dialogue in the near future."
  On 5 July 1991, the latest in a long series of meetings was due to take place between representatives from the Bank of England, the Luxembourg monetary Institute and the majority shareholders so that the finalised restructuring plan could be presented to the majority shareholders. A new chief executive, Mr. Kingshott, had been appointed, and a new name—the Commercial Bank of Europe—had been found, but that plan came to an abrupt end on 5 July as a result of the Bank of England's decision.
  As the House knows, this morning's High Court hearing was adjourned. I attended the hearing, and was amused to see that the judge was having as much difficulty as some of the lawyers in following this complex case. I strongly believe that it is not impossible to save the bank, or at least to protect the depositors and staff. The

  907
  adjournment has provided ample opportunity for consideration as to whether something can be done to ameliorate the situation.
  It is disgraceful that a rush to wind up the bank should prevent a possible rescue of parts of the group by the sheikh. I understand—I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it is his understanding, too—that on Saturday the Abu Dhabi-based BCC (Emirates) conditionally approved a takeover of BCCI's three branches in Pakistan. It is possible that attempts are being made to construct a new regional bank out of the remains of BCCI.
  Even now, at the eleventh hour, it would be possible to arrive at a formula to help the depositors, investors and staff. The answer may well be a freezing of the bank's assets and the payment of interest with the long-term aim of creating a new bank, allowing those who wish to take the statutory compenstion to do so. To achieve that, the Governor of the Bank of England must continue his dialogue with the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, and the Bank of England must show a willingness to do that. Will the Minister confirm that the Government would support such an initiative?
  There are reports that British exporters are in danger of losing at least £2 billion as a result of the closure, and that some of those firms may themselves close. What action does the Minister propose to take to assist them? Clearly, the plan presented on 5 July—which had taken many months to develop—is wholly inapplicable, due to the Bank's action.. If the group, or any of its constituent elements—including BCCI—is to avoid liquidation, an alternative plan must now be developed by the sheikh, in conjunction with the commissioner appointed by the Luxembourg court, Mr. Smouha, and the Bank of England.
  Is the Minister aware that, in the past 10 days, a number of meetings have been held by Mr. Smouha and those representing the sheikh? Those meetings have involved constructive discussions intended to explore whether there is any alternative to liquidation. The adjournment of the case in the High Court allows the sheikh to conduct a review, and to enable the discussions to continue, with a view to establishing whether there is any viable means of preserving the value of the group for the benefit of all interested parties—depositors, employees and shareholders. The possibility of a viable alternative to liquidation is, in the sheikh's view, a real one.
  The majority shareholders have already taken active steps to secure that objective, and apparently wish to continue to do so for as long as may be necessary. If, however, the court ordered that BCCI be wound up, the majority shareholders would have no continuing interest in rescuing that element of the group. The negotiations and discussions are continuing at the highest level. Is the Minister aware of those discussions, and does he support them?
  Did the Minister know that a meeting had taken place in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday 16 July 1991—attended by Mr. Jaans, the director-general of the Luxembourg Monetary Institute, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Leigh-Pemberton, and Brian Quinn, the director of finance, together with the ambassador to the United Arab Emirates? Mr. Jaans referred to the six-month period that Mr. Smouche had been given by the Luxembourg court to do what he described as a thorough stocktaking intended to enable him to tell the court whether a reconstruction of BCCI should be attempted.
  908
  Mr. Jaans stated expressly that he regarded the stocktaking operation as being necessary to establish the true position of BCCI and that it must be completed before a solution could be found. Will the Economic Secretary confirm what he said to me earlier—that if there were any means by which a reconstructed group could be viable, by removing those who have committed the fraud and bringing them to justice, the Government would support it? Is he aware that there are only eight days in which to do so?
  As the Economic Secretary knows, the issue was raised earlier in the House. Serious allegations have been made in some main newspapers about alleged terrorist links with the bank. Will the Economic Secretary comment on those allegations and tell us whether the security services have indeed informed Ministers? Has the matter been reported to the Cabinet's joint intelligence committee? I understand that the British security services first warned the Bank of England over a year ago of terrorist links and of accounts used by terrorists, including Abu Nidal. It is important that Ministers should take early opportunities either to confirm or to deny those rumours.
  Did the security services tell the Prime Minister? If so, the Prime Minister had two different channels of communication—first from officials from the Bank of England, in his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and secondly, from the security services in his position as the Prime Minister.
  I wish to refer finally to two points. The first is the position of local authorities. My hon. Friend will speak later, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, about local authorities, which have been severely affected. They invested their money on the basis of an authorised list provided by the Bank of England and with the approval of the Department of the Environment. When we met the Governor on Wednesday 10 July he said that the list was not a guaranteed list. Both my colleagues and I disagreed. A list from an authoritative body such as the Bank of England must be assumed to be authoritative. Unless it carries an exemption notice, there is, in my mind, no question that it cannot be acted upon. Can the Economic Secretary confirm what action has been taken by the Government to ensure that the list has been checked and that all the listed insitutions are sound? What compensation is he proposing to offer to local authorities?
  Depositors—the Economic Secretary was pressed about this on 8 July when he made his first statement to the House—must be given an assurance that the amount being offered by the Deposit Protection Board will be increased from the present level of £15,000. The average portfolio of investors in this bank is £15,000. They cannot possibly be expected to accept less than that. The Government must consider increasing that figure. If they cannot do so out of their own funds, they must pay even more attention to the initiatives currently being undertaken by the sheikh and others so as to ensure that they succeed.
  This has been a fiasco which has degenerated into a shambles. The pivotal role of the Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank of England needs to be carefully examined. I welcome the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee inquiry. I hope that the Committee will invite the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give evidence. The Prime Minister had the audacity in the House this afternoon to accuse my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition of muckraking. How can raising the hardship and misery of individuals and others, and the

  909
  possible failure to act properly, be regarded as muckraking? In my view, the Prime Minister ought to apologise to those whom he has insulted.
  In a democracy, we demand the right to know the truth. The depositors, the investors, the staff—indeed, the whole country—want to know the truth. Those in high office who have breached their duty of care should consider their position in the light of the revelations of the past few days. This astonishing banking scandal will live to haunt the present Administration and taint the reputation of the Bank of England for years to come. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will act.
  1.58 am
  Mr. Michael Knowles: I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for the kind words that he said about me. We started together on the scheme in the somewhat vain and naive hope that, in an election year, BCCI could be kept out of the party political bull ring. Inevitably, it was bound to be dragged in.
  Bank failures in the United Kingdom are rare compared with countries such as the United States, where banks go to the wall not every day of the week but reasonably frequently. In the United Kingdom, such failures tend to be rare because of the Bank of England system, which has been very effective. With the more open international banking system, which has grown and I suspect will continue to do so, BCCI could happen again —and all too easily.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that there are two salient points to this affair? The first is that BCCI was not registered in this country, so the prime regulatory authority was not based in this country. Secondly, bank regulation is not for the Government but for the Bank of England. That has always been true, and presumably would be if, God forbid, we had a Labour Government.
  Mr. Knowles: That is right. The Bank of England is not an independent central bank like those in Germany and the United States. In the Banking Act 1987, the House deliberately give it great powers of independence. The alternative is for the Chancellor to look after it, but I am sure that no Chancellor would like to do that.
  As far as I am aware, no hon. Member has had the opportunity to read the auditors' full 800-page report. In the Governor's opinion, that report of 26 June left the Bank of England with no choice but to move immediately. It revealed not inefficiency or poor management but fraud on a massive scale. The phrase used was "a bank within a bank".
  The Bank of England has been subject to similar criticism in the past. The Johnson Matthey case showed that the Bank of England will lean over backwards to save a bank if it is humanly possible. However, the Bank of England believed that nothing could be done to save BCCI. It may have been right or wrong, and that will be tested in the courts in eight days' time and certainly in the investigation, but the fact that it had to act is irrefutable, because that responsibility is laid on it.
  Did the House get it right in not only the 1987 Act but the Banking Act 1981? I suspect that the answer to that will emerge in the report.
  910
  With the internationalisation of banking, and given the amount of money in that system, the problem will be how a single nation state polices an international bank such as BCCI. We could tighten the 1987 Act and the Bank of England could close any institution not on proof of fraud or any wrongdoing but on suspicion alone. Is anyone going to argue for that power to be given to the Bank of England? That might also have an effect on the operation of the City of London. There might suddenly be a massive growth in Frankfurt and Paris as international centres.
  Pre-1987 and in the old days, the Bank of England worked very much on an old boy network. We moved away from that as we saw a changing international environment. We wanted to move the Bank more towards having to work on a basis of law and of being able to prove its suspicions rather than having a quiet word in somebody's ear. That means that situations like the present one can occur. One cannot have the best of all systems; one will always have to make hard choices. We made choices when we passed the 1987 Act.
  Can BCCI be rescued? As the hon. Member for Leicester, East said, there are eight days in which to decide that. Who can rescue it? There would seem to be only one man—his excellency the Sheik. How much will it cost? No one knows, because no one has yet been able to quantify the amount that has been extracted fraudulently from the bank. We have no idea what funds are left in it. The amount could be anything up to the book value of £20 billion, which is a horrendous sum.
  Should the Bank of England have acted sooner? Some argue not that it has acted precipitately, but that it left it too long. I suspect not, because the Bank hoped to have some proof on which to operate. The gap from 28 June to 5 July does not seem unreasonable.
  There had to be consultations with Luxembourg, where the bank is domiciled. When the Luxembourg authorities had agreed that action had to be taken, it then had to be agreed with all the other regulators and central banks around the globe, and they all had to move together. I remember it being explained clearly at one meeting that, if one loophole had been left, funds would have flowed out of the bank so fast that nothing but an empty shell would have been left. The whole point was to try to save at least some of the investors' money.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East mentioned local authorities and investors. No lists are issued by the Bank of England with hard guarantees. No Government could give a guarantee to anyone investing on a market anywhere that he will be totally safe. If somebody offered someone else a gold brick for 50p, he would do well to investigate it and look at it closely. The same applies if someone offers 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. more interest. Why is he doing that? How is he able to do that? The responsibility lies with all of us individually when we invest our money. It is still a matter of caveat emptor—the buyer has to beware. No one can or will give a guarantee.
  I feel more sorry for the small investor who gets taken in by a fraud. I have less sympathy with professional investors and with borough treasurers, who are paid substantial sums to know their way around. If we could do something to help the smaller investor, I would be sympathetic. Some councils seem to have been trying to play the money market and have got their fingers burnt.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Of all parties.
  Mr. Knowles: Of all parties. This is not a party political point. I have a fairly hard heart towards such councils, and that is probably true of most hon. Members. There will be a lot of lessons for a lot of people to learn from this, not least all hon. Members who have passed the Banking Acts. In many cases, they were bipartisan Acts which had been in the treadmill of legislation for many years. We may have got it right, but we may have got it wrong. Before we start trying to pass the buck to other people, we must look carefully at what we did right and wrong in the first place.
  2.9 am
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall make a relatively short speech. Many hon. Members present tonight have taken part in all, or almost all, the meetings that have been held so far with the Treasury and the Bank of England.
  I shall deal with the issue of local authorities. Local authorities, whatever their political persuasion, are concerned at the interpretation, after the event., being placed by the Department of the Environment and the Treasury on the list issued by the Bank of England. Discussions between the Bank of England, the Treasury and the local authority associations were held in mid-May. Therefore, one can well understand why local authorities feel extremely aggrieved about the reinterpretation of events now offered by the Treasury and the Bank of England.
  I should like to bring to the attention of the House a Press Association report issued earlier this evening. It records the disturbing claim by Sky News that it has documentary evidence to suggest that Abu Nidal was ferried between BCCI branches in London by the police, with the full knowledge of MI5, to oversee his accounts. That operation was allowed so as to ensure that MI5 had close contact with the terrorist to enable it to monitor his activities and that of his organisation. We should remember that this is the terrorist who planned and caused the destruction of the Pan Am aircraft over Lockerbie.
  That allegation has not been made by a politician or an organisation known to be sympathetic to the Labour movement. We are talking about an organisation owned and controlled by Murdoch and his associates. According to the information from Sky, it is clear that the manager of the BCCI branch in north London provided information to the police and MI5 about the amount of money deposited on behalf of the terrorist in both of his accounts. He says that he gave information to MI5 about the activities of the bank in relation to that terrorist organisation.
  According to the allegations, MI5 revealed the information to the Bank of England which set up an inquiry into Nidal's accounts in London code-named Project Q—Q for Qassem, the name of the Jordanian manager of the London branch.
  Given the type of information that has filtered out, one can understand why the Opposition and the people cannot believe that the Prime Minister's sole knowledge of the events commenced on the morning of 28 June when he met the Governor of the Bank of England at Downing Street to discuss the latest Price Waterhouse report. That is inconceivable. In October 1990, the Governor reported to the then Chancellor, the present Prime Minister, on the
  912
  Price Waterhouse inquiries. Since then, he has kept the Prime Minister and the current Chancellor abreast of events.
  My local authority has so far lost £2·1 million, plus interest to the value of almost £26,000. My authority has banked on and off with BCCI since the early 1980s. At one stage, it withdrew its reserves from the bank following an investigation in the United States. Money was replaced in the bank following discussions and assurances from the authority's advisers, the brokers R. P. Martin, and from others in the City. One of the decisions we should reach as a result of this case is whether brokers should be regulated far more strictly.
  The Treasury and the Bank of England should at least support those local authorities. Organisations such as R. P. Martin should immediately provide their accounts to show all transactions between the local authorities and the bank. That would clarify, once and for all, whether R. P. Martin and other brokers received preferential treatment and, in the process, failed to carry out their duties on behalf of their clients, the local authority associations. It is vital to the brokers' organisations in the City that that happens urgently.
  Last week, my local authority asked R. P. Martin, verbally and in writing, for that information. I understand that it has failed to respond to the request for information. Will the Minister respond by saying whether the bank will put pressure on brokers to ensure that such information is made available at the earliest opportunity?
  The Minister may also like to comment on the fact that, at 10 am on 5 July, in the normal course of events, my local authority sought to transfer its overnight deposit from BCCI to National Westminster Bank. BCCI acknowledged that request at 10 am, and at 12 noon it notified the local authority that the Bank of England had stepped in and was preventing the transfer of the funds to the appropriate account at NatWest.
  Why, three hours before the bank was closed, was a transaction that BCCI had agreed to make to one of the clearing banks intercepted by the Bank of England? Because of the Bank of England's action, my authority lost over £2 million. Was that step taken to prevent haemorrhages of funds from other institutions, or was it a direct attempt to ensure that local authorities and other lenders did not have the opportunity to withdraw substantial sums of money which could be used at a later date by the liquidator? The Minister should make a commitment to provide a public answer to that question.
  In the meeting between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England, I raised—as did other hon. Members—the subject of the list that the Bank of England issued to local authorities. I do not have time to discuss whether that list carried a risk. If I accept the argument that it did, why did Treasury and Bank of England officials at the Committee on Local Authority Borrowing, which met on 10 May in the Treasury under the chairmanship of the adviser to the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, go out of their way to make it clear to the local authorities that there were no problems with the secondary banking system?
  Indeed, Mr. Beverly, representing the Bank of England, said that local authorities would have to take into account the risk of overreacting and moving funds unnecessary and at some expense. That statement was not made in isolation. It was a direct attempt by the Bank of England

  913
  to put off inquiring local authority treasurers who were voicing concern about the problems of the secondary banking system at that time.
  Given the consequences of the two smaller banks, on 13 May—
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: No, the hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution. If he cannot do so, it is tough luck—at the top.
  Mr. Smith: Why does not the hon. Gentleman read from paragraph 11 of the minutes of the meeting?
  Mr. McCartney: I would read the whole minute if I had time. From the discussions in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, it was clear that local authority representatives had become concerned that there was no guarantee about the list. They therefore said that it would be reasonable for them to withdraw the funding from the secondary banking system. In paragraph 13, the Bank of England representatives went out of their way to show that that was not the best course of action for them to take at that time.
  That minute was subsequently followed by a letter on behalf of the local authorities from those represented at the meeting. The letter asked the Bank to confirm that it had been given the assurance that there was no systemic problem with the secondary banking system and to confirm the confidence shown by the Bank of England at the meeting of 10 May. The Bank of England did not respond to that inquiry to deny confirmation that there was no substantial problem lurking round the corner for the local authorities that were investing in the secondary banking system.
  However, we know from the information that came to light that that was not so. The Bank of England was well aware that it would take action within days, if not weeks, to close down the bank. We can well understand why local authorities feel aggrieved that they were taken for a ride by the Bank of England and the Treasury, which failed to take them into their confidence when the issue was raised on 10 May by those representing local authorities at the meeting at the Treasury.
  Irrespective of what anyone believes about local authorities' role in the affair, one fact is clear—local authorities of all political persuasions have become involved. All took the same view about investing in the bank. They all took the same advice, and came to the conclusion that, having made the best inquiries that they could, their investments were safe.
  Local authorities will survive the affair, but that is not true of the tens of thousands of small depositors in this country. Therefore, it is vital that we ensure that, if it is clear that the Treasury failed to recognise the signs as soon as it should have done, and that the Bank of England failed to act to defend depositors, the Government should admit that mistake and allow compensation to be paid.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I think that I know what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) was trying to say about paragraph 11 when he attempted to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech. However, I do not think that he heard my hon. Friend's comments. At the meeting, assurances were given about the secondary banking sector and, having heard them,
  914
  treasurers believed that they were safe in making investments. Therefore, paragraph 11 does not relate to the issue to which my hon. Friend alluded—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Harold Walker): Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr McCartney) or in a hypothetical intervention that I did not hear.
  Mr. McCartney: Either way, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr Campbell-Savours) made a telling intervention. My hon. Friend is always able to provide information to the House that is helpful in clarifying the confusion surrounding this issue—which is more than can be said about the various statements that have been made by Ministers to the House.
  During the past few weeks, we have seen a pass-the-parcel Government. The parcel has passed between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment, the Treasury and the Bank of England—and back again. During the past 18 months or so, millions of pounds have been sifted out of that parcel. A decision was eventually taken on 28 June which changed for the worse the livelihoods of many people in this country and worldwide, probably for the rest of their lives.
  The lesson that should be learned from the debacle is that we must ensure that nothing similar happens again. We must ensure that we have international arrangements so that small countries such as Luxembourg cannot hide behind inefficient regulations that allow funds to flow into that country that affect the international banking system. We must also devise a warning system, so that not only local authorities but others can invest with confidence in the secondary banking system—otherwise, it will be deprived of many millions of pounds of resources, which are important to its continuing good health in the British economy.
  I hope that the Minister will take on board not only the points made in the debate but over the past few days and weeks. Unless he does, we will be back debating the collapse of another bank, and the problems that that creates not only for local authorities but for tens of thousands of our constituents.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask for very brief speeches? Mr. Burt.
  2.25 am
  Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North): I will be as brief as I can, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that the BCCI affair has many levels. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for reminding the House that the real villains are those who are allegedly guilty of fraud. We are running around chasing everyone else, but we should be chasing those primarily involved in the fraud—and they should be brought to justice as soon as possible.
  There are many questions to be asked at the highest level of both the Bank of England and the Treasury concerning the time scale of knowledge held by each. As a Member of Parliament whose constituents have lost £6·5 million via the local authority's investment in BCCI, quite apart from the losses of individual investors, I recognise the need for, and welcome unreservedly, the inquiry—and

  915
  the remarkably free range of it indicated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement. He clearly contemplates that no holds will be barred, and putting himself forward if required to do so. Only the most churlish person can fail to recognise the integrity of such an offer.
  As to the casualties of the affair, I will concentrate—as did the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) —on one group of investors, in the form of local authorities. The BCCI scandal has made more open than ever before the complex nature of local authority financial transactions. After the public difficulties concerning, recent interest rate swaps that led to court cases, several councils lost significant sums of money through that particular choice of investment.
  The inquiry will, rightly, examine the role of the Bank of England and the Treasury in the BCCI affair, but I hope, for the sake of millions of taxpayers throughout the country, that local authority finance systems will also come under scrutiny. I stress that I am in no way prejudging the issue, or impugning the integrity of any local authority officers. I merely want to make it clear that many people whose local authorities have lost money are asking pertinent questions. The most pertinent among them is, "Why us? Why did other authorities choose not to invest as ours did?"
  It is incumbent on all public officials to seek answers to such questions. What standing orders govern the making of local authority financial transactions and their reporting to meetings of their full councils or council committees—and are they adequate? In the case of Bury borough council, an officer is empowered to deal, under delegated authority, with day-to-day investment decisions —and that is quite right. I cannot see that arrangement changing, and nor should it. However, the council's standing orders do not subsequently require a full report detailing, among other things, the name of the bank with which a deposit has been placed.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The same is true of all local authorities.
  Mr. Burt: I accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion—he makes my point for me.
  In Bury's case, an investment of £6·5 million was made for five years, from April 1988, renewable on six-monthly instalments—the last being in April 1991. Although the terms were reported in confidence to the council's finance sub-committee, the name of the bank in which that money was invested was not revealed—nor was it required to be. I cannot help but feel that such deposits should be reported in full. If that were done, at least all councillors would know of the details of an investment, and any who came to believe that there might be something untoward about the bank concerned could make further inquiries. That could not be done in the case of Bury—and I suspect that the same is true of many other councils.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield asked what rules govern the relationships between local authorities investing public money and the investment brokers. Is it wise to take advice "for free"? It is emerging that certain investment brokers who advised councils were allegedly on commission from BCCI of up to four times the norm. Was that known to local authorities? Did they ask? Should they
  916
  not be compelled to seek independent untied financial advice, or at least know in detail and make public the commission arrangements of those who advise them?
  Exactly what information was available and circulated among local authorities from 1988 onwards? Why did some authorities resist the pressures to invest with BCCI? Why did some—notably and incredibly, Lambeth—withdraw investments already made while others did not? If all local authorities looked to the famous Bank of England and Department of the Environment lists as gospel, many other authorities would have been caught out. They were not, and we should all know why.
  I submit that the questions that I have asked are appropriate for all local authorities, because I suspect that Bury's action was pretty standard. It is proper to pursue such inquiries, bearing in mind the fact that the public in the authorities concerned cannot easily be expected to put the loss of millions of pounds down to experience. Whatever comes out of the inquiries that involves the Bank of England, some authorities—I accept, not all—would still have been caught out, having invested some time ago. Had the Bank of England been in a position to close down BCCI earlier, such authorities would have lost their moneys a few years before they did. For them, therefore, my set of questions about their predicament is easily as relevant as any other set of questions that has been directed to the Government and the Treasury inquiry.
  Whatever may have been the cause of the losses to local taxpayers, I hope that they will not have to pay too high a price for the actions of others. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and I support the efforts that are being made by authorities to persuade the Government to spread the repayment of the debts over as long a period as possible, to reduce the impact year by year on local taxpayers.
  None of us wants to see BCCI-type collapses affect public authorities in future. Only by asking the right questions and seeking the right answers will some good come from the collapse. Only in that way will a similar situation be avoided for local taxpayers of the future—who deserve no less.
  2.32 am
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The appointment of Lord Justice Bingham to head a committee of inquiry into this sorry and unhappy affair is a welcome one.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a short debate, is it right that the summings up should continue for half an hour? This is meant to be a private Members' day.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the convention that, when a Front Bench spokesman seeks to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair, preference is given to him. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, will not take up so much time that no other Back Bench Member will be able to contribute to the debate. I hope that other Back Bench Members will be able to take part in the debate before the time limit expires.
  Mr. Boateng: The appointment of Lord Justice Bingham to head an inquiry into this sorry and unhappy affair is a welcome one. It is, however, a matter of regret that the Opposition's call for an inquiry was not met

  917
  sooner. It is also a sad and sorry affair that there is about the inquiry, and the Government's surprising reticence in relation to its terms of reference, suspicion on our part —indeed, more than suspicion—that we are about to see created a smokescreen behind which the Government intend to play a game of pass the ministerial parcel.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Rubbish.
  Mr. Boateng: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would refrain from making comments of that nature from a sedentary position. He will have time to make his own speech.
  There is concern on our part that we shall see the creation of a smokescreen behind which there will be played a game of pass the ministerial parcel, and that the Government will use that as a cover for inactivity on matters that it is possible for them to take action on now.
  I raise one such matter immediately with the Economic Secretary because he is aware that it has been raised with the Government on several occasions since the BCCI affair came to light. It relates to the role of auditors and whether there should be a duty, not merely a right, placed on auditors to report to the regulating authority—the Bank of England—when they have a suspicion of irregularities, dishonesty or fraud. That is a reasonable demand, but it has been consistently resisted by Ministers. Will the Minister now say that he does not intend to continue to resist that modest request, and that he will not allow the appointment of a commission of inquiry to be the cause of delay in that matter?
  Will the Minister confirm that the inquiry can consider the following questions? Do current regulatory procedures concerning both sound banking practice and fraud provide adequate protection for the consumer? Should there be an independent supervisory body for the banking industry? Should banks have a statutory responsibility to insure customer deposits? Should this country propose amendments to the European Community first banking directive to establish more effective supervision within the single market? Finally—this relates to a matter that I raised with the Minister earlier—will the inquiry consider the role played by the BCCI auditors in the light of their responsibility to present a true and fair view of the company's accounts, and what changes should be made in that regard?
  Those are five simple matters, and we seek an assurance that the inquiry can take them on board within its remit. If it does not have a sufficiently wide-ranging brief, and if it is not equipped with the power not just to summon Ministers and civil servants but to sub poena others who do not fall within either category, we must wonder whether the inquiry can adequately do the work that I imagine the whole House wants it to do.
  It is important to ensure that there is a clear sign, at the earliest possible stage, of exactly what Ministers knew and when they first knew it. There is a concern not only about when the Treasury and the Chancellor knew the facts—either the present Chancellor or, importantly and significantly, the former Chancellor, now the Prime Minister—but about the role of the Department of Trade and Industry. As the responsible body with regard to the
  918
  Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, was the DTI aware of the concerns of that body about the approval of BCCI's application?
  If the DTI was aware of those concerns, of the failure of IMRO to register BCCI for its purposes, and of its reservations about the people operating the investment management division within BCCI, why was that not considered sufficient warning as to the probity of the bank and the fitness of those who managed it? Should not that have sparked warning lights at the Treasury and the Bank of England? There is more than a suspicion that there was a breakdown in communications between Government Departments, which of itself could only have put depositers and the general public still further at risk.
  There is no reason why there should not be—and I should like an assurance that there will be—an interim report produced by Lord Justice Bingham. That would allay the very real concerns about the potential for delay and for removal of material from the public domain which should be in it as quickly as possible. We do not want the report merely to be promised tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.
  There is a question which I am sure the Minister appreciates is important to those within and outside the house who witness our proceedings. What can be done in the interim for the deposit holders and the staff? What is the current status of the practical steps promised by the liquidators and the Bank of England to ameliorate the plight of those people in so far as that is possible? Many small business people want an assurance that their needs and worries will not be ignored in the inquiry. The hard-pressed staff of BCCI await some reassurance, in so far as it can be given, by the liquidators and the Bank of England. We hope that it will soon be forthcoming.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind party spokesmen that the debate arising out of the Consolidated Fund Bill is one of the most precious opportunities for Back Benchers to raise matters in the House.
  2.41 am
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) did not like my saying, "Rubbish," from a seated position, so I shall say it from a standing position. It was rubbish to suggest that the Government were reticent about holding the inquiry, or that the inquiry is being held to hide something. The one certainty of our judicial system is that no Lord Justice will be used or abused by any Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Lord Justice will call whom he wishes in order to get at the truth for the House, as it has demanded. Surely that is right.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to what the Governor of the Bank of England was meant to have said. Referring to the debate in the House yesterday—Monday—today's Financial Times published a statement by the bank:
  "The governor certainly did not intend to give any impression that the chancellor is briefed other than in general terms on major supervisory developments and issues. As the PM indicated in the House today, the governor would not have told the chancellor about individual reports on individual cases".

  919
  It was said in the House yesterday that the Chancellor must have known of every page in the accountants' reports —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That was said by the respected Leader of the Opposition.
  BCCI has 48,400 accounts. Some 36,000 of them have less than £1,000, so those depositors will get most of their money back; a further 9,500 have less than £20,000, so those depositors will get 75 per cent. back; then there are 3,100 large accounts, of which the local authorities will be the biggest losers. There have been two debates on the position of the local authorities. One should not repeat the comments which have been made, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
  If one thinks about it, this is the simplest thing in the world. I have a list of all the banks that the Bank of England authorises. It does not guarantee their accounts. Those banks range from those with deposits of £100 million down to those with deposits of £20 million. Any local government treasurer who thinks that a bank with £100 billion and an AAA rating is exactly the same as the BCCI, with a minus-C rating, is not fit to hold his job. If anyone thinks that for a treasurer in the Western Isles to borrow £17 million to lend to someone else to gain ¼ per cent. more interest is not irresponsible, it is hardly surprising that so many Labour-controlled authorities go up the spout.
  The one certainty is that everyone has a fiduciary capacity to be responsible with other people's money. We may be sorry for the people who chose such idiots to be their local authority treasurers, but it is no good saying that it is the Government's fault and that the Government should bail everyone out.
  Mr. Tim Smith: I referred earlier—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) refused to give way to me when I sought to draw the attention of the House to the minutes of the meeting to which he referred. This is an important matter. The representative of the Bank of England, Mr. Beverly, addressing the local authority associations which were present at the meeting, emphasised:
  "The list did not say anything about the relative creditworthiness of the institutions or that they could not fail. That was an assessment the local authorities, and other depositors, had to make."
  That was passed on by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in a circular three days later to its members when it said:
  "It cannot be assumed that all institutions on the list are equally creditworthy."
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I agree with that point. The list is clear and it is there for good reason. Anyone who wants to lend or borrow money can look at that list. If the Opposition are saying that when there is a list this long of category A and B banks, one should lend to an inferior bank, they do not know much about local government finance.
  2.46 am
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Lord Justice Bingham would have been the first choice of many of us for the task that he is about to undertake. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister was unable to confirm this afternoon that the Lord Justice will have the power to compel witnesses or to take evidence abroad. I hope that we shall hear from the Economic Secretary tonight that that will be the case.
  920
  I was criticised by the Prime Minister when I intervened this afternoon for referring to the toytown banking laws of Luxembourg. I make no apology for repeating that allegation. My recollection of Noddy is that he was particularly good at keeping secrets, even from Mr. Plod.
  In December 1988, Professor Richard Dale, the consulting editor of the Financial Times Newsletter and Financial Regulation Report, wrote an article in which he suggested that the BCCI holding company structure was designed to bypass the regulators, that Luxembourg's secrecy laws were inviting criminal activity at BCCI and that for those reasons, as well as the absence of a lender of last resort, BCCI could collapse. Lord Justice Bingham will probably not be looking at the differences between European banking laws and regulation, but I hope that, in the light of what has happened, the Government will.
  The banking laws of Luxembourg are similar to those of the Cayman Islands. They guarantee secrecy. That means that they are calculated to be attractive to tax evaders, fraudsters and money launderers. Luxembourg can nevertheless claim to wash its hands of the inevitable consequences of having such lax laws.
  BCCI's corporate structure, which consisted of an unregulated Luxembourg holding company and two main operating subsidiaries incorporated in separate offshore secrecy havens, Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands, was purpose-built to confuse the regulatory authorities. That structure made nonsense of the Basle concordat, which was revised in 1983 specifically to take account of
  "the principle that banking supervisory authorities cannot be fully satisfied about the soundness of individual banks unless they can examine tha totality of each bank's business worldwide through the technique of consolidation."
  I ask that there should now be a searching review of the international bank regulatory framework. A number of points are already clear. First, the principle of consolidated supervision which was formally adopted but then neglected by the group of 10 countries in 1983 must be rigorously enforced. Secondly, further efforts must be made to combat bank fraud, and that should mean greater emphasis on unannounced on-site examinations by regulatory authorities.
  Thirdly—I acknowledge my debt to Professor Dale for these views—and most importantly, the present regime under which offshore banking services tout for business by offering secrecy, fiscal and other regulatory inducements needs to be overhauled. After all, what conceivable benefit does a banking centre in Luxembourg or the Cayman islands confer on the global economy? Offshore banking is a legitimate business, but it should be conducted in centres that have the financial and regulatory infrastructure to host it responsibly.
  Part of the responsibility for what has happened with the BCCI lies with Governments who have been prepared to condone such a lax regulatory structure. I hope that the Government will allow Lord Justice Bingham to take that into account; but above all I hope that he will be able to decide whether there has been a failure of a reasonable duty of care, whether by the Government or the Bank of England. If there has been such a failure, I hope that the Government will undertake to pay compensation to the hard-pressed account holders.
  2.50 am
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): I am sorry that not everyone who wished to speak has been able to do so, but I wanted to try to answer as many as possible of the points that have been made.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) raised an interesting and difficult point—the regulation of multinational banking organisations. He was right that this one would seem to have been deliberately organised to make it difficult to supervise. There are lessons to be learned from that and we shall look hard at the second banking co-ordination directive and at supervision in Europe after the end of 1992.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said that he was suspicious about the terms of reference of the inquiry. I am not sure why, as they are perfectly clear. I shall read them out, although that has already been done at least twice. They are:
  "To enquire into the supervision of BCCI under the Banking Acts; to consider whether the action taken by the UK authorities was appropriate and timely; and to make recommendations."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said, it is unlikely that Lord Justice Bingham will allow himself to be used as a smokescreen. Lord Justice Bingham will be able to make recommendations to us about banking supervision. I have been asked whether I am generally happy with the powers under the Banking Act 1987. In general, we are happy, but if there are lessons to be learnt from the inquiry, we shall take them on board.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr Vaz) asked about an interim report. I doubt whether an interim report would be appropriate in this case. I hope that the job can be done fairly quickly so that such a report will not be necessary, but it will be up to Lord Justice Bingham to publish an interim report if he feels that to be necessary.
  I have already dealt twice with questions about what and when Ministers knew. The Chancellor has dealt with them once, as has the Prime Minister. A series of events was involved, and the best place to bring them together is the inquiry. All records and Ministers will be available to Lord Justice Bingham so that he can elicit all the detail of what Ministers knew, and when.
  It was interesting that the hon. Member for Leicester, East should raise the subject of auditors. In the Committee stage of the Banking Bill, which became the 1987 Act, the Opposition spokesman, Dr Oonagh McDonald, said that she still found enormous problems with auditors being expected to inform the Bank of England's supervisors about the conduct of business by the bank of which they are auditors.
  It is fascinating to see the ground shifting now.
  Mr. McCartney: She lost her seat.
  Mr. Maples: She knew quite a lot about banking. It is the professional duty of auditors to inform the supervisory authorities if they are aware of anything that they believe is wrong. The hon. Member for Brent, South shakes his head, but he is wrong. I did not say that this was a statutory duty. I was going to say that their professional conduct includes the duty to do so. It is also clear from the supervisory guidance issued by the Bank of England under the Banking Act 1987 that the auditors should do so. If that became a problem, we could consider a statute, but many things happen outside statute and if they work
  922
  satisfactorily they should be allowed to do so. I do not think that it has been suggested that the auditors withheld information which should have been given to the supervisors.
  The hon. Member for Leicestershire, East posed many questions, but as there is little time I shall have to deal with them quickly. He asked what could be done for depositors and staff. The depositors can be compensated under the deposit protection scheme, which cannot be brought into action until a winding-up order has been made. That was today adjourned for eight days. We and the bank hope that the order will be made in eight days' time, although interestingly the representatives of the depositors and the shareholder and the liquidator today resisted that. Perhaps the depositors need to decide where their interests really lie because the deposit protection scheme cannot be activated until a winding-up order is in place.
  The Deposit Protection Board has already started to write to all 57,000 eligible depositors enclosing the necessary claim form. The process is going ahead even though the winding-up order has not yet been obtained. We are moving on that as fast as we can and I am conscious of the need to continue to move fast. I assure the House that I shall keep an eye on that.
  I understand that all members of staff have been retained as employees until the end of July and will be paid by the liquidator for their employment during that period. A winding-up order must be passed before redundancy and compensation can be paid. It may be in the interests of staff for the order to be passed before the end of the month so that they can receive the appropriate payments.
  Several hon. Members spoke of local authorities, and in that context my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) read out a pertinent passage from the minutes of a Treasury meeting. I shall not repeat my hon. Friend's point because he made it well. No one can consider that a list of the more than 550 banks licensed by the Bank of England should carry a Government guarantee. First, the potential liability for public expenditure on such a scheme would be absolutely astronomical.
  Secondly, if every banking organisation carried out Government guarantee, we might see on a smaller scale what happened in the United States. People would tend to invest in banks offering slightly higher rates of return. Of necessity, that higher return is earned by taking greater risks. A guarantee scheme would remove the moral hazard and shift the risk to the Government. There would then be no incentive to invest in a responsible bank paying a slightly lower rate of interest, because exactly the same guarantee would apply to all banks. No Government would be prepared to give such a guarantee to every depositor.
  Some hon. Members referred to the commissions paid by local authorities. Local authorities are supposed to be sophisticated investors and could certainly have asked the brokers to state their commission. If the authorities were advised by their brokers to take certain actions they may have legal remedies, but that depends on the circumstances of each case. Local authorities are probably looking at that. I cannot offer much comfort on that score and, as I have said, it would be invidious for the Government to try to pick and choose between different creditors. Local authorities will have to live with the problems that they have created for themselves. Those problems may require more attention than it would be appropriate for me to

  923
  give, and questions about such matters should be addressed to Ministers at the Department of the Environment.
  Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend deal with timing? Would it have been reasonable for the fraud to be detected earlier and for the bank to decide to close earlier? Or does he think, as some people argue, that it should not have been closed at all? Have we struck the right balance? Were the seven days during which the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Governors of the Bank of England knew about the situation well spent? It is quite an achievement to close a bank of that size in seven days.
  Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend has made some good points. One of the misconceptions that many people have is that the first thing that a banking regulator would do if it got adverse information about a bank that it was regulating would be to close it down. In fact, the first thing that it would do would be to try to correct the problem. We have seen the awful problems that are created by the closing of a bank. It has to be the weapon of last resort. It is a serious step to take, and there has to be the evidence to support taking it. If there is any alternative, it should be pursued.
  Two cases have been put to me this evening and on previous occasions. One is that the Bank of England closed BCCI too soon; the other is that it closed it too late. When a bank's licence is revoked, there are always arguments that it should have been done sooner, or that it should have been done later.
  Mr. Vaz: In the short time that the Minister has left, will he direct his comments to the points that I raised about the negotiations which are going on with the sheikh, because many people would like to see the Government supporting such negotiations?
  Mr. Maples: I cannot deal with all the hon. Gentleman's points, but as he has raised that one. I will deal with it. The best outcome, from everyone's point of view, would be an orderly rundown, with the co-operation of the major shareholder in a way which minimised depositors' losses. The major shareholders have proved themselves to be responsible, and we hope that they will co-operate in that rundown. The negotiations are between the Luxembourg liquidator and the Abu Dhabi authorities. It is for them to conduct the negotiations, but we should be happy if they had the outcome that the hon. Gentleman envisages.
  924
  Obtaining a winding-up order would not stop that process. If my memory of company law is right, if a winding-up order was obtained but the bank was put back in a financially sound position, it would still be possible for the order to be lifted and the winding-up process to stop. One has to go through with the order to get the deposit protection scheme activated.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me why the sheikh and the Abu Dhabi authorities were not informed before the licence was revoked. The Bank of England came to the conclusion that the fraud was so deep and pervasive, and the losses so extensive, that there were no circumstances in which it would be possible to allow the bank to stay open, and nothing that the shareholders could have done, by way of changing management or injecting further funds, would have enabled the Bank of England to allow the licence to continue. The chances of putting together the sort of package that the hon. Gentleman envisages are remote, but I hope that it is possible. I would support such a move. If there is anything that anybody feels that we could do to facilitate that, we would do it, although the responsibility is with the main liquidator—the Luxembourg commissioner—who I understand is having talks with the Abu Dhabi authorities.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why there had been no arrests. It is a bit early for that. The Serious Fraud Office has only had the papers since 5 July, and these are complex frauds, as will emerge if any cases come to trial. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the inquiry would have judicial authority. The answer is no. It will be set up in exactly the same way as the Lord Justice Taylor inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster, and the Wolff inquiry into prisons, not as a judicial inquiry. It is an inquiry into the supervisory authorities', the Governor's and the Bank of England's role in this.
  The Prime Minister has made it clear that Ministers and Government officials and papers, and Bank of England officials and papers, will be made available to the inquiry without restriction. He went so far as to say that the Government would place no restrictions on what the inquiry had access to. If it becomes necessary for the inquiry to cast its net a little wider, we shall have to see whether it is necessarsy to give it further powers, but I hope that it will not be.
  I am sorry that I have not been able to deal with all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I will try to address the remaining ones in a letter.

  Nuclear Deterrence
  3.3 am
  Mr. Derek Conway: I start at this late hour by apologising to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), who will reply to the debate on behalf of the Government, and to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is Opposition spokesman on this subject. The lateness of the hour is not of my choosing, and, no doubt like them, I look forward to being in my bed ere too long.
  I welcome the opportunity to debate, however briefly, the nuclear aspect of our defence policy, particularly as the conventional forces are almost certain to dominate the two-day debate that the House has scheduled for its return in October, and rightly so. The Government's proposals for the conventional forces, particularly the Army, are extremely dramatic and therefore need to be discussed in considerable detail.
  This is a welcome opportunity for us to consider nuclear policy, albeit briefly. It surely warrants our consideration.
  Although I am pleased to see that one or two Opposition Members are present, I am a little surprised that the Opposition Benches are not packed. Here is a chance for the Opposition—and, indeed, the rest of the country—to discern the Labour party's policy, at least for this week. There can be no doubt that there is a considerable element of shifting sands in Labour's nuclear policy.
  I have taken a brief look at a document that is, I am sure, dear to many hearts: Labour's 1987 general election document, entitled "Britain Will Win". In fact Britain did win, because Labour did not. Page 15 of the document, commenting on Britain's place in a modern world, explains why Labour fought the election on a unilateralist ticket—which was, of course, rejected by the British people.
  Two years later, Labour produced another document, "Looking to the Future", which spoke of a dynamic economy and a decent society, strong in Europe. That document was more vague, and—perhaps cleverly, from a political point of view—managed to avoid the subject of unilateralism entirely.
  I suppose that, by 1991, the lure of the red boxes and the chauffeur-driven Montego had proved just a bit too much. It is now rather difficult to find out where the Opposition stand. However, the good old Guardian came to our help last week. As hon. Members will know, last week saw a lively exchange—in the spirit of modern, free debate—between the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, and its transport spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We were granted the interesting spectacle of the pair slugging it out, courtesy of a national newspaper. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was quoted as saying that his right hon. Friend—he may not have used that title—had
  "sown seeds of confusion and dillusionment".
  All that appeared in the wonderfully supportive Guardian.
  There is confusion, not in the Tories' challenge but within the ranks of the shadow Cabinet. We can always rely on the Tories' friend, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who described the contribution of the right hon. Member for Gorton as
  926
  unwise and unprincipled, and continued in a similar vein. We should be lost without her, and the wonderful supply of quotes with which she provides us.
  Even more interesting is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition himself has seen fit to withdraw from CND, leaving Bruce Kent as one of his beleaguered candidates—destined, no doubt, to be permanently in opposition. I feel slightly sorry for the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who is regarded by many—and rightly so—as a very nice man, but who simply does not feature in the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps, given the perpetual vote for a woman, his only way into the ranks would be to become a transvestite. I do not mean that cruelly; he is a good guy, but he has a hard wicket to fight in his own party, where confusion reigns. The situation is not helped by the leadership.
  My party presented a very different history to the electorate, and it continues to endorse the same policy: a policy advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who, when the USSR deployed its SS20 missiles, was adamant—sometimes in the face of considerable criticism within NATO and our European allies—that Britain would deploy the American cruise missile. There was no messing about; she warned the Soviets that, if they did it, we would match it. She meant what she said, and the Kremlin knew it.
  I think that it is fair to say that the Soviets understand strength. Perhaps that is why they treat the Leader of the Opposition so discourteously: they also understand weakness. I am convinced that the progress made in eastern Europe will be judged by history to owe a good deal to the steadfastness of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, who played a substantial part in the arms reductions that are now taking place, and which we hope that all sides will welcome.
  It is, I suppose, right for the House to consider—even at 3.8 am—whether there is a continuing role for military force in inter-state relations. I would argue that there is. We still live in a very unsettled world. Who could argue against the proposition that Europe is still far from stable? Undoubtedly the threat of nuclear war is colossal and way beyond anything that high-explosive weaponry could achieve, although those who have witnessed high-explosive weapons say that the devastation they cause is substantial, if not on the scale of a nuclear war. Even a dictator like Saddam Hussein understood the threat, and refrained from chemical bombing during the Gulf war.
  The east-west balance has prevailed for 40 years, but who can judge just how far a conflict would escalate amid the confusion of a major war? There would always be the doubted intention, the doubted action. Most of all, there would be the certainty of ability. That certainty of ability has enabled us to each the stage that we have reached in all the international negotiations.
  I would argue that nuclear weapons are still a much-needed cornerstone of our defence policy. We all wish the scale to be reduced, and we should like the capacity reduced. I hope, however, that most of us see the sense of keeping and modernising our nuclear defence arsenal. If anyone is tempted to think that the Soviet economy is now down to a brush and a couple of ponies, he should look at table 4 of the defence statement that the House will consider in October, which still shows a substantial balance in favour of the Soviet forces in terms of nuclear arms.

  927
  To look on the bright side, the intermediate nuclear forces treaty was concluded between the USSR and the USA in May. United Kingdom involvement in that has ceased. All the ground-launched cruise missiles were withdrawn in December 1988 from RAF Molesworth, and in March of this year from Greenham Common. I am sure that the House will have considered the defence estimates and the statement, particularly paragraph 319, which shows that the Government welcome the strategic arms reduction treaty, agreed between the USSR and the USA. The Washington summit last June saw that framework agreement signed. Undoubtedly there is a will on all sides to reduce the burden of such a large arsenal.
  The question remains, however, whether it is right for the United Kingdom to pursue the Trident programme as our national system. My party believes that that is the case and will continue to stand by it, whereas the Opposition, as far as I am aware—perhaps we shall be told differently in this debate—are still committed to its removal by the year 2000, although there seems to be some doubt about that in the shadow Cabinet. The debate provides them with an opportunity to set the record straight.
  I suspect that much ground could be covered during this short debate—not only nuclear testing and nuclear proliferation but alternative defence strategies—but this is neither the time nor the place to do so. What remains the case is that, as with French socialists and capitalists alike, the Conservative party has always understood the uncertain world in which we live. Perhaps we are slightly more cynical or, as we would prefer to call it, more realistic, but our policies have been prudent and will continue to be prudent for the long-term integrity of our national security. The general public know that. They considered that fact in 1983 and 1987 and stood by us. I believe, therefore, that, as the public know us, they trust us. It is right that they should continue to do so.
  3.12 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: This is a very interesting and important occasion. We are talking about the nuclear deterrent. There have been massive changes in eastern Europe. The Soviet bloc is no longer there. The threat that it posed was never there in the first place, but it was used as an excuse to build up our nuclear forces, at very great expense and sacrifice by the British people.
  Justification for the nuclear deterrent was shot to pieces, to use a military phrase, by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) who said, in effect, in a debate in this House in 1981 that the Soviet Union had been in decline ever since that high point of 1948 at the time of the Berlin airlift, and that it was beginning to lose control over various parts of the Soviet empire. The right hon. Gentleman's highly thoughtful speech was entirely contrary to the general trend of speeches in that debate. It was remarkably far-sighted, because the right hon. Gentleman, who is now Minister of State for Defence Procurement, said that the Soviet Union was not so strong as successive Conservative Governments had claimed., that it had serious weaknesses, and that it did not pose a threat. I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but our expenditure on nuclear weapons kept increasing. We embarked on the Polaris programme in 1962 and are now faced with the Trident nuclear missile programme.
  The nuclear deterrent is a myth, because the Polaris programme is not what it used to be. To varying degrees,
  928
  all the Polaris submarines are suffering from cracks in their cooling systems which make them dangerous in operation. Only one of the four-boat system is available for use. In May, Greenpeace produced a report entitled, "Bring Polaris Home". The Ministry of Defence did not reply to the questions that that study posed. Greenpeace expressed serious concern that HMS Resolution, Renown, Repulse and Revenge have serious defects. They were launched in 1966 and were designed to last for only 20 years, but they are still in use. A cloak of security prevents us from getting answers to the questions that were asked in that important report, which suggests that in reality we can hardly manage to put one Polaris boat to sea.
  Over several years, we have trusted the Soviet Union. Rather curiously, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Scottish Electricity Generating Board had a uranium enrichment contract with the Soviet Union which was concluded in 1975. Some 170 tonnes of uranium per annum were supplied in the form of uranium hexafluoride. It returned from the Soviet Union as enriched uranium or as tails—that is, depleted uranium. The enriched uranium was needed for incorporation in civil reactor fuel. If it is further enriched, it can be used for bomb material.
  The Government told us that the Soviet Union was a powerful organised nuclear threat to civilisation, yet they authorised a contract between a publicly owned body and the Soviet Union to enrich uranium—the basic process for producing nuclear weapons.
  Moreover, the Soviet Union did not keep the uranium that the CEGB and the Scottish generating board supplied. It was perfectly honest and scrupulous in its dealings with this most powerful and dangerous material. Did the Government intervene to stop the contract? Apparently they did not regard the Soviet Union as such a threat that they felt that they had to stop the contract. It was a quite an irony.
  If we are to maintain the fiction of the nuclear deterrent, someone has to be prepared to use it. If it is not going to be used, it is not a deterrent, but a complete myth.
  The Minister will confirm that the Government and the Prime Minister are prepared to press the button. That means that the Minister, apparently an affable and quite innocent man, is prepared to become party to one of the biggest acts of mass extermination in human history. He and the Government are prepared to embark on killing on a scale that will make Hitler and Pol Pot look like amateurs. They may say that they do not want to do that, that it would be a failure of the nuclear deterrent if they did so, and that they would desperately wish to avoid doing it, but at the end of the argument, they will say that they are prepared to do it. I reject that attitude. I reject a relationship of our country to any other country based on the threat of mass extermination.
  Other countries share my view. I do not mean countries with communist or even left-wing Governments. Let us consider Canada which is under a Conservative Government. At Heads of State meetings, the Prime Minister of Canada talks with a fellow Conservative when he meets the British Prime Minister. Canada has a Conservative Government and a Prime Minister who would ally himself with the range of values and attitudes that the British Government claim to support. But Canada will not have nuclear weapons on its soil.
  It is extraordinary that our Government believe, uniquely, that it is necessary for our country, virtually

  929
  uniquely, to have nuclear weapons, whereas other Conservative Governments reject that attitude. They are not alone. In NATO, there are countries that reject the deployment and use of nuclear weapons, such as Denmark and Norway.
  If we decided, as I believe that we should, to get rid of our nuclear weapons, we should not be isolated; we should be joining the majority of nations. How do we know that? When I was first re-elected to the House in 1987, I raised the question of the United Nations nuclear nonproliferation treaty with the Minister. I vividly recall that he said that this country was not a signatory to the treaty. He had to write a letter to me subsequently, however, to say that he had examined the matter and discovered that this country was indeed a signatory to the treaty.
  The "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991" makes it clear that the Government regard the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as being extremely important. I quote from paragraph 323 of the statement, which has not been debated by the House yet:
  "The NPT Review Conference in September last year demonstrated the wide support for the NPT's objectives, with agreement being reached on most issues. We regret that consensus on a final document was blocked by the Mexican delegation, but the Conference nevertheless achieved a full review of the operation of the Treaty, and demonstrated its continuing importance as a cornerstone of world security."
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I remember the incident, when I had been in office for a very short time, extremely well. I actually said —the hon. Gentleman will remember this—that the United Kingdom was not covered by the part of the non-proliferation treaty that he was going on about. I had to write to the hon. Gentleman to provide a full explanation of that. I never said that we were not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.
  Mr. Cryer: I do not have the Hansard quotation in front of me, but I accept the Minister's correction. It is virtually what I said anyhow. What is important is that that demonstrates the priority that is given in the big fat briefing document that Ministers get when they get into office. The civil servants say to them, "This is your brief, Minister—this is what you've got to learn as a background to your Department." At that stage, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was obviously not one of the headlines.
  The quotation from the current "Statement on the Defence Estimates" shows that the Government, a signatory to the important nuclear non-proliferation treaty, recognise its importance for the preservation of the planet. Under clause 6 of that treaty, the nuclear power signatories are called upon to negotiate in good faith to get rid of nuclear weapons from their soil. The Soviet Union and the United States, both signatories, have done that because they have got rid of intermediate nuclear weapons with the removal of cruise missiles.
  The United Kingdom has done nothing. What is worse is that the United Kingdom has embarked on replacing the Polaris nuclear weapon with the more powerful Trident nuclear weapon. I believe that we are therefore in breach of United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
  In our document "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change", we make it clear that we support the United
  930
  Nations treaty. Any Government who support that treaty are committed to getting rid of nuclear weapons by virtue of clause 6.
  It is worth noting what the move from Polaris, creaking and defective though it is, to Trident will mean. In the Polaris system, there are three warheads per missile and 16 missiles per submarine. In the Trident D5 programme, there are still 16 missiles per submarine, but the number of warheads per missile has leapt to 14. Therefore, the total number of warheads per submarine is no longer 48 but has shot up to a maximum of 272, or, on average, 224.
  Under the Polaris system the four submarines can carry a total of 192 warheads, but under the Trident D5 programme the submarines will carry 896, with a possible maximum of 1,088. The yield per warhead is 200 kilotonnes in the Polaris system and between 100 and 200 kilotonnes in the Trident system. The total yield for all the missiles is 38,400 kilotonnes in the Polaris system and between 89,600 and 217,600 kilotonnes in the Trident system. In the case of Polaris, the maximum number of targets is 64, but Trident offers a maximum of between 896 and 1,088.
  The Government are intent on developing the Trident missile and installing it in submarines. Where will those dreadful weapons of mass extermination be targeted? It would be interesting to hear the answer from the Minister, but it is a secret. We are not allowed to know which section of the planet the Government propose to subject to mass extermination. What an extraordinary and absurd set of circumstances.
  We believe that those weapons will be aimed at the Soviet Union. Just last week, a lot of Conservatives were grovelling around Mr. Gorbachev when he visited the Terrace. One of my hon. Friends wanted to know what Mr. Gorbachev was doing with all those Conservatives. After all, they are the very people who have argued that Mr. Gorbachev and all the other Soviet citizens should be the target of our nuclear deterrents. Considered in those terms, it is absolutely outrageous. The Prime Minister is toadying around Mr. Gorbachev and inviting him here while at the same time pointing a pistol to his head and saying, in effect, "If I determine that the Soviet Union is a threat, I shall kill your men, women and children."
  The Government are supposed to be concerned with green issues. What sort of green country would this be if the button were pressed and those weapons were used? It would not be a country in which Greenpeace would get the Conservative vote—it would be a radioactive cinder heap. There would be nothing left. It would be the end of civilisation as we know it. Yet that scenario is implied when the Government or anyone else talk about deploying nuclear weapons. It is morally unacceptable and outrageous.
  The United Nations non-proliferation treaty is supported by 141 non-nuclear nations—two of which the Government do not recognise—which have said that they will not deploy or manufacture nuclear weapons. Those nations have had a number of review conferences. The statement on the defence estimates indicates some of the difficulties. They are not spelt out very clearly, but the document says:
  "We regret that consensus on a final document was blocked by the Mexican delegation".
  That happened because the signatories to that treaty are a bit fed up with the nuclear signatories. The vast majority of the nations of the world—those 141 signatories—have

  931
  signed the non-proliferation treaty. They have implicitly bargained that they will not manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons if the nuclear signatories agree to get rid of their nuclear weapons. They see no reason why they should reject nuclear weapons if other countries insist on having them. On three occasions, the review conferences have said that they are not satisfied with the United Kingdom Government's attitude in retaining nuclear weapons, seeming to do nothing to get rid of Polaris submarines and manufacturing and deploying Trident nuclear submarines with their massive increase in missiles, delivery, firepower and accuracy.
  One of the dangers of the world is that some of those nations might withdraw from the United Nations non-proliferation treaty and start to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons. The Government will then say, "How terrible—you should not have nuclear weapons", and they will ask what God-given right the United Kingdom has to tell them that they should not have nuclear weapons when it has them. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), who introduced the debate, said that nuclear weapons are important. I do not share his view, and neither do the vast majority of the nations of the world. Some of those nations might decide to do as the United Kingdom does rather than as it says. The Government says that the non-proliferation treaty is important—so important that, if a country like Iraq wants nuclear weapons, the United Kingdom and United States Governments are prepared to bomb the sites where they are being developed. That comes pretty rich from countries that have developed nuclear weapons.
  I agree that Iraq, which is a signatory country to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is utterly wrong even to attempt to develop nuclear weapons. There must be an international regime to supervise any nation that develops nuclear weapons. It should dismantle, and prevent the sale of, equipment that can be used for the development of nuclear weapons. That is clearly important, and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty provides a vehicle for that. That treaty may not be a perfect, but at least it is a vehicle, on which we must build. We must not erode it or criticise those nations which have declared that they will not have nuclear weapons on their soil. We should join those countries, not say that we need four expensive nuclear-powered submarines stuffed to the gills with nuclear weapons at a cost of £10,000 million.
  It is morally outrageous for any Government to spend £10,000 million on nuclear weapons. They cannot be used, because that would mean self-destruction. The vast majority of the world's nations do not need nuclear weapons—they need food, shelter and clothing. Every week Parliament is in session, questions are tabled about some region of starvation or deprivation, either in our own country or abroad. There are people in the United Kingdom living on the poverty line in inadequate housing and rotten conditions. A fortnight ago, there was a sleep-out in London to demonstrate against the cardboard cities springing up in major towns and cities throughout the country.
  We know about the massive levels of starvation in Africa and the Sahel, where men, women and children virtually die in front of the television cameras. While the charities get to work drawing our attention to the terrible plight, the Government continue to spend money on nuclear weapons rather than introducing a programme to switch those great assets and facilities, and the ability of
  932
  people in Barrow-in-Furness, to make items which could help to develop, maintain, preserve and enhance life both at home and abroad.
  Engineering skills could be developed in Barrow, but instead, thousands of people have been sacked. Defence expenditure has not saved all jobs. As the Minister knows, there have been massive sackings, and there will be more. The conditions in eastern Europe which, some argue, precipitated expenditure on nuclear weapons, have changed. It is claimed that we are no longer threatened by the Soviet Union, but we are still going ahead with Trident nuclear submarines and the nuclear missile programme. That does not make sense, and it is a moral outrage when so many people in our country and others throughout the world are deprived of the means of achieving a decent standard of living and preserving their place on the planet.
  There is so much work to be done on the planet. The ozone layer over Europe is thinning. We are in difficulties because of our abuse of the planet. Yet the Government spend £10,000 million producing weapons that we cannot use. If we ever used them, it would be curtains for all of us —we are pointing a gun at all our heads. There will be no clear distinction between defence and defended, attackers and defenders. There will be no time for that. The possession of nuclear weapons is an outrage against democracy. Has there been any consultation? Has the Prime Minister included in his charter of rights the right for people not to be slaughtered by the Government? Will people be able to say, "I don't want the Government to use nuclear weapons—I want to live"?
  The phrase "Better red than dead" no longer applies because the redness is disappearing into a pale pink imitation. The phrase will be, "Is it better to be pink than dead?" The power to press the button will not be spread throughout the nation or even given to part of it. That power will be in the hands of a tiny clique—the Prime Minister, one or two cronies, and the chiefs of staff. That decision will be taken wholly undemocratically. It is a complete and utter outrage against humanity.
  When the next Labour Government achieve office, they will express their support for a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If people really mean what they say about that treaty, they must get rid of nuclear weapons.
  There is a powerful case against nuclear weapons. If we had any sense, we would produce a plan for switching the engineering skills used in their manufacture to peaceful uses for the benefit of mankind. We would be able to help the wretched, starving nations of the world, and join with the majority of nations—including those headed by conservative Governments—who say no to nuclear weapons and will not allow them on their soil. We would also improve our civil liberties. The development and possession of nuclear weapons and our links with the United States in that respect is an erosion of our civil liberties.
  I have in my hand a facsimile of the front cover of the New Statesman for 18 July 1980, which refers to
  "The Billion dollar phone tap",
  and to Menwith hill monitoring station, which is described as
  "America's big ear in the heart of Yorkshire."
  It reports:
  "America taps into our international telephone network in the cause of defending freedom".
  That may be done not wholly in the cause of defending freedom but in that of defending American commercial

  933
  interests, as was done when the Americans interfered to stop the sale of BA146 aircraft—peaceful, civil aircraft —to Iran. Menwith hill was authorised without Parliament's approval. That sort of interference was exemplified also by the withdrawal of trade union rights at GCHQ. It is all part of a parcel.
  I have supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since it began in the 1960s, and I shall continue to do so. It is morally right and makes pragmatic sense. If we join the majority of nations by getting rid of Trident, we shall be on the side of the moral majority.
  3.42 am
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on his powerful speech. One may not agree with some of his premises, arguments and conclusions, but he speaks a lot of sense.
  I enjoyed also the speech of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). No one is more arrogant than a Conservative talking about defence. It bucks one up at three o'clock in the morning to hear an arch-Conservative wrapping himself round with the Union Jack again. The hon. Gentleman gave us an analysis of Labour policy, but not of that of his own party, whose defence history he appears to have forgotten in respect of its geopolitical interests over the years.
  The hon. Gentleman's history conveniently stopped at 1945. He did not delve back 10 years before that, when one of the predecessors of the present Secretary of State for Defence was a great buddy of the Nazis in Hitler's Germany. The Conservative party also enjoyed a strong and healthy relationship with Saddam Hussein for some years, and with other dictators throughout the world. I am sure that the Conservatives are proud of their history, although they do not recount it very often. Instead, they claim to be the party of defence—and that is an awful arrogance. It is appalling.
  The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham talked about being realistic, but I would say that the Conservative party is opportunistic. Opposition Members do not need lessons on patriotism from Conservative Members. Many of us find it deeply insulting when Conservative Members, who have dallied with many opponents of Britain for purely financial and economic interests, decide to give us lectures on patriotism. Most of my constituents find that attitude insulting. In villages and towns throughout the country—in wool towns, cotton towns and mining towns —where people have always voted Labour and have always been socialists, there are cenotaphs and memorials. Those people are as interested in the defence of their country as anyone else.
  It is unfortunate that the Conservative party starts to talk about patriotism when we are coming up to a general election. They cause divisions by talking about a commitment to defend Britain, and that only causes harm. When we are faced with a danger, however, the Conservative party always wants everyone to get together to form a united front. That is what we did during the Gulf war. As soon as it was over, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that the Labour party was not really with the Government. I suppose that he has had to withdraw that insult. I have never known such
  934
  condemnation to be voiced by supporters of the Conservative party and Conservative Members. I remember the many Members who came up to me and said that the Minister had ruined the debate by making that awful statement.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the Opposition's policy—I am not saying that they did not back the action when the conflict started—was to wait for sanctions to work?
  Mr. Rogers: It was clearly stated that we wanted sanctions to have the maximum effect so as to secure a peaceful resolution of the conflict. When the Minister starts rattling his sabre, he knows in his heart of hearts that we were lucky to lose so few in the Gulf war. If the losses had been as horrendous as some thought they might be, I do not know whether the arguments that the Minister advanced and his statements following the war would have washed.
  The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham talked about the changes in Labour party policy. I cannot see that there is any problem in changing one's political views. Surely it is a sign of political maturity. Everyone has said that the world has changed, that the Russian threat no longer exists and that we are facing a completely different set of circumstances. What is wrong with a change of political views in those circumstances?
  I understand the problem of change for the Conservative party. Its attitudes are neanderthal and fossilised. Conservative Members are in a groove and it seems that they cannot move out of it. Their policies are the same now as those which prevailed during the Crimea war and which created the slaughter in Flanders. We know that the Conservative party is incapable of adjusting, and we are only too well aware of the disasters that it brings upon the country from time to time.
  The Labour party sees changes in political views as signs of political maturity. If we are presented with a different set of circumstances, we can adapt our policies for the benefit of the nation. It seems from what Conservative Members say from time to time that they would welcome a Labour party that said, "In the circumstances, we might want to adopt a multilateralist stance rather than a unilateralist position." Why condemn us? I thought that that was the policy that Conservative Members wanted us to adopt.
  Mr. Conway: I talked about the French socialist Government and the French capitalist Government. Many of us would be pleased if the major parties of Britain had the same views on defence, and I am sure that the electorate would be pleased as well. The hon. Gentleman talks about my party's neanderthal way of thinking and the maturity or otherwise of political development. On which level of maturity does he put the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? Their views are diametrically opposed. Who is neanderthal man in the shadow Cabinet?
  Mr. Rogers: It is the opposite—they are not Neanderthalic, they are two mature politicians discussing their differences, and why not? What is the matter with political argument and discussion? That is actually

  935
  beginning to happen in the Conservative party. The schoolmistress has gone; she is no longer whipping the boys into shape.
  Some dissention is developing in the Tory party. which is now the party of argument on all sorts of issues. During the last Army debate, the former Secretary of State for Defence attacked the present Secretary of State and told him where he was going wrong. There have been wide dissensions on European issues.
  As the hon. Gentleman has pushed me, I am grateful for this opportunity to place on record the Labour party's position on nuclear deterrence. We believe that the best method of enhancing Britain's security is through the achievement of properly inspected and verified international disarmament treaties. The case for further discussions on nuclear disarmament talks is strong, and that has already been recognised by both the United States and the Soviet Union.
  In a joint statement on 1 June 1991, the USA and the Soviet Union agreed that
  "reducing the risk of outbreak of nuclear war is the responsibility not only of the USA and the USSR and that other states should also make their contribution towards the attainment of this objective. In particular, in the field of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons they call upon all states to consider the new opportunities for engagements in mankind's common effort to remove the risk of outbreak of nuclear war world wide."
  We have considered the new opportunities to reduce the risk of the outbreak of nuclear war, and we wish to make our contribution. We know that more work is required, but hope that working with other nuclear powers we can begin talks on a START 2 agreement. We believe that British pressure could act as a catalyst for START 2. President Mitterrand has indicated French willingness to participate in the disarmament process. In addition, the French have committed themselves to signing the non-proliferation treaty. Given a sufficient weight of world opinion, the Chinese could also be persuaded to begin disarmament discussions. Once those discussions are under way, Britain should participate until they are successfully concluded with an agreement by all nuclear powers completely to eliminate those weapons.
  Complementary to that work will be the need to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. Controlling the spread of nuclear weapons needs to be tackled at two levels. First, we need to take steps to make it more difficult to obtain nuclear weapons manufacturing technology. In particular, the inspection and verification measures need to have more teeth. Secondly, we must address the motives of states seeking to obtain nuclear weapons manufacturing technology. There are understandable reasons for such attempts, which relate to regional security concerns. The United Nations should be much more involved in attempts to resolve such regional problems.
  There have been a number of proposals to ban nuclear testing, although it must be said that some of them have been made after the proponents of that line have just completed a nuclear test programme. The Labour party does not recognise a need for nuclear testing. Other methods, apart from full-scale nuclear testing, can be used to ensure the technical effectiveness and safety of British nuclear weapons. Testing the non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons, computer simulation modelling and other forms of non-destructive testing could be used to provide satisfactory evidence of the technical effectiveness
  936
  and safety of British nuclear weapons. The only real need for testing would be in the development of new warheads, which is not likely to happen under the START process.
  Anti-ballistic technology also needs to be studied. The spread of ballistic missile technology to many countries is alarming. The Government must not only strengthen the missile technology control regime, which is designed to limit the spread of ballistic missile technology, but consider their position on that technology.
  3.55 am
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): This has been a short, but interesting, debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on raising the important subject of nuclear deterrence. He pointed out that in 1987 Labour's manifesto was unilateral. Labour believed in nuclear disarmament and believed that Britain should get rid of its nuclear weapons without any corresponding gestures from other countries.
  Since then, there has been a slight adaptation of that policy in the 1989 document, "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change", which basically said that Britain should negotiate away its nuclear weapons. There was a flaw in that argument. If there had not been any START 2 talks, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) referred, we would have negotiated away our nuclear weapons and only a small part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal would have been reduced in return. That would have left Britain with no nuclear deterrent and the Soviet Union with enormous numbers of such weapons.
  As I understand it, "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" was approved by a two thirds majority at a Labour party conference. If any Labour Member would like to correct me, I should be grateful for that. I believe that the Labour party conference is responsible for making Labour party policy. If a policy were to be changed, it would be necessary for the party conference to approve it. Is that the position? I am more than happy to give way to any Labour Member who wishes to answer.
  Mr. Rogers: I would bow to any right hon. or hon. Friend who wishes to correct me, but, as I understand it, the conference makes a policy recommendation to the leadership of the Labour party which then constructs a manifesto upon which the election is fought. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the position is quite different from his description.
  Mr. Hamilton: As I understand it, a Labour party conference makes recommendations to the Labour party leadership, which can ignore them or take them up, if that happens to suit the leadership. Is that the position? Even if a two thirds majority is in favour of a motion that has been passed at the party conference, that makes no difference, because it can be overridden by the leadership. It is important to understand the position taken on these documents.
  Mr. Rogers: How does the Conservative party arrive at its policy?
  Mr. Hamilton: The Conservative party has never been tied to conference motions, so we are in a different position. I was not responsible for changing the constitution of the Labour party. I thought that the Labour party believed that policy should be decided by the

  937
  party conference. It is interesting that that party is moving from that position and now says that the party leadership can ignore any motions made by the party conference, even if there is a two thirds majority. It is important to discover where we stand on all this.
  Mr. Cryer: It is interesting that the Minister is exploring the democracy of the Labour party. I suggest that he looks to the democracy of the Tory party which is notable for its absence. "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" was carried overwhelmingly at the Labour party conference. There was not a card vote on it, so there may or may not have been a two thirds majority. No one can say that with any authority. The Labour party conference does the groundwork for the compilation of an election manifesto in a democratic way, and long may the Labour party's democracy continue—in stark contrast with the authoritarian, elitist regime of the Tories.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. Where do we now stand? "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" was an important document. It received the overwhelming support of the Labour party conference, but that policy now seems to have been changed.
  I respect the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on nuclear deterrence and the undesirability of nuclear weapons. I do not agree with his arguments, but he feels them strongly. I should have thought that the changes in Labour party policy to which the hon. Member for Rhondda referred must put him in a rather difficult position, but perhaps we can explore that later.
  Conservative Members have come to realise the importance of nuclear deterrence. War in Europe has been prevented by a range of deterrents, conventional as well as nuclear, but many of us feel that the nuclear component is the most important, bearing in mind the fact that we have in the past been faced with the enormously superior numbers of forces of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union which we have been unable to match on the ground. The possibility of nuclear war breaking out if we ever were invaded has long been one of the principal reasons for our avoiding war in Europe.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham spoke of the INF deployment—a significant move, backed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and President Reagan, to deploy cruise and Pershing in Europe. The deployment of those missiles was one of the most significant things that forced the Soviet Union to the negotiating table and resulted in the first significant treaty on intermediate nuclear forces which started the whole business of negotiating away large amounts of nuclear arsenals between the Americans and the Soviet Union.
  It is significant that the deployment of cruise and Pershing was robustly opposed by the Opposition throughout and there has been no act of contrition since then admitting that this was a good policy and that the Labour party was wrong. That policy produced remarkable results in terms of subsequent arms reduction negotiations.
  The Government have always taken the view that it is important that we have our own independent nuclear deterrent. It was becoming apparent that Polaris could not
  938
  go on indefinitely and needed to be replaced by a decent system. That is why we are investing in the Trident system which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) says is extremely expensive. However, the figure will be taken over a number of years and, when I last looked, it was on average about 3 per cent. of the defence budget. Compared with other forms of defence spending, in terms of deterrent effect the Trident system is good value for money.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South made a robust and interesting speech which did not seem to quite tie in with the latest pronouncements on Labour party policy. He said that there has never been a threat from the Soviet Union. That view is not supported by any military analysis of the fact that the Soviet Union and its Warsaw pact allies have in the past practised exercises for making serious inroads into western Europe and across the inner German border. We have been aware of several of their plans which have posed a serious threat.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to weaknesses in the Soviet system which, he said, made it impossible for the House to take the Soviet Union seriously as a military enemy. For a long time there have indeed been serious weaknesses in the Soviet economy, but they never seemed to extend to the Soviet defences, which seemed almost the only part of the system that really worked. The Soviets have produced massive numbers of submarines, missiles, tanks, and so on. The general view is that they have a sophisticated defence manufacturing industry and a great capability in terms of producing equipment and of training service men.
  Mr. Cryer: When discussing the long-term weakness of the Soviet Union, I was paraphrasing a speech made by a Minister of State, Ministry of Defence in March 1981.
  Mr. Hamilton: I have made it clear that the military capability of the Soviet Union has exhibited great strengths. We should not think that the whole place was so inherently weak, corrupt and rotten to the core that it posed no military threat.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South talked with great vehemence about mass extermination. The hon. Gentleman always goes on about how nuclear weapons are the only form of weapon that can kill large numbers of people. During the last war—in which, I agree, atom bombs were dropped on Japan—the fighting in Europe seemed to account for a very large number of service men being killed. They died in their tens of thousands, and millions of civilians died at the same time. It is naive to propose that only nuclear weapons kill people in large numbers. There is no evidence that large numbers of people are not also killed in conventional wars.
  We want to avoid war. The question is how that can best be done. The massive destructive power of nuclear weapons has been an important component in ensuring that we have had no war in Europe since 1945.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South has said that Canada will not have nuclear weapons on its soil. As he said, the same applies to Denmark and Norway. It is worth pointing out, however, that Canada, Denmark and Norway have all signed up to the NATO treaty and at meetings of NATO Ministers they have accepted the importance of nuclear deterrents as part of NATO's arsenal. So the Canadians, Danes and Norwegians are in the fortunate position of being able to come under the

  939
  protection of other countries' nuclear deterrents, even though they have decided not to have them on their own soil. NATO has collectively benefited from the nuclear weapons held by the Americans, the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, the French.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that the United Kingdom had done nothing under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has always been understood that the onus is on the Soviet Union and the United States, which have the most weapons to negotiate away. We look to them to start the negotiating process, as they have in fact been doing. The United Kingdom has a minimum nuclear deterrent. As the hon. Gentleman said, the capability of the Trident system is greater than that of Polaris, but, as a percentage of overall warheads, it does not give any great increase. At a time of increasing sophistication, Trident is the minimum that we need to be able to say that we have a nuclear deterrent. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that we should negotiate away our minimum deterrent when many other countries still have nuclear weapons.
  Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South think that the Labour party has changed its policy or that it is radically different? Does that conflict with his membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has decided to allow his membership of CND to lapse and I gather that other Opposition Members are being encouraged to do the same. Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South think that his membership of CND totally conflicts with Labour party policy or does he think that Labour's policy has not changed very much? The hon. Gentleman spoke vehemently on the matter and I shall give way if he wants to tell us where he stands.
  The hon. Gentlemen is typical of many Opposition Members, because about 140 of them are members of CND. Will they allow their membership to lapse? IC they do, it will raise the question why they joined in the beginning. I thought that membership of CND stemmed from great convictions about the evil of possessing nuclear weapons and was not the sort of strong moral conviction that one simply allows to lapse.
  Mr. Rogers: The Minister seems determined to drivel on at this time of the morning. Before he finishes drivelling, can he say how many Conservative Members were once members of the National Front?
  Mr. Hamilton: The National Front has nothing to do with this, and I should be very surprised if any Conservative Members were ever members of the National Front. No Conservative Member has ever been a member of CND, and the Conservative party has been united in its resolve to have an independent nuclear deterrent.
  Mr. Cryer: The Minister should be careful about saying that there have been no supporters of CND in the Tory party. I well remember going to a CND demonstration at Lakenham and seeing a group of Conservatives holding a large banner saying, "Conservatives against nuclear weapons". Perhaps those people have been scoured from the Conservative party. Labour is a very democratic party and encourages discussion and argument. In a democratic party there is always room for policy changes and movements. Many people in the Labour party are anxious to see a Labour Government, because they believe that such a Government will be far more sympathetic than the
  940
  present Government to implementation of the United Nations non-proliferation treaty. I am staggered that the Minister should dismiss in a couple of sentences his Government's total inactivity on that treaty. That is absolutely appalling.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am a little bemused by that, because the hon. Member for Bradford, South spoke vehemently about the matter and his membership of CND seemed to be important to him. There comes a time when one's party changes its policy so radically on some issues that the only course that an honourable person can adopt is to reject the Whip. The hon. Gentleman seems to be changing his position on the issue and falling in behind the non-proliferation treaty. He either feels that the changes are not very substantial or that they are substantial but he is prepared to live with them. His attitude does not quite tie in with the vehemence of his speech, which seemed to come from the heart.
  Mr. Conway: My right hon. Friend is prodding a sore in a way that some Labour Members would prefer that he did not. Did he see the deputy leader of the Opposition being interviewed, admittedly at a late hour, on Channel 4 last Thursday? The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was asked about unilateralism. In the words of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), he made some arrogant but failed attempts at humility, and said that while he stayed soundly in the multilateral camp, his party had moved way across to the left in the 1987 manifesto, and had come back in a full circle to his position. Is not the difference the fact that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is talking about individual members of the Conservative party who held no office and certainly were not Members of Parliament? No member of the parliamentary Conservative party holds a unilateralist position, and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is debating the Adjournment. The hon. Gentlemen can make only one speech.
  Mr. Conway: That is so. I am reminding my right hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentlemen was intervening at too great a length.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of those facts. The Labour party is in great confusion over this, and the embarrassment is clear for all to see.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda referred to the need for properly inspected and verified treaties under international control, saying that that was what the Labour party now stands for, that START 2 should take place, and that British presssure was needed to bring this about. That may be the understatement of the year. I have not heard from the Americans that people want START 2, and a great deal of pressure would be needed to begin the talks.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the great ideal moment when there would be agreement by all nuclear powers to eliminate nuclear weapons. There is a problem about that, in that one has strong suspicions that there are some countries which have nuclear weapons but do not admit to having them. Will those countries be included in the treaties? Will they be talking about the nuclear weapons that in theory they do not have? Will they be gathered up

  941
  in the talks or shall we impose external verification or inspection on them, even when they say that they do not have nuclear weapons?
  We must establish whether Labour party policy is to keep our independent nuclear deterrent if we cannot be confident that the talks will produce the miraculous result that no other country has nuclear weapons, as the hon. Gentleman thinks that they might. I cannot see a point at which we could be confident that that had happened. I also do not think that the scenario suggested by the hon. Member for Bradford, South—that if we got rid of our nuclear weapons, other countries would follow suit—would materialise. Many of the countries that one suspects have nuclear weapons have them for their perceived security interest, not because they feel threatened by super-powers with nuclear weapons.
  Mr. Cryer: My argument was that we should strengthen the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty—that other countries would miraculously follow our example and get rid of their weapons. Does the Minister regard it as desirable that we should try to reduce nuclear weapons stakes?
  Mr. Hamilton: Absolutely—that is one of the essential parts of our policy, and has been for a long time. We entirely support the non-proliferation treaty. We must, however, be completely confident that no other country holds nuclear weapons, before we negotiate away our own independent nuclear deterrent. The same is true virtually everywhere in the world. At a time when we had good reason to believe that other countries were holding nuclear weapons, negotiating our deterrent away would have put Britain's entire defence in jeopardy and would have been a great mistake.
  The debate has taken us a little way towards finding out what Labour's policy is. In the autumn, the Labour party conference may give us a chance to see whether the so-called new policy has any support among the rank and file, who pride themselves on being so democratic in their decision-making. Perhaps they will support the policy change—if, indeed, it is a change. However, we should all be much happier if we could be convinced that if the negotiations that Labour constantly talks about do not come to fruition, a Labour Government would definitely keep our independent nuclear deterrent and we would continue to possess Trident.

  High Court Judges
  4.20 am
  Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful, despite the hour, for the opportunity to air this issue. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends, and to the Solicitor-General and his hon. Friends, for their long vigil. This problem is causing some disquiet and the debate may enable some misunderstandings to be resolved.
  At the Lord Mayor's dinner for the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice said that the Government had failed to respond to repeated calls for more High Court judges, particularly in the Queen's bench, and that the system was near breaking point. The Lord Chancellor, in what was widely taken to be a reply on the launching of the court services annual report, announced that he had no plans to appoint more Queen's bench judges. It was reported in The Guardian on 17 July that judges were being asked to complete time sheets to measure their output, in order to reinforce the case for more judges.
  On 15 July the matter was raised in another place, in the form of a question from my noble Friend Lord Mishcon. The Lord Chancellor said that, while waiting times for some types of case were considerably longer than he would wish, there had been some reductions. With respect, however, that is not the real cause of concern. I understand that, in the non-jury list, it is possible to secure a fixture in about a year. That is no matter for congratulations, but it certainly does not represent crisis point. Those who are content to take their place in the queue for the warned list may have a hearing in as little as eight weeks.
  As Lord Ackner pointed out, the real measure of concern relates to the number of deputy judges who are required on a regular basis to man the Bench. At any one time, it appears that nearly half the Queen's bench judges are out on circuit or hearing criminal cases at the Central Criminal Court.
  There will now probably be four courts sitting in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, requiring probably four Queen's bench judges. There will probably be two judges dealing with the jury list, judges hearing commercial cases and judges dealing with the Crown Office list; and there will need to be judges sitting in chambers. By the time we come to the non-jury list, there are not many left. It appears that, when the Lord Chief Justice spoke, some 58 per cent. of cases in the non-jury and chambers lists were being heard by deputy judges. By October, there could well be no High Court judges available to try cases in the non-jury list.
  Of course, no one can predict with accuracy how many judges will be available at any particular time. If two long commercial cases are settled, two additional judges may suddenly become available, but the likelihood is that all non-jury list cases will be heard by deputy judges.
  As the Lord Chancellor said in the other place, it is true that for many years cases have been allocated to senior silks sitting as deputy judges, chiefly in order to test their suitability for appointment to the High Court. The Times, in a leader on 11 July that fell short of its usual reflective standards regarded that as a complete answer to the argument. But that is not the present position. Senior silks have been sitting regularly for long periods as deputy judges. If there were any likelihood of their being appointed High Court judges, their appointment might have been expected long ago. Judges who have passed

  943
  retirement age are recalled to sit as deputy judges. Circuit judges sit regularly as deputy High Court judges. That is now a regular, standard feature of our legal system.
  I intend no personal reflection on any deputy judge. Some of them are extremely able and try cases with a competence that cannot be faulted. We may wonder why some of them have not received High Court appointments. However, there are aspects that give rise to anxiety. The first, as Lord Oliver pointed out, is that section 9(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 permits the appointment of High Court judges only as a temporary measure. For how long can a deputy judge continue to sit, week in, week out, as an integral part of the system, with that situation continuing to be described as temporary? If it is not temporary, cases are being heard by judges for whose appointment there is no statutory authority.
  Secondly, litigants may feel that their concerns are of sufficient importance to them to merit being heard by a judge. The consideration of their case may have been of an impeccable standard, but they may leave the judgment seat with a feeling of dissatisfaction. Recently I heard the question asked: what if a disgruntled litigant challenged the judgment on the ground that the judge had not been properly appointed under statute?
  It has been remarked that some of the cases in the non-jury list may involve sums amounting to more than £1 million. I confess that I have never subscribed to the view that the importance of a case can be measured wholly in financial terms. To someone who, by reason of industrial injury, will never work again, the sum of £60,000 may represent the difference between total penury and a degree of comfort. Working people are as entitled to have their cases considered by the best judicial minds as is a commercial company. But the point is well made that these are all cases of the greatest importance to those involved.
  We may be told that the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is only now about to become effective and that we should wait to see the effects of the Act, particularly the proposals for moving more work to the county court. However, I am bound to feel some scepticism about that. Many cases involving sums of up to £50,000 have been transferred regularly to the county court for some years. I am not sure that appreciably more cases will in practice be heard in the county court, particularly since it became apparent during our debates on the Courts and Legal Services Bill that county courts are far from ready to take on much additional work, and we were assured by the Solicitor-General that no more work would be sent there until they are ready.
  The next reason for anxiety relates to the strains that are being applied to some categories of case that at present are being heard by High Court judges and which may suffer if this trend continues. One area where it has been suggested that fewer High Court judges may be available is for work on circuit, particularly criminal work. Some cases, such as murder trials, are normally heard by High Court judges, although at some centres specific circuit judges are empowered to hear them. I know of no reason to complain that those cases are not properly and fairly disposed of, but I have heard anxiety expressed that if the stresses on High Court resources increase further that practice may be extended until fewer High Court judges travel the circuits. One day, it may be said that as the circuits manage quite well without High Court judges, why not withdraw them altogether?
  944
  It is sometimes pointed out that if a substantial case does not occupy the court for as long as was predicted, a High Court judge may find himself trying cases that would not normally be brought before him. That is no bad thing, because he sees how the circuit goes about its less dramatic business and can make appropriate comments.
  Perhaps the greatest value of High Court judges visiting circuits is that they come back, they meet in London and visit other circuits. The presiding judges of the respective circuits meet together and the justiciary is a co-ordinated whole. A series of self-contained, isolated geographical centres without co-ordination would be far less capable of drawing attention to problems that occur over a wide area or countrywide or, where necessary, of monitoring the resources being made available by the Executive or of expressing the criticisms that are being made.
  Indeed, judges who went out from London to the localities under Henry II and his successors changed the patchwork of local customary systems into the common law and brought about a central government, just as in the early 19th century, the circuit riding judges of America forged the federation into a nation. It would be appalling if that process were reversed.
  One of the other concerns relates to the Crown Office list, which includes a wide and increasing range of cases on housing, education, the health service, immigration and the poll tax. Judicial review is being used for more grievances. If High Court judges were not available to hear them, and quickly, individuals would suffer. I entertain the unworthy suspicion that some Ministers and officials might not be greatly distressed if that were to happen. But I say at once that I am not alleging any deliberate policy to bring that about. I do not believe that there is any deep-laid conspiracy, and if there were no one who knows the present Lord Chancellor would believe that he would have any part of it.
  The shortage of High Court judges derives more from Treasury policy and from the financial valuation that is placed on an effective legal system than from any plans for reviving the new despotism. I do not believe that the current situation resulted from any conscious action. It has crept up on us, although not wholly unnoticed and unheralded. We need to review it, lest it extend further.
  We may need to reassess what classes of case are heard by High Court judges. There may be room for a reappraisal, but, if so, let there be a reappraisal about which we are all told and where those who wish may express a view. Indeed, I thought that that was what the civil justice review was intended to be. I believe that the outcome of any reappraisal would be to confirm the need for more High Court judges.
  That brings me to the greatest cause for concern. Whatever else may be said of deputy judges, one thing is certain—they do not have security of tenure. If it is suggested that that is an academic point, we should reflect that generations of students of our constitution have been informed as a matter of the greatest importance that our senior judiciary have security in office. They cannot be dismissed by the Executive, as happens in some countries, with results with which we are tragically familiar.
  It may be argued that there are situations in which there should be less difficulty in removing judges from office. If so, that is a matter to be fully debated, and a clear and precise procedure should be laid down. If, as we have always declared, it is a matter of the greatest importance

  945
  that cases are heard by judges who need not fear dismissal, it is a cause for the gravest concern when that is not happening and is seen not to be happening.
  There is broad consensus on the matter among the senior judiciary. That should encourage us in the House to concern ourselves. I do not subscribe to Lord Radcliffe's theory that there is a wisdom, which gathers together all that is best in our national traditions, reposing in the breasts of the judiciary and which is necessary to control the excesses of Parliament. On the contrary, I believe that the rule of law, operated by an independent judiciary, is essential to effective parliamentary government. Without that, our legislation cannot fasten upon the actions of those officials whom it is intended to control. In that matter at least, the interests of the legislature and of the judiciary coincide.
  If the warnings go unheeded, that may lead to a loss of confidence in the legal system and to a subtle, but real, change in the balance of the constitution—the beginnings of a slide which it is easier to start than to arrest. The additional cost of a few High Court judges over the cost of deputies is a modest price to pay to prevent those consequences.
  4.36 am
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The hour is late, but the subject is important. I declare an interest, because I have been both a solicitor and a barrister—I practised both at some levels—some minor, some major—and I share great concern about what is happening to our legal system today.
  When I was a student, I was taught a very simple lesson—that it was important that the state, or the Executive, was controlled, because sometimes it gets a little bit out of line. It makes mistakes because of the pressure of politics and because of the need for expediency. The judiciary and the courts were there to restrain and control. They were independent and they mattered.
  For the judiciary and the courts to restrain and control —if they get it wrong, Parliament can always correct what they do—one must have in place the doctrine of excellence. One must have judges who are of superb integrity, great skill and great learning, and who have been enticed—I use that word because they are enticed by the nature of the office to give up what is often a lucrative and well worthwhile career—into sitting on the Bench. That is worth while and is a career in itself.
  In the past 10 to 15 years, those of us who practise have seen, from time to time, because of pressure, because of shortage of manpower and because the courts are not always manned properly—and I am not as kind as my right hon. and learned Friend when I say this—hurried judgments, strain and people who are not quite up to it being asked to perform functions and duties for which they are not yet ready. It is sad.
  When the Lord Chief Justice made his speech recently about the shortage on the High Court Bench, he was right. It is sometimes silly to deny the Bench the manpower that it needs. There is no doubt that in our increasingly complicated society, issues come before the courts that require more and more judicial hours. I put the matter as simply as that.
  946
  One cannot ask the Bench to cope with the existing workload, but, to a mere practitioner, that seems to be happening. In cases of judicial review one is told that one might get a hearing in year's time. I do not practise in that area, but if something needs to be tested, why cannot it be tested now? The answer is simple—there are not the judges available to do it.
  Major fraud cases and cases involving murder, robbery or rape are now heard before a circuit judge. I do not intend any disrespect to that judge, but for something that serious one should have the most experienced judge from the High Court to try it. Sometimes rulings are wrong and the circuit judge's experience is not great enough to deal with the problem. That may lead to a miscarriage of justice and someone being incarcerated for years until the matter is reviewed on appeal and something changes. A civilised society cannot afford such a mistake.
  What on earth are we doing? The Lord Chief Justice said that he needed perhaps 11 more judges. That is not an awful lot, but it would mean that the High Court Bench was to be staffed adequately. Is it right that those who exercise a judicial capacity at that level, who are subject to that type of stress, should be pushed to the nth degree through the case load that they face? Why is it that we cannot have the appropriate number of judges? What is the Executive seeking to do?
  In the past I have been criticised for commenting on Mold Crown court, which is a nice court. Why cannot we have a visiting High Court judge in that part of the world? He could deal with the murders, the manslaughters and the more serious cases, including serious civil matters. Why is that not possible? Is it because we do not have enough judges?
  When a High Court judge visits a court, what does he bring to it? He brings the experience that he has gained from visits to other places. I am not seeking to be unkind when I suggest such a breath of fresh air. Such outside influence does no harm to the local circuit judiciary—they welcome it. Such visits would bring new thinking. If we continue as we are, that will no longer happen.
  What will the future hold? Perhaps we will have legal circuits, if that is the right word—areas in which no outside influence is brought to bear. In such circumstances everyone can get too cosy, which is not a good idea. The object of the circuit system was that judges should move about so that they learnt about different parts of the country and about things that mattered. They brought experience from area to area. That helped the circuit and the legal system.
  Our society is becoming more complex and the way in which we deal with things is becoming more difficult. Therefore, we must train the judiciary of tomorrow to meet those needs. Nowadays fraud trials and others may last a year or more. When I was a law student any trial that lasted more than seven days was a miracle—it was unheard of. Now at any Crown court in any part of the country there are three or four-week trials running at any one time. That is the world into which we are moving.
  When we ask someone to sit in judgment on a difficult trial that may last five or six weeks, we are putting an enormous strain on them. At the end of a trial on a criminal matter they must sum it up to a jury. Complicated civil cases may involve weeks and weeks of detailed argument. At the end of the trial the judge must provide an assessment of the merits of argument A against those of

  947
  argument B. That requires infinite skill. It requires a career structure in the judiciary that calls on those who are best able to sit in judgment.
  I regret to say that nowadays the doctrine of excellence is beginning to slip. Instead of encouraging, recruiting and developing the judiciary, we seem to be restricting and restraining it. To say that we are using cheap measures would be an insult to those who sit and I would not wish to insult any of them, because they all seem to do their best, but if we are to cope with a difficult society tomorrow, we must encourage the lawyers of today. It passes by people like me, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), but we have a duty to the future and we must encourage people to seek such office. By restricting the High Court Bench and seeking to diminish the scope of the areas in which people can practise we, in turn, diminish the number of applicants who will wish to follow that path. That will be a tragedy because, in the past five or six centuries, we have built in this land a judicial system which is the envy of many. If the Government of the day—the Government of tomorrow may not think in the same way —seek to restrict simply by compacting the scope of the lawyers of tomorrow and, perhaps, the ambitions of tomorrow, we shall give future society a poor deal.
  I hope that the Solicitor-General will take on board —it is meant in the kindest possible way—the fact that penny-pinching in the servicing of the High Court Bench today builds a disaster in our judicial system tomorrow. I urge him to encourage the Lord Chancellor to think a little more broadly. It might not be a bad thing if he realised that encouraging an increasing number of people to go to the High Court Bench would serve our society of tomorrow well.
  4.47 am
  Mr. John Fraser: If I congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) on getting a debate at 4.20 in the morning, my congratulations might be less than enthusiastic, so I shall not pursue that traditional line. However, he makes an important point and I was surprised at the figures that he gave, which suggested that between half and all the cases in the non-jury list may be heard by part-time deputy judges. That high proportion must give rise to concern. My right hon. and learned Friend also said—he made the point with considerable force—that judges who, although they are deputy judges, regularly hear cases in the High Court have no security of tenure. That seems to be wrong when the balances are as he described.
  The Opposition have said time and again that it is important that business in the High Court and in county courts—I hope that there will be no competition between them—must be conducted efficiently and expeditiously, because justice delayed is far too often justice denied. Incidentally, that principle of expeditious business conducted by first-class judges applies not only at the top but at the level, for instance, of masters and summonses in the High Court.
  It is outrageous that a case in which there may be no meritorious defence, and which proceeds under Order 14, may take four or five months to move from the issue of the
  948
  writ—now called the acknowledgement of service—to when Order 14 proceedings can be heard in chambers, even if it is a short case. That puts a premium on holding up cases simply for the chance of winning time. Therefore, I want to see improvements in that sector and at every level, including the taxation of costs—a matter which is important to both solicitors and counsel, but counsel say less about it.
  It is disgraceful, particularly in relation to legal aid cases, that a case may have been conducted for several years, have to wait one year in the list to be heard and then those involved in it have to wait between six months and a year for the costs to be taxed. Matters are not always conducted efficiently. What has been said about judges, expedition and quality must apply across the spectrum. We do not want the Government to solve the problem of a shortage of judges in the High Court simply by transferring more and more business into the county court and creating log-jams and problems there, so as to avoid them in the High Court.
  Will the Solicitor-General confirm that no attempt will be made to reduce the number of cases coming before the Crown Office? There have been murmurings that some judges want the number of cases coming before judicial review reduced. There are a number of ways of achieving that. We could have a tougher sieving process when getting leave for judicial review. Another suggestion, opposed by the Lord Chancellor, is that legal aid should not be made available for as many cases coming up for judicial review. There is no doubt that the ending of legal advice and green form assistance to those seeking to challenge cases involving immigration and political asylum matters could lead to a reduction in the number of cases going for judicial review simply because it would not then be possible for lawyers to put a case in hand quickly, which is necessary if leave is to be obtained for judicial review. Therefore, I hope that the Solicitor-General will confirm that no attempt will be made to curtail access to the divisional court for those purposes.
  It is equally important that judicial review cases should proceed quickly. Once leave has been given for judicial review and—if the Crown is the respondent—once the Crown has filed its affidavit, for which it has 56 days, I believe that it could be months, if not a year, before the judicial review case is heard. That is not good because it puts a premium on delay. It is right that bad decisions by immigration officers and the Home Office should come before the courts for review and decision as quickly as possible. It is not helpful for the good administration of law that, when a decision is challenged, a premium is involved in having the matter delayed, with more interest in the delay than in the outcome of the case. That is one of the dangers that we must avoid in judicial review proceedings. I await with interest to hear what the Solicitor-General has to say in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West.
  4.53 am
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I must congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), even in the dog watch, on giving the House the opportunity to debate this important subject, about which anxiety was expressed by the Lord Chief Justice at the recent Mansion House dinner for judges. It gives us an opportunity to consider not only the

  949
  precise number of High Court judges but the strength and deployment of the higher judiciary generally; the areas of current pressure, in particular the Court of Appeal criminal division and the divisional court; other areas where, happily, good progress has been made; the effects to be expected from the implementation of the civil justice review; questions relating to the effectiveness or otherwise of the use of High Court judges on circuit, and related problems such as the increase and sometimes daunting length of certain types of trial and how they can be overcome.
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor recognises those problems and the duty of the Government—any Government—to provide an independent judiciary with the resources that it needs to maintain—in vigour—a prompt, efficient and independent judicial system, which is fundamental to our free society. I state that not to gloss the problem but to set out what are the accepted ground rules.
  Before proceeding to an analysis of the current position, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the judges of the supreme court and the judiciary generally. At a time when, recently, too many criminal trials have been shown to have given rise to serious miscarriages of justice—and in consequence our whole system of justice is rightly the subject of the review by the royal commission—there has been a tendency in some quarters to use the judges as a scapegoat and to forget that cases must be tried on the evidence. Unless one has been privileged to appear regularly in the courts, it is hard to appreciate the burden of judicial life, and easy to fail to realise that behind the wigs and trumpets and judges' lodgings lie the concentration and sheer strain of the judicial day—constant attention, careful analysis, the burden of long cases, the weight of background reading, the anxiety of setting the right sentence, and generally, for those who undertake this work between the ages of 50 and 75, of life away from home for weeks on end. At different levels, I pay tribute to the patient work of the circuit judges handling a huge variety of smaller cases, developing an understanding of housing matters, of social security, the burden of criminal work on the circuit bench, and to the expertise of district judges whose major input into cases where representation is less expert or, often, non-existent causes such heavy reliance on the court. They deserve our support, appreciation and admiration more often than they get it.
  Having said that, we must also remember that resources are finite both in money and in skilled manpower and, therefore, there is a duty on the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to deploy those resources efficiently and effectively.
  The subject of the debate is the number of High Court judges. The fact is that today they are the highest number in our history. They have increased from 31 in 1945 to 42 in 1960, to 75 in 1979, and today, with the imminent appointment of a further High Court judge in the chancery division, to 84. Over the same period the number of Lords Justices of Appeal has risen from six in 1945 to 27 today. The present Lord Chancellor has obtained over the past three and a half years an increase of five High Court judges and four Lords Justices. The increase since 1979 in the numbers of Lords Justices, who are so essential to the
  950
  work of the Court of Appeal criminal division and the divisional court is no less than 50 per cent.—-from 18 to the current 27 who are in post. Furthermore, with the civil justice review, much of the civil work of the High Court is being transferred to the county court. In the past 10 years there has been an increase in the number of circuit judges by no less than 110, or 50 per cent., with 49 of them appointed by the present Lord Chancellor.
  The task is, therefore, to analyse the problem highlighted by the Lord Chief Justice and restated tonight in the debate, and to show what the Government are doing to tackle it. If more High Court judges are necessary, we must not shrink from the problem, but first we must be sure that we have deployed those whom we have to the best effect.
  I acknowledge straight away that there are pressures in both the Court of Appeal criminal division and the divisional court. The number of cases heard by a full court of the Court of Appeal criminal division has increased from 2,528 in 1979 to 3,627 in 1990, an increase of 43 per cent. over the position 10 years before, but with the number outstanding at the end of the year having been reduced by 12 per cent. Likewise, the number of applications for judicial review has increased markedly in the past few years. In 1990–91, a total of 2,149 cases were disposed of by the divisional court, an increase of 33 per cent. over the previous year.
  It is the view of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that an extra court is needed in the Court of Appeal criminal division now and that increased resources should be devoted to the divisional court with its heavy workload of judicial review. Incidentally I should make it clear that it is the view of the Law Officers that in our complex society, where there is an ever-increasing need to rely upon secondary legislation, the development of judicial review of administrative action is entirely right and healthy. Although my ministerial colleagues have sometimes suffered its effects, I have never heard any of them suggest that such judicial powers should be curtailed. On the contrary, the response of the Government by means of such publications as "The judge over your shoulder" has been to ensure that departments of state understand better the ambit of their powers and the way that they should be exercised so that rights are respected and the law obeyed as it should be.
  The picture is not uniformly gloomy.
  Mr. Fraser: The Solicitor-General has paid great respect to judicial review. Is he aware of the rule that is laid down by the Home Office in immigration cases? The Home Office will withhold removal of a person from the United Kingdom for only 48 hours in order to get the case before a judge. Does he not think that that is placing far too great a burden on judges and is effectively denying individuals access to judicial review by setting such a short period between the taking of instructions and getting the matter before a judge?
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman raises a difficult and important matter, but I am not at all sure that I do hold such a view. As I have said, it is a difficult matter and it is not the subject of the debate. There are competing aspects of the problem and I cannot say that I hold the view that the hon. Gentleman has set out.
  Returning to the deployment of the judiciary, the picture is not uniformly gloomy. Waiting times in the

  951
  Queen's Bench division have been reduced to two months on the warned list, 13 months on the fixtures list and seven months on the after-fixtures list. Indeed, the number of outstanding trials in that division has been halved since June 1989. A great deal of judicial effort has gone into clearing that backlog which, I am given to understand, has now reached a level at which it is no longer sensible, or perhaps even possible, to reduce waiting times. In other words, the parties need this sort of time to prepare themselves for the trial.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does the Solicitor-General agree—I speak with some experience of this field of the law—that 13 months' waiting on the fixtures list in civil matters is far too long? Many years ago I was involved in the settlement of damages in a series of fatal accidents, and I know that families have to wait a long time for settlements. Surely 13 months is far 100 long and the period should be reduced.
  The Solicitor-General: It is difficult to comment on individual cases, but I wonder why a case of settlement of damages requires it to be on the fixtures list when it could be brought on a great deal faster if it simply went on to the warned list.
  Mr. Bermingham: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will listen, I will tell him why. It was a matter of quantum. That cannot always be agreed, and sometimes there is a point of principle in what is meant, for example, by continuing loss or by future potential earnings.
  The Solicitor-General: It is difficult to dispute at this time of night, but it is not self-evident why the case had to go into the fixtures list as opposed to the warned list.
  The picture in the Crown court, which was causing justified concern just five years ago, is also greatly improved. The waiting time for custody cases in London is shorter than at any time during the past 14 years during which records in the present form have been kept. Since 1979, waiting times have dropped by 31 per cent. or by seven weeks. That is in spite of a doubling of the workload of the Crown court. In this age of rising crime, those figures suggest that, although there is never room for complacency, far from collapsing, the system is coping extremely well with the challenges that face it.
  Thus, while the Lord Chancellor is both concerned about and sympathetic to the problems that we are discussing, the House will realise that before he can increase further the number of judges on the High Court bench, he will need to be able to be satisfied that existing resources are being deployed to the best effect that they reasonably can. Two points in particular need to be focused upon. The first is the substantial transfer of work from the High court to the county court under the civil justice review. lit will also be remembered that paragraph 82 of the review stated expressly:
  "It is the leading objective of the Review that the business of the civil courts should be allocated to the various tiers of judiciary in such a way as to ensure that it is handled at the lowest level appropriate to each case."
  The second point—
  Mr. Archer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been most courteous in giving way. Does he recollect the debates in which we both participated on the Courts and Legal Services Bill, when I thought that it was common ground, first, that the county court was not yet ready to absorb more cases and, secondly, that no more cases could be transferred to it until it was ready?
  The Solicitor-General: That is common ground in principle, and it was common ground in fact at that time. However, there has been a very considerable increase in the number of county court judges as circuit judges, as I have already shown from the statistics. There has been a considerable improvement in the deployment of those judges, with trial centres giving an opportunity for much more effective use of those resources. I know that the Lord Chancellor keeps a careful watch on the way that those matters are being progressed. The opportunity for that transfer, which was contemplated by the civil justice review, nevertheless remains.
  The second point concerns the deployment of High Court judges on the circuit and the question—I put it no higher than that—whether at present what they find themselves doing represents the best use that can be made of the time, expertise and formidable experience that they can bring to bear.
  In the context of the civil justice review I should say something of the widespread use of circuit judges sitting as judges of the High Court in accordance with section 9 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and the use of silks as deputy judges—a topic of current concern, rightly mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West.
  Mention has been made of 58 per cent. of those trying High Court cases in recent weeks falling into one or other of these categories. It is a fair criticism if what is intended as a back-up measure or a valuable training ground for those who may go on themselves to be High Court judges is allowed to become too constant a feature of the lists, but I wish to put the problem into perspective and to link it with the correct deployment of circuit and High Court judges.
  To put the figures into perspective over a full year, in 1990—the last full year for which figures are available—55 per cent. of sitting days were sat by High Court judges, 21 per cent. by section 9 circuit judges and the balance of 24 per cent. by the deputies. As a proportion of all High Court sitting days, the proportion of cases tried by other than full High Court judges was rather smaller, but I recognise that the problem is principally to be found in the Queen's bench division.
  A significant part of the solution to this problem and to the lightening of the burden on the High Court judiciary of the less heavy civil cases can reasonably be expected to come from the implementation of the civil justice review. Already in 1990—one knows that the transfer must anticipate the actual trial—some 22,959 cases were redirected from the Queen's bench division to the enlarged county court system.
  Nevertheless, of the total of 2,489 civil trials heard by the Queen's bench that year, 1,274 of them being heard in the Royal Courts of Justice, some 1,670 or 67 per cent. were claims for personal injury, of which more than a third —578 or 36 per cent.—involved amounts below the new county court threshold of £25,000 and a further 262 or 21 per cent. fell in the £25,000 to £50,000 band eligible for trial either in the High or county courts. Those figures must be treated with some caution, since not all would be appropriate to be heard by circuit judges, but they show the considerable weight of work that can properly be transferred. That will release not only some High Court judges but a number of senior circuit judges for work including, directly or indirectly, important criminal work out on circuit.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in civil matters the problem is not always the sums involved but the legal issues? A case may concern £10,000 or £1 million—it does not matter.
  The Solicitor-General: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he will have noticed, that is why I astutely said that such figures must be treated cautiously.
  The deployment of High Court judiciary on circuit is by no means an easy matter and the questions that I wish to raise are not asked in any spirit of dogmatism. They are matter largely for the Lord Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice who, under our constitution, are responsible for the day-to-day distribution of judicial resources as between the different areas of the Royal Courts of Justice and the circuits. Such matters are among the subjects of their regular meetings with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who, as president of the Supreme Court, retains ultimate responsibility.
  There is, however, reason to believe that many High Court judges out on circuit do not always find themselves used to the best effect. That seems to be supported by analysis and anecdote. The Lord Chancellor's Department has been not unaware of the difficulty for some time and a careful analysis has been carried out which the Lord Chancellor is looking forward to discussing with the heads of division.
  Based on experience in 1990–91, at any given time there are between 22 and 28 High Court judges out on circuit. On this basis, some, at least, of the cases they are to try might be appropriate to a circuit judge of suitable experience. A way of reducing the backlog of cases in the Court of Appeal criminal division and the divisional court may be to transfer back to those areas of greatest need some High Court judges who would otherwise be on circuit, at least for a temporary period.
  In summary, therefore, may I say this. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor fully recognises the anxiety on this matter. Both the present Government in the past 10 years and my noble and learned Friend during his three and a half years of office have continued the policy of significant increase in the number of the judiciary, marked indeed in the numbers of Lords Justices and circuit judges which have gone up by no less than a third and 50 per cent. respectively since 1979.
  My noble and learned Friend fully recognises the burdens on the Court of Appeal criminal division and the divisional court deriving from the increase in judicial review. He is anxious to see extra judicial resources transferred in each of those directions. He is himself considering very carefully the match between the tasks to be carried out and the judicial resources available and looks forward to reflecting carefully on all that has been said in this debate and to continuing to work closely with the higher judiciary to tackle and overcome the problems in whatever way he is satisfied is necessary.

  Trade Union Reform
  5.16 am
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: First, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State of Employment for bringing him to the Chamber at such an unearthly hour of the morning.
  The topic that I wish to debate is trade union reform. Since 1980 the Government have adopted a step-by-step approach to industrial relations in Britain by means of five Acts which have had considerable success.
  The change in approach can be seen in the number of stoppages in recent years and the number of working days lost in industry and in service. In 1990 some 1·9 million working days were lost compared with almost 13 million on average during the 1970s, which is a dramatic change.
  There have been important cases, such as the National Union of Railwaymen in 1986 and the Ford workers in 1990, where on a ballot, despite the advice of union leaders, workers have decided not to strike. Since 1980, despite the apparent lack of publicity, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been notified of more than 1,000 ballots.
  Since the first of the Acts came into force, there has been a great reduction in trade union membership. That is not something about which I would gloat. It is rather sad that people should not look on the trade unions as an important part of their working lives. Perhaps part of the problem is that the unions have not managed to keep themselves attractive. Their functions have tended to become blurred with the passing years. Some of the reasons for their traditional efforts on behalf of their members have disappeared. They have frequently attained some of their early objectives.
  The unions fought long and hard to reduce hours of work. I can remember the pride that my father, a shop steward, took in obtaining a reduction in the working week in his company—from 48 to 44 hours—which meant that the workers did not have to work on Saturday mornings any more.
  Many grassroots members of trade unions still work as they always have done to obtain the best possible conditions for their people. But their leaders have often created problems.
  The success of the legislation of recent years can be seen in the differences brought about in industrial relations and in bringing inward investment to this country. The United Kingdom has become an attractive prospect for companies from overseas. In 1989, 54,000 jobs were created by inward investment—the highest number ever. I doubt whether that could have occurred under the old-fashioned industrial relations set-up.
  Unfortunately, some unions are still in the dark ages. According to The Independent, Keva Coombes, the former Labour leader of Liverpool city council, has admitted that
  "the roots of the council's problems were the entrenched attitudes of its trade unions, which had not shifted since the 1950s".
  The unions must bring themselves up to date and make themselves attractive to the membership.
  There has been a great shift: whereas trade unions in the private sector used to have the most members, now the public sector unions have the most. There has also been a move away from blue collar unions to white collar unions. Because of changes in the law, the individual has greater

  955
  powers within the union nowadays; and employers can take action to prevent the worse effects of strikes—yet quite a number of people still, somewhat surprisingly, consider strike action. Only this morning I read in the Daily Mirror—
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Why the Daily Mirror?
  Mr. Stevens: Because it was the only available paper. The back page carried the banner headline, "Strike", and continued:
  "Everybody out, says the PFA."
  Even in the world of soccer there seems still to be a tendency to consider striking. Given the problems of the football world I should have thought that that was the last course of action the Professional Footballers Association would want to take—it will hardly be attractive to the players and clubs. I gather that the reason has to do with the proposed super league, which would apparently disadvantage some people—so they are thinking of striking. I do not believe that matters need come to that.
  As for the future, there are still one or two changes in trade union legislation that could prove beneficial. In his citizens charter my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed an entirely new legal right for the citizen. Unlawful industrial action, such as an unballoted or political strike in a public service, can currently be challenged by an employer or a member of a union who is called upon to take part in the action. Such strikes have a widespread and devastating effect on the everyday lives of ordinary citizens. Under the new proposal the citizen would have the right to bring legal proceedings to halt any unlawful industrial action affecting services covered by the citizens charter. That will deal with cases in which people are severely affected and will cover people in business or those trying to get to work.
  Many trade unions in the private sector have no-strike agreements, which are an important advance in industrial relations. People who work for some public services are not permitted to strike, but perhaps workers in those services should consider voluntary acceptance of the fact that strike action should form no part of their armoury for carrying out negotiations. Pay review bodies, which were introduced by the Government, have taken away the likelihood of strikes.
  I read in The Sunday Times about the sacking of the chief of the National Union of Journalists. The report said:
  "For subscriptions of up to £165 a year, among the highest in the trade union movement, members have complained that they get little more than a laminated press card and a newspaper that spouts left-wind ideology."
  Surely the purpose of trade unions is service to their members. Earlier I spoke about the leadership of trade unions. The report in The Sunday Times says:
  "Turner, … formerly letters editor at the Mirror, sees himself as the champion of working journalists standing up to professional trade unionists more interested in bickering than bylines."
  That suggests that some trade unions do not properly serve their members.
  We should examine further three areas that need reform. The law calls for a ballot before industrial action can take place, but there should be a period of perhaps a week before a strike can occur. Such a delay is commonly called a cooling-off period, but during that time frustration could grow. My reason for calling for such a period is that
  956
  it would enable people to reflect on the effects of what might take place. That could be taken into account by individuals and companies and other groups who could then try to establish how to meet their various needs without resorting to industrial action. That would be of considerable advantage. It seems only fair play to give people a breathing space to adjust their needs.
  There could also be reform on the right of people to join a trade union of their choice. This still creates some problems. There are still inter-union rivalries. No doubt some of the new arrangements such as no-strike agreements have developed because they are usually tied up with single union agreements. We know that a number of unions have been involved in some rather unseemly squabbles and that the Trades Union Congress has threatened to expel its largest union, the Transport and General Workers Union, for poaching members from two other unions—the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the National Union of Public Employees. The desire to join the union of one's choice is not unreasonable. The laws that we have passed over the past 12 years have given trade union members a great number of freedoms and it would be reasonable to give people the right to join the trade union of their choice. That might encourage some to rejoin or join the trade union movement.
  The third area where change can take place is the basic area of agreements between trade unions and employers, which at the moment are not enforceable in law. It would not be a bad thing if we moved to a system similar to those of other countries, so that such agreements are enforceable in law, although only with the agreement of both parties. It is odd that many contracts are enforceable in the courts, although people do not always insist on enforcement and may come to a mutual agreement, when this one is not. I cannot see why, as we move into new areas of trade union and employer relations, we cannot make that change.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman talks about agreements being enforceable in law. He may be aware that there was an exchange between the Minister and myself some months ago about the situation at Rolls-Royce, where the management arbitrarily threatened to tear up the contracts of employment of all its employees, without any notification or negotiation. Does he think that such agreements should be enforceable in law? Where a trade union has been recognised as the legitimate negotiating body over many years, but the employer arbitrarily tears up negotiating rights, should that be enforceable in law?
  Mr. Stevens: It is open. If we agreed that the contract should be enforceable in law, it should be binding on both sides, not just one. The agreements are made; that is the position, so if they are enforceable one way, they must be enforceable the other. That could protect both employer and employee. Our industrial relations legislation has been intended not only to strike a balance, but to make the employer-employee relationship reasonable and workable, as opposed to one side dominating the other. We have seen too much of that in the past, particularly in the 1960s.
  There is room for us to develop trade union law and reform the existing legislation. That would benefit trade unionists and others. Employers would have more concrete arrangements on which to work, especially if agreements became enforceable in law. That would

  957
  remove the uncertainty that is still to be found in many industrial disputes: only when they escalate into direct conflict does it become clear what will happen.
  If the Government do not introduce such reforms, the Opposition almost certainly would not. Essentially, the Labour party remains dominated by the trade unions. The policies of which we have heard so much—or, perhaps, not enough; we do not know the details—would rely on the union barons to take us forward into the future. Today, the unions sponsor a higher proportion of the parliamentary Labour party than at any time since 1935; that includes the majority of the shadow Cabinet. Since 1981, they have controlled the lion's share of the vote in the election of the party leader. As far as I am aware, the Leader of the Opposition has no plans to alter either arrangement.
  In deference to their paymasters, the Opposition have opposed every trade union reform since 1979, including the introduction of pre-strike ballots and ballots for union elections. They have not opposed a single major strike in recent years: they did not oppose the miners' strike, the transport strike or the health service strikes. They seem determined to repeal much of the successful and welcome legislation of the past 12 years. Their policies would almost certainly bring about the return of secondary action and flying pickets, and would grant the unions unprecedented legal immunities and privileges. They would be protected by effective sanctions if they broke the law.
  Labour's latest document, "Opportunity Britain", still contains policies that would benefit trade union leaders, and the unions continue to influence Labour's policy in many major areas of the economy, training, health and transport. The threat to the economy, productivity and growth is as real as ever. Labour's trade union reforms would almost certainly prove disastrous.
  I believe that we need a further step on the step-by-step approach that the Government have taken over the past 12 years to discourage precipitate action and protect third parties that play no direct part in disputes. A cooling-off period following ballots has proved successful in other countries. I also believe that it is time that people had a statutory right to belong to the unions of their choice. That would remove the effects of the Bridlington procedures and take away some of the functions of the TUC.
  We should also consider the status of agreements between trade unions and employers. They should be made legally binding, as they are in some other countries. In years to come we shall want to introduce further reforms. During the past 12 years we have passed both major and minor legislation to improve industrial relations. That legislation has proved to be enormously successful. It has also proved to be very popular both within the trade union movement and outside it. We need, however, to do a little more. I hope that the Minister and his Department of Employment colleagues will include some of the points that I have made in their Green Paper. If we do not continue trade union reform in order to improve industrial relations, the Opposition will never do so.
  5.40 am
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) for providing the House with the opportunity to debate this subject. He has raised a number of interesting points and ideas for taking trades union reform forward. He has told us about the work still to be done, but he will probably agree with me when I say that we shall essentially be dealing with fine tuning. We shall have to look at the pattern of trades union reform since 1979, adjust it and get it right in the light of developments.
  If one looks at the pattern of trades union reform since 1979, it is easy to see what a very long way we have come. I refer to pre-strike ballots, ballots for the election of trades union officers, the developments relating to secondary picketing and the outlawing of the closed shop. All this, and a great deal more, forms the pattern of legislation and trades union reform since 1979.
  It is not surprising that a pattern of reform such as that should be introduced by a Conservative Government. It very much underpins Conservative philosophy, which is all about making sure that the rights of organisations do not become bigger than their aggregate parts. It is a question of ensuring that major organisations do not lose sight of the fact that if they have been created to serve the interests of their members, that is exactly what they have to do.
  It is not surprising that a Conservative Government, not a Labour Government, should have been very keen to ensure that there is proper freedom for members to operate within those organisations and to embark on such a course of reform. The interesting aspect of that course of reform is that it should have been so overwhelmingly popular, as is evidenced by the results of three general elections. It will be common though not comfortable ground between us that whatever other reasons people may have had for voting Conservative at the last three elections, the question of trades union reform has featured significantly and resulted in some people, many of whom were trades union members, voting Conservative for the first time.
  The fact that a Conservative Government embarked on such a course of reform and the fact that it has been popular is not, in a sense, surprising. What is surprising, perhaps, is the fact that the Labour party has now decided that it is in favour of these reforms. It is prepared, superficially at least—I stress the word "superficially"—to say not that it has been in favour of these reforms all along, but that for some particular reason, not yet specified, it intends to look at this matter in an entirely different way from the way that it has looked at it in the past.
  An interesting feature of our debate is that two questions can be asked. First, is it likely that the Labour party has truly changed its position—has the leopard truly changed its spots? Secondly, is it actually true that it has done so? On the question whether that is likely, it is worth considering the history of the Labour party and what that tells us. To be fair, I ought to make the point that, in view of what I am about to say, I imply no criticism of the Labour party. On previous occasions I have stated the argument in a slightly different way. A debate such as this, however, attended only by aficionados concentrates the mind and makes one behave in an even fairer way than one might otherwise behave.
  The point that must be made is that it would be quite wrong to accuse the Labour party of being a mainstream

  959
  political party. Nothing in its history or origins gives rise to that supposition. It does not pretend, and I use that word in both senses, to be a popular movement. It cannot pretend to be rooted in the general traditions of this country. It cannot be said to be a popular movement based on ordinary sentiments of common sense and patriotism. Its genealogy is short, obvious and brutish: it was created to be the mouthpiece of the trades union movement. That is what it has been over the years and in a sense, even if we do not particularly like what the mouthpiece says, it is no criticism of the Labour party to say that that is what it is. Much though the Labour party may try to avoid the fact, it is the mouthpiece of the labour movement and of the trades union movement. That is its purpose and why it was created.
  We are given to understand that, despite the Labour party's origins and history, all has changed in recent times. We are asked to accept that, because of the dynamism and sheer intellectual force of the Leader of the Opposition, the Labour party has entirely changed its spots and can no longer be regarded as merely the mouth on a stick of the trades union movement.
  Is that likely? We are told that the Labour party has introduced significant reforms to ensure that it will not be dominated by the union movement. The problem is that the most significant of the reforms is due to be made after the next general election, when Labour party policy will be decided, as always, by its conference. Even after the major reforms that the Leader of the Opposition has introduced, 70 per cent. of the votes cast at the Labour party's conference will be the block vote of the trades union movement. That is after reforms have been made to reduce union domination. It is a funny reduction in domination if, after the event, 70 per cent. of the votes to decide party policy are cast by the trades union movement.
  In deciding whether the Labour party has changed its position on trades union reform, or is likely to do so, one must consider the sponsorship of Labour Members. They would be the first to correct me if I were to pretend that 100 per cent. of the parliamentary Labour party is sponsored by trades unions. Some 33 per cent. of Labour Members are not; only 67 per cent. are sponsored by trades unions.
  If that worries Labour Members, they need have no fear, because the shadow Cabinet shows solidarity. Every one of its 20 members is sponsored by the trades union movement. In case any members of the general management committee are lurking up in the gallery, listening to our debates or will study them later, Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen will confirm that all the members of the shadow Cabinet, which is represented here tonight by the second division, are sponsored by the trades union movement.
  Even if one were prepared to ignore the raw figures, it is worth considering what some of the reformers say about trades union matters. We should consider the two leading lights and moderates of the labour movement. The views of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—he of the lunchtime offensive—were interestingly described in his house. He spoke of a legal requirement for pre-strike ballots. He described the proposition for pre-strike ballots and ballots for union elections—
  Mr. Ian McCartney: No, he did not.
  Mr. Nicholls: It is interesting that although only four Labour Members have come here to defend their position on the trades union membership, they already know I want to draw to the attention of the House. What does the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, the hero of the lunchtime offensive, think about trades union ballots? Does he think that they are a useful extension of trades unions' members' rights? Is he pleased that it strikes a libertarian blow? No. He describes it as "an irrelevant effrontery". He went on to say that statutory requirements for ballots were "intellectually disreputable" and that for unions, they would
  "gravely undermine the effective pursuit of their members' interests."—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 170.]
  That is from someone who is a leading light in a party which would have us believe that trades union reform is now safe in its hands. That is from a person who, when Labour suffers its next election defeat, will be well poised to take over leadership of the Labour party.
  Let us look to the younger generation and put the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East to one side for the moment. Let us go for the young Lochinvar and look at the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) when he was trying to describe how he felt about trades union ballots. What did he say about the Bill that made them a reality? He described the ballots as a "shabby, partisan strategy" and as "a disgrace". Just in case he had not made his position abundantly clear at that stage, he said that he saw a ballot as
  "a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement".—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 210.]
  That is the reality of the way in which leading lights in the new, revisionist, squeaky-clean Labour party feel about trades union matters.
  Every single trades union reform that the Government have introduced since 1979, which the Labour party says is now safe in its hands, was opposed root and branch by the Labour party, often in the most lurid terms. There is not a single major strike that members of the Labour party have opposed in recent times. If one needed to consider for one moment whether it was likely that the Labour party, or the Labour party as it is likely to be constituted in the foreseeable future, could be anything other than a tool and pawn of the trades union movement, one would not have to listen to my words—good idea though that may be. All one has to do is to look at what the Labour party says about itself—[Interruption.] This is one of the occasions on which my innate fairness can bubble to the surface, because in making my point, I have only to quote those who now seek to deny it from sedentary positions.
  The answer to the first question—whether it is likely that the Labour party would now change its spots—is that it would not. Even if it is not likely, is it true? It is worth considering four areas in which the Labour party will say, superficially, that it has changed its position. Let us consider the publication "Opportunity Britain". Let us ignore for the moment that a noun has been used as an adjective. In one area of the publication, while proclaiming itself to be squeaky clean, revisionist and modern, the Labour party has managed to pledge itself to go further down a left-wing, trades union road than it has ever done. It now makes it clear in "Opportunity Britain"—on page 39 for those who wish to have a look at its latest policy on these matters—that it would for the first time be impossible for employers to be able to dismiss strikers. It

  961
  is a bizarre proposition that, after all possible safeguards, an employer should employ people to work in his concern, yet not be allowed to dismiss them when they decide that their idea of a contract of employment is merely an opportunity to strike. That proposition and that move towards making it impossible to dismiss strikers are so extreme that they were not even adopted by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) when he was in government. That proposition was even too extreme for that right hon. Gentleman. It is a bizarre proposition from the Labour party and far more extreme than anything that a Labour Government have adopted.
  It is interesting to discover the position of certain leading lights in the Labour party on ballots. We are led to believe by the hon. Member for Sedgefield that the tiger has changed its spots and that the Labour party has been in favour of pre-strike ballots all along. Those who pay the piper call the tune and it is interesting to consider what the trade unions say about—
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Tigers do not have spots.
  Mr. Nicholls: It is interesting that I am now being heckled. Opposition Members are upset because if they stand in favour of some of the reforms it means that they will go against those who pay the funds of the Labour party.
  It is worth considering those who pay the piper, for example, Ron Todd, the recent relatively moderate leader of the Transport and General Workers Union and what he says about ballots. It appears that he is now in favour of ballots for strikes, but he made it clear in an article in The Independent that he does not mind if those ballots are not held until after the strike has been called. It is a odd commitment to pre-strike ballots and ballots generally if one believes that one can have a strike first and perhaps a ballot later. That is what lies behind the Labour party's being in favour of ballots.
  What about secondary picketing and sympathy action? It is clear that the public are thoroughly fed up with such action. There are still many people who can remember the chaos to which the country was reduced in the winter of discontent specifically because secondary picketing and sympathy action were allowed. We are now told by the Labour party that slight secondary picketing and slight sympathy action will be allowed. If one considers what the trades union apparatchiks say about that, one sees that it is slightly different from what Labour party spokesmen say.
  That great luminary of the trade union movement, and to be fair, its greatest paymaster, Mr. Todd, has made it absolutely clear to those whom he seeks to fund what his position would be. Presumably the Opposition would want to hear about Mr. Todd and the TGWU. After all, many members of the shadow Cabinet are sponsored by that union. The Leader of the Opposition is sponsored by that union. They all know where their marching orders come from. When Mr. Todd was asked about how he felt about secondary picketing he said:
  "We need fair rules on picketing. We need the right to enforce our own rule book"
  He was speaking to that well-known moderate journal, The Morning Star. That paper said that he went on to stress that his definition of secondary action included the
  962
  right to strike in support of those "in unorganised workplaces". Just in case anyone might miss what Mr. Todd thought was a necessary right of secondary picketing and sympathy action, he said:
  "if you want the bottom line that is it and we'll consider any means of getting there."
  That is the true reaction of the Labour party to the restoration of rights on secondary picketing and sympathy action.
  One need only consider the tortuous definition that is proposed by the Labour party. It says that it would allow secondary picketing and sympathy action, but that there would have to be mutuality of interest to justify such action. What does that mean in practice? On the BBC programme "On the Record" the hon. Member for Sedgefield admitted that that connection would be there for National Union of Mineworkers' pickets—if there is anyone left in the NUM these days. He said that NUM pickets would be entitled to go out and picket in support of electricity workers. The hon. Member was also able to confirm again that that would mean that National Union of Seamen pickets would have been entitled to bring cross-channels ferries to a halt. It would mean that the TGWU would have been entitled to carry out its threats against Ford, even though those threats prevented substantial investment at Ford at Dundee. Although the headline is that the Labour party now has a responsible attitude on those matters, the small print turns out to mean something else.
  When one is trying to form a view on the matter and work out what the situation might be, it is worth looking at what some of the more honest members of the Labour party are prepared to say. The hon. Member who springs to mind is a member of the shadow Cabinet who, whatever his other attributes and characteristics, fiercely speaks his mind, such as it is. He is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is much maligned. We all think of the skit that we often see of the hon. Gentleman on "Spitting Image", which has been unfair to him because, in reality, he is much worse than he is portrayed. It is interesting that when he was asked recently to reflect on the position of the trade union movement in relation to the Labour party he said:
  "There is no way the Labour party can be distanced from the trade unions"—
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  I am pleased that Opposition Members realise, as all good puppets should, their position in this matter. He continued:
  "I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind about our alliance with the trade unions. We sit down and discuss our policies and come to agreements before we go to conference. Nobody will be able to break that link."
  So the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has made it absolutely clear that there is no question of breaking that link.
  Ultimately, the Labour party realises that its position on trades union reform has been a vote loser. Because it is moving into new times, it now goes in for realpolitik. It has suddenly discovered that it is even more in favour of trades union reform than we are. But its structure and funding and the trades unions' say in the framing of its policies show that it is unreal to think that, if it were in office, the Labour party could ever be anything other than it was created to be: the mouthpiece, for better or worse, of the trades union movement. There is nothing wrong or dishonourable with that position. In a sense, it has now

  963
  become part of British tradition and is very praiseworthy. However, it becomes less than praiseworthy, and becomes intellectually and historically dishonest, when such a party denies its history and pretends that it will abandon it in the future. There is no evidence whatever for that proposition. This debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on that fact.
  6.3 am
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on deciding to debate this subject, although I am at a loss about what he wanted to say. I had been concerned that two good speeches would be spoilt by the hour of the night and the lack of an audience, but events have proved me wrong because two not-so-good speeches have not been spoilt.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): We are about to hear another.
  Mr. Lloyd: The Minister must follow me in whatever form he chooses.
  There is little that I can say to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) except that he is right in at least one accusation, because the Labour party has no intention of turning its back on its history. Why should we? Our history makes the party what it is and I do not seek to justify our position, because it has been justified many times before. If the charge is simply that we recognise that we hold certain values in common with different sectors of society, the Labour party is and will continue to be committed to the pursuit of those values through the political mechanisms of this place.
  As for the subject of this debate on industrial relations in Britain and the need for trade union reforms, may I say to the hon. Member for Nuneaton that there may be a need for a seven-day cooling-off period between Conservative Members coming up with ideas and the publication of Green Papers by the Secretary of State which say, essentially, what is in the hon. Gentleman's speech. That is because the only possible justification for the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton is that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment felt that they might be lucky enough in the ballot to obtain some prime time. Instead, the poor old Minister had to turn up at 5.30 am to justify and possibly throw some light on the debate.
  The sad reality is that Conservative Members felt, and still feel, that trade union bashing will give them an electoral bonus. They normally start on the process before a general election. For those who do not already know it, it is a good indication of the fact that a general election is on the way. The unfortunate news for Conservative Members is that the British public do not give trade union legislation a high priority.
  A recent opinion poll convincingly showed that 93 per cent. of the public support an employee's legal right, not only to trade union membership but to trade union representation when in dispute with an employer. The public even allow for the concept of an employee being in dispute with his or her employer because they recognise that such things occur.
  Some 85 per cent. of the public support the legal right to a minimum wage—something that is advocated by the Labour party and most of the rest of Europe, but scorned by the Government. Some 66 per cent. of Conservative
  964
  voters are strongly against the idea of any further legislation to limit trade union rights, which means that 66 per cent. of the supporters of Conservative Members do not believe them when they say that there is a need for further step-by-step, lemming-like moves over the cliff to which the Government would take the country in terms of trade union legislation.
  The simple reality is that the British public recognise, as does the Labour party, that industrial relations—far from being one of the Government's successes—contain many sectors in which the Government's policies have totally and abysmally failed. That failure is meted out to the detriment of some of the most vulnerable people in society.
  The Government have for many years been in dispute with many international organisations, including the European Community and the International Labour Organisation because of their total failure to provide an industrial relations regime that is seen to be fair on all sides of industry. We know that the International Labour Organisation—the United Nations trade union agency—has condemned the Government roundly and soundly for their abuse of trade unions and trade unionists. It contrasts the Government's concern to prevent what they would describe as the abuse of industrial power with their
  "lesser concern for the rights of trade unions".
  That is absolutely right, because the Government have run away from the concept that employees should have any rights in the workplace.
  One of the ILO's most ringing condemnations, from which the Government have constantly run away, is of their decision to ban employees at GCHQ from being trade union members. That issue is still unresolved and we do not hear Conservative Members raise it when they speak of the abuse of the ordinary people of this country. When Conservatives abuse the most vulnerable people, Parliament should draw its own conclusions about the unkind and unpleasant nature of the modern Conservative party.
  There has been a denial of the negotiating rights of teachers, which was condemned by the ILO. The Government have refused to take action on the blacklisting of people—[Interruption.] That, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge should know, is common in many parts of British industry. People, simply because of a history of trade union activity—or sometimes not even that—are prevented from obtaining any further employment in those parts of industry because they are deemed to be unacceptable to employers. We saw that in relation to work on the channel tunnel, where active trade unionists were unable to obtain employment. It is a disgrace.
  Mr. Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe that an employer should have the right to take into account that a trade unionist may have a history of industrial disruption? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an employer should be obliged to employ such a person? The answer that the hon. Gentleman is groping for is yes, but it would be interesting to hear it from the hon. Gentleman himself.
  Mr. Lloyd: We have said consistently that blacklisting is an outrageous principle, by which an employer can use his so-called right of hire and fire for narrow and sectarian political and industrial ends.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hour is late, but I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman answer my question.
  Mr. Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to intervene again? I will give way to him, if he asks politely. The hon. Gentleman's behaviour is not something to which one is normally accustomed in the House, or elsewhere.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to learn some of the customs and traditions of the House, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can only approve of that.
  Blacklisting has been condemned by international bodies such as the ILO. If the hon. Member for Teignbridge wants to tell the House that he believes that the ILO and others are wrong to say that blacklisting is an outrageous abuse of human rights, I will listen with considerable interest.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that I put to him a few moments ago? Does he accept that an employer should have the right to refuse to employ a trade unionist who has a history of industrial disruption? The answer is either yes or no.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman chooses to phrase his question in that way, but I repeat that an employer does not have the right to blacklist a person when, in some instances, he or she has not even been an active member of a trade union, and organisations such as the Economic League have got it wrong. The Labour party has already sought, in previous Employment Bills, to make blacklisting illegal.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Lloyd: Not on the same issue, no. I have made it clear where Labour stands. We do not accept the abuse of individual human rights by blacklisting.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge might want to leap up and down in the same hysterical fashion in respect of sympathy action. Again, the ILO condemned the Government for making the concept of sympathy action illegal—particularly where it is associated, as was the case with the notorious Wapping dispute, with a move by the company artificially to split its work force by using the law as a direct weapon against its employees. The hon. Member for Teignbridge has already made it clear that he supports the sacking of workers who strike. He is clearly out of step with international opinion in that respect as well. The Government and their supporters are far from the norms of conventional and decent opinion throughout Europe and the world.
  It is claimed that Britain has a successful record in terms of stoppages in industry. Let us be realistic and compare the numbers of days lost through industrial dispute, and the number lost through death and injuries at work.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Does the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) accept that the citizens charter should allow the public to know of the secret and often spurious information on their private lives that is held by organisations such as the Economic League, and to correct it where it is wrong? Every individual has an inalienable right to be employed in commerce or industry. Does the hon. Member for Teignbridge share that view—yes or no?
  Mr. Lloyd: The reality is that the Government do not agree with that proposition. They have made it clear on numerous occasions that they do not agree with the concept of individual basic human rights at the workplace. They believe that an employer has a right to do what he feels is right in his own interests. The Government's attitude is that if that means trampling down the rights of employees, so be it. That should be evident to anyone who believes in human rights in a free society. The idea that an organisation can store information covertly is a dubious one; the notion that that information should be uncheckable is so outrageous that there is an overwhelming case for banning the activity.
  Mr. McCartney: If we accept from the Prime Minister that the citizens charter relates to the public sector rather than the private sector, we must recognise that within British Telecom and British Coal there is a tendency to use organisations such as the Economic League. If someone is employed in the public sector, he will have the rights that are set out in the citizens charter. Surely he should be able to seek out and challenge the information that may be held on him, which might be fallacious. At present there is no right of challenge. An individual's career might be blighted irrespective of whether he agrees with trade unionism. His views on trade unionism could be described as irrelevant in the circumstances.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. I ask the Minister to confirm that part of the citizen's rights will be an entitlement for those who work in the public sector to challenge both the use and abuse by public sector employers of blacklists of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has described.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I suspect that he is no longer in a position to answer authoritatively for the Government or the Prime Minister, to tell us what will be introduced in the citizens charter. Being ever interested in his views, however, I shall give way to him, but perhaps for the last time in this debate.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman and I have been round this course before. In the context of the debate, perhaps he will remind the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that the Government introduced the right of an employee not to be denied employment because of trade union membership. We are talking about an entirely different proposition, and one that obviously escapes the hon. Member for Makerfield. The proposition is not that someone should be denied work because of trade union membership. As I said, the Government have made that an impossibility. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), with his usual cheap remarks and jibes, chooses not to recognise that. He will not give a straight answer to my question, which is whether an employer should be entitled to refuse employment to someone with a history of industrial disruption—not someone who is merely a member of a trade union. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Government introduced the right that a person should not be refused work merely because of trade union membership.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman still practises law, but he suggested in his little diatribe that

  967
  if a law is passed that gives rights to trade unionists, that makes it impossible to discriminate against trade unionists. He merely demonstrates—
  Mr. Nicholls: I did not say that.
  Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read Hansard when this exchange appears within it. I think that he will find that my quotation is accurate.
  The simple reality is that in Britain there are many who are denied employment only because they are members—not active ones—of trade unions. That is the position in the construction industry, for example, and in other parts of other industries. The Government can pass any law that they like, but unless they are prepared actively to prevent the use of blacklists they merely provide themselves with a fig leaf of respectability—I think that the Minister know this—while failing to give people legal protection. People's lives have been blighted by the actions of vicious employers. Actions have been taken that were designed to maintain a degree of control in certain industries which should not be tolerated in a society such as ours.
  The hon. Member for Nuneaton talked about Britain's great success in terms of the present industrial climate. There is a contrast to be drawn between the number of days lost through industrial stoppages and the ever-increasing number of days lost through deaths and injuries at the workplace. That is one of the scandals of our time, and it falls directly on the doorstep of the Government. During recent years, the number of deaths has once again increased. The latest figures available show that some 200,000 people each year are injured in the workplace in Britain. That is a frighteningly high figure. A phenomenal number of people are suffering because of the incompetence and indifference of Conservative Members and the Government whom they seek to support.
  The Government have systematically underfunded the Health and Safety Executive and have systematically attempted to drive a wedge between the people at the workplace and the protections that they should be entitled to enjoy in any society that claims to be civilised. If we are serious about a proper industrial climate in a modern economy, a right to healthy and safe working practices is not simply something to be afforded when the economy is put to rights, but something fundamental to our sort of society. It is a fundamental right for our fellow citizens at the workplace.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the case of Jan Leadbitter, who died at work recently and whose employer, Bovis Construction, was taken to court. The family contacted me because they were devastated that the company, which has a poor industrial safety record, was fined a mere £1,000 by the court. It is an outrage that a company that allowed one of its employees to die, through its negligence—there is no doubt that it was negligence by the company—was fined only £1,000 by the court, which deemed that to be sufficient penalty. Conservative Members may think that that is a reasonable response by the courts, but we do not. Companies that are irresponsible to the point of allowing their employees to die should suffer penalties considerably greater than that.
  Mr. McCartney: A year and a half ago, an 18-year-old constituent of mine was electrocuted and died after a fall. His employer was found guilty in the magistrates court of four offences, for which the highest fine was £400. His
  968
  mother and father are devastated and his fiancee's life has been destroyed. Despite its negligence, the employer walked away with a minimum fine.
  Because my constituent was killed three weeks after his 18th birthday, his family has no claim in law for compensation. He was deemed to be an adult with no wife or children, yet in reality he lived in a family and looked after his parents. The company offered to pay for the lad's funeral, which cost about £1,500, and then walked away. Had that lad been killed in the street by, for example, a nightclub bouncer, that person would have rightly served 15 years. Because the gentleman concerned calls himself a managing director, he walked away from the court with a £400 fine for negligently killing a person.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. Obviously, compensation can never be enough in such cases. What we should be determined upon—but the Government are not—is to make such events so rare as to be exceptional. The sad reality is that there are 623 deaths and 200,000 injuries a year, with probably another 2,000 people dying through work-induced health disorders and about 80,000 people joining the list of those whose health has been ruined in the workplace. For this Government, the health and safety elements are not a priority. While that charge is real and fitting, I say to Conservative Members that every time that they speak about industrial relations, they speak with—
  Mrs. GoldingForked tongues.
  Mr. Lloyd: Not only with forked tongues, but with gross hypocrisy.
  The Government of law and order are faced with the problem of the 100,000 firms since 1979 that have been found to be illegally underpaying their workers. If the data that I have are accurate, about 1 million people who are covered by the wages councils do not receive the wages to which they are entitled.
  The Conservative party, which claims to have respect for the law, has never been strong in defence of those 1 million people or in pursuing employers who are prepared to flout the law. The Government unashamedly do not pretend to support that law. When we know that about 10·4 million people at work are paid below the level of the Council of Europe's decency threshold, we know that Britain has a crisis of poverty wages. The problem will not be resolved by pious aspirations about driving people back into work. That has not happened. Once again, unemployment is increasing massively. That explains why the hon. Member for Nuneaton said that there were fewer industrial stoppages this year than previously.
  Low pay is holding back our economy and our fellow citizens. It stops our employers investing in training and in deriving the maximum potential from those at the workplace. The Conservative Government do not aim to crack down on the illegal underpayers. A Labour Government will introduce a minimum wage, as Labour Members have said publicly, and we will ensure that it is used to the advantage of people in the workplace.
  Wherever we look, the Government's record on industrial relations bears no comparison to that of the rest of western Europe. The Government are blocking European Community directives dealing with the burden of proof in cases involving sexual discrimination at work, parental leave and working hours.

  969
  I shall quote the case of Robert George, a practising Christian, who works for Plant Breeding International in Cambridge, a subsidiary of the multinational firm, Unilever—a name known to every hon. Member here.
  Mr. McCartney: That company is a big contributor to the Tory party.
  Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend said, that firm is a big contributor to the Tory party. Mr. Robert George has been working for the company for many years. During the harvest, lasting from July to October, he is expected to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week—an 84-hour week. [Interruption.] The Minister sniffs—I am not sure whether in commiseration with Mr. George or in indifference. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond to my point. [Interruption.] It is interesting to note that the Minister has revealed that he will not respond.
  The Government unashamedly blocked the directive on working hours, which would have meant that, for the first time, Britain would come into line with every other country in Europe, bar one, in defining a maximum working week. The Government are not prepared to comment on the case of Mr. Robert George, who is not even able to exercise his right as a practising Christian to take Sunday off. It is a disgrace that that should happen and that the Government are not prepared to investigate the problems faced by that individual and many others because of abuses by big, respectable employers. It is a disgrace that the Government stand alone in Europe in blocking the working hours directive. It is about time that we had a Government who were prepared to put the interests of working people to the fore and to accept directives on working hours that affect the liberty of our fellow citizens.
  The Government are out of touch on leave entitlement and the right of workers to be represented at the workplace. Britain is virtually alone, other than Ireland, in having no system whereby the British worker has a right to representation on health and safety issues. On a minimum wage, maternity leave and parental leave Britain is again out of touch. In addition, Britain is blocking a directive which would give rights to part-time workers and it stands virtually alone in Europe in having laws which discriminate against part-time workers.
  When the hon. Member for Nuneaton tells us that Britain's industrial relations record is a success he is far from the truth. I accept that he was put up to this debate tonight by a Government who want to maintain their trade union-bashing approach. But millions of people in Britain are suffering under the lousy industrial relations climate that the Government have created. The next Labour Government will be committed to introducing a climate at the workplace which embodies the values of civilisation and which protects those who are abused. The Government want industrial conflict, so beloved of Conservative Members who thrive on it. A Labour Government will ensure that conflict at work is rare and that the British worker will be able to operate in the workplace with dignity.
  The Labour party is unashamedly close to the trade unions. It is because we value the role of trade unions in protecting people at the workplace that I stand here
  970
  tonight to say that there is a better way than that put forward by the Government. That better way is coming soon.
  6.32 am
  Mr. Ian McCartney rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. I take it that he has the leave of the House to speak again.
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. McCartney: I thank hon. Members for giving me the opportunity to speak again. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been made tonight on a party-political basis. At the end of the day we can agree or disagree. But in practical terms, industry today provides a clear, unequivocal picture of the modern industrial management structures of companies, whether private or public, that have a real interest in developing a meaningful relationship with the work force.
  My constituency is the home of Heinz, the largest food production company in the world. It has the largest food production plant in the world for baby food, soups and other household items which are mainly sold to the largest supermarket chains in Britain.
  Some eight years ago it was clear that for Heinz to survive in the marketplace in the United Kingdom and Europe it had to enter into a massive research and development programme. That meant a massive change for the work force and management structures.
  The company took the view from the outset that it considered the work force and the trade unions not to be against investment and reorganisation but to be a catalyst for change. During the past eight years there has been a massive change in attitudes in the company to the point where Heinz has not only maintained its market leadership in the food industry but has led the way in showing how trade unions and management can work together to develop, restructure and win new markets at home and in the EC.
  Before Ministers start attacking trade unions, they should consider what happens in companies such as Heinz where the management uses the skill of the unions and involves them in a meaningful dialogue about the changes that are necessary. The management also allows the unions to put forward practical solutions to the problems of the marketplace.
  After millions of pounds of investment, Heinz recognises that were it not for the role played by the unions in the changes in the company, the advantages that the company has gained in the marketplace would never have happened.
  In London and Wigan the shop stewards are principal partners in the changes in the company. [Interruption.] The Minister seems rather fed up with this debate—
  Mr. Forth: I have been up all night.
  Mr. McCartney: So have we all.
  Mr. Nicholls: Give the Minister a chance to reply then.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman spoke for hours and hours, making party-political points.
  If the Minister is serious about his interest in industrial relations and in trade unions, I invite him to come to my constituency between now and the autumn and meet the

  971
  management and trade unions at Heinz. He could look over the factory, where working relations have been transformed. The management realises that it has to take the unions with it when effecting such multi-million pound transformations. That in turn leads to a better company and to better products. It enables the company to win hands down against European competition.
  Heinz has proved that taking the trade unions with the management means a better company and product in the long run. I hope that in the next debate on employment policy we shall not hear from Conservative Members the sort of petty-minded attitudes which we have heard tonight. They are 20 years out of date, and they have no place in the sort of modern industrial society that we have in Britain today.
  6.36 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): A new technique has unfolded during this debate: the Minister is given only a few minutes in which to wind it up. Perhaps the House will have to get used to that, but it came as a surprise to me.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to a debate on employment policy. If he had read the Order Paper he would have seen that the debate is supposed to be about trade union reform. That oversight should not surprise us. This morning trade union-sponsored Opposition Members have come trotting along, no doubt at the bidding of their paymasters in the National Graphical Association, the National Union of Public Employees and the Transport and General Workers Union. They have done everything they can to avoid talking about trade union reform. That, too, should not surprise the House.
  My hon. Friends, by contrast, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) who initiated the debate, wanted to talk about trade union law and trade union reform. It was sigificant, but not surprising, that Labour Members wanted to talk about almost anything else—deaths and injuries at work, for instance. As usual, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) got his facts wrong and ignored the fact that this country has one of the best records in Europe in that area. Other European countries look to us to establish best practice in health and safety. That was confirmed recently by the Health and Safety Executive's mapping project, which I recommend to the hon. Gentleman.
  Again as usual, the hon. Member for Stretford made an inaccurate reference in passing to underfunding of the Health and Safety Executive. He should know by now—I have told him often enough—that the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has publicly confirmed that the commission and the executive have the resources that they require to do their job properly.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to refer, as he always does, to prosecutions under the wages council regulations. This is yet more evidence that the Opposition are obsessed with the need for prosecutions, completely ignoring the methods used by the Health and Safety Executive and by the wages inspectors—information and persuasion. Those techniques seem alien to Opposition Members, who seem constantly to lust after prosecutions in every possible circumstance. That is a frightening taste of things to come if the Opposition ever get the chance to run the country.
  972
  My hon. Friends wanted to talk about industrial relations and their reform and to point to our record of improved industrial relations which, among other things, have led to a flow of inward investment that is second to none and an impressive record of job creation. The Opposition were candid enough to admit that they are still wedded to their minimum wage policy, even though it has been demonstrated over and over again that such a policy would cost the jobs of hundreds of thousands of low-paid people. Perhaps the Opposition have calculated that to force up the pay of some at the cost of jobs of others is a price which they are prepared to pay. The Government are certainly not prepared to pay that price. Our job is time and again to tell the people of this country that whereas a small number of them may benefit in the short term from a statutory minimum wage, a large number of people would lose their jobs and suffer the consequent and disastrous fall in income. The electorate will ponder that between now and the next election.
  The hon. Member for Stretford inaccurately tried to tell the House that a recent opinion poll showed that a large number of people were against further limitations on trade union powers. I think that I have quoted him accurately. That signifies a profound misunderstanding by Opposition Members of what the past and, I hope, future reforms of industrial relations are all about. They have nothing to do with limiting trade unions' powers, but are concerned with the enhancement of the role of individual trade union members and members of the public. We want to safeguard the democratic rights of trade union members within their unions and vis-a-vis their leaders. We sought to establish a fair balance between the trade unions and the employers and to protect employers and the public from the abuse of trade union power of the kind that is long behind us, such as the closed shop and the flying pickets.
  Opposition Members again raised the spectre of the return of pickets, secondary picketing and violence on the picket line. We have put all that behind us, but apparently the Opposition are undertaking to see its return if they are returned to government.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forth: No, because the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford monopolised the debate to the point where I do not have enough time fully to answer the issues that they and other hon. Members have raised. Given the limited time that is left, it would be inappropriate for me to give way.
  Employees are free to decide for themselves whether to join a trade union in which they have the right to vote in a secret ballot for the election of leaders. All union members can decide whether to go on strike, and they are free from any threat of disciplinary action. Employers are free to decide whether to recognise and negotiate with trade unions.
  Perhaps most importantly, the law protects businesses and jobs against flying pickets, secondary action, unofficial strikes and other abuses of industrial power. All those major advances have been recognised not only by the electorate in the three successive election victories that we have enjoyed, but, perhaps more importantly, by investors from other countries who have flocked to the United Kingdom because of the favourable industrial relations

  973
  framework and atmosphere that have been created by the Government. Those investors provide an ever-increasing number of quality jobs in quality companies.
  What the Opposition would do is in doubt, and it is time for them to come clean. We had some hints from them about what they would do about the closed shop, secondary picketing, the rights of trade unions over their members and the role of strike ballots. In all these sectors, where we have made such advances, the Labour party either does not want to come clean with the electorate or, if it does, has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to turn the clock back and to restore to trade unions and their leaders the frightening powers and overwhelming role that they had in the dim and distant 1970s. If this is the reality of the Opposition's industrial relations policy, it is truly frightening.
  Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, we are able to get a glimpse of what the Labour party would do if it could. The significance of the debate is that Labour Members have shied away from discussing what they would do with trade unions under the law, and have instead concentrated on irrelevancies and marginal issues. That, if nothing else, shows full well the nature of the Labour party. I regret that the opportunity to explore these issues has been all too brief. I hope that, over the coming weeks and months, the House will have ample opportunity fully to explore what Labour Members have to say about these issues, so that the electorate will see their policies in all their horror.

  Economic and Employment Prospects (London)
  6.45 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am always happy to have an opportunity to introduce a debate and generally happy to have one even at this hour of the day. I am returning to an old habit. I had a fallow year last year, but in the two previous years I drew the 4.1 am straw and the 4.21 am straw in the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill. At least I have moved to a slightly more civilised hour. I welcome the Minister to this early morning debate on London matters, and in particular on economic and employment prospects for Londoners.
  This is a debate about the London economy. Colleagues who represent other parts of the country sometimes forget that one reason why the London economy is very important is that it is the area with the largest number of people in it. It is the most populous economic region. It is also the capital city. Sadly, it also has the greatest disparity of wealth. Increasingly, it is becoming two cities.
  The figures in a report issued a few weeks ago by the London Research Centre for the London borough grant committee makes it clear that the average gross weekly income of households in Greater London conceals a far wider disparity between the highest and lowest income groups anywhere else. In 1988, the wealthiest 10 per cent. of households received £687·39 a week, more than 12 times as much as the lowest 10 per cent., whose average income was £56·97.
  It is unfortunate that, until recently, we had a Prime Minister who did not seem to understand these things, despite representing a London constituency. In her final speech as Prime Minister, in the debate on the motion of no confidence in the Government, when I pointed out that there was one unchallengeable statistic—that during the years of her premiership the gap between the poorest and the richest had widened—the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) gave what can only be described as a fatuous answer, which was:
  "People on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich."—[Official Report, 22 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 448.]
  Nobody would argue that case and it shows how little she understood or cared.
  One further complication about London is that it has one of the most diverse communities. It is diverse in terms of age range and background, including ethnic background, language and the rest. Therefore, the London economy has great potential, but tragically, after 12 years of Tory rule, London increasingly is not working.
  Let me give a few anecdotal examples before confirming them by means of some Londonwide statistics. My riverside constituency—or part of it—is supposed to be in the docklands corporation area and, as such, the beneficiary of Government goodies over the past 10 years. The corporation was set up 10 years ago this month. Yet some of the last manufacturing industries have closed this year: Paynes tea factory closed earlier this year and Sarsons vinegar factory is closing in a matter of weeks. One of the most established firms in the construction industry—Sir Frederick Snow and Partners, which is about 100 years old and has a worldwide practice—went

  975
  into liquidation a few months ago. The construction industry is experiencing increasing difficulties. Jobs in the public service are also being cut: London Regional Transport is cutting its staff and—somewhat embarrassing for the Government—Guys hospital has done the same.
  At a lunch with representatives of Price Waterhouse, a leading British accountancy firm and one of the largest employers in my constituency—if not the largest—I learnt that it had had to lay off a good many staff, for the first time ever. Constituents who run businesses complain to me that they are increasingly being priced out by massively escalating rents imposed by, for example, the British Rail Property Board on the one hand and the local authority on the other. A Conservative Member told me the other day that he had never known the position to be so bad that there were a number of shops which could not even be let on this side of the river, down the King's road.
  The economic situation is far from good. I have compared the unemployment statistics for March 1983—the month in which I took my seat—with those for the current month. I am sad to report that the figure for Southwark and Bermondsey was 18·6 per cent. in March 1983 and is 18·5 per cent. now. That is hardly a great improvement to show for eight years of Tory Government.
  Not only businesses but ordinary London residents are finding life increasingly difficult. The cost of housing is constantly rising. The average rent for a London room or bedsit is now £385 per calendar month. For a one-bedroom flat, the figure is £619; for a two-bedroom flat or house it is £774; for a three-bedroom flat or house it is £974; and for a four-bedroom house it is £1,075. Rents for bedsits, rooms and studios rose by 17 per cent. between November and May. In the same six months, retail price levels, which the Government use in setting housing benefit levels, rose by only 2 per cent.
  Let us examine the disparity between those costs and people's earnings. The average rent per week for a bedsit is £76.15. The net income that someone under 18 would need to be able to afford that without recourse to housing benefit is £146·07. Fewer than 50 per cent. are earning that much, and thus able to afford such rents. A couple over 18 living in a one-bedroom flat with a weekly rent of £143·25 would need a net income of £278·30 to pay for it. Only half those living in the capital could afford that. The average rent of a one-bedroom flat for a single pensioner is £143·25 and that pensioner would need an income of more than £269. Not surprisingly, fewer than 10 per cent. of London's pensioners could pay that.
  Those who have bought their homes have stretched themselves to the limit to take out mortgages. Record repossessions have resulted from their inability to keep up the payments. As those of us who served on the Standing Committee considering the Housing Bill predicted, housing benefit did not keep pace with those developments, and there is an increasing disparity between the rents of available properties and the housing benefit that would enable people without sufficient incomes to pay those rents.
  Fares and prices generally in London are higher than elsewhere in the country. Thames Water rates have escalated enormously. London holds the record for the highest poll tax. Business rates in London are substantial. More and more people come to see me, having been served with summonses, with the bailiffs threatening to come to
  976
  their door. When I hold a surgery, more people come to see me now than ever before. More people are in economic difficulties than ever before.
  One of the blackest trends is that unemployment has been mounting increasingly for over a year. Ten of the 30 constituencies with the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom are in Greater London. Four of the top 10 in London include, I am sad to say, my own constituency. About 6,500 people in my constituency are registered as out of work. About 320,000 in Greater London are registered as unemployed. There are patches in my constituency—the area around the Elephant and Castle, for example—where unemployment is over 25 per cent. There has been an increase in unemployment in the London Docklands development corporation part of my constituency. In some areas it amounts to over 25 per cent. The age groups affected are those under 25, or those between 25 and 35.
  There are always some chinks of light. The London chamber of commerce, in its quarterly economic trends survey published on Monday, said that there were some improvements and that
  "36 per cent. of service-sector companies now predict that profits will increase in the next 12 months, compared with 26 per cent. in the last quarterly survey."
  However, those companies make it very clear that they want and need interest rate reductions if they are to improve their business. They also say that jobs are now being lost at a faster rate in manufacturing companies than in service sector companies. The London chamber of commerce says that a total of 62 per cent. of manufacturers reported a fall in domestic orders in the second quarter and that 89 per cent. of businesses are now operating below full capacity, compared with only 81 per cent. in the previous quarter. The proportion of manufacturing employers reporting an overall reduction in staff rose from 41 per cent. in the first quarter to 52 per cent. in the second quarter of the year. The London chamber of commerce, concludes the article yesterday in the Financial Times, predicts that
  "London will continue to suffer disproportionately from job losses."
  The reality is that the economy in London is not in good shape. There are very few signs of encouragement. There are very few signs that the recession is bottoming out and that things are getting better.
  One of the things of which the Government claim that they are proudest is that they have chosen London as the flagship for their inner-city initiatives. In 1981, during the first term in office of the Secretary of State for the Environment, they chose to set up the London Docklands development corporation. Earlier this month there was a great beano to celebrate the establishment of the LDDC in 1981. There was, however, some subtle disinformation about the success of that venture. In the press release that was published to mark the first 10 years of the LDDC the claim was made that by the end of the century,
  "jobs in London Docklands will increase from the present 53,000 to over 200,000."
  The press release continued:
  "This compares with 27,000 when the LDDC began its work in 1981."
  The reality, according to the Government's own answer, given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), on 8 May 1991, at column 520, is that the figures do not come to the same total. He says that there are about 48,000

  977
  permanent jobs and just under 5,000 temporary jobs, of which about 41,000 have become available since 1981. The majority of those—almost 25,000—are not new but relocated jobs. Fifteen thousand jobs have been lost and if one disregards temporary jobs, in the past 10 years the number of permanent jobs in docklands has therefore reduced. That is not a record of which the Government can be proud.
  The Government have tried various measures. There have been plenty of programmes and initiatives, such as urban programmes, city grants, task forces, city action teams, city technology colleges, opted-out schools and opted-out hospitals. Some of them have had some success. In addition, Ministers were appointed not long ago to oversee seven inner cities—the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) was made Minister for London—but, as an editorial in The Times said about them on 20 April last year,
  "They have sunk without trace."
  Sadly, the majority of the Government's initiatives have equally not succeeded. London has as many problems now as it had 10 years ago. New houses have been built and more are being built now than in recent years, but few are being built for rent, and many that were built to buy are still empty. There is much concern that if the docklands corporation is winding down, much of the social infrastructure, which is supported by Government and local authorities, will be lost. Day nurseries, creches, the Surrey docks farm in my constituency, youth centres and adult education classes are a source not only of social cohesion but of employment and training.
  We have a terrible housing crisis. To show how ridiculous the housing policy for London is, I cite but one example. A constituent of mine who could not be housed by the local authority moved into private rented accommodation in a "Quality Street" home just off St. James's road. She moved there with her children. Her fiancéreturned from duty with the Army in Germany. If he went to live with her—he wanted to do so because they wanted to marry and be together again—she would have to forfeit the housing benefit that she received. He has moved back in and if he works, which he wants to do, they risk losing their benefit. The rent will be more than they can afford. They are likely to lose their home and as a result will be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, or a hotel at best, if not worse. Any housing policy that offers people a disincentive to work is not compatible with getting our city working again.
  We have reached a crisis in the way in which we look after and provide for young people. I put that point to the Prime Minister during Question Time the other day. Massive cuts have been made in the budget of the youth service in all London boroughs. Cuts have been as high as 50 per cent. in Haringey, 25 per cent. in Hackney and £1·5 million in Southwark. Without a properly funded youth service, the prospect of adequately providing for the needs of young people will be reduced and the chance of their moving to criminality will be increased. The crime figures are increasing.
  The Government cannot claim to have a wonderful record on providing for the skills of young people. I quote the Financial Times of 14 March 1990. The article says:
  978
  "The Thatcher Government has not achieved a significant increase in staying-on rates which remain low by international standards. Academic achievement"—
  I remind the House that this is after 10 years or more in office—
  "is unimpressive. Only about 30 per cent. of 16-year-olds gained the equivalent of five or more good GCSEs while just 16 per cent. of 18-year-olds gained two or more A-levels. The number of apprenticeships has fallen since 1979—apparently by almost two thirds in manufacturing. At the same time, only a tiny proportion of YTS graduates have gained worthwhile vocational qualifications. Around a third of 16 to 19-year-olds received no education or training."
  The current state of youth training is almost disastrous. A central London careers officer is quoted in this month's "Youthaid" working brief publication as saying that "July and August" is the "crazy season" in the careers service with no work and "no YT places". The mismatch between youngsters going to look for training or employment and the number of vacancies is becoming increasingly embarrassing. In employment exchanges—I went recently to my local one—the ratio between applicants and jobs is about 45:1. In some employment offices and jobcentres, the ratio is 70:1. People are desperately looking for youth training places. For many of them, there is none available. Unless the Government put significant new funds into the training and enterprise council programme and into youth training, those young people will go without the training or skill which, I remind the House, the Government have guaranteed that they should have.
  What is needed? I and my colleagues in the House believe that we have to start by getting the economic strategy right and by getting the fundamentals of the British economy in order. That requires one to do fundamental things, such as cutting interest rates. We must ensure that we have a proper fiscal policy that encourages growth. We must invest in the sectors of the economy which desperately need investment, such as education and training. Unless we do that, we shall not be able to get the economy going again.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) set out succinctly a summary of proposals in his speech on the Budget. We proposed that almost £2 billion should go into education, training and child care, and £1 billion or more into public transport. In London, that would include a fast link to the channel tunnel and an increase in the London Transport external financing limit. We proposed a £1 billion package for business, including legislation to tackle the late payment of bills. We said that a transitional relief scheme was needed for the uniform business rate. We proposed a package for jobs, particularly jobs that are environmentally friendly.
  The country and London need such an investment package. Without such a strategy, the economy of London will not recover. We need a regional strategy, too. One cannot have a regional strategy without a mechanism for delivering it. We are more certain than ever that, without co-ordination of economic regeneration policy by a Londonwide authority, we shall never get the capital city moving again.
  We need to deal with the disparity of income to which I alluded. That can be done only by a decent citizen's income to ensure that the gap between the rich and the poor does not increase, but decreases. We need to ensure that there is a series of measures to encourage enterprise, training and the rest. At our conference in Nottingham in the spring Liberal Democrats approved the establishment of regional development agencies to stimulate and

  979
  encourage regional economic activity. We proposed local development agencies as a method for injecting extra resources from outside the area. We proposed the decentralisation of local authority services. We have to ensure that the political, democratic process is the vehicle through which economic regeneration happens.
  We need more money in vocational training. We need to ensure that there is a better link—there are some good examples—between education and jobs. We must ensure that there is a bias towards those who find it difficult to obtain work, for example, those with disabilities. Child care provision is needed by many women who would like to get back to work. We need to help those from the black and ethnic minorities who are, according to all the statistics, the most discriminated against in terms of their economic and employment opportunities.
  We will be unable to fulfil those needs unless people have adequate housing in which to live at a cost they can afford. That is why we believe that housing cost relief should be introduced. Mortgage tax relief should be abolished and replaced by a more equitable system. We must ensure that a new form of funding is introduced through an intermediate level of rented accommodation.
  We must deal with our skills shortage. Walworth school in my constituency has converted its top floor into something called the "world of work". That teaches secondary school pupils how to prepare for the world outside and it does a good job. Yesterday a training and access programme whereby one can obtain information from a machine in the shopping centre in Surrey Quays was opened. Such initiatives are good, but they are not sufficient unless we have an economic strategy to back them up. Unless we undertake co-ordinated economic planning we will not succeed.
  The transport system of the capital city must deliver people to and from work without frustration and often delay. The London chamber of commerce and the Confederation of British Industry have made it clear that our reduced efficiency and reduced ability to compete with other nations is the price we pay for the congestion of our capital city.
  In the short term we must introduce an urgent package of measures to bring jobs to the capital city. If that does not happen we will pay the price not only in terms of increasing poverty, homelessness, poor health and increased expenditure on social security, but in terms of bad morale. It will also lead to a capital city that looks increasingly dirty, tacky and in poor repair. One cannot have a successful citizens charter if those citizens do not have the ability to earn a decent wage with which they can enjoy the services, public and private, in relation to which the charter seeks to give them rights.
  We must have immediate economic activity, stimulated by the Government, to bring jobs to the capital city. We could invest in housing, school buildings and hospitals. We could do that in a practical way by reducing the controls on capital receipts and relaxing the controls on local government by exempting some of its activities from capping. We could employ a large number of people in energy conservation activities to make our homes better insulated and draught-proof. We could put more money into the training and enterprise councils so that they can provide a much more wholesome and wide-ranging service. We could second people by transferring them from employment to train people who are not in employment.
  980
  We could put money into seedcorn businesses through loan guarantee schemes and business expansion schemes. We could help businesses by giving them a statutory right to interest after 30 days so that they are not increasingly in trouble because of the late payment of bills. We could also give those businesses the power to enforce more effectively the payment of their debts. We could give local authorities the opportunity to be much more effective generators of wealth.
  If we do all those things, our capital city stands a chance of taking its place in the post-1992 Europe. If we do not, many of the jobs and economic benefits of a united Common Market will go to Frankfurt, Paris or even Glasgow or Birmingham.
  In my time in the House I have never felt that, in one respect, London risks going back to the dark ages that prevailed a decade ago. But it seems that economic history could repeat itself. Crime is rising, and youth crime in particular. Racial tension is increasing and the British National party is finding it easier to recruit and is working harder at it. The tension between the traditional long-standing communities—principally white, and including the Irish as well as the British—and the more recently established communities is growing. It is growing because there are not enough jobs and houses for both, so people are feeling aggressive and defensive. The police will confirm that the number of incidents of racial violence and threats is growing in our capital city.
  One reason why so few people vote Conservative in a constituency such as mine—this goes back to before the war—is that they realise that, although the Conservatives may promise much for the inner city, the minority will obtain the majority of the benefit while the majority will remain relatively as poor as ever. Many will continue to struggle because the goodies simply do not trickle down as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and her advisers thought that they would. That is not to say that my constituents have not been failed by others, too.
  After 12 years of this Government, London's economy is in a bad way. On balance, the Government's initiatives have not rescued the capital city or prepared it for the 1990s, let alone the next century. Unless they realise what is needed soon, Londoners will have to look elsewhere for an economic agenda that will meet the job. My hon. Friends and I offer an agenda that will give London and Londoners the opportunity to get back to work.
  7.16 am
  Mr. Henry McLeish: This is an important subject and I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on selecting it for debate.
  In a sense, our capital city is in crisis. The economy and employment structure of the city are also in crisis. Twelve years of economic mismanagement have been added to in the past year by a unique recession that was horn in Downing street and is not shared by any of our European competitors. The debate is also about a capital city in which one in seven of the population lives. It is at the centre of the world's financial services and it makes an enormous contribution to Britain's wealth and production. Naturally, it is rich in traditions and in the history of democracy and government and still stands as a beacon throughout the world. Therefore, it is worth fighting for.

  981
  I wish that the same could be said of the Government. London is now experiencing circumstances created in the past 12 years by deregulation, deskilling and the casualisation of much of the labour market. We cannot afford that to continue, especially as we move toward the challenges of the late 1990s. The Government cannot be trusted with London's economy or the employment prospects of Londoners in the next few years.
  London is also suffering from the unfettered free market excesses in which the Government indulge and from which they try to take credit. In the mid-1980s the capital experienced a boom but it has also experienced the ravages of the current recession. They are made much worse by the fragility and vulnerability of an economy created by 12 and a half years of Conservative Government.
  It is important to catalogue some of the reasons why the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and many others feel anguished about what has happened and are apprehensive about the future.
  A key statistic that must be thrown into the debate is that of unemployment. In Greater London in the past year of the Government's term of office, unemployment has risen since June 1990 from 199,267 to 329,524—an increase of 130,257, or a 65 per cent. growth in unemployment. That speaks volumes about the misery created for individuals and their families, the waste of skills and the capacity lost in both the services and manufacturing industries over that period.
  As we are talking about the party of "sound economics" and "economic competence", Londoners will want to know that the current bill for unemployment—the cost to the Treasury in benefits and lost receipts—is a staggering £2·5 billion. That is the cost to Londoners and the country of the Government's incompetence. Over the past year, from June 1990 to June 1991, the Government have added almost £1 billion to the price that we are paying for unemployment, which gives a new resonance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's comment that unemployment is a price well worth paying. That price is often measured in human misery, and is now also being measured in financial terms. That dents the Government's capacity to preach, as they frequently do, that they are the Government of sound finances.
  The other issue often raised by the Government is their employment record. If we consider the Government's record on employment growth in London from 1981—when we were first able to obtain the statistics—Nye find that only 69,000 more people have been working in London during the past decade, of whom 34,000 have double jobs. Another 29,000 people occupy training places. If one subtracts the double jobbers and the training places from the civilian work force in employment, one discovers that in the United Kingdom's capital city only 6,000 more people are in work now than in June 1979, which is simply deplorable. No self-respecting Government could present that record to the people of the capital and suggest that it was a success.
  Another key indicator of the labour market is the number of people chasing every vacancy. We have interesting statistics to show the results of Government failure over the decade. In London, in January 1980, 2·3 unemployed people were chasing every vacancy. In March
  982
  1991, 26·2 unemployed people were chasing every vacancy. That is a massive rise of more than 1,000 per cent. in the number of people chasing jobs in the capital city. Is that a record of which the nation can be proud? Is it a record of which the Government can be proud? I hardly think so. Once again, we find that employment growth is a myth. Vacancies have slumped dramatically, and more and more Londoners are in the agonising position of chasing fewer and fewer jobs. That can never be a record of success.
  It is more important to consider what is happening now in the capital city. In our surveys of job losses over the past year—we have carried out quarterly surveys—we find that the south-east has lost almost 80,000 jobs, and we think that that figure is only 50 per cent. of the total. What a catalogue of misery and failure there is in London: 150 jobs have been lost at Ford of Dagenham, 100 jobs have been axed at BBC television in London, 600 jobs are to go at Lewisham hospital trust, 550 jobs are to go at Marks and Spencer in London, 34 jobs are to go from Mirabeila magazine in London, 435 jobs have been lost at Charing Cross and Westminster hospitals, 430 jobs have gone from Riverside health authority, 500 jobs have been axed from Rolls-Royce cars in London.
  The story goes on and on. Is there no end to the misery that Londoners must experience before the Government start to take seriously not only the capital's economic problems but, more important, those of the nation—from which we cannot divorce the economy of London, which has been hardest hit by a combination of mismanagement and recession?
  The Conservatives will never face up to the fact that, in a modern economy, one cannot pursue a policy that allows unfettered free market excesses to co-exist with poor skills and low investment in technology and capital equipment. That is a recipe for chaos. Sadly, chaos and crisis are facing not only London's economy, but the people of London.
  If we need a reminder of how badly out of line we are with other G7, OECD and Community states, we need look no further than the OECD's July report, which shows that the United Kingdom's gross domestic product fell 2·5 per cent. between the first quarter of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991. In comparison, GDP in Germany is growing by 5·2 per cent., in France by 0·9 per cent., and in Japan by 5·9 per cent. It cannot be claimed that Britain's recession is shared by other developed countries. That myth has been propagated by the Government to ease the concern felt by their supporters and others in London, who believe that the Government can still deliver. However, their track record proves that they can never deliver what the capital needs.
  The OECD report shows also that unemployment in the G7 countries as a whole will rise from 17·2 million in 1990 to 19·7 million in 1991, and that Britain will account for one third of that increase. What a reflection that is on the British economy when measured against the six other most productive and wealthiest nations on earth. Why is it that after 12 years of Conservative government the statistics suggest that one third of G7's unemployment burden will fall on London and the rest of the United Kingdom?
  According to the OECD's report, the Government are breaking another record, because in terms of investment, growth and employment, Britain has not only been at the bottom of the league for the past two years but is destined to occupy the lowest place in the league table for the two

  983
  years ahead. That makes four years of the most unenviable economic record of any country in G7, the European Community or the OECD.
  I hope that when the Minister replies he will mention the macroeconomic dimension, because that clearly influences prosperity and development in the country as a whole, and has a major bearing on the capital over the next few years.
  London is facing a whirlwind of the factors I described. Londoners want to know what the Government intend to do about the problems which they identify but which the Government are no longer willing to acknowledge. What steps do the Government intend to take to invest in Britain's productive economy or to reverse the massive national cuts in training budgets that are hitting the capital particularly badly?
  What do the Government intend to do about the youth training guarantee, which is now a shocking indictment of the Government's couldn't care less attitude? The Government offered every 16 and 17-year-old a place on youth training, and the London boroughs and the London training and enterprise councils are anguished because they cannot deliver the necessary volume of places with current Government financial commitments. Equally, they cannot deliver any quality in YT because their budgets are stretched to the limit as they attempt to provide volume. That is another problem which the Minister should examine, because it has a bearing on the future of skills in London and on the prospects of young people to be able to exercise opportunities to gain the skills that their fathers and grandfathers had before them. The Minister must tell us why a generation is being let down in the capital.
  It is clear that we need real solutions to real problems. We can no longer trust the Government to indulge themselves with the unfettered free market and its excesses. We can no longer allow them to indulge in economic mismanagement on a grand scale. We also cannot allow the Government to get away with suggesting that we are faced with a unique recession that is part of a worldwide phenomenon which they can do little about.
  We need sustainable low interest rates that give certainty to industry so that it can invest in the productive economy and thus create jobs. We need to use the tax system to promote investment and innovation. We need to have a legislative framework to ensure that employers invest in skills. We can no longer leave everything to the whims of the market or leave employers to invest if they think fit. There should be a partnership between the nation and industry and between industry, young trainees and adult trainees. We must move forward together. We need, above all, a partnership economy in which the Government, the unions and employers work together.
  We can look to Germany, to France and, increasingly, to Italy—Japan is different for cultural reasons—and we can see success born of partnership, of investment and of a national desire to seek consensus on our way forward in the 1990s. We need, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, regional devolution for parts of the United Kingdom, including London. That would allow the capital once again to have a voice at the top table on matters that are important to it.
  I have set out the real solutions that the nation and the capital need. I challenge the Minister to say whether the Government intend to continue to con the capital or whether they will introduce a new industrial strategy in the 1990s that will help Britain and London.
  7.32 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): It is always a pleasure to have debates with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), even at this ungodly hour of the morning. It is a pleasure also to debate matters with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), whom I have recently been getting to know as he speaks from the Opposition Dispatch Box.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is an old sparring partner. I look back with pleasure on our past encounters. He offered us a sober analysis of London and its problems, and the Government welcome the opportunity that he has given us to debate London and its problems, even though we do not share his conclusions.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). He described as fatuous her comment on the problems of inequality. On the contrary, she expressed very well the classic dilemma of the problem of income redistribution. There is a choice between a degree of inequality leading to incentive and greater wealth creation—in other words, a system where there is a higher standard for all with wider differentials than there would otherwise be—and a policy of equality that leads to a diminution of incentives, and less wealth creation, the end result being a lower standard for all with narrower differentials between the better off and the less well off. That is the classic dilemma which my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley expressed correctly. If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wants to see how those choices work, let him compare eastern Europe and western Europe, and East Germany and West Germany as they once were, which exemplify the choice that my right hon. Friend was describing. His remarks about fatuity were wrong and unjust and could be retorted on his own comments on the matter.
  The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey and for Fife, Central expressed their concern about unemployment in London. It is no secret that over the past year unemployment has been rising faster in London and the south-east than in some other parts of Britain. However, that rise has been from a very low base, so the unemployment rate in London is still below the United Kingdom average. We must put unemployment in London in perspective. It is 15·9 per cent. lower today than its peak of 396,400 in June 1986. Long-term unemployment in April 1991 was 70,894—56·2 per cent. lower than it was at its peak in January 1986, when the figure was 161,817. That reflects real progress.
  Despite what the hon. Member for Fife, Central said about the growth in employment, the fact is that employment in London has grown. In March 1991, the latest available date, London's civilian work force in employment was 122,000—that is 3 per cent.—higher than in March 1983, and it includes a 55 per cent. rise in self-employment. The hon. Gentleman chose a different base year from the one that I have chosen, so the argument is really about which is the appropriate year.
  Mr. McLeish: I accept that we can all be selective about the periods for which we produce statistics. However, the Minister must surely accept that we are comparing the Government's record, so that record must start in June 1979. Does he accept that in London in January 1980 the

  985
  number of people unemployed was 104,000, and that it is now almost 300,000? That is a significant increase measured over the 12 and a half years of Tory Government. How can the Minister defend that?
  Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman was fair in saying that we should look at the year in which a Government take office. However, there are different stages in different economic cycles. From a political viewpoint it might be appropriate to compare 1979 with 1991, but if we want to compare like stages in the economic cycle a different choice of base year is appropriate, and that is what I did.
  There is every reason to believe that activity in the Greater London area will pick up once the overall economy bottoms out of the recession. We must accept that any reduction in unemployment will lag a little behind that upturn in economic activity. However, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was fair in observing, there are signs of recovery. He referred to the London chamber of commerce quarterly economic trends survey, which has just been published, and which shows that the rate of decline in the London service sector is slowing and that there are signs of economic recovery and confidence. Some 36 per cent. of the service sector companies predict that profits will increase during the next 12 months compared with 26 per cent. who thought so in the last quarterly report.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked for a further reduction in interest rates. He was joined in that by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, who was pleased to introduce into the debate what he called the macroeconomic dimension, and he wanted me to comment on that. Of course the Government want to bring interest rates down, and we have done so by 4 per cent. over the past six months. Hon. Members must question the compatibility of the drive to reduce interest rates with the commitment—which the Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties share with the Government—to membership of the exchange rate mechanism and to a parity of DM2·95 to the pound. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats add to that a commitment to move to the narrow band. The Government are also interested in doing that, but the Liberal Democrats are especially strong in emphasising it.
  What is the compatibility between the acceptance of that discipline by the major Opposition parties and what is being said about the rapid and precipitate reduction of interest rates? The fact is that those commitments to the ERM and to the parity within it limit our freedom of manoeuvre on interest rates, and hon. Members must accept that.
  The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey and for Fife, Central must also consider the implications for this exchange rate commitment of the plans that they have described for increasing public expenditure dramatically. Their policies do not add up. I do not think much of the "new economic agenda" of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, as he was pleased to describe it.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: One could criticise the amount that my colleagues and I suggest on the ground that it is too little rather than too much, even though the difference between us and the Labour party is that we are prepared
  986
  to ask people to pay 1p in the pound extra on basic income tax to fund the education and training component. I do not believe that it is valid to criticise on the ground that it is too rapid an injection of additional investment. If anything, given the extent of the economic need, it might be too slow, which might be a more valid criticism.
  Mr. Jackson: Whether it is too much or too little must be determined in relation to the overall commitment that the hon. Gentleman and his party have made to ERM and to parity within it. The market will judge whether it is too much or too little. I am sure that the market will conclude that the scale of the increase in public expenditure that both parties urge is inconsistent with that commitment. There would be a perceived loss of control of the public finances, causing a fall in parity and a return to rising inflation and undoing all the work that we have done.
  Mr. McLeish rose—
  Mr. Jackson: I see that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. In the interests of debate, I happily give way to him.
  Mr. McLeish: I am grateful to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the policies of my party. Skills training is a key aspect of investment. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the 1990s we need increased productivity and growth in all the sectors of the economy? The supply-side initiatives of other countries are much sharper than ours—their investment is leveraged and targeted and they can see returns. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government's cuts in training are counterproductive because they will not lead to the skills base that we require or to our having the qualified people whom we need? Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that any sensible Government should spend more on that key aspect?
  Mr. Jackson: I was going to comment on training, but I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course the Government believe that investment in training is important. That is why, since we came into office in 1979, we have increased by two and a half times in real terms the amount of spend on training and vocational education. That is a significant increase.
  There is a certain element of "fatuity" in the debate, to use the word of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. One must recognise that the skills base and investment in it are not achieved by the Government alone. In 1986, the Department of Employment conducted a survey of training funding, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has seen. That survey clearly established what one would have expected to be the case if one thought rationally about it—that the vast bulk of the investment in training is made by employers or their work force. Quoting from memory, in 1986 the Government spent about £7 billion a year on training, most of it in the form of tax concessions to employers; individuals spent about £7 billion a year, most of it being lost income of students while studying—I do not know whether I regard that as a cost, but the economists did so—and employers spent £18 billion a year.
  Anyone who is seriously interested in the amount spent on training should consider employers' investment in it. We have lots of evidence that that investment has been increasing, including evidence that it has been holding up in the present recession. The Confederation of British

  987
  Industry surveys of industrial behaviour show that a much larger number of companies are increasing their investment in training than are decreasing it. During the 1980s, there was substantial investment by the Government and employers in training, and that is significant for the 1990s.
  Mr. McLeish: Does the Minister accept that any investment must be measured in terms of return? If we are to believe the figure of £18 billion investment by employers, which we do not, we would be spending roughly twice as much as the Germans, in which case, would not the Germans be getting a far better return on their investment than we are? If we are talking about all that investment being ploughed into the British skills base, why do we still have no coherent system for 16 to 19-year-olds and why do we have a poverty of programmes for the unemployed, with 20 per cent. of British employers spending nothing on training and 52 per cent. of employees receiving no training—figures from the same report that the Minister quoted?
  Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman talks knowingly about the German spend on training, but there is no equivalent figure on training from the Federal Republic of Germany. No OECD country has carried out a survey as thorough and far-reaching as our 1986 funding study. That is why it is difficult to make international comparisons in this area. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that so far as one can judge, compared with all other Governments, the British Government's spend on training in 1986 was relatively high. But the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to make that judgment about the scale of spend between Britain and Germany because the German figures are not as complete as ours.
  The hon. Gentleman tempts me to make the point that if one looks at the outcome of training—he is right that that is the bottom line; we do not train for training's sake but for the return—one of the most interesting points is that during the 1980s the rate of growth in the British economy significantly exceeded that of, for example, Germany, and other countries which, historically, have a better training record than we have. That suggests that one must recognise that training is only one of a number of inputs into improvement in productivity in the economy. That would lead one to consider the other factors and they would include such considerations as industrial relations, the ability of management to manage and all those kinds of considerations which Opposition Members tend to overlook for the obvious reason that their commitments are all designed to make it more difficult for those factors to be improved.
  Just as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey betrayed a certain lack of grasp in his economic analysis and incoherence between his exchange rate commitments and his spending and interest rate plans, so the same can be said of the hon. Member for Fife, Central and his comments, particularly on recession, which he described in that part of his speech devoted to the macroeconomy as being unique to the United Kingdom. Has the hon. Gentleman read the OECD report from which he quotes? I strongly suspect not. Has he read the conclusions of the G7 summit—they are shorter and may be easier to read—where he will find that the different member states around the table only a few days ago here
  988
  in London were talking about the recessions affecting their economies and welcoming the signs of a recovery from those recessions?
  The hon. Gentleman talks about unemployment rates, but a number of other western European countries have significantly higher unemployment rates than ours. Spain has an unemployment rate of 15·4 per cent. and in Italy, France and the united Germany unemployment rates are considerably higher than ours. The rate of rise in unemployment in the United States and Canada is greater than ours. There has even been a rise in unemployment in recent months in Japan. The hon. Gentleman has got the world economy completely wrong.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that other countries have higher unemployment rates than Britain, but he must now amplify the comments of the Chancellor by saying what he believes is an acceptable rate of unemployment in Britain. It is not the implicit message of Government speeches that the present rate of unemployment is acceptable, unless the Minister is now saying that such is the unimportance of high unemployment relative to reducing inflation that such a rise is acceptable. What is the acceptable unemployment figure either nationwide or in London that the Minister would commend as part of the Government's economic strategy?
  Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman talks glibly about acceptable levels of unemployment. There is not a great deal that the Government can do about them. The hon. Gentleman should compare notes with his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) with whom I had a discussion on the radio the other day in which he used a phrase that I am happy to echo. He said that there was no miracle cure for unemployment. There is indeed none. Unemployment rates are determined by millions of independent decisions being taken in pay bargaining in firms across the country.
  In a nutshell, the most recent figure for wage rises was 8·25 per cent. Inflation is falling rapidly, towards 4 per cent. by the end of the year. Productivity increases in this phase of the recession are about zero, or perhaps even below zero. People are pricing themselves out of work. The Government cannot control that process—unless the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is advocating a return to incomes policies. But the consensus emerging in the House is that such policies are not feasible propositions, irrespective of their merits, in the modern economic climate.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The vast majority of workers are not pricing themselves out of work; they are accepting relatively low wage settlements. If anyone is setting a bad example of pricing themselves out of work it is the people at the top end of the market—
  Dame EIaine Kellett-Bowman: The leaders of the unions.
  Mr. Hughes: They are less reprehensible than the leaders of industry. We heard the boss of the post office workers union mention a figure of £40,000 as his salary on the radio yesterday—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not bad.
  Mr. Hughes: Not as bad as what the chairmen of the water industry have awarded themselves. The pressures, in

  989
  any case, do not come from people pricing themselves out of work. The London chamber of commerce has made the point that one of the greatest pressures on jobs comes from the Government's interest rate policy and from the other economic levers under their control. They are far more influential than the levels of wage settlements.
  Mr. Jackson: I enjoy seminars of this kind, even at this time in the morning, but the hon. Gentleman must be serious. The fact is that although many people are accepting lower increases in wages—perhaps even reductions in wages—averages are always derived from figures above and below a line. The present average settlement is about 8·25 per cent.—well ahead of productivity increases and inflation. People are being priced out of work.
  The hon. Gentleman says that all this is the Government's fault because it has to do with interest rates. Obviously, they play their part, but all parties are committed to the exchange rate mechanism and to parity within it. It imposes limitations on each and all of us—on the extent to which we can reduce interest rates. So other factors bear on interest rates and it is not possible to reduce them more rapidly than we are reducing them, in the light of the probable market response to doing so.
  Mr. McLeish: Is there any measure on which the Government are willing to stake their record? In the past 12 and a half years, unemployment has doubled—a key measure of success or failure. Vacancies have slumped. Are they a measure of success or failure? Only the equivalent of 166,000 full-time jobs have been created in 12 years. Are they the measure? Despite what the Government say, our skills base is still not up to the standard of that of the Germans, the French or the Japanese. Is the Minister prepared to admit that the Government have failed on any of these counts? There is certainly no miracle cure for unemployment or the problems of the labour market, but how long do we have to wait? The Chancellor has talked of vague stirrings. Will the Minister predict when the recession will bottom out and improvement will begin?
  Mr. Jackson: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman join the ranks of those who say that there is no miracle cure. I shall probably have future opportunities to remind him of that. Some people sagely and soberly nod their heads and say that there is no miracle cure, then chant some mantra and attempt to produce rabbits from a hat as if there was a miracle cure. We have strayed from the terms of the debate.
  The most significant measures of economic success, at least in a liberal economy but not with a capital L, are the increases in per capita income and wealth. By those measures, Britain did well in the 1980s and our record stands comparison with that of other countries. The economy is now much stronger than it was in the late 1970s. That is generally recognised throughout the world and the Opposition should also recognise it.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman should not have interrupted so often with general points about economic policy. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again, lest he tempts me to stray from the straight and narrow path.
  990
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was extremely critical of the London Docklands development corporation, and was quite wrong. When the LDDC was created the underlying trend was of a sustained loss of dock-related industry. The hon. Gentleman spoke graphically about jobs in the area in recent years. About 150,000 jobs were lost in the five relevant London boroughs in the preceding two decades. There was no diversity in the local economy and there was fast-rising local unemployment. The LDDC dramatically turned the tide and created the conditions for employment. That process is not yet complete, because it has largely been a matter of developing infrastructure, environment and confidence and encouraging the development of a diversified range of factories and offices.
  The LDDC is also helping the main providers of education and training to improve their services and it aims to create a stronger, more up-to-date diverse local economy. There has been 14·1 million sq ft of commercial development and a further 21 million sq ft is under construction or committed. The number of firms in the area has doubled from 1,100 in 1981 to 2,300 in 1990, and more than 50 per cent. of those were start-ups and not transfers. Employment has also grown, with 17,000 jobs in new business start-ups and 24,000 in relocation. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey should pay tribute to the considerable progress made by LDDC rather than knock it.
  The hon. Gentleman also criticised the Government's training record in London. We discussed the macro figures. London's youth training budget for 1990–91 is £47·83 million, which is slightly higher than the actual spend in 1990. The employment training budget is £48·44 million. There are more than 15,000 trainees on youth training and more than 11,000 are benefiting from employment training.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked about the youth training guarantee. The Government are fully committed to that guarantee and it is too early for Opposition Members to say that we are not delivering it. We shall not know about the demand for youth training places until we are clearer about the plans and intentions of summer school leavers. We are monitoring the situation and are in close contact with the TECs, and we shall act to ensure that the guarantee can be met. That cannot be contradicted, because we will not know the figures until later.
  Mr. McLeish: The Minister will be aware that the Department carried out a review on or around 26 March after the Secretary of State expressed concern about the delivery of the guarantee. He will also know that on or around 24 May there was yet another survey of supply and demand for youth training places all over the country. This is July, and Government documents now show that it will be September before the picture is clear. Plainly, the youth training guarantee is not being delivered in many TECs and local authority areas. Will the Minister concede that and tell the Secretary of State that TECs need more money and that if they do not get it the youth training guarantee will not be worth the paper on which it is written?
  Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is a great expert on purloined documents, and I liked the language of the

  991
  police courts that he used—"on or around." It sounded like the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and his talk of the Belgrano.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central knows from his purloined documents that the Government are concerned, as they must be, about their ability to deliver a guarantee that they have given. He has recorded the fact that we have been monitoring the position. We continue to do so. Nothing that he said has controverted the point that I made—that we cannot know the position until we know the state of the demand that there will be for YT places. I assure him that it is our intention to deliver on the YT guarantee. I have said that at least a dozen times in the House. The hon. Gentleman should stop pressing us, because he is riot implying that we do not intend to honour the words that we have uttered in the House.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for instigating this debate. Unlike some, I do not believe in selling London short. We in this House have the honour of working in one of the world's greatest capital cities with an outstanding economic and employment history. And in my opinion London's prospects for the future are just as exciting as its past has been.
  Firms in London employ 3·5 million people, twice as many as in the whole of the east midlands. It contributes 15 per cent. of Britain's gross domestic product, and though we hardly think of it as a manufacturing centre, there are 21,500 manufacturing premises in the capital. It is true that, like other areas of the United Kingdom, London is suffering job losses and rising unemployment. But when Opposition Members talk as though London is derelict, polluted, impoverished, and grinding to a halt, I wonder whether they ever spend any time out and about the capital.
  London has some of the finest museums in the world. As I went to see it only a couple of days ago, I mention in particular the new Sainsbury wing of the National gallery, so generously endowed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). We have great orchestras, theatres, parks, leisure attractions and sporting venues that match the best in the world.
  London also represents one of the most important, arguably the most important, financial, commercial and telecommunications centres in the world.
  As the economic policies of the Government bring about a return to prosperity, London is well placed to be a major beneficiary. Our inner city policies are encouraging economic regeneration in partnership with the private sector, with the docklands as a shining example. London's transport system is currently being strengthened, at a cost of billions of pounds, through projects such as the extension of the docklands light railway to the City, and the Dartford crossing. All these urban and infrastructure improvements will provide huge opportunities and benefits for London's businesses and workers.
  I recommend to the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey and for Fife, Central that they reflect on these developments in a more balanced way, to give a more balanced presentation of the opportunities as well as the problems that face London.

  EC Agricultural Policies
  8.3 am
  Mr. William Hague: I am pleased to be able to raise the subject of the European Community agricultural policy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for being here to reply to the debate. This subject is of vital concern to my constituents and many thousands of others throughout the country who work in agriculture or depend on it in some way. It should be of concern to all those who believe that food should be produced efficiently, that trade between the nations of the Community should be fair, and that our rural environment should be well looked after and preserved.
  I raise the subject now because the launch of a new set of agricultural policy proposals by the European Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, has brought discussion about future agricultural policy to a critical point, and because these discussions inevitably have implications for the success of the GATT round to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues among the G7 leaders have committed themselves.
  The debate in the Community is only the latest in a long fight to reform the inefficient and wasteful common agricultural policy that has already gone on for years. In the 1980s, we took a leading role in arguing for reform, often in the face of unrelieved complacency and a near-paralysis of decision-making in the highest councils of the Community. Now, at least, the need for change is being more widely recognised, as continuing budget pressures and the demands of the GATT negotiations finally force some sense into the collective mind of the Community's agricultural policy makers.
  How the Community responds to those pressures is important. The agricultural policy that emerges from the next few months will constitute a significant statement about—and an indication of—the sort of entity that the Community will be. Will it be open, fair and competitive, or protectionist, closed and discriminatory? The danger now is that the Community will adopt an agricultural policy that favours the inefficient, high-cost producer at the expense of the efficient, low-cost producer and that, in doing so, it will damage the interests of Europe's agricultural industry and its consumers and the cause of more open and effective competition around the world.
  In particular, there is a danger that the Commission's proposals will discriminate against, and disadvantage, the average British farmer simply because he tends to be more efficient and to develop his business on a more viable scale and has adapted to changing circumstances more effectively than his average continental counterpart.
  Dame EIaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not one of the difficulties the definition of family farms? Many of our farms have a number of people living and working on them—a father, a couple of sons and often a daughter. They are quite small units, but because they are all under one umbrella they are subject to all the disadvantages that MacSharry is trying to wish on them now—or would have, if we did not have a very effective Minister who will fight for us.
  Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On many British farms several generations, or different branches of a family, work together. Such families have

  993
  been penalised in the past by Community arrangements and they will be penalised still further by some of the proposals that are on the table now.
  The danger to which I have referred is nothing new. Britain joined the European Community too late and the agricultural policy that was already in place when we joined was tilted towards the small farmer and, in general, the continental farmer. The common agricultural policy pursued by the Community before we joined—and ever since—has led to more expensive food, the production and costly storage of huge unwanted surpluses and the maintenance of many tiny, uneconomic, part-time farms in continental Europe, which add to the surpluses at the expense of the taxpayer and to the detriment of larger, more efficient and more professional farming businesses around the Community.
  One would have thought that the GATT round presented an opportunity for the Community to break with the inefficiencies of the past. As the whole world looked to freer competition and fairer trade, surely the Community would move in step with the times. In almost every other industry, the Commission is busily at work ensuring fair competition, reducing state aids and insisting that industries learn to compete on equal terms. Not so in agriculture.
  Mr. MacSharry's latest proposals go deliberately and unerringly in the opposite direction from the policies set by the Commission for other industries and the policies that the whole world seeks for agriculture. His proposals would indeed cut the support prices offered to European farmers for most of their products; but they would go on to compensate fully all farms below a certain size for the reductions envisaged—and possibly do more than fully compensate them. They would also discriminate against the largest and most efficient farmers and probably lead to a further growth in the budget required to carry the common agricultural policy, without any significant benefits for the consumer of for the farmer who runs a sound business.
  The proposals must be fiercely opposed and I am delighted to learn that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry have opposed them vociferously. I hope that they will continue to do so. Let us look at a few examples of what the proposals could mean.
  The Commission proposes to reduce the intervention price for cereals by about 35 per cent. Compensation per hectare would be paid to farmers to help them to withstand the cut, but to qualify for payments a farmer would have to enter a set-aside scheme. Here is the rub: a farmer producing less than 92 tonnes per year would be exempt from the set-aside obligation. On United Kingdom farms, the compensation payments for set-aside would effectively be limited to the first 6 hectares, with the rest unpaid.
  The net result would be severe discrimination against the larger farms. The National Farmers Union has calculated that a small arable farm of 15·6 hectares would suffer a 2 per cent. loss of income as a result of the proposals, while a 100 hectare farm would suffer a 28 per cent. loss. As farm size increases, the fall in income becomes more severe. The National Farmers Union estimates that United Kingdom cereals production would fall by about 2·5 million tonnes—a 10 per cent. cut out of
  994
  a normal output of about 24 million tonnes. The total cost of this policy for the whole of the European Community would be additional payments of thousands of millions of pounds, mainly going to small farms on the continent, which are not economically viable units anyway, and keeping them for ever in competition with the less subsidised farms in this country that can produce cereal products more cheaply for the consumer.
  The cereals policy is bad enough, but it is only the beginning. In the milk sector there would be a 10 per cent. cut in intervention prices and a 4 per cent. quota cut, but compensation would be paid—this is the problem—on the first 40 cows. Once again the result would be to disadvantage severely the large farmer and, therefore, generally the British farmer. European Community expenditure on the milk sector could rise by up to £500 million a year, if these proposals are implemented. The extra money once again would go to the tiniest farms.
  The NFU has again estimated the implications for farms of different size. Its estimates show that a small farm with 30 cows would be 6 per cent. better off, that an average dairy herd of 70 cows would leave its owner 12 per cent. worse off and that a herd of 140 cows would mean a 25 per cent. reduction in income. That is even after allowing for the reduced cereal prices resulting from the measures already discussed. Once again the successful farmer who has expanded his business would suffer. The one who had sat on his hands and collected his subsidies each year would, yet again, be better off. That cannot be the right policy to take European agriculture into the 21st century.
  The greatest horrors are still to come. These are the implications for the livestock sector to which I, representing the hill farmers of the Yorkshire dales, take particular exception. For one thing, the reductions in cereals prices are likely to encourage increased production of poultry and pigmeat. That would mean a reduction in the price for these products, which in turn would exert a downward pressure on the price of beef and sheepmeat. Paradoxically, the result could be increasing surpluses of beef and rising intervention stocks, producing yet more expense for the taxpayer.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this debate on behalf of the farmers of this country. It is high time that the points he is making were brought out so that they are understood. There is a myth that the common agricultural policy is costing the average family £17 a week. Do my hon. Friend and Mr. MacSharry honestly believe that, by reducing output and prices, prices to the consumer will be reduced?
  Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend has made an extremely valid point. Any analysis of the proposals now before the Council of Ministers does not lead to the immediate conclusion that prices to the consumer would fall. However, expense to the consumer and taxpayer has every chance of increasing.
  I was examining the possible consequences for the livestock sector and how beef surpluses might increase still further. On top of all that, a 15 per cent. intervention price cut is proposed for beef and veal. We can reasonably expect sheepmeat prices to fall by about the same proportion. In addition, the Commission's proposals would limit the number of sheep eligible for the ewe premium on each holding to 350, instead of 500, and to

  995
  750 in the less-favoured areas, instead of 1,000. The result for livestock farmers in the less-favoured areas would be a fall in income of 26 per cent. on average and a staggering 43 per cent. fall in the lowlands. Such reductions would mean the abandonment of large parts of the British countryside and the dereliction of much of our finest rural landscape. Arid for what? The policy would need £500 million in additional ewe premium and £600 million in additional suckler cow premium. What sort of saving would be made in the face of such increases in costs?
  We can see, therefore, that British agriculture would suffer considerably from these proposals, without the British taxpayer gaining much in return. The people who are best at producing our cereals, milk and livestock would all be hard hit, yet farmers of some other products in the Community would not need to lose a moment's sleep over what is proposed. If a farmer produces olive oil, he can rest easy. A fruit farmer need not worry. These are areas where the Commission believes that it would not be right to reopen the debate, given that so-called comprehensive changes have been agreed recently. In reality, the producers of southern Europe are left alone while northern European producers are expected to bear the burden of the Commission's policy in price cuts and tax.
  To be fair to the Commission, its policy incorporates reasonable proposals that are by no means as lunatic as those that I have listed. It has introduced a number of schemes to aid environment, including an extensification scheme, an environmentally friendly management scheme and a scheme for the environmental upkeep of abandoned land. It also proposes an afforestation scheme and an early retirement scheme, which in principle are not bad ideas. Much of the help that it proposes needs to be less indiscriminate and more carefully targeted, but let us at least give it credit for those measures.
  Nevertheless, Britain should fight the overall proposal all the way. Mr. Rodney Swarbrick, president of the Country Landowners Association, put it well in his letter to The Times last week. He said of the proposal:
  "It attempts to throw the whole process of economic development into reverse. Mr. MacSharry has openly stated that his objective is to retain the maximum number of farmers on the land, the great majority of whom in his own words could never be described as competitive or viable. He, therefore, proposes that billions of extra ECUs of taxpayers' money should be spent to preserve an antiquated EC agricultural structure.
  Worse, the heavily subsidised production from these farmers will compete with the unsubsidised production of those bearing the brunt of the discrimination in his proposals and facing keener world markets after a GATT settlement. This can only lessen the viability and competitiveness of EC agriculture in precisely those areas where these qualities are most needed.
  There can be no economic rationale for this. It removes the much needed incentive for structural reform of European agriculture and the CAP budget implications would be colossal."
  That is a good summary of the position. I hope that Ministers will do their utmost to persuade their counterparts on the continent that this cannot be the right way to proceed. We need price cuts in the GATT deal—but cuts which mean that efficiency pays and which take place at a pace that the efficient farmer can withstand.
  We must ensure that new European policies will not lead to huge expense and mountains of surpluses. They must therefore exclude the blanket subsidies to every part-time farmer in Europe, as envisaged by Mr.
  996
  MacSharry. They should make environmental considerations a more integral part of the policy, with set-aside linked to provision for environmental protection and more selective direct payments for delivering specified and valuable care for the countryside or for those who maintain the finest rural environment in the face of permanent handicaps imposed by climate or geography such as in the less-favoured areas of the United Kingdom.
  Dame EIaine Kellett-Bowman: The stone walls.
  Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend refers to the stone walls of northern England. They would soon be gone without the farmers who work in those areas.
  Surely the Commission can be brought to see that the policies that it proposes are a futile retreat before the advance of economic reality and a terrible advertisement for the Community and the principles on which it operates. To have a sound future, the Community must be fair to all its citizens, must bring the best out of its industries and must encourage its people, who can compete successfully with anyone else in the world. With its ludicrous agricultural proposals, it is being true to none of those objectives and I implore my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to do all that they can to ensure that the proposals end up in the waste bin, where they properly belong.
  8.18 am
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on giving us the opportunity to discuss these important issues. The MacSharry proposals are important to people who are involved in agriculture and farming. More farmers are leaving the industry than at any time since the war, which is of grave concern to many parts of the country.
  The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks referred to the need to reach agreement on reform of the CAP and the subsidy to agriculture because of the importance of reaching a conclusion on the GATT round. We all acknowledge the importance of that for Britain's trade in manufactured goods and other commodities. The two points are linked and the hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to that. We also recognise the importance of that.
  Another reason why it is important that we should discuss these issues and why any reform of the CAP is of extreme importance is that we face changes within the European Community that we may not have envisaged two or three years ago. Many eastern European countries may come into the EC before the turn of the century. We must have policies dealing with agriculture that will recognise the completely changed situation when other countries come in. We have already absorbed East Germany; it was incorporated into West Germany and became a united Germany, which we welcomed so much only a year ago.
  When we recognise that countries such as Romania and all the other eastern European countries may enter the Community before the turn of the century and that before the war cereal production in Romania was second only to that of the Ukraine in European output, we recognise the implications for change. We have the opportunity of having policies that meet the needs now, allow us to reach agreement on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and take account of the rapidly changing situations which

  997
  many of us welcome. I believe that it is in the interests of Europe and the world that other countries are admitted to the EC as soon as they meet the criteria.
  There is widespread opposition—which we share—to the MacSharry proposals and there is concern about them not only in this country, but in the other countries of Europe. Many farmers are very canny people. Some whom I have met suspect that, because there is such widespread opposition, by the quirks of the way in which the Community works, the proposals may go through. We must reassure farmers that we will ensure that we get a better and more acceptable arrangement not only for those who are involved in agriculture, but for the consumers and the country generally.
  When the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food answered questions last week, he made his position clear. In reply to questions, he said:
  "I will then place on record again our opposition to those parts of the MacSharry plan that discriminate against British agriculture, northern agriculture, specialist agriculture, efficient agriculture, the interests of the consumer, European agricultural ability to compete with the rest of the world, and use reform not to reform agriculture itself, but to put forward Mr. MacSharry's personal views."—[Official Report, 18 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 488.]
  The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks emphasised that point.
  The Opposition and the farmers want to hear exactly what the Government believe should be done. [Interruption.] When we sit on the Government Benches, we shall be glad to say exactly what our position is. In all seriousness, we want to hear what the Minister proposes.
  I draw attention to one item—the subsidy for tobacco. Some £1 billion is given as a subsidy for the benefit of two member states of the EC that produce a tobacco of unusable quality. That seems nonsense. It has been said that we want to spend money on research to develop more usable tobaccos. I am a smoker, so I am not anti-smoking, although I know that I should give up. It seems nonsense when other sections of the Community are leading campaigns to stop advertising and to discourage smoking altogether. I believe that most people would argue that to subsidise tobacco from Community funds is nonsense.
  Dame EIaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has raised an excellent point. It was absolutely crazy to spend money on producing tobacco which nobody smoked and which went straight into store.
  Mr. Pike: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for underlining a point on which there is universal agreement.
  The present agricultural policy costs the average family of four in this country £16 a week. We pay £23 billion for storage, disposal of surplus and export refunds. That money does not go to the farmer. People would be extremely surprised to learn that 60 per cent. plus of the budget does not go to the farmer. It goes to the intermediary. We do not have a cheap food policy either, which is another nonsense.
  The price of sheep in cash terms is less now than it was a few years ago. If one allows for inflation, however, the price in real terms is even worse. Many sheep farmers work difficult land and they are finding it hard to manage. In the supermarket the price of lamb is no cheaper than it was all those years ago. The farmer is therefore entitled to ask where the difference in price goes.
  998
  I know that the Minister visited the Trough of Rowland last week. Last year a number of colleagues and I visited a number of farms as part of an all-party tour. Those farmers gave us the relative figures on what they received in subsidy and what they spent. I found it extremely difficult to understand why those farmers remained in farming. Their take from the income they received and on which their families were expected to live was so abysmally low that there was no encouragement for them to continue to farm. As the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, younger generations are extremely discouraged from remaining in farming.
  The environmental implications of the MacSharry proposals should strike a chord with everyone. We should consider the proposals sympathetically. They are in line with the Labour party proposal on green premia. Such environmental proposals should be considered carefully in future. We should discourage the use of pesticides and fertilisers beyond a certain necessary level, particularly as the environmental implications of their use is already well known from experience.
  We must also consider what is happening with set-aside. Some claim—I do not know whether the allegation is true—that farmers set aside the least productive parts of their land while increasing production on the other parts. That achieves exactly the opposite of what was intended. That must be nonsense.
  My generation learnt in school that farmers laid certain sections of the land to rest and practised crop rotation. Perhaps in the years ahead we should revert to some of the old systems with a lower intensity and fewer fertilisers and pesticides.
  Those issues are extremely important and, although we recognise the complexity of reaching agreement with our European partners, we must do so. Obviously, many other aspects of European harmonisation are also taking place. Our farming industry differs greatly from those of our European competitors because our farms are much larger. In many countries, farms are extremely small and farmers' circumstances are completely different from those in this country.
  It is nonsense to have milk quotas but insufficient milk to produce all the dairy produce that we need, so that we must import so many higher value products. Anyone who goes around the supermarkets will see an increasing number of imports of such products. We must consider whether reforming the milk marketing board is the right way to proceed. We must also consider milk production and the effect of quotas, because there are some anomalies.
  How do the Government see the way ahead in the negotiations? We recognise that they are extremely difficult, but we want a deal that will encourage and enable our farmers to remain in business and live a reasonable lifestyle without experiencing poverty. Many farmers in less-favoured areas are finding it extremely difficult to survive. We also want a fair deal for consumers so that they do not have to subsidise inefficient agriculture in Europe to an unfair and unacceptable extent. Finally, we want to reach an agreement that will enable the GATT round to be concluded in the best interests of this nation.
  8.33 am
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) for introducing this important debate in such an authoritative way, even if he brings us no cheer.
  We must ask ourselves what we want agriculture for, because there is considerable confusion about that question in Europe. The purpose of agriculture used to be to produce good food as cheaply as possible so that we could feed our populations, but those days seem to have passed. However, I would not put it past us to create a policy that would cause some sort of food crisis in about 20 or 30 years' time. Many countries in the European Community see agriculture as a sophisticated form of relief for people whom it would be difficult or expensive to introduce to a more urban lifestyle.
  We must look carefully at the age structure. I was surprised when I was given some figures about the age structure of French farming that showed that it was younger than I had expected. But the age structure of the farmers in many European Community countries is becoming older and older. It would be short sighted and absurd to create a policy that effectively turned out to support a generation that is coming out of farming.
  If we want our farms to be a system of sophisticated countryside gardening—as I suspect many people in this country see it becoming—we shall have to debate much wider issues. One factor that makes it hard for our farmers is that they are regulated up to their necks on what they may do with their land. They are prevented from selling it for any purpose, yet we are exposing them to fiercer and fiercer competition across Europe.
  I come from a constituency where most of the population would, I think, be hostile to considerable development. However, at present, we face considerable development that is being haphazardly added on to the urban sprawl. It is hard on farmers and makes it difficult to create an effective set-aside policy or take land out of production. We must reconsider those issues.
  I believe that this country's farmers must do more direct marketing. The distribution chain in this country is far too long and far too expensive. That is true across Europe, but especially in this country. The Kingdom Cox campaign, which put the Cox's orange pippin back into the shops of Europe, is a fine example of what can be done if the farmers get their act together and start selling British produce in a way that causes other people to take it seriously.
  We need to achieve wider alliances in Europe—not just in the European Community but within those countries that would like to join it. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is fighting hard on behalf of British agriculture, needs to have more weight behind him. There are a great many people in Europe who, if the MacSharry proposals go through, will wake up and discover that they are a rotten deal for them. At present there is a tendency for others to say that the British are once again trying to protect their agriculture, which draws a veil over people. They stop thinking clearly and merely say, "It is the bloody Brits trying to protect their industry—we'll stop listening."
  One place where my right hon. Friend the Minister might look for allies and an energetic debate is the Council of Europe, which takes in a wide range of European
  1000
  countries where many of the parliamentarians in the general assembly have no idea what the proposals are about.
  8.37 am
  Sir Hector Monro: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done so much to help farming since he came to office.
  There is no doubt that farmers' incomes at present are as low as I remember them for many years. It is incongruous that, when the cost of the common agricultural policy increases, farmers' incomes seem to go down. I know that the Government are doing all that they can to fight the MacSharry proposals, which will make matters infinitely worse than they are at present.
  Mr. MacSharry seems to be under the impression that all large farms make profits when, in fact, many of the largest farms, particularly in Scotland, are in hill sheep districts, where incomes are low and largely supported by the sheep premium, the suckler cow premium and the hill livestock compensatory allowance.
  It is important that we look ahead, perhaps in terms of marketing, or in other ways, so that when we lose the intervention price for sheep next January, we know what will happen. At times this summer, lamb has been down to 100p per pound and it may be stabilising now at 120p. Even that means a huge intervention price, and what will happen when that support disappears?
  I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) in respect of milk products. Large manufacturing processors in my constituency are short of milk and it seems ridiculous that Europe should be saying that we must cut production by 2 per cent. or more when there is a shortage in this country of milk for processing. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken that point on board and that I need say no more about exporting milk products to the Mediterranean, middle east and Russia and the unnecessary difficulties that seem to be put in the way of our producers.
  Farming is certainly going through a difficult time. The set-aside scheme is of minimal importance to the industry's overall problems, and we must devise with Mr. MacSharry proposals that are more acceptable to the farming industry. Farming has a right to see a fair return on its capital and it is not achieving that at present. No one is using the word "prosperous"—we only want a reasonable level of profitability for an industry that can help the rural countryside to maintain its present high environmental standards. If we do not all work together to that end, the nation will be the loser.
  8.41 am
  Mr. Ray Powell: Farming in Wales is dear to my heart. My parents were born in Malvern in Worcestershire and, as a result of the depression that hit the country at one time under the then Conservative Government, my father had to move to the Rhondda valley to work in the mines. He always wanted to return to farming and most of my colleagues and friends in my constituency are farmers.
  I had hoped to contribute to the next debate, on training and enterprise councils, because they are also a subject close to my heart and to my constituency activities.

  1001
  We were once advised by the Minister of State, Welsh Office, to invest in a farm in the Garw valley so that we could train people to become agriculturists and horticulturists. We embarked on a programme by employing a farm manager from Leigh Sinton in Malvern, who came to the Garw valley. The £100,000 farm that we established employed 45 agriculturists—young people interested in the farming industry.
  Within two years, the same Minister told us that it would be far better to invest Community funding in computers, because the Government no longer required as many agriculturists or horticulturists. As a result, the farm programme was abandoned. Having listened to Ministers over the past few months, I am beginning to wonder whether they are true to their beliefs, because if they do not want to train people, it does not seem likely that they are interested in encouraging the farming industry.
  Many of my Welsh hon. Friends—and one in particular, who is not a member of my party but is a farmer—constantly impress on me that farmers are losing a tremendous amount of money and have done so for years as a consequence of Government policy.
  I have met many farmers, and I have noticed that they seem always to wear old and tattered tweed coats with leather patches on the elbows. They wear shirts that I have seen on them over the past five or six years. They usually have a good, strong pair of boots that have lasted them longer than the pairs of shoes that I wear to wander about the house. They look as though they have just picked up the mean social security benefit to which they would be entitled from the Government.
  Lo and behold, as happens to us all, Father Time comes along and these men come to the end of their days as farmers. The son inherits the Rover, or sometimes the Rolls which is in the cowshed. There is often a great dispute within the family about the wealth that is left by the farmer. We do not know the wealth of a farmer until his will is published.
  Dame EIaine Kellett-Bowman: The farmer's wealth is the value of the land that he leaves. He cannot sell off bits of land to live by.
  Mr. Powell: I thought that the hon. Lady was writing a speech. I was in full flow, but I find that the hon. Lady's interjection—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I know that the hon. Member will not allow an interruption to divert him from what he intended to say about EEC farming.
  Mr. Powell: That is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) had not interjected in my speech, I would now be concluding my brief speech.
  I remember a recent sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee when my right hon. and hon. Friends were all on the list of speakers in a debate on Welsh farming. A group of farmers travelled here from Wales—no doubt they had left the cows to be milked in the evening—to attend a sitting of the Committee. They listened to the debate and a strange thing happened during it. They cheered my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) as he spoke from the Opposition Front Bench.
  1002
  I was pleased when I saw him enter the Chamber a short while ago to take his place on the Opposition Front Bench. Cheering is unusual in the Public Gallery of a Committee Room. Indeed, it would be unusual if the Public Gallery of the Chamber were crowded with farmers and they started to cheer during a speech. My hon. Friend made a speech on behalf of farmers and the farmers on the Strangers' Seats cheered him because of the promises that my hon. Friend made to sustain them until the coming to power of a Labour Government, perhaps in November this year, March or April 1992, or whenever the general election takes place, after the Prime Minister has the guts to call it.
  The farmers cheered in the hope that what was being said by my hon. Friend on behalf of the Opposition as shadow Secretary of State for Wales meant that policies would be introduced to assist farmers in Wales. Such policies are long overdue. After all, farmers and others have been waiting for them for the past eleven and a half years. We have been waiting for the Government to make a positive contribution to farming and to save a great many farms.
  I have referred to the farm that a trading organisation took over. There was one section for trainee farmers and another for trainee horticulturists. The farm is now up for sale. Its value two years ago was £220,000. The highest offer that CATO—Community Activities and Training in Ogwr—received for the farm was £100,000—substantially less than it paid for it.
  I mention that case because that is happening throughout Wales. Hill farms, sheep farms and dairy farms are for sale, but the farmers cannot get a price that reflects the worth of their properties. The farm in the Garw valley has only 88 acres, but we cannot get an offer for it to cover the outstanding mortgage. I appreciate the difficulties of farmers at the present time. The promises from Ministers about what they will do for farmers both in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom do not appear to assist them in any shape or form.
  Of the list of debates that should be held on the Consolidated Fund, some 20 are still to be called. Hon. Members are in the Chamber with prepared speeches hoping to speak on matters just as important—perhaps even more important—than agriculture. Only last week the House debated the sittings of the House, when it was suggested that there should be shorter hours. There should be longer hours so that all debates could be held. The Consolidated Fund is the only occasion when hon. Members can deploy their arguments on their chosen subjects. Perhaps you could help us, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the past 12 months I have campaigned about the way in which training and enterprise councils conduct themselves. I am sure that—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman in now testing the patience of the House. The debate is about European agriculture policy and the hon. Gentleman must refer to that or allow other hon. Members to speak and the Minister to reply.
  Mr. Powell: I realise that hon. Members are eager to participate in the debate and that the Minister is eager to reply to it. I have waited all night for my subject matter to be called, but it is now too late for that. However, this debate is important, and I wanted to contribute to it and to refer especially to my constituency.

  1003
  Hill farming in Wales and in Ogmore faces great problems. North Wales has had, and still has, a problem because of contaminated lamb. Some people in parts of north Wales are afraid to buy Welsh lamb. When, on a previous occasion, I said that a butcher in north Wales was using a geiger counter to prove to his customers that his lambs were free from contamination, the Minister suggested that I was scaremongering. But that has happened in north Wales, and there is still doubt about the lamb.
  Farmers are suffering because of the Government's attitude and the lack of compensation for the shortfall in the amounts for which lambs would be sold at market.
  I hope that there will be sufficient time left in the debate for me to introduce my subject.
  8.55 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean):I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond" Yorks (Mr. Hague) for raising this issue and for providing me with an opportunity to set out the Government's proposals on reform of the common agricultural policy.
  It was interesting that, when I tempted the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) by saying, "I shall tell you my proposals if you tell us the Labour party's" he said that the Labour party would tell us when it was in power. I suspect that we will wait a long time before we hear the Labour party's proposals for reform of the CAP. In the next few months, we shall tell all farmers that the Labour party has nothing to offer on CAP reform.
  It is also interesting that, when I tempted the Labour party to tell us its policy, it rushed in the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to try to ensure that I would not have enough time to answer the debate properly. [Interruption.] To hear Opposition Front-Bench Members saying to the hon. Gentleman's little filibuster, "Nice one" just proves that they do not want to hear the facts. Although the hon. Member for Burnley might not have told us his policies, I shall tell the House the principles in which the Government believe as we argue for CAP reform. It must be sensible reform, not the MacSharry proposals.
  Our objectives for reform can be met only if MacSharry's proposals are modified to include a progressive reduction in the level of prices and other support, at a pace that will enable efficient farmers to
  1004
  adjust. We want measures that bear equally on all producers, regardless of size of enterprise or location. Budget costs should be kept within the guideline. Direct aids should not be paid to all farmers but should be more selectively targeted at particular objectives: for those who deliver specified care for the countryside, meeting a need that market forces alone will not meet; and for those who face permanent handicaps of climate and geography.
  If help is judged essential to assist any producers to get through the period of change, payments should be limited in time and degressive in amount, constituting real adjustment aid. There is no harm in retirement payments for outgoers. Such payments could play a useful role, at least in some member states. Set-aside should be on a voluntary basis and used to help the environment. To ensure that it is applied effectively in all member states, the idea of national targets should be seriously considered.
  Environmental considerations should become an integral part of the CAP. The Commission's idea for agri-environmental programmes should be extended, but the opportunity should also be taken to incorporate environmental conditions in other forms of agricultural support wherever practicable.
  I believe that our message is clear. We all agree that reform of the CAP is essential for farmers, consumers and taxpayers alike. Reform along the lines that MacSharry proposes would not encourage efficient farming, but would let budget costs go up even further and would discriminate against efficiency, particularly of producers in all parts of the United Kingdom—in Yorkshire, Cumbria, Dumfries in Scotland and even in Wales.
  MacSharry's proposals would cost the taxpayer much more. They would not provide cheaper food prices and would devastate our countryside. MacSharry is rightly treading the path of reform, but he has lost his way and we believe that we should get him back on course.
  Mr. MacSharry's proposals would devastate our rural economy. Thousands of small tenanted farms, not just big estates, would be devastated and the consequences for our rural economy would be appalling. As a Government we must not allow that to happen. Thousands of sheep farmers would be driven off the land and the public must understand that we would have no idyllic dales or lovely fells without active sheep farmers, no more dry stone walls repaired or hay barns saved from dereliction and no more trees planted or hedgerows relaid.
  It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Insolvency Service
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  9 am
  Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that in your customary way you will be able to advise me, since Back Benchers often need to raise matters of great importance to them, on how to deal with a problem created by the shortness of time between now and when the House rises for the summer recess. During the past nine months in the House I have introduced a ten-minute Bill, I have presented a Bill to the House and I have asked questions on the training and enterprise councils and, in particular, Mid-Glamorgan TEC, asking for a public inquiry. I was hoping to be able to ask again today, and I wonder whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could advise me on how to put that request again to the House in the short time available between now and when the House rises for the summer recess.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Chair does not usually offer advice on such procedural matters on the Floor of the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is ingenious enough to find a method himself. He does not have to look far down our Order Paper to see that before the House rises there is a debate on economic policies when he might try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
  9.1 am
  Mr. Conal Gregory: I welcome this opportunity to debate the Insolvency Service, the first since the service became an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry.
  The service was established more than 100 years ago to protect the public. At that time, when the Bankruptcy Act 1883 was being debated in the House of Commons, Joseph Chamberlain said that it should
  "improve the general tone of commercial morality … protect the salvage and diminish the risk of wreck".
  The service has a strong and honourable tradition of commitment to those purposes. It provides an essential means of coping with financial failure and, through its investigatory functions, contributes to confidence in the market.
  The service is now a vital part of our contemporary economy. It has a clear identity within the Department of Trade and Industry. It enjoys greater freedom to manage its affairs and to respond flexibly to the changing needs of the society it serves.
  This year, the Insolvency Service has a budget of some £45 million, of which about 65 per cent. is accounted for in staff costs. Most of our debate today concerns the DTI, but nevertheless I appreciate that the Treasury is involved as it has a number of specific responsibilities as set out in the Insolvency Act 1986 for certain issues of finance, accounting and investment and for certain fees. The Treasury also has some other order-making powers and the Insolvency Service executive agency is subject to Treasury staff inspection.
  The Insolvency Service initiates legal action based on reports submitted by official receivers where the reports allege that criminal offences have been committed or where a director's conduct is such that he is unfit to be a director of a company and an application should be made for him
  1006
  to be disqualified. In both cases, official receivers are targeted to submit reports within 10 months of the winding-up orders in at least 80 per cent. of cases identified for investigation.
  I shall examine shortly the service's interpretation of when to prosecute or not. It may, though, be appropriate to ask what expertise is held within the service. Currently 632 officials in the Insolvency Service studied for accountancy or allied qualifications. Of these, 84 are fully qualified, 14 will shortly be sitting their final examinations and others are still studying. Additionally, a number of officers are members of the Insolvency Practitioners Association. While some entrants to the service have law degrees, what surprises me is that there is not a single fully qualified lawyer in the service. That is a source of concern. Such legal expertise as is required is provided at arm's length by the solicitors division of the Department of Trade and Industry.
  I come now to the approach adopted by the Insolvency Service. The official receivers submit reports to the DTI when investigations have shown that criminal offences appear to have been committed. After vetting by the service they are forwarded to the investigations division of the Department with a view to prosecution. Criminal proceedings are normally instituted by the Secretary of State, although a small number of cases are referred to the Serious Fraud Office or the Crown prosecution service. In considering whether criminal proceedings should be instituted, the principles and criteria laid down in the code for Crown prosecutors are applied, and the prosecutor considers whether he is satisfied that there is admissible, substantial and reliable evidence that a criminal offence known to the law has been committed by an identifiable person; and, if he is so satisfied, whether the public interest requires a prosecution. The objective is to institute criminal proceedings within four weeks of that decision being taken when the case is to be taken summarily. When the case is to be taken on indictment, the period is eight weeks. When these criteria are not met, criminal proceedings will not be instituted.
  Last year, official receivers submitted 569 reports, compared with 627 in 1989, alleging that criminal offences had been committed. During the year convictions were obtained in just 290 cases, compared with 352 in 1989, resulting in 309 persons being convicted—388 in 1989—of 769 different offences. The latter figure for 1989 was 671.
  The Insolvency Service had, at 30 June 1991, obtained 1,009 disqualification orders against individual directors of failed companies. Additionally, 94 warning letters were issued to individuals last year—107 in 1989—where there was evidence of an offence having been committed but where it was not considered that proceeding with a prosecution would be in the public interest. During 1990, official receivers also assisted the police or other investigatory authorities in 412 criminal investigations. During the year, 166 persons were convicted in such cases.
  William Shakespeare frequently made allusions to insolvency. In "Venus and Adonis" he refers to the "blessed bankrupt"; three years later in "Romeo and Juliet" his adjective had changed to the "poor bankrupt"; while the advice given in "Timon of Athens" was:

  "Bankrupt, hold fast,

  Rather than render back, out with your knives

  And cut your trusters' throats."

  Against this background, I turn to the case of Mrs. A. My constituent met Mr. A about four years ago. They

  1007
  married in 1988 and divorced the following year. She was not aware that Mr. A had been declared a bankrupt in 1982 and discharged from his bankruptcy in December 1989.
  In June 1989 Mrs. A was persuaded to take out a personal loan with Mercantile Credit which was countersigned by Mr. A. She was forced by her husband also to take funds from her account in a building society.
  On 11 May 1990, Mrs. A visited the official receiver in Hull, who advised a week later that there was insufficient evidence. Yet she had shown five specific examples of evidence: Mr. A advertising his business, using cars purchased by Mrs. A as taxis; taking credit over £250 while still an undischarged bankrupt; registering his business for VAT; and securing a mortgage by deception. Mrs. A was even advised that she could not have her own property returned.
  The official receiver said that the evidence produced,
  "was not sufficiently conclusive of the offences alleged and that the case, taken as a whole on this evidence, was unlikely to be successful".
  Subsequently, Mrs. A forwarded further documents to the official receiver which provided "clearer and better evidence" in the words of the service's senior official receiver. The Hull office agreed to contact the finance companies involved.
  In the year ended 31 March 1991, official receivers covering the Yorkshire area submitted 209 reports, alleging either the commission of possible criminal offences or recommending that applications be made for the disqualification of directors whose conduct appeared to make them unfit to be concerned in the management of limited companies. At the end of June, there were 191 cases under investigation. The service's offices in Yorkshire have 29 officials who have studied for accountancy or allied qualifications. Rather worryingly, only three are fully qualified and no one has a law degree or any legal expertise as is required by the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Mrs. A was awarded maintenance on 18 June last year, but no funds were forthcoming. She returned to court on 3 August and the maintenance was actually reduced. Again, no funds were secured. At that stage she estimates that Mr. A owed £62,000 in tax and she warned the authorities that her ex-husband was investing in a property on the Algarve.
  Despite receiving an assurance on 5 June that a full investigation would be initiated by the official receiver, I heard nothing Further and therefore wrote to the service on 11 September for a progress report. That was tardiness itself. A guarded response dated 4 October, four months after the last letter, referred to a difficulty in securing documentation from hire purchase companies. At the same time inquiries were made of the Inland Revenue as to whether it was trying to recover funds from Mr. A. For reasons of confidentiality, no information was available, although the Inland Revenue's special branch appreciated being informed. No further information came from the Insolvency Service until 28 March this year, hardly a speedy reaction. This stated that the official receiver's report had been passed to the investigation division solicitors.
  I am reminded of the words of Lord Meston, speaking in the other place on 15 January 1985. He said:
  "A cynic has observed that if you go 'bust' for £700 you are probably a fool; if you go 'bust' for £7,000 you are probably
  1008
  in the dock, and if you go 'bust' for £7 million you are probably rescued by the Bank of England.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 1985; Vol. 458, c. 914.]
  Sad to say, in an undated letter from the Insolvency Service which was received on 30 May, I was advised that,
  "having regard to the criteria in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, it was not in the public interest that further action should be taken."
  Clearly, that was an unhelpful reply and one acknowledged as such in the letter. No explanation was given for this amazing decision.
  On 30 May I asked for an explanation and on 14 June the official receiver drew my constituent's attention to paragraph 8(i) of the code, which states:
  "When the circumstances of an offence are not particularly serious, and a Court would be likely to impose a purely nominal penalty … Crown Prosecutors should carefully consider whether the public interest would be better served by a prosecution or some other form of disposal such as, where appropriate, a caution. This applies particularly where the offence is triable on indictment when Crown Prosecutors should also weigh the likely penalty with the length and cost of the proceedings".
  Surely the offences were serious if they involved obtaining credit and carrying on a business without discussing that Mr. A was an undischarged bankrupt. Surely the courts would have awarded an appropriate penalty, and not a "purely nominal" one. Surely bankrupts should be warned that such action will not be tolerated in a civilised society. Fourthly, surely proceedings would be repaid by obtaining the funds illegally acquired.
  Meanwhile, Mrs. A had information that her ex-husband was living in Spain, owed £44,000 in tax, and had not had his passport removed. She has since discovered that Mr. A has admitted to earning in excess of £51,000 last year. If someone decides to go abroad leaving debts of tax due, apparently the Inland Revenue has no power either to prevent him from leaving or to have him brought back from his destination. If there are assets in the United Kingdom depending on the size of the debt and the individual circumstances of the case, it can and does take bankruptcy action through the United Kingdom courts involving the service of a writ or statutory demand outside the jurisdiction. This allows the defaulter's United Kingdom assets to be put towards settlement of the debts.
  So, in this long saga, Mrs. A still does not have title to the house she owns. She has even had to ask the trustees in Mr. A's bankruptcy for their approval to the building society—which loaned the mortgage—transferring title to her sole name. It would have been helpful if the official receiver had offered to undertake this. I should remind the House that the offices for the receiver in Yorkshire cost £135,200 this year and in Hull £454,000. Earlier this month—on 8 July—after pressure from me, the Hull office confirmed that it had no objection to the property being conveyed into Mrs. A's sole name. Mrs. A has been left with £18,000 worth of unpaid debt.
  In my hon. Friend's reply of 8 July, he said it was not possible to calculate an average penalty. The code for Crown prosecutors, which comes under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, was reviewed as recently as this June.
  Therefore, what lessons do we learn from this sad case? Could Mrs. A have supplied any additional information to secure justice? She is rightly owed a full explanation. The public must be alarmed at the complacency of the Insolvency Service, its inordinate delay in investigating a straightforward case, and failure to protect the innocent

  1009
  citizen. Just how large must a fraud be before action is taken? The code needs clarification. Otherwise, the clear message from this case is that fraud still pays.
  Gibbon, in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", referred in 1781 to
  "the cruel treatment of the insolvent debtors of the state."
  Will our state ensure that it recovers its rightful dues from Mr. A?
  9.16 am
  The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) for drawing the attention of the House to the important work of the Insolvency Service and for his kind opening remarks about the central function that it performs. I shall try to answer in some detail the criticisms that he made in this individual case. Listening to his liberal quotations from Shakespeare, the one that was on my mind was:
  "Neither a borrower, nor a lender be".
  As the Minister responsible both for financial services, where things sometimes go wrong for investors, and for the Insolvency Service, where things always go wrong for our clients, that is probably the one that should be engraved on my heart.
  My hon. Friend asked whether the absence of lawyers in the Insolvency Service is a worry. As he said, official receivers make reports to the Insolvency Service headquarters. If there appears to be evidence of a prosecutable offence, they are passed to my Department's solicitors. They decide whether to prosecute. Official receivers and the police investigate, and solicitors decide whether to prosecute. As my hon. Friend said, departmental solicitors and the Treasury solicitor are available to advise the Insolvency Service on all legal matters and staff in the service are happy with those arrangements and feel that they have access to the right level and degree of legal advice that they need.
  As my hon. Friend said, a number of restrictions are imposed on bankrupts. If they obtain credit of more than £250, they must say that they are bankrupt when they are trying to obtain it. They must always use their own name. In this way, potential creditors can be protected. Most post-bankruptcy offences are brought to the attention of the official receiver by creditors who have suffered a loss as a result. If they come to light in some other way any potential prosecution must weigh that while an offence might have been committed no individual creditor may have suffered.
  On 25 July 1983 a receiving order in bankruptcy was made against Mr. A in the York county court on a creditor's petition. Mr. A was adjudged bankrupt on 3 August 1983. The case was administered by the official receiver at Hull. On 23 November 1983, Mr. A was publicly examined at York county court. According to Mr. A's amended statement of affairs, submitted in the bankruptcy proceedings, as at 25 July 1983 his only asset was his interest in the then matrimonial home which was fully charged to secured creditors. He had gross liabilities totalling £121,752, of which £38,470 was due to secured creditors. Only £5·15 was realised in the bankruptcy proceedings and so there was no distribution to creditors.
  The official receiver obtained his release as trustee on 8 September 1988. On 3 October 1986, Mr. A's bankruptcy
  1010
  was reviewed by the court, which is an automatic procedure. He did not attend and he was not granted a discharge from his bankruptcy. Mr. A obtained his discharge from bankruptcy on 29 December 1989, as a consequence of the Insolvency Act's general amnesty for bankruptcies over three years old.
  In May 1990, the official receiver at Hull was given information to suggest that, while undischarged, Mr. A had contravened restrictions placed on him. He was said to have obtained credit in excess of £250, without disclosing his status to the creditor. He was also alleged to be trading in a trading name when he had been adjudged bankrupt in his own name. An allegation was also made that he had obtained a mortgage loan by deception.
  Carrying on a business while an undischarged bankrupt and registering for value added tax are not in themselves illegal, as long as the conditions for bankrupts have been met. The official receiver was shown evidence that Mr. A had used a trading style in a press advertisement, but he had also quoted his own name in that advertisement.
  The official receiver went on to make inquiries based on the information received and established that Mr. A had received a credit card in November 1989 from one of the clearing banks. By the date of his discharge from bankruptcy, he had incurred a debt of £511·35 to the credit card company—an amount in excess of £250. The debt was later settled in full. The official receiver also established that in July 1989 Mr. A had entered into a conditional sale agreement with a finance company to purchase a motor vehicle at a total cost of £12,530. In May 1990, the account was settled to the satisfaction of the finance company.There has been no reply to the official receiver's inquiries of the building society from which the mortgage was obtained, or from another finance company.
  In March 1991, the official receiver submitted a report on Mr. A's actions to the Insolvency Service. It was discussed with a lawyer from my Department's investigations division. Advice was given that the matter should not be proceeded with in the public interest, having regard to paragraph 8(i) of the code for Crown prosecutors, which my hon. Friend has quoted.
  The two instances of obtaining credit discovered by the official receiver occurred within six months of Mr. A's automatic discharge as a bankrupt and both debts have been paid in full. The legal advice was based on those facts, on the absence of creditor complaints and on the lawyer's interpretation of the code for Crown prosecutors.
  If my hon. Friend has further information to assist the official receiver at Hull in his inquiries into Mr. A's affairs while he was bankrupt, my Department will be pleased to receive it and investigate further. As for the question of tax that may now be owing to the Inland Revenue, I understand from what my hon. Friend said that that occurred after Mr. A's discharge from bankruptcy. It is for the Revenue to pursue the matter in its usual way.
  Nevertheless, I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the case, from which it appears that Mr. A violated restrictions imposed on bankrupts. During 1990, there were 255 convictions for post-bankruptcy offences, usually where creditors had complained. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to ensuring that creditors are protected and offenders punished. There is no automatic immunity to prosecution for anyone: it depends on the facts of each case.
  My hon. Friend has given figures for prosecution reports submitted by official receivers in 1989 and 1990,

  1011
  and for the number of cases in which they assisted the police. Between 1 January and 30 June official receivers submitted 312 reports and also assisted the police and other investigatory authorities in their inquiries in 237 cases.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, a large number of directors have been disqualified under the legislation introduced by the present Government. Before that legislation, there were no such provisions.
  In 1986, substantial changes were effected to insolvency legislation by the introduction of the Insolvency Act, which streamlined procedures for handling bank ruptcies and compulsory liquidations. That has enabled official receivers to concentrate more of their resources on investigating the affairs of individuals and failed companies, and on bringing disqualification proceedings against delinquent company directors.
  Since 21 March 1990 the Insolvency Service has been an executive agency within the Department of Trade and Industry. I am pleased to say that streamlined case administration procedures have enabled official receivers
  1012
  to cope with a very substantial increase in the number of compulsory insolvencies, while still being able to devote time to investigating possible wrong-doing and unfit conduct on the part of company directors.
  It is important that official receivers, in conjunction with my Department's investigations division, concentrate their investigative resources on those cases which are the more serious, involving fraud and systematic dishonesty.
  The evidence of the figures for prosecution reports and disqualifications, already given, is that the authorities are putting more effort than ever into the investigation of fraud and commercial misconduct. To accuse the Insolvency Service of complacency is wrong. The service plays a full part in the Government's efforts to ensure that fraud does not pay and is seen not to pay. I give a pledge to my hon. Friend that I shall carry on the task of making sure that all those involved in fraud are fully investigated and, where necessary, prosecuted.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Toy Rockets
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the possible threat to aircraft from toy rockets now on sale in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am advised by the Civil Aviation Authority that as aircraft structures are certificated to withstand the impact of birds weighing far more than these toy rockets, they believe that such rockets do not pose a major hazard to aircraft. Nevertheless, the CAA is examining amendments to the Air Navigation Order which would place restrictions on the use of such toys in close proximity to aerodromes. Currently under the provisions of the Air Navigation Order it is an offence for anyone recklessly or negligently to hazard an aircraft and the use of such rockets in such a manner constitutes an offence.

  Railway Station Design
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what modifications have been made to the design of main rail stations since the terrorist bomb outrage at Victoria station;

  (2) if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the improvement of the design of major stations in order to make them less dangerous in the event of a terrorist attack.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman regularly to discuss a range of railway matters. British Rail attaches high priority to security and safety and has undertaken a further review of security at stations since the bomb explosion at Victoria. It would not be in the public interest to disclose details of the further measures that BR has put in hand.

  Road Accidents, Tower Hamlets
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list annual figures for road accidents in Tower Hamlets for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  The statistics available cover road accidents involving personal injury reported to the police. The table shows the number of such accidents each year in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, classified by severity of accident.

  Accidents involving injury, by severity: London Borough of Tower Hamlets: 1979 to 1989

  Number

  Year

  Severity

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1979

  14

  217

  984

  1980

  14

  176

  950

  1981

  13

  136

  975

  330

  Year

  Severity

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1982

  16

  166

  1,162

  1983

  20

  146

  1,021

  1984

  19

  162

  1,078

  1985

  8

  235

  895

  1986

  16

  244

  978

  1987

  9

  210

  936

  1988

  14

  223

  974

  1989

  12

  269

  1,032

  LT Tendering Bus Unit
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what rules the LT's tendered bus unit operates; who are the members; and by whom they were appointed.

  Mr. Freeman
  The tendered bus division is a management unit of London Transport, staffed by LT employees. It is answerable to, and operates under the rules approved by, the LT board.

  Recovery Services
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the minimum standards of equipment and personnel training for recovery services used in contra-flow situations.

  Mr. Chope
  The minimum standards of equipment and personnel training for recovery services at trunk road and motorway roadworks sites are those recommended by the Association of Vehicle Recovery Operators. These standards are currently being reviewed jointly by the Department, AVRO and the Road Rescue Recovery Association.

  Slough-Windsor Railway Line
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, when he next meets the chairman of British Rail, he will discuss the scope for further development of the Slough-Windsor line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail currently runs a well-used shuttle service between Slough and Windsor for both commuters and tourists. The introduction of new turbo rolling stock next year will being an even better quality of service.

  I understand that BR is also investigating the potential for further developing tourist services in co-operation with the private sector. In the short term, and with some infrastructure development, there may be opportunities for occasional visiting steam trains to run into Windsor. Looking further ahead, it might be possible to develop a park-and-ride service which would help to relieve traffic congestion in Windsor. This would require a major new road scheme as well as more extensive rail infrastructure, including laying a second track, to cater for a greater frequency of service. The additional services could be provided by BR or as a joint venture with a private sector operator. In both cases it would be for the private sector to finance the necessary infrastructure work.

  Luton-Dunstable Rail Service
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, when he next meets the chairman of British Rail, he will discuss the scope for the private sector operating a rail service between Luton and Dunstable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I should like to encourage any private sector firm with a commercial proposition for running a public transport service over the route of the redundant freight line between Luton and Dunstable—for a rail service making use of the existing track, or an alternative proposal making use of the track bed—to approach BR.

  Any proposal would have to be fully self-financing, should not interfere with existing BR services and must, of course, be consistent with safe operation. I know that BR will treat any sensible approach seriously and will seek to co-operate fully. Indeed, BR is already co-operating with Luton and District Bus Company, which is investigating the scope for converting the track bed into a dedicated bus way. I must stress that approaches should not impose any cost burden on BR, or divert BR resources from other urgent tasks, such as the major resignalling programme.

  If no commercial proposals for a rail service are forthcoming, BR plans to recover materials from the Luton-Dunstable branch for re-use elsewhere on the network. Proposals should therefore be submitted to BR no later than the end of September 1991.

  National Bus Company (Accounts)
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the National Bus Company's final set of accounts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The company's final report and accounts, covering the period from 1 April 1990 to 1 April 1991, have now been prepared and audited in accordance with the provisions of the National Bus Company (Dissolution) Order 1991.

  These show that the surplus from the sale of National Bus Company now stands at over £168 million, of which £46 million arose from the sale of the subsidiaries and £122 million from the surplus on the pension funds. In cash terms the Exchequer has received much more. The original capital debt and later long-term loans amounting to some £96 million were repaid together with interest and early redemption penalty of nearly £31 million. Inland Revenue will in total receive £91 million by way of tax on the pension surplus, capital gains and depreciatory transactions. In total this successful privatisation of the National Bus Company has released £386 million to the Exchequer.

  A copy of the accounts has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  "A Bus Strategy for London"
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce the Government's conclusions following the recent consultation on "A Bus Strategy for London".

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Government published "A Bus Strategy for London" on 11 March. It asked for comments to be sent in by 7 May. To date, 205 responses have been received. The Government expect to receive further 332
  comments in the coming weeks and months, but conclude that it would be appropriate to make a statement, at this stage, setting out preliminary conclusions on some of the key issues raised in the consultation exercise. Most of those who responded shared the Government's assessment that buses are likely to have an increasing part to play in meeting London's transport needs. There is widespread agreement that promoting the use of buses is a desirable and important policy goal. Although the consultation exercise showed a marked divergence of view about how this goal should be achieved, there was very little disagreement that the goal was the right one.

  The Government believe that deregulation will bring greater freedom of choice to both bus operator and passenger. Operators will have an incentive to provide the services the public wants. The operating environment will ensure that no one operator has an unfair advantage over another. The passenger will benefit from an increased number and variety of services. And there will be safeguards to ensure the provision of socially necessary services, and of adequate bus facilities. The Government's policy remains, as it has been since the Transport Act 1985 was introduced into Parliament, that the London bus market should be deregulated and privatised as soon as possible.

  Although a proportion of respondents commented unfavourably on this policy, no new or persuasive arguments against deregulation emerged during the consultation exercise. The Government are not persuaded by the argument that bus operators will target their services on a few key profitable routes in central London. The assumption that central London routes are the most profitable is not necessarily true: although revenue returns are higher in central London, so are cost levels. In fact, this criticism bears no relation to the actual plans of bus operators. As for the related argument that some less central areas will be left with few or no bus services, the bus authority will be charged with providing services which it judges to be socially necessary but which the commercial network has not provided. This will ensure an adequate Londonwide network of buses.

  Most of the responses received addressed the question what sort of body should be constituted as the bus authority for London. One option was to establish a passenger transport authority for London, whose responsibilities would cover bus, underground and rail services. The Government have already made it clear that they consider that it is not appropriate for nationalised industries such as BR and LT to be under local authority control. Moreover, the Government do not want London Transport to be distracted from the major challenges facing it in relation to London Underground and Docklands light railway. They have therefore ruled out this option. Of the other options discussed in the consultation paper, there was considerable support for vesting the responsibilities with London Transport, which has done so much already to improve the quality of service provided by buses in London. There was some support for creating a bus-only PTA or a new governmental agency to take on this role, but very little support for vesting responsibility in the individual London boroughs. In this matter, the Government have given particular weight to the views of bus operators, who expressed serious reservations about asking London Transport to take on this role. It was felt that an independent body, not distracted by the major challenges which London

  333
  Transport faces in expanding and renewing London's underground system, would be better placed to promote the provision of bus services in London.

  The Government have decided, therefore, to create a London bus executive, with members appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport, which will concentrate exclusively on bus-related issues. The London bus executive will be responsible, in particular, for securing the provision of bus services on socially necessary but uneconomic routes. In discharging this responsibility, it will work closely with the London boroughs. It will also be responsible for ensuring the adequate provision of bus stops, shelters, stands and stations. And it will ensure that any gaps in the passenger information provided by bus operators are plugged. It will be funded mainly by Government grant. London Transport will remain responsible for the London Buses Ltd. subsidiaries until privatisation. Their experience and expertise will enable them to play a key role in helping to provide a smooth transition to the new regime.

  Many respondents expressed concern about the future of concessionary travel in London. This concern was unfounded. The consultation paper made it clear that there is no question of deregulation or privatisation leading to the demise of concessionary travel in London. The Government's proposals on this matter are as follows. Responsibility for setting the terms of a Londonwide concessionary travel scheme will remain with the boroughs. They will be required to publish, by 31 December each year, the details of a scheme for the coming financial year and of the terms on which operators will be reimbursed for carrying holders of concessionary travel passes. If no new scheme is published, the previous year's travel concessions will automatically be rolled forward. The London boroughs will have the same discretion as local authorities elsewhere to vary the terms of their concessionary travel arrangements. However, they will continue to be required to operate a Londonwide concessionary travel scheme. Bus operators will have an automatic right to participate in any scheme in their area, and the boroughs will have a power to compel bus operators to participate in the Londonwide scheme. There will be provision for appeals on matters relating to participation in the scheme and the terms of reimbursement for doing so.

  Concern was also expressed about the future of Travelcard in London. Experience elsewhere in the country suggests that commercially priced common-ticketing systems such as Travelcard fill a strongly felt market need, offering advantages to both operators and passengers. Travelcard schemes will be able to continue after deregulation. The Government will be working actively with operators in the coming months to encourage them to come up with their own proposals for such schemes after deregulation. It was therefore decided that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to legislate to secure the future of the present Travelcard scheme or to ensure that a suitable successor scheme is devised. The Government have also concluded, however, that it is appropriate to legislate to secure the right of operators to enter Travelcard schemes operating in London, thus helping safeguard the position of new, smaller operators wishing to enter the London bus market.

  Some respondents criticised the absence of any reference in "A Bus Strategy for London" to the future of services, such as Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard, which are
  334
  provided specifically for elderly and disabled people with serious mobility problems. The reason for not mentioning these services is that it was never the Government's intention that they should be affected in any way by the deregulation and privatisation plans. LT's disabled passenger unit will remain intact, and the specialised services which it is responsible for providing will be unaffected by the proposed legislation. In addition, the London bus executive will be given a duty to have regard to the need of elderly and disabled people in the discharge of its responsibilities.

  The Government looked again, in the light of comments received, at the question of the future of the London Regional Passengers Committee. The Government conclude that the LRPC should continue to deal only with questions relating to services provided by or on behalf of London Transport and British Rail. It will have no formal role in relation to bus issues. There is no other part of the United Kingdom where transport consumer bodies have such a statutory role. Open competition in a deregulated market is the best safeguard of consumer interests.

  Many bus operators, including subsidiaries of London Buses Ltd., expressed concern about the timetable for deregulation and privatisation. There is no need for decisions on these points to be taken at this stage. However, the Government are sympathetic to the view that privatisation of the LBL subsidiaries should take place sooner, rather than later.

  Many detailed comments were received on other issues and initiatives dealt with in the consultation paper. In particular, many responses made suggestions relating to the introduction of bus priority measures and to the powers of the traffic commissioner and highway authorities to deal with cases where the introduction of new bus services was found to aggravate congestion problems. The Government will be considering these points further in the months ahead. The Government will also want to have available to them the results of the research referred to in paragraphs 98 to 103 of the consultation paper, before taking final decisions on such matters.

  As indicated in "A Bus Strategy for London", primary legislation will be needed to give effect to a number of these proposals. The Government intend to legislate on these points as soon as possible in a new Parliament.

  Statistics
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how international freight transport statistics into and out of the United Kingdom will be collected after the elimination of custom checks following the completion of the single market.

  Mr. Chope
  Statistics on international road transport in United Kingdom powered vehicles will continue to be prepared, to meet EC directive 78/546, by means of the Department's "international road haulage survey" of United Kingdom hauliers; the contribution from other EC vehicles will also be available, from data collected by the country in which the vehicles are registered, to meet the same directive. International freight traffic statistics by rail will also continue to be available to meet EC directive 80/1177.

  Information adequate for government use on the contribution made by unaccompanied trailers will be

  335
  available from the Department's annual port traffic returns, completed by harbour authorities. This source also provides information on transport by sea of containers and non-unitised traffic.

  Information on international freight transport with non-EC countries will still be available from Customs sources after 1992.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the quality of transport statistics provided to the European Commission by his Department.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department is responsible for supplying a variety of statistics to the European Commission, directly and through the Statistical Office. The one area where I have not been satisfied with the quality of statistics supplied relates to international road haulage by United Kingdom hauliers. The survey concerned has now been made statutory and I am confident that these statistics will be of good quality in the future.

  Nuclear Fuel Flask Accident
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received from(a) British Rail, (b) British Nuclear Fuels and (c) Cumbria county council of lessons learnt from the recently conducted exercise involving a spent nuclear fuel flask accident in Millom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Exercises to test the emergency procedures in the event of a fuel flask incident are held at regular intervals and the recent one at Millom was attended by a representative of my Department.

  Control and administration of these exercises is a matter for the nuclear industry and I am satisfied that such exercises reflect, as far as possible, any likely scenario should a real incident occur.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation has been made of the cost-effectiveness for investment approval of a planting programme of evergreen trees at railway line sides to protect overhead wires in high winds.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that British Rail has conducted a preliminary technical evaluation on the planting of evergreen trees along track sides, and is now considering whether to undertake a fuller study.

  Road Surfaces
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of trunk roads and motorways completed for his Department over the past three years have been finished in concrete and blacktop, respectively.

  Mr. Chope
  Of the 400 km of trunk roads and motorways which have been completed since 1 August 1988, about 10 per cent. have a concrete surface. The remaining 90 per cent. have a black-top surface, and of these a significant proportion use concrete within the construction.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the European limits on carbon dioxide emissions; and when he intends to introduce legislation to introduce stricter limits.

  Mr. Chope
  The European Community and member states are willing to take action aimed at stabilising the total carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000 at the 1990 level in the Community as a whole. This assumes that other countries make similar commitments and acknowledges individual member states' own targets. The Environment White Paper published last year set out a first tranche of measures to control United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions. The Government will publish a report in the autumn showing how our efforts are being put into practice.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those such monitoring.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  The Department of Transport's policies and performance indicators are published annually in the departmental report (Cm. 1507). Businesses both small and large benefit from the Department's encouragement of a fair and competitive market for transport services, from investment in transport infrastructure which helps to reduce congestion saving both time and money, and from the lifting of burdens caused by unnecessary regulation. Departmental procurement procedures also encourage the use of small firms.

  Gibraltar Airport
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 294, what are the reasons for Gibraltar airport not benefiting from the European Community liberalisation packages until the Gibraltar airport agreement is implemented.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Community noted that arrangements concerning the use of Gibraltar airport had yet to come into effect and decided that the liberalisation measures should not apply to Gibraltar until the Gibraltar airport agreement, relating to such arrangements, had been implemented. This temporary suspension will be lifted as soon as the agreement is implemented.

  London Transport
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the real fares index for(a) London Transport bus services and (b) London Transport bus and underground combined in each year since 1971, using 1971 = 100.
  337
  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

  London Transport real fares indices: 1971–1990

  1971 = 100

  Year

  London Transport bus services

  London Transport bus and underground services

  1971

  100

  100

  1972

  104

  106

  1973

  96

  99

  1974

  83

  86

  1975

  82

  89

  1976

  100

  100

  1977

  103

  113

  1978

  109

  119

  1979

  109

  119

  1980

  128

  138

  1981

  122

  127

  1982

  139

  153

  1983

  136

  137

  1984

  118

  119

  1985

  122

  122

  1986

  126

  125

  1987

  125

  125

  1988

  131

  131

  1989

  136

  136

  1990

  135

  136

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passenger miles were travelled by London Transport buses, including tendered routes, in each year since 1971.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures are as follows:

  Year

  Passenger Miles

  1971

  2,907

  1972

  2,856

  1973

  2,958

  1974

  3,061

  1975

  3,039

  1976

  2,980

  1977

  2,919

  1978

  2,819

  1979

  2,690

  1980

  2,578

  1981

  2,511

  1982

  2,330

  1983

  2,440

  1984

  2,587

  1985

  2,562

  1986

  2,698

  1987

  2,786

  1988

  2,769

  1989

  2,728

  1990

  2,713

  Vehicle Licences
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) heavy goods vehicles and (b) public service vehicles are licensed under the operators' licences requirements.

  Mr. Chope
  The latest information is that there are 453,139 heavy goods vehicles and 72,900 public service vehicles licensed under the operator licensing system.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers and responsibilities he exercises in relation to roads promoted by urban development corporations.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no direct responsibility for roads which are constructed under the urban development corporations' own planning powers rather than by a highway authority under the Highways Act 1980. He may, however, be required to confirm certain local authority orders relating to such roads if they are adopted as highways.

  Lighthouses
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has on what has been the change in the average weekly number of employees employed at the head office of each of(a) Trinity house, (b) the commissioners of northern lighthouses and (c) the commissioners of Irish lights between 1985–86 and 1989–90;

  (2) what information he has on what has been the change in the average weekly number of employees of (a) Trinity house, (b) the commissioners of the northern lighthouses and (c) the commissioners of Irish lights employed at manned lighthouses between 1985–86 and 1989–90.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 July 1991]: The following is the information requested:

  Head office

  Lightkeepers

  Trinity House:

  1985–86

  181

  216

  1989–90

  130

  145

  Northern Lighthouse Board:

  1985–86

  88

  223

  1989–90

  80

  156

  Commissioners of Irish Lights:

  1985–86

  91

  202

  1989–90

  73

  107

  1 Following amalgamation of some former head office functions with functions already located at outstations.

  Bus and Coach Accidents
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, for each of the last 10 years, the number of road traffic accidents involving buses and coaches by the age of the bus or coach involved.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 July 1991]: The information requested is as follows.

  The statistics available cover road accidents involving personal injury reported to the police. The table shows the number of such accidents involving buses or coaches in Great Britain each year.

  Bus and coach accidents involving injury, Great Britain: 1980 to 1989

  Year

  Accidents

  1980

  13,613

  1981

  12,915

  1982

  12,738

  1983

  12,618

  1984

  12,647

  339

  Year

  Accidents

  1985

  12,313

  1986

  11,988

  1987

  11,603

  1988

  11,898

  1989

  12,499

  Source: Road Accidents Great Britain, HMSO.

  The following table shows the number of buses and coaches involved in these accidents, by vehicle age group.

  Buses and coaches in injury accidents, by vehicle age group, Great Britain: 1980 to 1989

  Vehicle age (years)1

  Year

  0 to 4

  5 to 9

  10 to 14

  15 or more

  Unknown

  1980

  5,204

  3,477

  1,802

  637

  2,694

  1981

  4,831

  3,498

  1,417

  662

  2,675

  1982

  4,942

  3,639

  1,352

  891

  2,087

  1983

  4,634

  3,576

  1,385

  1,045

  2,123

  1984

  4,304

  3,854

  1,531

  1,078

  2,035

  1985

  3,835

  4,233

  1,634

  1,295

  1,471

  1986

  3,421

  4,203

  1,721

  1,028

  1,764

  1987

  3,211

  3,896

  2,143

  929

  1,587

  1988

  3,199

  3,861

  2,594

  958

  1,474

  1989

  3,367

  3,792

  3,011

  1,125

  1,416

  1 Approximate. Based on prefix/suffix letter of registration mark.

ENERGY

  Electrical Appliances
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what progress the Government have made in encouraging the European Community to set minimum efficiency standards for certain categories of domestic and industrial appliances which vary widely in their use of energy since September 1990;

  (2) since his answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) of 25 February, Official Report, column 343, what progress has been made towards introducing a scheme for labelling electrical appliances with information about their energy efficiency.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government have encouraged and participated in the Commission's development of a proposal for a framework directive on mandatory appliance labelling, which is expected to be submitted to the Council in the near future. We are exploring with retailers and manufacturers the possibilities for an interim voluntary scheme which would enable the early introduction of labelling in the United Kingdom.

  Agreement on energy efficiency labelling is an essential first step towards the successful introduction of minimum standards for appliances, and we support the Commission's intention to establish minimum energy performance levels, in the first instance by negotiating voluntary agreements with manufacturers.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he has taken since September 1990 to promote the wider use of combined heat and power.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Earlier this year my Department successfully completed the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Great Britain, thereby enhancing the 340
  market opportunities for independent power projects, including combined heat and power. The Energy Efficiency Office continues actively to promote CHP through its best practice programme. It also works closely with the Combined Heat and Power Association and has recently collaborated with it on the power plus initiative.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what new initiatives have been taken since September 1990 to encourage people to use energy more efficiently; and what further action the Government intend to take in the longer term.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Energy Efficiency Office, whose budget for 1991–92 has been increased to £42 million, has pursued a number of initiatives since the publication of the White Paper on the environment in September 1990. These initiatives include:establishment of the ministerial group on energy efficiency, under my chairmanship, which aims to promote awareness of and raise the profile of energy efficiency and monitor the effectiveness of the Government's energy efficiency programmes:
  introduction on 1 January 1991 of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, which offers grants towards the cost of insulation measures in low income households;
  increased resources for the Best Practice programme, which continues to offer independent and authoritative advice and information on energy efficiency;
  reorganisation and strengthening of the EEO's regional energy efficiency office;
  encouragement for manufacturers and retailers in their current promotion of high efficiency lamps, which have already achieved substantial increases in take-up; and
  participation, in conjunction with other Departments, in a programme of some 80 seminars for public and private sector organisations;
  Further initiatives already announced, and on which work continues, include:
  a major new three-year publicity campaign, conducted jointly with the Department of the Environment, has been announced and will begin this autumn. It is aimed at promoting energy efficiency in the home and explaining the impact of energy use on the environment;
  a new promotional campaign aimed at the senior management of top energy users in the UK with headquarters in London and operational sites throughout the country; and
  further progress with the campaign on the Government estate.
  Continuing support is also being given to the promotion of home energy labelling and the development of a voluntary scheme for appliance labelling in advance of mandatory proposals from the EC. I will be publishing in the autumn a report on the achievements of the ministerial group during the first 12 months of operation.

  British Coal (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the action taken in response to the recommendations concerning British Coal's business planning in the 1989 report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the corporation's capital investment programme.
  341
  Mr. Wakeham
  On 19 July 1990, at columns 702–4, I informed the House that the British Coal Corporation had provided a second response to the MMC report on the corporation's capital investment programme, and that a copy had been placed in the Library of the House. Although the normal arrangements for following up MMC recommendations arising from section 11 inquiries do not require a further response from British Coal until 1992, I said that I would ask for an additional report this year on the steps taken to strengthen its business planning. British Coal has provided this, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Since British Coal last reported I have appointed Mr. Neil Clarke as chairman of the corporation in succession to Lord Haslam, and he has carried out, with my support, a restructuring of the board. I very much welcome Mr. Clarke's decision to charge a director, Dr. Moses, with the specific responsibility of developing and co-ordinating the corporation's strategic planning, and I am confident that this will satisfy many of the concerns expressed by the MMC. I believe that these and other arrangements put in place by the board will enable British Coal to meet the challenges of the future with confidence.

  British Coal will be submitting a final report to me next year on its implementation of all the MMC's recommendations. I shall inform the House when this further report has been made.

  UKAEA (Financial Target)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what financial target has been set for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for 1991–92.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's financial target for 1991–92 will be 6·8 per cent. return on net assets on a current cost basis.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  In developing and implementing my Department's policies, full account is taken of the needs of small businesses. They have benefited from measures to encourage competition and stimulate energy efficiency.

  Following the raising of the licensing limits in the Coal Industry Act 1990 there has been an increase in the number of licensed—non-British Coal—opencast sites from 141 to 157 in the 12 months to March 1991, and an increase in the average size from 39,000 tonnes to 68,000 tonnes. The Government have continued to make available funding for British Coal Enterprise Ltd., resulting in a cumulative total of over 70,000 job opportunities, many of which are in small businesses, in 3,184 individual projects—this compares with 61,000 and 2,865 respectively in 1990.
  342
  In August 1990, the Department's Offshore Supplies Office launched a one-year scheme to give support of up to 75 per cent. of costs for preliminary research and feasibility studies by small companies aimed at developing new technologies applicable to oil and gas drilling and production.

  The new regime for the electricity supply industry is having the effect of opening up the supply of electricity to competition, is giving small businesses a choice of electricity supplier, and is putting downward pressure on the prices they pay.

  The Department continues to encourage the use of small firms for departmental purchases of goods and services where this is consistent with obtaining value for money. About 47 per cent. of purchases have been from them in 1990–91, compared with 43 per cent. in 1989–90 and 38 per cent. in 1988–89.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Land Law
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who were employed by his Department as consultants before the publication of the draft land law proposals; from what dates they were employed; and what was the cost to public funds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 July 1991]: The Department of Finance, as it then was, appointed Professor J. C. W. Wylie as its consultant on land law reform on 4 April 1980. Professor Wylie was appointed on an individual basis in accordance with the normal conditions for such appointments. It is not our usual practice to disclose an individual's earnings.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Data Protection
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to publish the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on Registration Procedures under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The report of the interdepartmental review of the Data Protection Act was laid in the Library on 28 November 1990. Free copies may be obtained on request from room 677A, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's gate, London SW1H 9AT.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the advice of the Data Protection Registrar on the procedure put forward in the European Commission's draft directive on data protection for a general requirement of notifying individuals whenever information about them is communicated to a third party; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The views of the Data Protection Registrar on the notification requirements in articlee 9 of the draft directive are contained in appendix I of his seventh annual report, published on 17 July.
  343
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the press and broadcasters on the European Commission's draft directive on data protection.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have received written representations about the draft directive from press and broadcasting organisations, all concerned about its likely effects on their operations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations he has received from the Data Protection Registrar on the registration procedures in the Data Protection Act 1984 and the notification scheme proposed in the European Commission draft directive on data protection.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In his fifth annual report to Parliament the registrar recommended that registration should be limited to sensitive data. On the draft directive's proposal for notification to supervisory authorities of data about to be communicated, he has recommended that this should be optional for member states which should be free to choose other methods of satisfying the data protection principles.

  Greyhounds
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received seeking an investigation into the prevalence of healthy young greyhounds being put down when no longer required for racing purposes;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to ban the export of greyhounds to countries which cannot guarantee their well-being.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have not received any representations about the destruction of young racing greyhounds. The humane killing of animals is not against the law. The Home Office is responsible for the law on domestic animals in England and Wales, but not for the law on the sale or export of animals to EC countries or beyond.

  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to require the greyhound racing organisations to set aside increased sums of money for the welfare of retired greyhounds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government believe that the welfare of retired greyhounds is ultimately the responsibility of the owners themselves. However, we are now considering the recent report of the Home Affairs Committee on the financing of greyhound racing, which included a recommendation on greyhound welfare, and will publish our response in due course.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Home Office continues to place a high priority on helping small firms to obtain 344
  business from the various divisions of the Department by improving access and the information necessary to ensure they have opportunities to submit competitive bids. We have continued to distribute our booklet: "Selling to the Home Office" which summarises our purchasing needs and lists contact points for potential suppliers. In addition, we have been represented at several "Meet the Buyer" functions, seminars and conferences including those organised by manufacturers' associations and the Instutition of Purchasing and Supply.

  Home Office performance indicators on purchasing continue to be directed toward obtaining better value for the money we spend. We do not differentiate between the size of firms to which contracts are awarded and we cannot, therefore, provide statistical information about the volume of business we place with small firms.

  Phone Tapping
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the video cassette and transcript of the "World in Action" programme on phone tapping broadcast on 15 July.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My Department is well aware of the content of that broadcast.

  Risley Female Remand Centre
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to close the female remand centre at Risley on a temporary basis; where the prisoners and staff will be housed; when it is planned they will return to Risley; and what numbers of staff and prisoners will be housed at the new establishment.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are no plans to close the female remand centre at Risley, but some reduction in the population will occur later in the year because the electrical and central heating services are not adequate for the winter months.

  I will write to the hon. Member when the detailed plans have been completed.

  Police Cells, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for prisoners held in police cells in Greater Manchester; and how he expects those numbers to alter over the next three months.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On Friday 19 July there were 237 prisoners in Greater Manchester police cells.

  Over the next three months there will be significant increases in accommodation available to the prison service in the north of England. Occupation of part of the new accommodation in Full Sutton prison is in progress and 150 refurbished places in Manchester prison itself should be available next month. As the hon. Member is aware, prison service management is also seeking to bring into use the second Full Sutton wing and 150 places at Acklington. In addition the opening this month of Moorland young offender institution and remand centre will enable management to clear large numbers of young men on remand from local prison accommodation. It is planned to

  345
  use places made available in this way to clear prisoners from police cells in the north of England, subject to the resolution of continued difficulties in accommodating some of the young men on remand who must be kept close to the Manchester courts. I hope, therefore, that over the next few months the present use of police cells in the north-west will be substantially reduced.

  Airline Passengers (Documents)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had over the Government's proposals to double fines for airline passengers entering the United Kingdom without valid documents.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 19 July representations relating to the raising of the charge payable under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 had been received from four hon. Members; the International Air Transport Association; the Board of Airline Representatives in the United Kingdom; and 25 individual carriers.

  Security Industry
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has concluded his consideration of the report on the self-regulation of the security industry his Department received in July 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am considering a wide range of options for improving the regulation of the security industry.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Out-of-School Provision
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children have been catered for in(a) after school and (b) holiday provisions for each of the last 10 years and in each local authority.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Undergraduates
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what trends have been identified in the numbers of pupils from state schools and private schools going to universities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The table shows the proportion of school leavers from maintained schools and from independent schools in 1984–85, 1986–87 and 1988–89, whose intended destinations were degree courses at university.

  School leavers—England

  Percentages of school leavers whose intended destinations were degree courses at university (not including polytechnics) By school type—1984–85, 1986–87 and 1988–89

  Maintained

  Independent

  1984–85

  4·0

  27·6

  all leavers (000s)

  690·99

  45·22

  1986–87

  4·2

  24·7

  all leavers (000s)

  671·20

  44·79

  346

  Maintained

  Independent

  1988–89

  4·9

  27·0

  all leavers (000s)

  571·02

  46·70

  Workers Educational Association
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the allocations made to each local education authority to support the activities of the Workers Educational Association under the education support grant programme for(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  The level of expenditure approved for the WEA activity in the education support grants (ESG) programme for(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92 is shown for each LEA in the table below.

  Local Education Authority

  (a) 1990–91 (£)

  (b) 1991–92 (£)

  Barking

  690

  800

  Barnet

  9,445

  10,700

  Bexley

  6,920

  8,300

  Brent

  1,125

  1,400

  Bromley

  6,920

  8,300

  Croydon

  1,210

  1,500

  Ealing

  1,820

  2,200

  Enfield

  1,905

  2,300

  Haringey

  695

  700

  Harrow

  7,555

  9,100

  Havering

  810

  1,000

  Hillingdon

  3,645

  4,400

  Hounslow

  1,125

  1,400

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,905

  2,300

  Merton

  1,210

  1,500

  Newham

  1,125

  1,400

  Redbridge

  2,020

  2,200

  Richmond upon Thames

  3,035

  3,600

  Sutton

  1,125

  1,400

  Waltham Forest

  605

  1,000

  Camden

  17,810

  21,400

  Greenwich

  430

  500

  Hackney

  1,735

  2,100

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  430

  500

  Islington

  430

  500

  Lambeth

  650

  800

  Lewisham

  430

  1,700

  Southwark

  1,515

  1,800

  Tower Hamlets

  865

  1,000

  Birmingham

  9,145

  11,300

  Coventry

  15,695

  11,300

  Dudley

  3,135

  3,800

  Sandwell

  3,135

  3,800

  Walsall

  6,280

  7,500

  Wolverhampton

  5,480

  6,600

  Knowsley

  3,255

  3,900

  Liverpool

  29,340

  35,200

  St. Helens

  3,255

  3,900

  Sefton

  4,070

  4,900

  Wirral

  7,330

  8,800

  Bolton

  9,375

  11,300

  Bury

  1,485

  1,800

  Manchester

  12,550

  15,100

  Oldham

  3,720

  4,500

  Rochdale

  3,500

  4,100

  Salford

  3,060

  3,700

  Stockport

  7,470

  9,000

  Tameside

  3,000

  4,000

  Trafford

  9,625

  11,600

  Wigan

  2,922

  3,300

  Barnsley

  4,450

  5,300

  Doncaster

  3,505

  4,200

  Rotherham

  9,680

  11,600

  Sheffield

  18,455

  22,100

  347

  Local Education Authority

  (a) 1990–91 (£)

  (b) 1991–92 (£)

  Bradford

  6,505

  7,800

  Calderdale

  2,395

  2,900

  Kirklees

  3,990

  4,800

  Leeds

  16,500

  19,800

  Wakefield

  4,070

  4,900

  Gateshead

  3,290

  4,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9,870

  11,800

  North Tyneside

  3,375

  4,100

  South Tyneside

  2,665

  3,200

  Sunderland

  10,615

  12,700

  Avon

  24,345

  29,200

  Bedfordshire

  5,305

  6,400

  Berkshire

  20,025

  24,000

  Buckinghamshire

  21,455

  25,700

  Cambridgeshire

  11,375

  13,700

  Cheshire

  23,405

  28,100

  Cleveland

  11,630

  14,000

  Cornwall

  17,355

  20,800

  Cumbria

  23,925

  28,700

  Derbyshire

  27,753

  33,100

  Devon

  40,500

  48,600

  Dorset

  12,340

  14,800

  Durham

  16,445

  19,700

  East Sussex

  10,835

  13,000

  Essex

  26,980

  31,800

  Gloucestershire

  11,830

  14,200

  Hampshire

  31,000

  37,400

  Hereford and Worcester

  12,555

  15,100

  Hertfordshire

  16,760

  20,100

  Humberside

  18,125

  21,800

  Isle of Wight

  1,075

  1,000

  Kent

  24,500

  29,400

  Lancashire

  21,320

  25,600

  Leicestershire

  19,840

  23,800

  Lincolnshire

  18,845

  22,600

  Norfolk

  10,615

  12,700

  North Yorkshire

  27,580

  33,100

  Northamptonshire

  6,065

  7,300

  Northumberland

  6,545

  7,800

  Nottinghamshire

  40,215

  48,300

  Oxfordshire

  30,040

  36,000

  Shropshire

  6,280

  7,500

  Somerset

  7,610

  9,100

  Staffordshire

  13,340

  16,000

  Suffolk

  12,890

  15,400

  Surrey

  6,340

  7,600

  Warwickshire

  5,180

  6,200

  West Sussex

  18,665

  22,400

  Wiltshire

  19,720

  23,600

  Economic and Social Research Council
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Economic and Social Research Council to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 14 October to Friday 18 October.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will issue formal guidance to local education authorities on the implication of the recent Appeal Court judgment concerning local education authorities' duties to provide speech therapy for pupils with statements of special education needs; and 348
  what plans he has to ensure that the implications of this judgment are known to parents and relevant voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department intends to issue for consultation a draft addendum to DES circular 22/89 on assessment and statement procedures shortly. DES circulars offer advice and guidance to local education authorities. They are also sent to relevant voluntary organisations some of which represent and advise parents. In addition, local education authorities and the Department would be expected to advise parents, as necessary, as individual cases arise.

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether results of the 1991 assessments of seven-year-olds will be collated in such a way that it will be possible to identify the class size and the age mix of classes with their results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 19 July 1991 at column 302–3.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from school governors concerning the conduct of standard assessment tests for seven-year-olds; and what measurements he has made of the effectiveness and value of these tests in relation to the time spent on them by teachings

  Mr. Eggar
  An extensive evaluation of the first national tests for seven-year-olds in English, mathematics and science is now taking place. The School Examinations and Assessment Council is gathering a range of qualitative and quantitiative information about the performance of the tests and Her Majesty's inspectorate have held a series of regional conferences to get reactions direct from teachers. The Department has also received a number of letters and reports from schools and governors, which will be taken into account as part of the evaluation.

  The Government will come to a final view about the effectiveness of the 1991 tests and about the nature and coverage of the 1992 tests when the full evidence of this evaluation work is available in the autumn.

  Student Awards, Tower Hamlets
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students in Tower Hamlets received(a) discretionary awards and (b) mandatory awards for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Data in the form requested are not available for Tower Hamlets, which formed part of the Inner London education authority until 31 March 1990.

  GCSE
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by education authority in London, in rank order, the percentage of all pupils gaining(a) one GCSE certificates of grade A to C, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four, (e) five, (f) six, (g) 7–10 and (h) 11 and above in 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not available in the form requested.
  349
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in rank order the English local education authorities, showing for the most recent year available, and the national averages(a) the proportion of pupils of maintained schools obtaining five or more GCSEs at grades A to C and (b) the proportion of such pupils obtaining grade A to C in GCSE in English, mathematics and a modern language.

  Maintained school leavers in England Aggregated over 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89

  Percentage of leavers gaining 5+ grades A-C GCSE/O-level/CSE gaining 1 or more pass at grade A—C in the subject shown

  Local education authority

  Percentage of leavers with 5 + grades A—C

  Rank

  Mod Lang

  Rank

  Mathematics

  Rank

  English

  Rank

  Barking

  11·3

  95

  35·4

  94

  83·7

  71

  87·1

  96

  Barnet

  38·9

  2

  58·6

  8

  92·8

  1

  94·0

  81

  Bexley

  28·5

  28

  46·5

  62

  84·5

  65

  96·7

  31

  Brent

  20·6

  78

  46·9

  57

  84·6

  61

  97·2

  20

  Bromley

  29·9

  20

  53·2

  26

  84·7

  59

  97·2

  17

  Croydon

  22·1

  70

  53·0

  28

  83·6

  72

  95·0

  64

  Ealing

  22·5

  67

  41·1

  84

  86·3

  36

  90·9

  95

  Enfield

  26·9

  41

  55·8

  19

  90·3

  4

  93·4

  88

  Haringey

  16·6

  89

  45·6

  67

  82·8

  78

  94·5

  74

  Harrow

  38·6

  3

  42·7

  81

  85·8

  43

  98·7

  2

  Havering

  24·4

  57

  44·1

  72

  87·4

  22

  96·9

  26

  Hillingdon

  22·7

  65

  46·6

  59

  86·7

  32

  93·9

  83

  Hounslow

  25·2

  50

  47·6

  53

  78·7

  95

  95·0

  67

  Kingston upon Thames

  32·2

  10

  58·8

  6

  85·3

  47

  96·1

  42

  Merton

  24·6

  55

  53·0

  29

  90·1

  5

  95·0

  65

  Newham

  14·9

  93

  29·7

  96

  79·7

  92

  91·4

  94

  Redbridge

  25·5

  48

  47·8

  52

  84·9

  56

  92·4

  91

  Richmond upon Thames

  32·4

  8

  60·9

  5

  85·7

  44

  96·0

  44

  Sutton

  39·1

  1

  66·8

  3

  90·3

  3

  97·1

  21

  Waltham Forest

  12·7

  94

  38·0

  93

  75·2

  96

  97·0

  23

  Birmingham

  19·1

  85

  49·3

  46

  83·4

  76

  95·8

  51

  Coventry

  21·2

  76

  43·7

  75

  81·3

  87

  95·9

  47

  Dudley

  25·5

  47

  52·6

  30

  81·1

  88

  95·9

  45

  Sandwell

  15·5

  92

  38·6

  89

  81·6

  86

  96·

  25

  Solihull

  31·

  12

  58·

  9

  86·

  29

  97·

  22

  Walsall

  23·

  61

  51·

  39

  80·

  89

  95·9

  48

  Wolverhampton

  19·9

  81

  47·9

  51

  82·1

  82

  94·8

  69

  Knowsley

  8·5

  96

  38·3

  92

  79·7

  93

  93·9

  82

  Liverpool

  19·4

  84

  46·7

  58

  79·6

  94

  95·8

  49

  St. Helens

  20·5

  79

  57·5

  12

  89·7

  7

  98·8

  1

  Sefton

  28·5

  27

  51·1

  40

  83·5

  73

  97·3

  13

  Wirral

  27·8

  32

  56·6

  16

  85·3

  46

  97·4

  11

  Bolton

  28·7

  24

  51·5

  37

  86·6

  33

  95·2

  61

  Bury

  27·7

  34

  42·8

  79

  89·2

  11

  93·4

  90

  Manchester

  16·4

  90

  45·3

  69

  84·8

  58

  93·7

  85

  Oldham

  18·1

  86

  55·7

  20

  89·2

  12

  97·5

  9

  Rochdale

  20·9

  77

  39·4

  88

  87·5

  21

  94·5

  75

  Salford

  23·2

  62

  46·4

  64

  81·8

  85

  96·2

  37

  Stockport

  28·6

  25

  51·5

  36

  85·2

  50

  98·3

  3

  Tameside

  27·1

  40

  45·4

  68

  86·0

  39

  97·6

  6

  Trafford

  30·7

  16

  70·0

  1

  92·1

  2

  95·8

  52

  Wigan

  30·2

  18

  55·2

  21

  83·4

  75

  97·3

  14

  Barnsley

  19·7

  82

  45·0

  70

  88·4

  17

  93·5

  87

  Doncaster

  21·7

  73

  43·0

  78

  87·4

  23

  95·3

  59

  Rotherham

  23·0

  63

  53·1

  27

  87·1

  26

  94·7

  71

  Sheffield

  22·2

  69

  50·0

  42

  82·5

  80

  96·1

  39

  Bradford

  16·9

  88

  50·5

  41

  86·8

  30

  97·5

  8

  Calderdale

  21·5

  75

  54·4

  23

  82·1

  83

  97·5

  7

  Kirklees

  25·6

  46

  58·1

  11

  85·9

  40

  96·9

  24

  Leeds

  22·0

  71

  51·6

  35

  86·0

  38

  95·4

  57

  Wakefield

  17·5

  87

  52·3

  32

  84·5

  63

  95·9

  46

  Gateshead

  20·4

  80

  38·6

  90

  83·9

  69

  95·3

  58

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  21·6

  74

  48·3

  50

  79·9

  91

  92·1

  92

  North Tyneside

  27·5

  36

  41·9

  83

  82·0

  84

  97·9

  5

  South Tyneside

  22·2

  68

  49·0

  47

  88·8

  14

  96·2

  38

  Sunderland

  21·8

  72

  38·5

  91

  80·1

  90

  94·2

  78

  Inner London

  15·9

  91

  43·2

  77

  82·3

  81

  94·2

  80

  Avon

  27·8

  31

  49·7

  43

  84·7

  60

  97·2

  19

  Bedfordshire

  24·9

  53

  46·4

  63

  83·0

  77

  95·5

  54

  Berkshire

  32·3

  9

  56·2

  17

  89·5

  8

  96·4

  34

  Buckinghamshire

  36·0

  5

  67·8

  2

  90·1

  6

  97·9

  4

  350
  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows for each English local education authority the proportion of school leavers from maintained schools gaining five or more grades A to C in GCSE, O-level or grade 1 CSE, and the proportion of those gaining grade A to C in English, mathematics or a modern language, and also the rank order.
  351

  Percentage of leavers gaining 5+ grades A—C GCSE/O-level/CSE gaining 1 or more pass at grade A—C in the subject shown

  Local education authority

  Percentage of leavers with 5 + grades A—C

  Rank

  Mod Lang

  Rank

  Mathematics

  Rank

  English

  Rank

  Cambridgeshire

  28·0

  30

  57·1

  14

  84·4

  67

  95·8

  50

  Cheshire

  29·1

  23

  54·4

  22

  85·0

  53

  96·1

  40

  Cleveland

  26·5

  43

  44·1

  73

  88·3

  18

  95·1

  63

  Cornwall including Isles of Scilly

  30·0

  19

  43·8

  74

  85·3

  48

  97·3

  12

  Cumbria

  28·0

  29

  46·6

  61

  88·3

  19

  93·5

  86

  Derbyshire

  24·6

  54

  45·6

  66

  86·3

  35

  96·1

  41

  Devon

  26·3

  44

  44·2

  71

  84·5

  64

  95·5

  55

  Dorset

  27·6

  35

  57·1

  13

  85·0

  55

  96·8

  28

  Durham

  23·4

  60

  41·0

  85

  85·9

  41

  96·7

  30

  East Sussex

  31·4

  13

  45·8

  65

  85·2

  49

  97·2

  15

  Essex

  27·4

  37

  53·9

  25

  89·0

  13

  96·2

  36

  Gloucestershire

  31·2

  14

  55·8

  18

  86·5

  34

  94·9

  68

  Hampshire

  29·6

  21

  48·5

  48

  88·7

  15

  94·6

  73

  Hereford and Worcester

  29·2

  22

  48·4

  49

  83·5

  74

  95·3

  60

  Hertfordshire

  31·9

  11

  58·2

  10

  87·1

  28

  96·8

  29

  Humberside

  22·6

  66

  52·1

  33

  86·1

  37

  94·2

  79

  Isle of Wight

  19·5

  83

  34·2

  95

  84·4

  66

  93·4

  89

  Kent

  27·3

  38

  58·6

  7

  89·4

  10

  97·2

  16

  Lancashire

  26·8

  42

  52·0

  34

  84·9

  57

  95·0

  66

  Leicestershire

  25·1

  51

  39·6

  87

  87·3

  25

  96·8

  27

  Lincolnshire

  25·2

  49

  57·0

  15

  88·5

  16

  97·5

  10

  Norfolk

  24·5

  56

  47·5

  54

  89·4

  9

  94·3

  76

  North Yorkshire

  34·5

  7

  61·9

  4

  87·8

  20

  95·7

  53

  Northamptonshire

  22·8

  64

  42·7

  80

  83·9

  70

  96·2

  35

  Northumberland

  30·7

  15

  42·4

  82

  87·1

  27

  95·2

  62

  Nottinghamshire

  23·4

  59

  43·7

  76

  86·8

  31

  96·6

  33

  Oxfordshire

  27·7

  33

  49·5

  44

  84·3

  68

  93·7

  84

  Shropshire

  30·3

  17

  51·5

  38

  85·0

  54

  94·6

  72

  Somerset

  27·1

  39

  47·4

  55

  85·8

  42

  91·9

  93

  Staffordshire

  24·9

  52

  47·4

  56

  85·0

  52

  94·8

  70

  Suffolk

  24·2

  58

  41·0

  86

  85·1

  51

  94·3

  77

  Surrey

  38·0

  4

  46·6

  60

  84·6

  62

  97·2

  18

  Warwickshire

  28·5

  26

  54·0

  24

  87·3

  24

  96·7

  32

  West Sussex

  35·5

  6

  52·4

  31

  85·4

  45

  96·1

  43

  Wiltshire

  25·9

  45

  49·4

  45

  82·7

  79

  95·4

  56

  All England

  25·8

  50·3

  85·9

  95·8

  East London TEC
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage of English school leavers within the area covered by the East London TEC.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Compulsory Courses
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the provision in secondary schools and sixth form colleges of compulsory courses on the effects of leaving home to go into further education.

  Mr. Fallon
  Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 requires that the curriculum of every maintained school shall prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. It is for individual schools to decide how this requirement should be fulfilled.

  Reading Standards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which body is now responsible for quantifying changes in reading standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The national curriculum sets clear national targets for reading and provides for pupils' progress in relation to those targets to be tested at the ages of 7, 11, 14 and 16. The School Examinations and Assessment Council is responsible for advising the Government on the testing arrangments and, as a function of that, will be monitoring and evaluating the results. In order to undertake this latter aspect of its work, the School Examinations and Assessment Council has taken over the Department's former assessment and performance unit which now forms the council's evaluation and monitoring unit. My right hon. and learned Friend has also asked Her Majesty's inspectorate to continue to monitor reading standards and to provide regular reports.

  Expenditure
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of Britain's gross domestic product is spent on education.
  353
  Mr. Eggar
  Gross domestic product is calculated on a United Kingdom basis. Provisional outturn data indicate that central Government and local authority expenditure in the United Kingdom on education and science in 1990–91 was 4·9 per cent. of the gross domestic product for that year.

  Source: Cm. 1520 Public Expenditure Analyses to 1993–94, tables 2.1 and 2.2.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards education on the dangers of smoking for children in primary and secondary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The statutory order for national curriculum science requires that primary school pupils should know that tobacoo is a harmful substance, and that its avoidance contributes to good health; and that secondary school pupils should consider its effects on the human body. The National Curriculum Council's guidance on health education advises that both primary and secondary school pupils should study topics relating to the dangers of smoking.

  Hospital Education
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidelines nationally cover provision of education in hospitals for children; and what monitoring of the service takes place.

  Mr. Fallon
  It is for LEAs to decide on the type of educational provision to be made for children in hospital and to monitor the services which they provide. At the national level, Her Majesty's inspectorate's reviews include hospital and home education services.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government continue to place high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures and through specific programmes of support and assistance. Consonant with this, the Department operates a policy of including small firms on tender lists where appropriate. In 1990–91 it is estimated that about 35 per cent. of the Department's orders were placed with small firms: of the estimated £15·9 million which the Department spent on goods and services, some £4 million benefited small firms. Comparable estimates for last year are £11·5 million and £.4·2 million. The Department is developing mechanisms to monitor more closely the proportion of its orders placed with small businesses.

  Seven-year-olds (Assessment)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has commissioned any public opinion research on parental attitudes to assessment of seven-year-olds.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department has commissioned market research into the format for reporting the progress of five to 14-year-olds to their parents which was issued to all schools earlier in the year. The School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) has also, at Ministers' request, commissioned market research into the reporting to parents of the results of the pilot tests for 14-year-olds deployed in a sample of secondary schools this summer.

  Leeds General Hospital
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the staffing complement of the hospital teaching service at Leeds general infirmary in(a) 1988, (b) 1989, (c) 1990 and (d) 1991; and what is the proposed staffing complement in 1992.

  Mr. Fallon
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Arnewood School, Hampshire
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he held with parents of children at Arnewood school, Hampshire prior to his visit to the school.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Free School Meals
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish figures showing the number and proportion of children receiving free school meals in 1989 and 1990 as a percentage of the numbers of children in attendance.

  Mr. Fallon
  The number of children in maintained schools in England receiving free school meals on the census date in January 1989 and 1990 were 781,362 and 764,641 respectively. The figures represent 11 per cent. of the total pupils on roll for each year.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the latest figures for the number and proportion of children who are in families on supplementary benefit/income support who are not taking up their entitlement to free school meals.

  Mr. Fallon
  Pupils are entitled to free school meals only if they or their families are in receipt of income support, not supplementary benefit. In May 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, 1,010,815 children aged between five and 16 were in families in England who received income support. The take-up of free school meals in English schools on the census date in January 1990 was 764,641.

  School Premises (Political Events)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance his Department has issued to local education authorities and grant-maintained schools on the use of school premises for party political events; and if he will make a statement.
  355
  Mr. Eggar
  None. Under the Education Acts, responsibility for the conduct of schools and the use of their premises lies with school governing bodies. At elections, candidates have the use of school buildings for meetings, free of charge and at reasonable times, under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Police Inquiries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if he will make a statement on the role of the Crown prosecution service and the Director of Public Prosecutions in determining whether the evidence in any particular case is such as to justify the institution of police inquiries;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the role of the Crown prosecution service and the Director of Public Prosecutions in advising the Metropolitan police on whether evidence in particular cases justifies the institution of police inquiries; and what formal powers are exercised in such circumstances.

  The Attorney-General
  The duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown prosecution service, of which the Director is head, are set out in section 3(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Section 3(2)(e) of the Act states that it shall be the duty of the Director to give, to such extent as he considers appropriate, advice to police forces on all matters relating to criminal offences.

  In deciding whether the evidence in any particular case is such as to lead the Director or the service to advise the police that inquiries would be justified, the Director and the service may take a number of factors into account. One of these factors would be the likelihood of such inquiries disclosing sufficient evidence to justify the institution of criminal proceedings. In determining whether the evidence in any particular case is sufficient to justify the institution of criminal proceedings the Director and the service will apply the criteria set out in the code for Crown prosecutors issued pursuant to section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General what discretion the Metropolitan police have to disregard the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions or Crown prosecution service that the evidence in a particular case is not such as to justify the institution of police inquiries.

  The Attorney-General
  Neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor the Crown prosecution service has any responsibility for, or operational control over, any police force. It is a matter for the chief officer of police to decide whether the evidence in any particular case is such as to justify police inquiries. In reaching that decision the chief officer will no doubt take into account any advice that the Director or service may offer, but the chief officer is not obliged to accept it or follow it.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) in how many cases since 1 January the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised the Metropolitan police that the evidence in a particular case is not such as to justify the institution of police inquiries;

  (2) in how many cases since 21 September 1990 the Metropolitan police have sought the view of the Director
  356
  of Public Preosecutions or Crown prosecution service on whether the evidence in a particular case justifies the institution of police inquiries.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not collated in records maintained by the Director of Public Prosecutions or Crown prosecution service and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department and the Lord Chancellor's Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  The Departments for which I am responsible are the legal secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's department, the Crown prosecution service and the Serious Fraud Office. The services provided by the first two are largely internal to government. The functions of the Crown prosecution service and the Serious Fraud Office relate purely to the criminal justice system. While both organisations are aware of the serious consequences caused by some criminal offences when perpetrated against small businesses, decisions to prosecute are taken in accordance with the evidential sufficiency and public interest criteria laid down in the code for Crown prosecutors. The provisions of the code do not specify classes of victim, and accordingly do not distinguish between small businesses and other victims.

  As regards purchasing, all the Departments for which I am responsible have regard to the desirability of encouraging small businesses in line with the policy of the Government as a whole.

  The Lord Chancellor's programme of reforms to streamline procedures in the civil courts will benefit all litigants, including small businesses. For example, higher value claims can now be brought in a county court following the removal, on 1 July this year, of the financial limits to the county courts' general jurisdiction. From the same date, the level at which defended claims are automatically referred to the informal small claims arbitration procedure has been lifted from £500 to £1,000. The effect of these changes on the number of cases brought in the county courts will be monitored, but no separate statistics are kept in relation to small businesses.

  In its purchasing activities the Lord Chancellor's Department continues to encourage the use of small businesses as suppliers. The Department recognises that the prompt payment of bills is a matter of concern to small businesses and has agreed to participate in an interdepartmental exercise to help monitor payment performance generally. The Department's estimated total expenditure with small businesses in 1990–91 was £16 million, as against £14 million in 1989.

  Select Committee on Trade and Industry
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he has taken on the papers sent to him by members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry relating to the alleged harassment of members of that Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The question of what action may be appropriate in response to the matter to which my hon. Friend refers is at present under consideration.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Written Answers
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many parliamentary questions for written answer have been answered by his Department so far in the current Session, and in the comparable period for the last Session; and if he will publish a table of how many answers(a) do not give the information requested because of (i) disproportionate cost or (ii) other reasons, (b) give an undertaking to write to the hon. Member who asked the question and (c) were referred for answer to the chief executive of a next steps agency.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is a matter of public record.

  VAT
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses(a) registered for VAT and (b) deregistered for VAT in Tower Hamlets giving the reasons for deregistration if known, for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The table gives figures for VAT registrations and deregistrations for the Stratford local VAT office. The local VAT office at Stratford covers areas in addition to Tower Hamlets, but a more detailed

  Rates of income tax, 1900 onwards

  Government

  Party

  Rate of tax

  1900 to December 1905

  Conservative

  1900

  1s 0d Uniform rate

  1901

  1s 2d Uniform rate

  1902

  1s 3d Uniform rate

  1903

  0s 11d Uniform rate

  1904 to 1905

  1s 0d Uniform rate

  December 1905 to May 1915

  Liberal

  1906

  1s 0d Uniform rate

  1907 to 1908

  1s 0d Standard rate

  1909 to 1913

  1s 2d Standard rate

  1914

  1s 8d Standard rate

  1915

  3s 0d Standard rate

  May 1915 to October 1922

  Coalition

  1916 to 1917

  5s 0d Standard rate

  1918 to 1919

  6s 0d Standard rate

  1920–21 to 1921–22

  6s 0d Standard rate, (30%)

  1922–23

  5s 0d Standard rate, (25%)

  October 1922 to January 1924

  Conservative

  1923–24

  4s 6d Standard rate, (22·5%)

  January 1924 to November 1924

  Labour

  1924–25

  4s 6d Standard rate, (22·5%)

  November 1924 to June 1929

  Conservative

  1925–26 to 1927–28

  4s 0d Standard rate, (20%)

  1928–29

  4s 0d Standard rate, (20%)

  1929–30

  4s 0d Standard rate, (20%)

  June 1929 to August 1931

  Labour

  1930–31

  4s 6d Standard rate, (22·5%)

  1931–32

  5s 0d Standard rate, (25%)

  358
  breakdown is not available. No distinction is made between businesses registering for the first time and other registrations, for example a sole proprietor taking on a partner on forming a limited company.

  Years end December

  New registrations

  Deregistrations

  1980

  1,560

  1,521

  1981

  1,467

  990

  1982

  1,825

  1,910

  1983

  2,023

  1,849

  1984

  2,137

  1,877

  1985

  2,232

  1,946

  1986

  2,455

  2,349

  1987

  2,458

  2,118

  1988

  2,496

  2,150

  1989

  3,000

  2,370

  1990

  2,216

  1,774

  Government Staff
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of staff in post in central Government Departments at 1 April.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 1 April 1991 there were 553,863 staff in post in central Government. Of those, 490,041 were non-industrials and 63,822 were classified as being in industrial work.

  Income Tax
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the changes in the rates of income tax for each year for which the information is readily available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The changes in the main rate of income tax since 1900 are shown in the table. The table does not show the various reduced rates of tax which applied nor any difference between the rate of tax on earned and unearned income.
  359

  Government

  Party

  Rate of tax

  August 1931 to May 1940

  National

  1932–33 to 1933–34

  5s 0d Standard rate, (25%)

  1934–35 to 1935–36

  4s 6d Standard rate, (22·5·)

  1936–37

  4s 9d Standard rate, (23·75·)

  1937–38

  5s 0d Standard rate, (25%)

  1938–39

  5s 6d Standard rate, (27·5%)

  1939–40

  7s 0d Standard rate, (35%)

  1940–41

  8s 6d Standard rate, (42·5%)

  May 1940 to May 1945

  Coalition

  1941–42 to 1945–46

  10s 0d Standard rate, (50%)

  May 1945 to July 1945

  Conservative

  —

  —

  July 1945 to October 1951

  Labour

  1946–47 to 1950–51

  9s 0d Standard rate, (45%)

  1951–52

  9s 6d Standard rate. (47·5%)

  October 1951 to October 1964

  Conservative

  1952–53

  9s 6d Standard rate, (47·5%)

  1953–54 to 1954–55

  9s 0d Standard rate. (45%)

  1955–56 to 1958–59

  8s 6d Standard rate, (42·5%)

  1959–60 to 1964–65

  7s 9d Standard rate, (38·75%)

  October 1964 to June 1970

  Labour

  1965–66 to 1969–70

  8s 3d Standard rate, (41·25%)

  1970–71

  41·25% Standard rate

  June 1970 to March 1974

  Conservative

  1971–72 to 1972–73

  38·75%, Standard rate

  1973–74

  30%, Basic rate

  March 1974 to May 1979

  Labour

  1974–75

  33%, Basic rate

  1975–76 to 1976–77

  35%, Basic rate

  1977–78

  34%, Basic rate

  1978–79

  33%, Basic rate

  May 1979 to

  Conservative

  1979–80 to 1985–86

  30%, Basic rate

  1986–87

  29%, Basic rate

  1987–88

  27%, Basic rate

  1988–89 to

  25%, Basic rate

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil service jobs have been relocated from London in the past five years; and how many he estimates will be so relocated in the next five years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Comprehensive data for the period prior to 1988 are not held centrally. However, posts relocated or located outside London totalled over 11,000 over the past five years; and over the next five years, a further 20,000 posts will follow.

  Civil Servants (Salary Advances)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the arrangements for making advances of salary available to civil servants for travel.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Civil servants may receive an advance of salary to purchase a season ticket for public transport. It is proposed to extend this scheme in two ways. Departments will be able to offer junior civil servants advances of salary to purchase season tickets for car parking and advances of salary of up to £100 to assist civil servants in the purchase of a bicycle for home to office travel.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the arrangements for making advances of salary available to civil servants, both for house purchase and for travel to the office.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  When civil servants move in the public interest, they may be eligible for an advance of salary to assist with the purchase of a property at the new station. The current maximum advance payable is six months' pay, repayable over 12 years.

  The arrangements have recently been reviewed for civil servants whose bridging loans exceed the selling price of
  360
  their property as a result of changes in the housing market. In these exceptional cases, it is proposed that the maximum advance should be 12 months' pay, repayable over a maximum of 15 years.

  On the question of travel, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes).

  VAT
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds VAT was imposed on fuel and energy from 1 July 1990; and in what circumstances it is imposed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 19 July 1991]: The standard rate of value added tax was applied to fuel and power for non-domestic use from 1 July 1990. This followed a judgment of the European Court of Justice in 1988 that zero rating by the United Kingdom of fuel and power other than to final consumers was contrary to European Community law. Fuel and power for domestic use, and also for use by a charity for its non-business activities, remains zero-rated.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the dates on which he has discussed the trading position or other matters relating to BCCI with Governors of the Bank of England in the past two years.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 17 July 1991]: My right hon. Friend has discussed a number of supervisory cases, including BCCI, with the Governor of the Bank of England on a number of occasions since becoming Chancellor; but was not aware that fraud had been uncovered until 26 June.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was first informed by the banking authorities of their doubts concerning BCCI.
  361
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 July 1991]: I was informed in very general terms that fraud had been uncovered on 26 June. I was given the gist of the section 41 report on 28 June.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he, or his predecessors, have had with executives or directors of BCCI in the last five years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 July 1991]: Neither I nor any of my predecessors have, so far as I am aware, had any meetings with executives or directors of the BCCI in the last five years in an official capacity.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will establish an independent inquiry into the closure at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, including the role of the Bank of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 18 July 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last Friday, Official Report, columns 715–16, and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the major shareholders of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International were informed of the closure of the bank by the Bank of England.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 July 1991]: The main supervisory authorities concerned met the official representative of the major shareholder of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International on the morning of 5 July, and informed him then of the action they proposed to take.

  Bank of England (Authorised Institutions)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what role his officials play in drawing-up the Bank of England's list of authorised institutions under the Banking Act 1987.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 17 July 1991]: The Treasury plays no role in drawing up the list of authorised institutions.

  Pensions
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentages of national income were spent in(a) 1975, (b) 1980 and (c) 1985 and the latest available date on (i) national insurance retirement pensions, (ii) supplementary pensions/income support for the elderly, (iii) public sector occupational pensions in payment and (iv) private sector occupational pensions in payment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest estimates are given in the table; 1989 is the most recent year for which estimates are available for all the items.
  362

  As percentages of national income

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1989

  National insurance retirement pensions

  5·3

  5·9

  6·1

  5·3

  Supplementary pensions/income support for the elderly

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  Public sector occupational pensions in payment

  1·8

  2·5

  2·9

  2·8

  Private sector occupational pensions in payment, including payments under life assurance policies

  3·0

  2·8

  4·6

  5·5

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Africa
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he discussed nuclear matters during his recent visit to South Africa.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Yes. During my right hon. Friend's discussions, the recent decision by South Africa to accede to the non-proliferation treaty was raised. He made clear our warm welcome for this step.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the accession by the Government of South Africa to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We warmly welcome South Africa's recent accession to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This important step will serve to strengthen the treaty which is a pillar of our hopes for peace and security, both in southern Africa and internationally. We hope that South Africa's accession will set an example to all states which have yet to accede to the treaty.

  Iraq
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding the possession and use by Iraq of calutrons to enrich uranium.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Two inspection teams from the International Atomic Energy Agency, acting under the authority of United Nations Security Council resolution 687, visited Iraq between 15 and 21 May and 22 June and 3 July. A third inspection has just been completed.

  On 17 July the IAEA submitted to the Security Council a consolidated report No. S/22788 dated 15 July 1991 providing details of the first two inspections relating to Iraq's nuclear capabilities. A copy of this report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Information from the third inspection visit is not yet available. It will be for the IAEA to decide how it treats any findings.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on securing Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolution 687.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Security Council resolution 687 sets out Iraq's obligations in detail. We shall continue to work to secure Iraq's compliance in full with the terms of the resolution.

  Southern Afria
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with each of those Southern African front-line states which are not already members the question of their accession to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As a depository state of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—NPT—it is our policy to take every suitable opportunity both to raise the importance of nuclear non-proliferation with all non-parties to the NPT and to lobby them to accede to the NPT as soon as possible.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Soviet Government about their failure to grant an exit visa to Yefin and Lilya Rokhvarg, Faina and Ilya Rayerg and Alexander Perliy all of Leningrad and Yakov Orlov of Perm.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand that Yefin and Lilya Rokhvarg have now received permission to leave the Soviet Union. We can certainly raise with the Soviet authorities the cases of Faina and Ilya Rayerg, Alexander Perliy and Yakov Orlov, but in order to make our representations most effective we shall need further details.

  A list of those refusenik cases previously raised with us was brought to the attention of the Soviet authorities during President Gorbachev's visit last week.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those bilateral and collective agreements made by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the Baltic states before 1941; which are currently operative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A large number of bilateral treaties and agreements were signed by Her Majesty's Government and the Baltic governments before 1941. These included agreements with all three Baltic states on the extradition of fugitive criminals, on legal procedures and on commerce. Because we recognise de facto, although not de jure, the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union, none of these pre-1941 agreements is currently operative.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the United Nations the need during the current unrest in Yugoslavia to safeguard nuclear power stations from attack; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Countries that operate civil nuclear power programmes are responsible for ensuring the safety of plants. The restoration of peace in Yugoslavia would be the best guarantee of the safety of its nuclear power plants. The plan agreed between the European Community troika and Yugoslav representatives at Brioni on 8 July offers a basis upon which negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the Yugoslav crisis can restart.

  United Nations Security Council
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the special meeting of the five permanent member states of the United Nations Security Council in Paris on 8 July.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Representatives of the permanent five, as the world's leading arms exporters, met to discuss ways of promoting greater responsibility in conventional arms transfers and preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They agreed to work together to develop guidelines for restraint in arms transfers, and to set up a mechanism for continued consultation and exchange of information on these issues. They also agreed to support our proposal for a United Nations arms transfer register. This work will be taken forward at further meetings in London in the autumn.

  Syria
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's current assessment of Syria's contacts with or involvement in international terrorism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At the time of our resumption of diplomatic relations with Syria in November 1990, we received credible assurances from the Syrian Government on their attitude towards international terrorism. We have no evidence that the Syrian Government have changed their attitude.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his reasons for proposing to the Foreign Affairs Council and the European Commission that the arms embargo on Syria should be lifted.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I did not make any such proposal. What I said was that should our EC partners decide that the EC arms embargo be lifted we would not, now that our relations with Syria have been restored, raise any objection.

  Palestinians
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's support for the Palestinian people who live in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All British bilateral aid to the Palestinian people in the occupied territories is dispersed through United Kingdom non-governmental organisations under the supplementary programme to the occupied territories—SPOT. Projects currently being undertaken are:

  Grants given £

  Appropriate Health Resources and Technologies Action Group (AHRTAG)

  1. Production of health education materials

  55,887

  (1990–92)

  2. Women's development

  52,073

  (1990–93)

  Christian Aid

  365

  Grants given £

  1. Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee Fodder

  3,300

  (1991)

  Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP)

  1. Paediatric Nurses training

  42,250

  (1990–91)

  2. Upgrading skills of staff for children with learning difficulties

  15,900

  (1991)

  3. Intensive Care Nursing

  33,500

  (1991)

  Oxfam

  1. Gaza blood bank project

  78,715

  (1989–92)

  2. Water reclamation development project

  113,670

  (1989–92)

  Quaker Peace and Service

  1. Training women as health workers in village clinics

  7,197

  (1990–91)

  Save The Children Fund

  1. Physiotherapy training

  97,300

  (1988–91)

  2. Revolving loan fund for small farmers and business

  240,000

  (1990–91)

  3. Provision of kindergarten in Nablus refugee camp

  42,000

  (1991–93)

  4. Care of disabled children

  18,000

  (1991–93)

  5. Assistance to women's self-help activities

  45,000

  (1991–93)

  United Nations Association International Service (UNAIS)

  1. Women's Co-operatives development worker

  20,744

  (1988–91)

  2. Business administrative project

  20,328

  (1990–92)

  3. Seed propagation botanist

  20,328

  (1990–92)

  4. Food technology project

  20,328

  (1990–92)

  5. Development research project

  20,328

  (1990–92)

  Universities Educational Fund for Palestinian Refugees (UNIFAL)

  1. Physiotherapy training at Bethlehem University

  9,400

  (1989–92)

  Y Care International (YMCA)

  1. Rehabilitation programme for these injured by Intifada

  150,000

  (1991–93)

  There is also an ODA contribution of £6 million via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for 1991–92 and a contribution of approximately 19 mecu to the European Community's total aid to the occupied territories for 1991.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievments and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  During 1990–91, both wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continued to place a considerable part of their business with small firms. In the diplomatic wing, the value of this business over the last three years was:
  366

  £ million

  Percentage of expenditure

  1988–89

  16·3

  15·9

  1989–90

  32·8

  22·5

  1990–91

  33·9

  23·8

  The ODA uses procurement agencies to undertake purchasing and supply on behalf of recipient Governments in developing countries. Its register of agents includes several small businesses. The ODA also encourages small firms to compete for aid-financed consultancy contracts overseas.

  In the diplomatic wing, the director of purchasing provides information and guidance to purchasing departments about buying from small firms. He ensures that, whenever possible, small firms are included in invitations to tender and that they are awarded contracts if their offer is the best on a value-for-money basis.

  Diplomatic service posts overseas provide a range of export promotion services to British firms. In line with the British Overseas Trade Board's forward plan, particular emphasis is placed on supporting small and medium-sized firms in the development of their export business. Performance indicators for the use of these services do not indicate company size.

  Expo 92
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has a policy of excluding any exhibit from Gibraltar, irrespective of its merits, from Expo 92 in Seville.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No, but I would refer the hon. Member to my answers to previous questions.

  G7 Summit
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the G7 summit on conventional arms transfers and nuclear, biological and chemical proliferation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The summit declaration on conventional arms transfers and non-proliferation is aimed at encouraging greater responsibility in the international arms trade. The declaration sets out three principles governing arms sales: transparency, consultation and action. The summit strongly supported our initiative on a UN register of arms transfers. The non-proliferation section of the declaration contains a number of important steps forward, notably a commitment to give immediate consideration to imposing severe measures against any state that is shown to have used chemical or biological weapons.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conclusions drawn by the G7 summit on Iraqi aggression and the ensuing Gulf war.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The political and arms control declarations issued by the summit draw the necessary lessons from the Gulf war. The G7 agreed to maintain sanctions against Iraq until all the relevant resolutions of the Security Council have been implemented in full and the people of Iraq, as well as their neighbours, can live without
  367
  fear of intimidation, repression or attack. The summit agreed that the Iraqi people deserve the opportunity to choose their leadership openly and democratically. Preventive diplomacy to help avert future conflicts by making clear to potential aggressors the consequences of their actions will also be a top priority.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he was first informed that the Bank of England had doubts about the operation of BCCI;

  (2) when he was first informed of the allegations of fraud at BCCI.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend first heard of the doubts about the operation of BCCI arising from the report commissioned under section 41 of the Banking Act 1987 on 3 July.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations his Department had with the Governor of the Bank of England about his visit to Abu Dhabi to meet officials concerning the BCCI issue.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As is often the case when he makes an overseas trip, the Governor was in touch with the FCO before he left for Abu Dhabi.

  Sheikh of Abu Dhabi
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend had the pleasure of meeting the ruler of Abu Dhabi, who is also President of the United Arab Emirates, during his visit there on 12 and 13 January.

  China
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on co-operation with China in opposing Iraqi aggression and other regional issues.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China has played a full part in discussions at the UN on the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions and measures to ensure Iraqi compliance. We shall remain in close touch with the Chinese over the need to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations and over other topical regional issues.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  South Africa
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the South African Government on issues of land return and reform.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have often discussed land reform with the South African Government. The Land Acts of 1913 and 1936 were repealed on 27 June this year and we 368
  understand that the South African Government are consulting various parties about the consequences through their advisory commission on land allocation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he received from the Government of South Africa in his discussions with them on organised violence and on the protection of all citizens.

  Mrs. Chalker
  President de Klerk confirmed that the South African Government would shortly establish a standing judicial commission on violence. He also reaffirmed both his own determination to do all in his power to reduce the violence and his support for efforts which other parties are making to the same end.

  Palestinians
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list aid projects currently being undertaken to help Palestinian people in the occupied territories.

  Mrs. Chalker
  All British bilateral aid to the Palestinian people in the occupied territories is disbursed through United Kingdom non-governmental organisations under the supplementary programme to the occupied territories—SPOT. Projects currently being undertaken are:

  Grants given £

  Appropriate Health Resources and Technologies Action Group (AHRTAG)

  1. Production of health education materials

  55,887

  (1990–92)

  2. Women's development

  52,073

  (1990–93)

  Christian Aid

  1. Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee Fodder

  3,300

  (1991)

  Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP)

  1. Paediatric Nurses training

  42,250

  (1990–91)

  2. Upgrading skills of staff for children with learning difficulties

  15,900

  (1991)

  3. Intensive Care Nursing

  33,500

  (1991)

  Oxfam

  1. Gaza blood bank project

  78,715

  (1989–92)

  2. Water reclamation development project

  113,670

  (1989–92)

  Quaker Peace and Service

  1. Training women as health workers in village clinics

  7,197

  (1990–91)

  Save The Children Fund

  1. Physiotherapy training

  97,300

  (1988–91)

  2. Revolving loan fund for small farmers and business

  240,000

  (1990–91)

  3. Provision of kindergarten in Nablus refugee camp

  42,000

  (1991–93)

  4. Care of disabled children

  18,000

  (1991–93)

  5. Assistance to women's self-help activities

  45,000

  (1991–93)

  United Nations Association International Service (UNAIS)

  1. Women's Co-operatives development worker

  20,744

  (1988–91)

  2. Business administrative project

  20,328

  (1990–92)

  3. Seed propagation botanist

  20,328

  (1990–92)

  4. Food technology project

  20,328

  (1990·92)

  5. Development research project

  20,328

  (1990–92)

  369

  Grants given £

  Universities Educational Fund for Palestinian Refugees (UNIPAL)

  1. Physiotherapy training at Bethlehem University

  9,400

  (1989–92)

  Y Care International (YMCA)

  1. Rehabilitation programme for these injured by Intifada

  150,000

  (1991–93)

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Metric Units
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when he received the report of Lady Attlee's metric sense campaign; and what conclusions he has reached;

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that metric units are user friendly;

  (3) whether his Department has carried out any study on the comprehension of metric units.

  Mr. Leigh
  Lady Attlee first wrote to my Department about her campaign on 22 June 1987.

  The Secretary of State announced the Government's proposals for ending the use of most imperial units on 2 July. The Department is currently preparing draft legislation and there will be further consultation when this work has been completed.

  My Department has not carried out any studies on the comprehension of metric units but has received a number of studies from Lady Attlee.

  Space Activities
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funds were made available for support for space activities by Her Majesty's Government in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Leigh
  Government expenditure on support for civil space activities in the last five years has been:

  Year

  £ million

  1986–87

  116

  1987–88

  122

  1988–89

  137

  1989–90

  143

  1990–91

  148

  Medicines
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received from United Kingdom generic manufacturers(a) not in favour of any supplementary patent provision for medicinal products and (b) in support of the principle of supplementary protection but with a shorter period than that proposed by the European Commission, since 12 June.

  Mr. Leigh
  The only representation we have had from United Kingdom generic manufacturers since 12 June was when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for 370
  Industry and Technology met representatives of the European Generics Forum on 27 June. The representatives were not in favour of any supplementary patent protection for medicinal products.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the generic manufacturers who belong to the Standard Formulary Medicines Register of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, expressing support for the EC proposal on patent term restoration for medicinal products; and what proportion these manufacturers represent of generic sales to the national health service.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Standard Formulary Medicines Register of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has expressed support for the EC proposal subject to changes to make it easier for generics manufacturers to carry out development work before expiry of protection. I do not have information on the proportion of generic sales to the national health service represented by the companies on the register.

  Toy Rockets
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about his inquiries into the safety of and risks posed by large toy rockets now on sale in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  We have tested these rockets and have found them to be safe in normal use provided that the users obey the instructions and stand at a reasonable distance. The Civil Aviation Authority has advised us that the rockets are unlikely to damage aircraft coming into land, but that they could distract the pilot. We are looking into what might be done to restrict the use of such products within five miles of a major airport.

  Accountancy Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has to seek revisions to the royal charters of the accountancy bodies.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend has no express power to initiate revisions to the royal charters of the accountancy bodies. However, he will have certain powers under part II of the Companies Act 1989 relating to compliance with the criteria for recognition, international obligations and competition, the exercise of which might result in changes being sought to the royal charters of the charters recognised supervisory bodies and recognised qualifying bodies. In addition, the exercise of the Secretary of State's functions under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Companies Act 1985, in relation to insolvency practitioners and large partnerships, respectively, could prompt the chartered accountancy bodies to seek revisions to their charters.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions in the past five years BCCI failed to file its annual accounts with the authorities within the statutory time limits.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (BCCI) has established places of business
  371
  in both London and Glasgow and has registered with the registrars of companies in both England and Wales and in Scotland. At no time during the past five years has the bank failed to deliver its accounts to either registrar within the statutory time limits.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will appoint departmental inspectors under the Companies Act to investigate BCCI.

  Mr. Redwood
  There is already an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into the company and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has just announced an independent inquiry into the supervision under the Banking Acts of Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA. There would appear to be no purpose in having another inquiry under the Companies Acts which would inevitably overlap with those already in train.

  Auditing Standards
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has under which he can launch an independent investigation of the auditing standards of individual companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no power to investigate the standard of work performed by a company's auditors, although the matter may arise in the course of an investigation into the affairs of the company. However, under the Companies Act 1989, which will provide a new supervisory system for company auditors, a recognised supervisory body must have effective arrangements for the investigation of complaints against persons eligible under its rules to be appointed as company auditors, including complaints referred to it by my Department.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review proxy voting procedures under(a) the Building Societies Act and (b) bodies offered recognition as supervisory bodies under the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  Questions arising under the Building Societies Act 1986 are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No supervisory bodies have yet been recognised under the Companies Act 1989. All matters relevant to recognition of a body as a supervisory body under the Companies Act 1989 will be taken into account before recognition.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to seek Parliament's approval of the supervisory body applications made by the accountancy trade association.

  Mr. Redwood
  The use of the power in paragraph 2 of schedule II to the Companies Act 1989, to recognise supervisory bodies, is not subject to parliamentary approval.

  Non-audit Fees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date the statutory instrument relating to publication of non-audit fees will come into force.
  372
  Mr. Redwood
  I expect to make these regulations soon, but no decision has been taken on the date on which they will come into force.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the procedure and responsibility for the appointment of the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  The chairman of the Securities and Investments Board is appointed by the Secretary of State and the Governor of the Bank of England acting jointly.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about his responsibilities in respect of the operations policy and expenditure of the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  The operations, policy and expenditure of the Securities and Investments Board are the responsibility of the board. Section 117 of the Financial Services Act requires SIB to report at least once in each year to the Secretary of State on the discharge of functions transferred to it under section 114 of the Act, and requires the Secretary of State to lay copies of the reports before Parliament.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 391, what proportion of the global billing of the Property Services Agency for energy consumption was attributed to his Department in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Leigh
  I do not have this information.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies in Scotland and Strathclyde are in receivership; and if he will name them.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are 716 Scottish companies in receivership. Figures can be supplied only for Scotland as a whole and cannot be broken down into any specific region. It is not possible to supply a list of company names within the parliamentary question timescale, but the chief executive of Companies House executive agency will write direct to the hon. Gentleman, enclosing the list, as soon as possible.

  Computer Security
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to encourage greater computer security(a) in government and (b) in the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: The DTI is supporting a three-year programme, directed mainly at smaller and medium-sized enterprises, which aims to raise awareness of the importance of security in all aspects of information technology. A major purpose of the awareness programme is to stimulate business users of computer systems into examining their security requirements and to help them adopt appropriate practical solutions that meet their needs effectively.
  373
  The campaign, now in its second year, provides advice and guidance on the measures which businesses can take to combat both deliberate and accidental threats to their computer systems. A key message of the campaign is that action taken to prevent such threats is more effective than dealing with breaches of security after they have occurred.

  The DTI is also involved in promoting greater awareness of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, and of its implications for business.

  In a further initiative, launched on 1 May 1991, DTI has introduced a national scheme for the evaluation and certification of the security of IT systems and products. The purpose of the scheme is to promote an efficient and effective market in IT security, offering benefits to users and vendors alike. The scheme provides for independent security evaluation services to be made available to all sectors of industry, commerce and government. These services are backed by a certification scheme whereby evaluations performed by commercial bodies licensed as commercial licensed evaluation facilities (CLEFs), are certified as meeting the necessary standard.

  A primary objective of the scheme is to provide for international mutual recognition of evaluation certificates and by such means to make the market place an international one, with a wider choice of certified products available.

  The DTI, in consultation with other Government Departments, is now promoting co-ordination of IT security studies, and research and development activities across European Community programmes. It is thus seeking to ensure that the security needs of business within the soon to be completed internal market can be met.

  Within government, a range of security measures has been developed to protect computers and the data that they process according to an assessment of the threats they face. It is the responsibility of individual Departments to apply these measures to their own systems, taking account of interdepartmentally agreed guidance. This guidance is kept under constant review.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the number of youth training places in his Department and (b) the number of places occupied in May for each of the years 1989, 1990 and the current year.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 18 July 1991]: The information is as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Number of places

  40

  40

  24

  Places occupied in May

  9

  19

  24

PRIME MINISTER

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to stabilise the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to combat global warming.

  The Prime Minister
  The Environment White Paper (Cm. 1200) sets out the first set of measures to limit the 374
  United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions and we will publish a report in the autumn showing how our efforts are being put into practice.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to raise nuclear non-proliferation with his Chinese counterpart.

  The Prime Minister
  As a depository state of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it is our policy to take every opportunity both to raise the importance of nuclear non-proliferation with all non-parties to the NPT and to lobby them to accede to the NPT as soon as possible.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's current assessment of the capability of(a) Israel and (b) Pakistan to make a nuclear weapon.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no firm evidence either to confirm or to deny rumours that Israel may have a nuclear weapons programme. As regards Pakistan, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave him on 27 February at column 497.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent ministerial meetings have taken place with other depository powers of the non-proliferation treaty; what matters relating to the treaty were discussed; and what future meetings he proposes to hold in 1991.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government attach great importance to nuclear non-proliferation and the subject is frequently raised during bilateral ministerial meetings with the United States and the Soviet Union. However, no recent ministerial meetings specifically to discuss the NPT have taken place nor are any currently planned.

  Regular trilateral and bilateral meetings of the depository powers of the NPT take place at official level, most recently in June.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Government Ministers have visited Renfrew, West and Inverclyde on official business since 1987; and if he will list the events and the Ministers concerned.

  The Prime Minister
  The information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will institute a full review, under the direction of the head of the civil service, of the case of Mr. Colin Wallace with a view to(a) bringing to book those responsible for conspiring to pervert the due process of the Civil Service Appeal Board, (b) ensuring that those responsible for misleading Ministers so as to mislead Parliament are disciplined and (c) that safeguards are put in place to prevent a repetition of these events.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I do not accept the hon. Member's description of what occurred. Safeguards are already in place to prevent a repetition of what went wrong.

  Army Boards of Inquiry
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward legislation to require Army boards of inquiry in cases which may lead to claims for compensation(a) to provide full discovery of documents to those seeking to prove negligence, (b) to take evidence in person from all relevant witnesses and (c) to recommend ex gratia payments in special circumstances.

  The Prime Minister
  There are no plans to introduce such legislation.

  Migrant Workers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on 1 July,Official Report, column 35, when the hon. Gentleman can expect to receive a letter on migrant workers; and if he will place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  I have replied to the hon. Member today.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the sizes of the total committed and target expenditure by Her Majesty's Government for the next financial year on(a) the environment, (b) overseas aid and (c) defence.

  The Prime Minister
  Table 4.4 of the statistical supplement (Cm. 1520) sets out the latest plans for central Government expenditure on environmental services, overseas aid and defence in 1992–93. Data on local authority plans for expenditure on environmental services in 1992–93 are not available.

  EC Intervention Grain
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make it his policy to press for the grain stored by the EC to be used to combat the plight of people who currently face starvation in Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Commission is already using substantial quantities of grain drawn from intervention stocks to meet the needs of the special programme of food aid for Africa which was agreed in May. We strongly support this, when appropriate cereals are available and their use is cost-effective. Many surplus commodities held in stock, including cereals such as barley are, however, not generally suitable for use as emergency food aid.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 July, what was the actual date on which he was told of the fraud.

  The Prime Minister
  I was informed on 28 June.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 July, what action he took, with regard to BCCI, following the information given to him that there was fraud.

  The Prime Minister
  The action, following the uncovering of the widespread fraud, was for the Bank of England, using its statutory powers. The Government entirely supported the action they proposed to take.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many next steps agency chief executives have been appointed through open competition.

  Mr. Renton
  The Government's objective in appointing agency chief executives is to get the right person for the job. Open competition is now the presumption and 29 of the current chief executives have been recruited in this way.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will publish his Department's equal opportunity policy; and if he will make a statement about the way it is monitored.

  Mr. Renton
  My Department's basic equal opportunities policy statement is made available to all members of staff. The position is kept under review.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next expects to meet civil service trade union leaders to discuss methods of recruitment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I meet civil service trade union representatives from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Occupational Health Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of the occupational health service as an executive agency; and whether the cost was borne by the parent Department or the new agency.

  Mr. Renton
  This is a matter for the chief executive and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member direct.

THE ARTS

  Southern Arts
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proportion of the Arts Council grant in 1991–92 has been allocated to Southern Arts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  In 1991–92 Southern Arts received 6·3 per cent. of the total Arts Council grant to the 12 English regional arts associations.

  Arts Companies (Income)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proportion of the income of the Royal Shakespeare Company, Royal National theatre, Royal Opera house, and English National Opera is now raised by the companies themselves.

  Mr. Renton
  In 1990–91 the Royal Shakespeare Company raised 64 per cent. of its income; the Royal
  377
  National theatre 52 per cent.; the Royal Opera house 63 per cent.; and English National Opera 47 per cent. The comparable figures for 1980–81 were: Royal Shakespeare Company 62 per cent.; Royal National theatre 35 per cent.; Royal Opera house 48 per cent.; and English National Opera 30 per cent. in 1983–84, the earliest year in which comparable figures are available for that company.

  Local Authorities (Arts Spending)
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what advice he gives local authorities on their expenditure on arts and libraries.

  Mr. Renton
  The Government believe that local authorities themselves are best placed to take decisions on arts and libraries expenditure in the light of local needs, priorities and resources.

  In the case of libraries, local authorities have a duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service and as part of my oversight of their services I issue guidance on good practice.

  I also work with the regional arts associations, both directly and through the Arts Council, to promote local authority support for the arts.

  European Art Objects
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he plans any discussions with his EC counterparts on a policy towards art objects of European origin held in museums and art galleries in member states.

  Mr. Renton
  I most recently met my European Community counterparts in Luxembourg on 7 June. At that meeting the European Commission indicated that it planned to issue proposals on external frontiers arid on a possible restitution scheme for objects illegally exported after 1992. I will be attending a further meeting under the Dutch presidency in the autumn this year.

  Museums
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many museums have registered under the scheme being administered by the Museums and Galleries Commission.

  Mr. Renton
  By July 1991, 830 museums and galleries had been accepted on to the Museums and Galleries Commission's register.

WALES

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the Training Agency invested in the technical and vocational education initiative in 1990–91, and is proposing to invest in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1990–91 the amount invested by the Training Agency/Training Enterprise and Education Directorate in the training and vocational education initiative was £9,104,301. In 1991–92 and 1992–93 planned investment by TEED in TVEI is £9,319,197 and £8,350,865 respectively. Provision in each year is determined by the patterns of expenditure proposed by local education authorities.

  Casualty Animals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the threat to human, animal and environmental health from the improper disposal of the carcases of casualty animals; and if he proposes to take any further action to require the proper disposal of such animals.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The improper disposal of animal carcases is both illegal and environmentally unacceptable. The state veterinary service monitors the disposal of such carcases, and liaises with local authorities on the enforcement of the relevant legislative controls.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce measures to prohibit the use of unprocessed or uncooked casualty farm animals as animal feed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Existing controls are already adequate. Under the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989 and the Diseases of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973 (as amended) material derived from animals must be processed or rendered microbiologically safe before it can be included in feeding stuffs for livestock or poultry.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the threat to animal health from tape worm infection from parasites spread by hunting dogs fed on uncooked sheep carcases.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No specific assessment has been made. Observations by the veterinary investigation service indicate that infestations regularly occur among farm livestock in Wales, but these infestations will have been derived from farm and other dogs as well as hunting dogs.

  Colliery Buildings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will request Cadw to evaluate the heritage value of the Penallta pithead baths and other colliery buildings.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The inspectorate of historic buildings has visited those of British Coal's working, deep mines in South Wales where buildings of possible interest have been identified. My right hon. Friend will be considering whether statutory protection should be extended to any structure in the light of their advice, and consultations with local authorities and British Coal. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when a decision is made and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to place interim protection orders on historic colliery buildings to prevent their demolition before Cadw has completed an evaluation of their heritage value.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on my right hon. Friend to list buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The Act requires that certain consultations are undertaken before my right hon. Friend decides to list a structure. The same legislation enables a local planning authority to serve a building preservation notice, which lasts six months, where it appears that a structure of special interest is in danger of demolition.

  Fox Control
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce a registration scheme to regulate the activities of those fox control societies currently operating in Wales and which are not registered with the Masters of Fox Hounds Association.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no plans to do so.

  Tegryn Hunt
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake an inquiry into the activities of the Tegryn hunt in relation to animal health.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Monthly visits are being undertaken to all known hunt kennels and knackers by state veterinary service staff.

  Child Runaways
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest estimates for the number of children who have run away from(a) private households and (b) local authority care in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of children who have run away from private households is not held centrally.

  There were eight children in local authority care who had absconded for more than one week from local authority residential accommodation in Wales on 31 March 1990.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each health authority in Wales the number, and percentage, of children registered with a dental practitioner.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information, which relates to children under the age of 18 registered at the end of June 1991 in each FHSA area, is given in the following table.

  FHSA

  Number of children registered

  Percentage of relevant population1

  Clwyd

  43,361

  46

  Dyfed

  34,807

  45

  Gwent

  46,022

  44

  Gwynedd

  22,986

  43

  Mid Glamorgan

  51,782

  40

  Powys

  10,676

  42

  South Glamorgan

  46,847

  49

  West Glamorgan

  43,174

  53

  1 1989 mid-June estimated population figures used.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the population per dentist in(a) 1979 and (b) for the latest available date for each health authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information, by FHSA area, is given in the following table:

  Population per dentist as at 1 October

  FHSA

  1979

  1990

  Clwyd

  5,501

  3,704

  Dyfed

  4,719

  3,598

  Gwent

  4,738

  3,574

  380

  FHSA

  1979

  1990

  Gwynedd

  4,270

  3,490

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,485

  4,016

  Powys

  5,637

  3,435

  South Glamorgan

  3,756

  3,085

  West Glamorgan

  3,426

  2,688

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to increase the capitation rates paid to dental practitioners for the treatment of children.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  All dental fees, including capitation rates, are recommended to the Secretaries of State by the independent Dental Rates Studies Group. All are kept under review.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of school children in Wales inspected by the community dental service in the latest available year and for previous years for which data are available.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is given in the following table:

  Percentage of school children1 inspected by Community Dental Service

  Year

  Number

  1971

  58

  1972

  56

  1973

  66

  1974

  54

  1975

  59

  1976

  47

  1977

  55

  1978

  59

  1979

  57

  1980

  65

  1981

  70

  1982

  68

  1983

  72

  1984

  71

  1985

  72

  1986–87

  72

  1987–88

  71

  1988–89

  64

  1989–90

  61

  1 School children aged over 5 in maintained schools.

  Housing Renovation Grants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many extra staff have been employed by all district and city councils in Wales as a direct result of the implementation of the new housing renovation grant regime in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of children in care in Wales in 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There were 4,387, 3,752, 3,481 and 3,263 children in local authority care at 31 March 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1989 respectively.

  Oral Cancer
  Mr. Gareth Wardel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report for each health authority in Wales for each of the last 10 years the

  Number of deaths from malignant neoplasm of lip, oral cavity and pharynx (ICD 140–149)

  DHA

  Age

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Clwyd

  All ages

  22

  8

  14

  16

  11

  18

  18

  14

  13

  14

  65 and over

  16

  5

  12

  10

  6

  12

  13

  11

  11

  6

  East Dyfed

  All ages

  13

  10

  7

  7

  12

  15

  7

  15

  10

  8

  65 and over

  9

  7

  4

  3

  7

  10

  5

  11

  6

  8

  Pembrokeshire

  All ages

  7

  4

  2

  0

  2

  3

  3

  6

  3

  6

  65 and over

  4

  3

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  5

  2

  4

  Gwent

  All ages

  16

  12

  12

  15

  15

  12

  17

  10

  12

  18

  65 and over

  10

  10

  7

  11

  10

  4

  10

  5

  8

  12

  Gwynedd

  All ages

  6

  15

  7

  9

  6

  7

  9

  4

  12

  14

  65 and over

  5

  9

  3

  9

  3

  3

  8

  2

  10

  9

  Mid Glamorgan

  All ages

  18

  14

  21

  23

  12

  25

  21

  25

  21

  18

  65 and over

  14

  11

  14

  14

  8

  15

  16

  16

  14

  11

  Powys

  All ages

  7

  3

  3

  2

  4

  8

  2

  4

  4

  7

  65 and over

  3

  2

  0

  1

  2

  5

  1

  3

  3

  4

  South Glamorgan

  All ages

  18

  21

  11

  17

  16

  10

  13

  12

  16

  8

  65 and over

  11

  11

  6

  12

  8

  8

  7

  6

  10

  5

  West Glamorgan

  All ages

  13

  15

  9

  10

  22

  13

  16

  11

  14

  13

  65 and over

  7

  8

  6

  7

  11

  9

  8

  7

  9

  8

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  Support for local enterprise agencies

  There are currently 22 local enterprise agencies in Wales. Two organisations were approved as local enterprise agencies by me in the year to June 1991, while another two are being considered for approval. In order to strengthen the network of agencies to improve the enhance services to small businesses two mergers have also occurred.

  Training and enterprise councils

  TECs took over responsibility from the WDA for delivering the small firms counselling services from 1 April 1991. TECs are building in local employer-led flexibilities and have integrated these into their other enterprise programmes. All TECs in Wales are now operational.

  Regional selective assistance, regional enterprise grant

  Small businesses continue to take advantage of the help available under regional selective assistance. In the year to the end of June 1991, 167 small firms, employing up to 200 people, accepted offers of RSA; an increase of 15 per cent. on 1990. The value of these offers in 1991 amounted to £20·5 million, nearly 80 per cent. higher than in 1990. A further 188 small firms, employing fewer than 25 people, accepted offers of regional enterprise grant totalling £1·73 million. This compares with 289 small firms accepting offers of £2·52 million in the previous 12 months.

  Enterprise Wales
  382
  number of deaths from cancer of the lips, the oral cavity and the pharynx, separately, distinguishing (a) all ages and (b) persons over 65 years of age.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Launched in January 1988, the consultancy initiatives have proved extremely popular in Wales. More than 4,240 companies have applied. In 1990–91 alone 1,440 applications were received, 18 per cent. above the economic weight, and 1,384 business reviews were commissioned, 16 per cent. above the economic weight.

  Small firms merit award for research and technology (smart)

  Last year 16 awards, worth up to £37,500 each, were made to Welsh companies compared with 14 awards during the previous year. Seven stage 2 awards (worth up to £50,000 each) were made compared with nine during the previous 12 months.

  In both years Welsh companies received approximately 9 per cent. of the total number of stage 1 awards nationwide. Stage 2 awards are normally restricted by the rules of the competition to 50 per cent. of those companies receiving a stage 1 award during the previous year. On a per capita basis Wales does better than most other regions in this annual competition.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the annual budget and number of non-manual staff of each of the district general hospitals in Wales for the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The budget for each district general hospital is a matter for the health authority concerned. The available information concerning non-manual staff, which relates to staff in pay units associated with district general hospitals is given in the following table. Medical and dental staff in post figures are not available below DHA level.
  383

  Staff in post (numbers) as at 30 September1

  District general hospital

  1989

  1990

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  838

  905

  Ysbyty Maelor

  1,566

  1,575

  Bronglais General

  472

  495

  West Wales General

  840

  894

  Royal Gwent

  1,553

  1,579

  St. Woolos

  702

  722

  Nevill Hall

  934

  946

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  911

  914

  Princess of Wales-Bridgend General

  1,051

  1,035

  East Glamorgan General

  930

  974

  Prince Charles

  704

  726

  Withybush

  842

  860

  University Hospital of Wales-Dental Hospital

  2,102

  2,156

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  967

  952

  Llandough

  749

  825

  Singleton

  794

  822

  Morriston

  1,648

  1,716

  Neath General

  723

  763

  1 Includes supervisory ancillary and maintenance staff, nursing and midwifery staff (excluding learners), administrative and clerical staff and professional and technical staff.

  Note: Not all staff will work wholly at the hospitals with which they are included and staff in other units may work part of their time at the hospitals listed.

  Public Opinion Polls
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 20 December,Official Report, columns 264–65.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: The information, which includes surveys carried out by the Department's non-departmental public bodies, is as follows:
  384

  Patient satisfaction survey of East Glamorgan Hospital Out-patient Department.

  On-going satisfaction surveys of the All Wales Treatment Centres.

  Creative development testing—drug misuse 1991.

  United Kingdom Tourism Survey. Joint Wales Tourism Board/Scottish Tourist Board/Northern Ireland Tourist Board/Commercial subscribers. Continuous survey.

  Demand monitoring survey. Wales Tourist Board. Continuous survey.

  Use of leaflets by general public (HPAW).

  Evaluation of "Quit and Win" Campaign (HPAQ).

  Evaluation of Mid Wales Development Grant Scheme (DBRW).

  Agriculture and Business Training Needs Survey (DBRW).

  Rural Lifestyle in Wales (DBRW/WDA/Welsh Office).

  Notes: HPAW—Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  DBRW—Development Board for Rural Wales.

  WDA—Welsh Development Agency.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Nursery Provision
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made regarding establishment of a nursery for the children of hon. Members' staff.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 17 July 1991]: Following decisions taken by the Services Committee on 13 February and by the House of Commons Commission, the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Parliamentary Works Secretariat have been asked to see if suitable accommodation can be found for a child care facility. Further consideration of this issue and any subsequent action will depend upon the advice received.

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what planning policy guidance notes are currently being drafted; how many such guidance notes it is intended to issue; and on what subjects he intends to issue planning policy guidance;

  (2) what consultation there has been with organisations representing the interests of disabled people on the drafting of planning policy guidance notes;

  (3) if he will ensure that the Access Committee for England, the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and other such organisations are consulted before the contents of planning policy guidance notes are finalised;

  (4) if he will consult the Access Committee for England, the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and other such organisations before finally determining the contents of planning policy guidance note No. 1 (PPG1).

  Mr. Yeo
  Most of the existing planning policy guidance notes were issued in 1988 and 1989. Since then there have been significant policy developments including changes in planning legislation. The following PPGs are being reviewed in the light of these changes.

  PPG1: General policy and principles

  PPG3: Land for housing

  PPG4: Industrial and commercial development and small firms

  PPG5: Simplified Planning Zones

  PPG7: Rural enterprise and development

  PPG8: Telecommunications

  PPGI2: Local plans

  PPG15: Regional Planning Guidance, Structure Plans and the content of Development Plans

  We have also said that we would consult on the question of defining new objectives for the green belts, on which advice is contained in PPG2.

  New planning policy guidance is being prepared on sport and recreation; nature conservation; planning, pollution control and waste management; tourism; listed buildings and conservation areas; advertisement control; enforcement; renewable sources of energy; travelling showpeople; noise; and coastal policy.

  The Disabled Living Foundation and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation are consulted during the preparation of all PPG notes. The Access Committee for England and the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People will be consulted on future guidance notes, including the revised PPG1. It is open to any organisation representing the interests of disabled people to make their views about planning policy matters known at any time.

  Energy-efficient Lighting
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage local councils to follow the lead of the Houses of Parliament in introducing energy-efficient lighting to cut costs and save energy; and whether he will assist them with such schemes.

  Mr. Baldry
  Earlier this year I hosted a series of seminars, organised jointly by the Department of the 386
  Environment and the Energy Efficiency Office, to encourage local authorities to take up the opportunities for energy efficiency improvements, including the use of low energy lighting, in order to cut their costs and help to limit United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions. Under the revised capital finance arrangements authorities can recycle revenue savings from such investment back into their capital programmes. We are discussing with the local authority associations ways of overcoming any barriers to the take-up of such cost-saving investment.

  We have made resources available for energy efficiency investment in local authority housing under the "Green House Demonstration Programme". In April we announced supplementary credit approvals for 70 schemes. A number of these include the installation of energy-efficient lighting. A further £50 million will be available under this programme next year.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 25 local authorities with the largest additional charge on the community charge bills, indicating the sums involved; and if he will make a statement on the action he intends to take.

  Mr. Key
  The list is based on the estimates of "other adjustments" provided to the Department by the majority of local authorities. The figures may differ slightly from the amounts actually shown on community charge bills. They take account of, among other things, the standard charge income an authority expects to receive, interest charges on the collection fund, an authority's estimate of uncollected community charges and population changes.

  Authority

  £

  Lambeth

  158

  Islington

  137

  Southwark

  84

  Hackney

  83

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  73

  Liverpool

  70

  Brent

  70

  Oxford

  68

  Newham

  65

  Tower Hamlets

  63

  Haringey

  62

  Sandwell

  61

  Greenwich

  59

  Reading

  59

  Camden

  58

  Kirklees

  52

  Plymouth

  52

  Bristol

  51

  Southampton

  51

  Lewisham

  51

  Waltham Forest

  50

  Preston

  49

  Manchester

  49

  Leicester

  49

  Cambridge

  46

  Wirral

  46

  We fully understand the concern expressed by law-abiding charge payers about the inclusion of amounts for non-collection. There can be no excuse for non-payment and there will be no amnesty for non-payers. It is, however, essential that authorities make proper provision for non-collection, as they did for non-collection

  387
  of the rates. I must stress that all charge payers are under a legal duty to pay the whole community charge including this element.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report, population figures for each standard region in England and Wales for the years 1981–82 to 1991–92, on the same basis as was used to calculate per capita standard spending assessments in his written answer of 29 April, Official Report, column 10.

  A table showing population figures on the same basis as those used to calculate per capita standard spending assessments

  OPCS mid-year estimates

  Local authority

  1981–82 Resident population

  1982–83 Resident population

  1983–84 Resident population

  1984–85 Resident population

  1985–86 Resident population

  1986–87 Resident population

  1987–88 Resident population

  1988–89 Resident population

  1989–90 Resident population

  1990–91 Resident population

  1991–92 Resident population

  Regional summary

  Northern region

  3,130,300

  3,128,300

  3,117,600

  3,107,400

  3,100,100

  3,093,100

  3,085,700

  3,080,242

  3,076,779

  3,071,318

  3,073,112

  North West

  6,498,400

  6,447,300

  6,459,500

  6,431,000

  6,410,100

  6,395,500

  6,386,300

  6,374,334

  6,370,079

  6,364,162

  6,379,723

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,921,000

  4,922,700

  4,918,400

  4,909,900

  4,908,500

  4,904,300

  4,902,600

  4,899,285

  4,900,232

  4,913,298

  4,940,355

  East Midlands

  3,818,300

  3,838,300

  3,852,700

  3,851,700

  3,859,800

  3,874,300

  3,896,900

  3,919,918

  3,942,254

  3,970,599

  3,999,063

  West Midlands

  5,179,200

  5,185,000

  5,186,200

  5,179,900

  5,176,300

  5,176,000

  5,183,000

  5,181,243

  5,197,687

  5,207,000

  5,215,960

  East Anglia

  1,864,100

  1,881,800

  1,894,700

  1,911,400

  1,925,200

  1,939,600

  1,964,700

  1,991,600

  2,013,680

  2,034,639

  2,044,577

  South West

  4,334,900

  4,361,100

  4,381,273

  4,397,599

  4,424,061

  4,461,279

  4,500,780

  4,543,254

  4,588,374

  4,634,235

  4,652,426

  South East

  10,064,300

  10,142,100

  10,204,700

  10,239,400

  10,294,500

  10,356,400

  10,424,300

  10,489,393

  10,547,132

  10,605,020

  10,627,779

  Greater London

  6,887,600

  6,850,600

  6,805,703

  6,766,432

  6,754,433

  6,756,038

  6,767,421

  6,775,190

  6,770,435

  6,736,007

  6,756,400

  TOTAL ENGLAND

  46,698,100

  46,787,200

  46,820,776

  46,794,731

  46,852,994

  46,956,517

  47,111,701

  47,254,459

  47,406,652

  47,536,278

  47,689,395

  Water Supply
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the United Kingdom water supply originates in Wales.

  Mr. Baldry
  Such information as is available is published in the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" (No. 13, 1990), the "Environmental Digest for Wales" (No. 5, 1990) and in the prospectus "The Water Share Offers" (November 1989), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Institute of Directors about the uniform business rate in response to his consultation document on "A New Tax for Local Government"; what was the response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We are currently studying representations received in response to the recent consultation paper including that from the Institute of Directors. We will report on the outcome shortly.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are(a) the revenue support grant, (b) the community charge income and (c) uniform business rate income for 1990–91 in Tower Hamlets.

  Mr. Key
  In 1990–91 Tower Hamlets received £133·4 million in revenue support grant and £33 million in
  388
  Mr. Portillo
  [pursuant to his answer, 10 July 1991, Official Report, column 380]: The information requested is shown in the table. There is a lag of nearly two years before the mid-year population estimate is available for inclusion in standard spending assessments. The year shown at the head of columns refers to the year of the calculated standard spending assessment.

  receipts from the non-domestic rate pool. The authority has reported that community charge receipts in respect of 1990–91 will be £31 million. In addition, the authority received £19 million from the safety net adjustment and £9·1 million in inner London education grant.

  City Action Teams
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what finance Her Majesty's Government are making available to action team inner city economic and environmental initiatives.

  Mr. Key
  The eight city action teams co-ordinate the Government's programmes for the inner cities within their areas. We have provided £8·1 million this year for their special budgets, to promote employment, training, enterprise and environmental initiatives.

  EC Environmental Proposals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to estimate the future cost to British business of each of the European Commission's environmental proposals currently under consideration.

  Mr. Baldry
  The costs to British business of implementing EC legislation are always a major factor in our consideration of new proposals by the European Commission. They are covered in the explanatory memoranda which this Department submits to Parliament on each new Commission proposal.

  Imported Birds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the results of his visits to the veterinary investigation centre at Reading to consider welfare problems of imported birds.

  Mr. Baldry
  I visited the centre on 10 June. The visit was useful and informative, and will assist us in considering how best to deal with the problem of high mortalities in imported wild birds. The conservation implications of such mortalities will be one of the issues covered in the study of the wildlife trade by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which I announced in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) on 9 May 1991,Official Report, columns. 550–51. Primary responsibility for the welfare of wild birds in transit and quarantine rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  PCBs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many companies have been permitted to derogate from EC directives with relation to the discharge of polychlorinated biphenyls; what consideration was given to their likely environmental impact when granting such derogations; and what time limit he has set for the companies to comply with the directives.

  Mr. Baldry
  No derogations from the requirements of EC directives in relation to the discharge of polychlorinated biphenyls have been authorised.

  Home Repossessions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of homes vacant following repossession by mortgage lenders; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that they are brought back into use.

  Mr. Yeo
  Figures are not available in the form requested.

  The latest figures from the Council of Mortgage Lenders show that during 1990 only one in 200 borrowers faced repossession. Mortgage lenders have said that they will take steps to repossess only when all other options have been exhausted.

  The Government share the hon. Member's concern that such property is brought into use promptly and we have encouraged lenders to consider a range of measures to bring this about.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many of the responses he received to his consultation paper "A New Tax for Local Government"(a) supported and (b) opposed his proposals for council tax banding; and if he will publish a list showing which organisations were in each category;

  (2) if he will publish a list of the organisations which submitted a response to his consultation document "A New Tax for Local Government";

  (3) how many of the responses he received to his consultation document "A New Tax for Local
  390
  Government" supported the immediate abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum poll tax contribution rule; and if he will publish a list of the organisations and individuals who supported that view.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are currently studying representations received in response to the recent consultation paper. We will report on the outcome shortly.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of the organisations which called for the return of the setting of the business rate to local authority control in responding to his consultation document, "A New Tax for Local Government".

  Mr. Portillo
  We will place a list of those who have responded in the Library in due course.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the results of his consultation exercise on his council tax proposals before the House adjourns for the summer recess.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are currently studying representations received in response to the recent consultation paper. We will report on the outcome shortly.

  Mortgage Rescue Schemes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities and housing associations are operating mortgage rescue schemes; how many of them involve shared ownership; how many households these schemes have assisted; and what specific financial resources his Department has made available for these schemes.

  Mr. Yeo
  Figures are not available in the form requested.

  Help with interest payments is available through income support to some mortgage borrowers, and all borrowers will have been helped by the 4 per cent. reduction in base rates over the past 10 months. In addition, there are several ways in which mortgage lenders can help borrowers who approach them early.

  Local authorities may assist housing associations to buy the homes of borrowers in difficulty for them to occupy on shared ownership terms.

  "Institutions and Sustainable Development"
  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the recent report, "Institutions and Sustainable Development", by John Gordon and Caroline Frazer of the Global Environmental Research Centre at Imperial college, London.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department is providing funding through UNEP-UK for a series of non-governmental meetings and seminars in preparation for the 1992 UN conference on environment and development. This report is a contribution to discussion of institutional change. When it is printed it will, in the normal way, be available in the departmental library.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what subsidy will be made available to housing associations to manage privately owned empty
  391
  homes; what the average annual cost per home managed will be; and how many privately owned empty homes he estimates will be brought into use by this means in the current financial year.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are studying bids from a number of housing associations for grants to set up pilot projects. Grants will support general operating costs and will not be related to individual units of accommodation. Targets will be agreed with the successful bidders.

  Selby Bypass
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received the report from the inspector appointed to carry out the public inquiry into the proposed Selby bypass; and when he expects to be able to make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The inspector's report has not yet been received. It will be jointly considered by the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment, and a statement will follow some time later in the form of a decision on whether to proceed with the proposed Selby bypass.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make further proposals for the implementation of the duty of care under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department, jointly with the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, has today issued for public consultation a draft circular, a consultation paper and draft regulations under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—the duty of care.

  No longer will anyone be able to wash their hands of waste disposal problems. They will be able to hand waste only to responsible persons and they will have to keep the records to prove it. The duty will not only help to drive out illegal disposal and fly-tipping but will deter those whose carelessness supplies the source material for the criminals.

  I announced on 25 June the Government's timetable for the implementation of the waste provisions of the 1990 Act. Under that timetable it is intended that the duty of care will be fully in force by April 1992. The papers issued today complete the necessary public consultation on the implementation of the duty.

  The draft circular offers advice, mainly directed to local authorities, on the operation of the duty of care. This complements the advice for producers and holders of waste in the code of practice. Drafts of the code of practice were the subject of separate consultation in England and Wales and in Scotland in 1990.

  The draft regulations issued today provide for a mandatory system of signed transfer notes, for records to be kept of all transfers of controlled waste and for the records to be available to waste regulation authorities. This will create an audit trail of waste movements. It will greatly help authorities to trace criminal waste disposal.

  The duty of care, combined with the registration of waste carriers, is a radical step to improve the disposal of waste in this country. Everyone involved with waste will share a legal responsibility for ensuring it is safely and legally dealt with.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the guidelines issued to local authorities regarding their direct labour organisations tendering for local authority work for a different local council.

  Mr. Key
  There are no such guidelines. However, while the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts, Ministers have made it clear that they agree with the counsel's opinion obtained by the Audit Commission, to the effect that neither the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 nor the Local Government Act 1988 provides a general warrant for DSOs to undertake work for other authorities on a free-for-all basis.

  Fish Farms
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will publish their consultation paper on planning controls over fish farms.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have today published a consultation paper on permitted development rights for freshwater fish farming in England and Wales. The paper seeks views on proposals intended to align planning controls over fish farming as closely as possible with those over other forms of agriculture, building on measures in the Planning and Compensation Bill.

  On 11 June my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced that full development control would be extended to all agriculture holdings of less than 5 hectares, and to parcels of land of less than 1 hectare on larger holdings [Official Report, columns 482–85.]. We propose similar provisions for fish farms.

  The Planning and Compensation Bill will bring floating fish tanks (cages) in inland waters fully within planning control. Outside the national parks, we propose that these structures should be subject to the prior notification scheme which was announced on 11 June for other agricultural buildings. We have already announced that in the national parks they will be subject to full planning control, along with fish farm excavations and engineering operations.

  The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring environmental assessment of any class of development. We propose to use this new provision to require EA for trout farming which is likely to have significant environmental effects. Salmon farming is already subject to EA where it is likely to have such effects.

  Water Infrastructure Charges
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on problems relating to water infrastructure charges for developers since the meeting in July 1990 between the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), and representatives of the House Builders Federation, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton; and when the Director General of Water Services will complete his inquiry into this issue.

  Mr. Baldry
  Following the meeting to which my hon. Friend refers, the Minister for the Environment and
  393
  Countryside wrote to him in January. As explained in that letter, the operation and level of infrastructure charges are matters for the Director General of Water Services, who is reviewing the position of infrastructure charges in relation to charges generally, in the context of responses to his consultation paper "Paying for Water—A Time for Decisions". I understand that the director general is considering responses to his consultation paper at the moment.

  Urban Transport Schemes
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list projects under development or consideration by the Commission for New Towns and urban development corporations which involve subsidies to transport schemes; and what are the values of such subsidies.

  Mr. Key
  Listed are schemes in progress or proposed which provide revenue assistance for public transport:

  New Towns

  CNT—no schemes notified.

  Milton Keynes DC—£110,000 subsidy to Bucks county council to support the local bus network in 1991–92.

  Urban Development Corporations

  Black Country DC—£75,000 grant approved for Centro to run three specially adapted vehicles for people with mobility problems. This has been approved for 1991–92 but may be extended.

  London Docklands DC—subsidy for DI bus route, amounting to £50,000 for the period April to September 1991. Trafford Park DC—£36,000 subsidy as 50 per cent. contribution from August 1989 to August 1991 for a minibus service to enhance off-peak public transport for shift workers. The remaining 50 per cent. subsidy has been met by the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive.

  Trees
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the health of trees in(a) urban areas and (b) countryside areas.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1989 the Forestry Commission, with funding from the Department, carried out a survey of 3,600 urban trees in 30 towns and cities throughout England. A total of 80 per cent. of the trees were judged to be in good condition, visually improving the urban landscape.

  Evidence that the atmosphere in British towns and cities is now more conducive to healthy tree growth is the much greater range of tree species successfully cultivated in urban areas.

  A detailed survey carried out by the Forestry Commission shows that there has been no overall deterioration in the health of trees in the countryside. During the period 1989–90 the main tree species in Britain either improved or remained the same.

  Current scientific evidence suggests that the status of tree health in Britain is mainly influenced by the climate, insect pests and diseases, rather than pollution. Trees have been affected by the storms in 1987 and 1990, the recent mild winters and late frosts, dry summers, and pest numbers which have increased. We are also aware of the considerable damage that has been caused to both urban and countryside trees by the use of salt for keeping roads free from ice during the winter months of 1990–91.

  Research on the health of trees is continuing on a number of fronts; for example, new light will be shed on
  394
  the state of urban trees by the Department's forthcoming research project "Trees in Towns", and the United Kingdom Terrestrial Effects Review Group report on "Air Pollution and Trees in the United Kingdom".

  Inner City Programme
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify the full range of grants currently available under his inner city programme with a brief technical description of each.

  Mr. Portillo
  [pursuant to his answer, 24 June 1991, Official Report, column 392]: Very important support is provided for the inner cities through the main programmes of the Home Office and the Departments of Trade and Industry, Employment, Education and Science, Transport, Health and Social Security and through support to local authorities and the Housing Corporation by this Department including the estate action programme.

  My Department promotes inner city regeneration through a variety of programmes and initiatives, including the following grant measures.

  City challenge is a new initiative under which local authorities are invited to draw up comprehensive plans in partnership with the private sector, voluntary organisations and local people, to bid for resources for the regeneration of key parts of their areas within a five-year period. Fifteen authorities have been invited to compete for a share in over £350 million from Department of the Environment programmes during the five years 1992–93 to 1996–97.

  Urban Development Corporations

  Grant aid is provided for the 10 urban development corporations in England. Some £470 million will be available in 1991–92 to purchase and reclaim land, provide infrastructure, encourage development and improve the environment.

  Urban Programme

  Fifty-seven urban programme authorities in England receive 75 per cent. grant towards a wide range of projects with an emphasis on economic and environmental improvements as the key to self-sustaining regeneration in targeted inner city areas. In 1991–92, £268 million is available to support almost 9,000 projects.

  City Grant

  City grant is provided to support private sector capital projects which benefit run down urban areas and which cannot proceed without grant. Over £56 million has been committed to the city grant programme for 1991–92 and will be available for industrial, commercial, housing and leisure projects.

  Land Grant

  Derelict land grant is available throughout England to local authorities, other public bodies, voluntary organisations, private firms and individuals to promote the reclamation of land which has been so damaged by industrial or other development that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment. The derelict land grant programme for 1991–92 totals £88 million of which about

  395
  £81·5 million is expected to be spent on local authority reclamation schemes. About 40 per cent. of the programme will be devoted to schemes in the inner cities.

  City Action Teams

  There are eight city action teams operating in Birmingham, Cleveland, Leeds/Bradford, Liverpool, London, Tyne and Wear, Nottingham/Leicester/Derby and Manchester/Salford. The CATs are an important mechanism for co-ordinating and targeting Government programmes and harnessing the support of business and industry. Each CAT has a small budget, a total of £8·1 million in 1991–92, with which to prime action targeted on inner city problems of unemployment, environmental improvement and the need to promote enterprise.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, as per the requirement set out in the TEC operating agreement, the number of youth training starts and the number of youth training trainees in training at the end of the four-weekly period as set out in the schedule of management information(a) for the most recent period for which information is available and (b) for each TEC.

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

  Youth training

  Entrants and in training by TEC—all figures provisional estimates

  TEC

  Entrants

  In training

  1 to 26 April 1991

  26 April 1991

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  250

  2,100

  Central and South Cambridgeshire

  20

  900

  North Derbyshire

  80

  1,900

  South Derbyshire

  110

  3,200

  Leicestershire

  430

  5,800

  Lincolnshire

  250

  3,900

  Norfolk and Waveney

  *

  *

  Northamptonshire

  80

  2,600

  Greater Nottingham

  180

  4,100

  North Nottinghamshire

  180

  2,700

  Greater Peterborough

  90

  1,900

  Suffolk

  40

  2,300

  Northern

  County Durham

  330

  5,100

  Northumberland

  130

  2,300

  Teesside

  270

  4,800

  Tyneside

  410

  6,400

  Wearside

  290

  2,800

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  *

  *

  Bradford and District

  50

  2,900

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  210

  3,400

  Humberside

  400

  6,900

  Leeds

  250

  3,400

  Rotherham

  130

  1,600

  Sheffield

  *

  *

  Wakefield

  260

  1,900

  North Yorkshire

  90

  2,600

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  310

  2,700

  South and East Cheshire

  *

  *

  Cumbria

  80

  2,900

  396

  TEC

  Entrants

  In training

  1 to 26 April 1991

  26 April 1991

  ELTEC (East Lancashire)

  130

  3,600

  LAWTEC (Lancashire Area West)

  270

  5,500

  Manchester

  *

  *

  Oldham

  70

  2,100

  Rochdale

  150

  1,500

  St. Helens (Qualitec)

  70

  1,900

  Stockport/High Peak

  60

  1,700

  Wigan

  90

  2,100

  CEWTEC (Chester, Ellesmere Port and Wirral)

  180

  3,400

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  *

  *

  CENTEC (Central England)

  *

  *

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  *

  *

  Dudley

  130

  1,900

  HAWTEC (Hereford/ Worcestershire)

  50

  2,000

  Sandwell

  130

  1,700

  Shropshire

  170

  3,100

  Staffordshire

  500

  10,200

  Walsall

  50

  1,400

  Wolverhampton

  70

  1,900

  Wales

  Mid Glamorgan

  400

  3,400

  South Glamorgan

  160

  1,700

  Gwent

  300

  3,500

  Powys

  20

  600

  North East Wales

  20

  1,900

  North West Wales

  90

  2,700

  West Wales

  1,000

  5,100

  South West

  Avon

  170

  4,900

  Devon/Cornwall

  140

  7,900

  Dorset

  70

  2,700

  Gloucestershire

  180

  2,600

  Somerset

  70

  2,900

  Wiltshire

  90

  2,700

  South East

  Essex

  120

  4,800

  Hampshire

  1,300

  6,556

  Heart of England

  140

  1,800

  Hertfordshire

  60

  2,600

  Isle of Wight

  20

  700

  Kent

  170

  5,500

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks

  90

  1,300

  Surrey

  40

  1,700

  Sussex

  600

  4,500

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  360

  3,800

  London

  AZTEC (Kingston/Merton/ Wandsworth

  70

  1,300

  London East

  340

  3,800

  SOLOTEC (South London)

  130

  2,700

  Note: This information is compiled from management information returns from the TECs. An asterisk indicates that complete information is not available.

  Career Services
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of vacancies for employment currently held by each local authority career service on the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jackson
  The total number of vacancies held at careers offices in the United Kingdom in June 1991 was 11,500. A geographical breakdown of this figure is shown
  397
  in the Employment Department's press notice "Labour Market Statistics" released on 18 July. A copy is held in the Library.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each of the local authority or careers office areas in England and Wales which form part of the management information obtained by the careers office network of his Department(a) the number of young people who left school in summer 1990 and who have not been offered or received a youth training—YT—place, (b) the number expected to leave school in summer 1991 who would likely be eligible for YT and (c) the number of young people who are eligible for YT but who are awaiting a place.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for participants in youth training.

  Mr. Jackson
  At 26 April 1991, the latest date for which information is available, it is provisionally estimated that there were about 260,000 young people in youth training in England and Wales.

  Minimum Wage
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals the EC Commission has for the introduction of a statutory minimum wage in each member state; and whether such proposals would be submitted on the basis of majority voting.

  Mr. Forth
  The European Commission has made no such proposals.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each of the standard regions, Scotland and Wales, the numbers of(a) 18 to 19-year-old unemployed including males, females and total for April 1991, (b) the percentage rate by age and (c) the age group as a percentage of the total number of unemployed within the regions, (d) 20 to 24-year-old unemployed, including males, females and total for April 1991, and the percentage rate by age and (e) the age group as a percentage of the total number of unemployed within the region.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information, relating to numbers of unemployed claimants by age and standard region, can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Unemployment rates by age are only available at national level.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to the reply of 28 June,Official Report, column 577, if he will set out the exact rates of enterprise allowance paid to unemployed people in receipt of unemployment benefit or income support fixed by each TEC from 1 April.
  398
  Mr. Forth
  TECs may pay regular amounts of between £20 and £90 weekly for between 26 and 66 weeks. The rates paid vary between TECs and between individual entrants to the scheme. It is therefore not possible to provide information in the form required, except at disproportionate cost.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of applicants for unemployment benefit were disqualified for the maximum 26 weeks under section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975 in each of the last five years(a) in Wales as a whole and (b) in each county or district in Wales.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

HEALTH

  Women NHS Employees
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policies are being implemented to increase the number of women employed by the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Earlier this year I launched the "Women in the NHS" initiative to improve recruitment and retention of women staff within the national health service. A seminar was held on 25 June which considered a report from the Office of Public Management, commissioned by the NHS management executive, identifying the relevant issues. This concluded with an agenda for local action which will be followed up at three conferences in the autumn. Each regional chairman has nominated a non-executive member to take forward this work.

  A retainer scheme has been introduced to allow staff to interrupt their careers for up to five years for domestic or other reasons, and includes refresher schemes, temporary employment and training courses. Health authorities are also encouraged to provide child care facilities which may include workplace nurseries, child care vouchers and holiday playschemes, as required locally.

  In January, a report of a joint working party on women doctors and their careers was published. This made a number of practical suggestions to promote equal opportunities for women doctors in the NHS. In response, the Department is reconvening a working party on part-time training to look at the current arrangements for senior house officers and senior registrars. One and a half million pounds has been provided to fund part-time training posts and to set up a new scheme, WIST—Women in Surgical Training—to improve the representation of women in the higher grades of the surgical specialties. We have also issued a code of good practice to promote equality of opportunity in the recruitment and selection of doctors and dentists.

  The recent agreement on junior doctors' hours has for the first time set an upper limit to the number of hours that can be worked—maximum hours per week and continuous spells of duty—and should reduce the difficulties of combining family responsibilities with a medical career.
  399
  The Department has funded several open learning "return to work" packages. "Return to nursing" was launched last summer and "return to health visiting" was launched in May. A "return to midwifery" package is planned for December. These have been supplemented by a "come back to caring" information pack.

  The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting which is centrally funded, is undertaking a review of training needs and materials for post registration education and training so that these can best meet the needs of the work force, for example, by providing part-time training for part-time staff.

  The "women in pharmacy" work commissioned by the Department in 1989 has led to the production of two return to work videos, one aimed at employers and one at employees. Both highlight the potential advantages of attracting women returners and provide practical suggestions for managing career breaks. The videos are accompanied by an information pack designed by the National Association of Women Pharmacists and funded centrally.

  The NHS is the single biggest employer of women in Europe and probably in the world. I am determined that we should be in the vanguard of employment practices for women. Much remains to be done to achieve that, but I am encouraged by the progress now being made.

  Midwifery
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change, in absolute and percentage terms, in midwifery staff in the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Between September 1979 and 1990 the total number of midwifery staff, including student midwives, employed in the NHS in England increased by 3,620 wholetime equivalents—an increase of 18 per cent.

  Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) 1988–89, (b) 1989–90 and (c) 1990–91 the funds received by the World Health Organisation from the United Kingdom and other donor countries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The World Health Organisation is funded through its regular budget—to which member states pay on the basis of an assessed contribution, and by means of voluntary contributions from donor countries.

  Contributions to the regular budget were as follows:

  19881

  19891

  19901

  United Kingdom

  14,116,260

  13,436,670

  14,813,795

  Others

  246,538,713

  207,837,698

  234,632,457

  Total

  260,654,973

  221,274,368

  249,446,252

  1 The World Health Organisation's financial accounting period is the calendar year and the United Kingdom contribution is paid in April of the year in question. All amounts are expressed is US dollars

  No similar comparison can be made for voluntary contributions due to the different United Kingdom and
  400
  World Health Organisation accounting periods and the fact that recorded amounts are expressed in different currencies. Figures are however available as follows:

  Voluntary contributions received by the World Health Organisation

  19881

  19891

  19901

  211,834,369

  219,734,813

  249,446,252

  1 All amounts are expressed in US dollars.

  Voluntary contributions paid by the United Kingdom

  1988–891

  1989–901

  1990–911

  9,780,000

  9,633,000

  9,960,000

  1 All amounts are expressed in pounds sterling.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy where the consultants involved in a trust application by a national health service hospital are opposed to that application.

  Mr. Dorrell
  One of the key criteria that are used when assessing a trust application is the extent to which senior professional staff, especially consultants, are involved in the management of the unit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider all comments received when assessing an application.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his timetable for all national health service hospitals adopting trust status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We expect NHS trust status to become the management model of choice for all hospitals and other provider units in the national health service. We have now received 107 applications from units wishing to become operational as NHS trusts in April 1992. The decision to apply for NHS trust status is one for the units themselves and we have no set timetable for all units to become NHS trusts.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has given on the consultation to be conducted in applications for trust status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Guidance on consultation for applicants for national health service trust status is contained in the HMSO publication "NHS trusts: A Working Guide", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy not to announce his decisions on second-wave NHS trust applications before 14 October.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have yet to decide the timing of this announcement.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expressions of interest in national health service trust status he has so far received from hospitals and other health service units in the Eastern region; and if he will publish a list of these in the Official Report.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The following units in East Anglia region have submitted applications to become NHS trusts from April 1992: Allington (East Suffolk Community Unit), Hinchingbrooke hospital and King's Lynn and Wisbech hospitals. We have not yet invited formal expressions of interest in the third wave.

  Mental Patients
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the statutory provisions relating to the right of mentally disadvantaged patients to participate in assessment procedures or to receive written statements of such assessment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Mentally disordered patients have no statutory right under the Mental Health Act 1983 to participate in assessment procedures or to receive written statements of such assessments. It is considered good practice to involve patients in such procedures to the extent that their physical or mental health permits. Guidance is given in health circular HC(90)23 and local authority social services letter 90/11 and paragraph 2.6 of the code of practice issued under section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983, copies of which are available in the Library.

  If written assessments are recorded on computer, the Data Protection Act 1984 allows the patient the right of access except when it would be likely to cause him serious physical or mental harm—the Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 1987. The same right will be extended to manual records from 1 November 1991 under the terms of the Access to Health Records Act 1990, except where it would be likely to cause him serious physical or mental harm.

  Patients (Travel Costs)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ease the procedures for claiming travel payments for patients who are required to travel a significant distance beyond their own district of residence to receive a necessary national health service treatment, irrespective of their personal resources; and if he has any plans to revise the present arrangements as part of the health service reforms.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Assistance with travelling expenses to treatment centres is given under the hospital travel costs scheme, which we have no plans to extend.

  Erythropoietin
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines exist to permit the prescription by general practitioners of previously hospital prescribed drugs; and, in particular, what national or local guidelines have been issued about EPO.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's policy is that responsibility for a patient's prescribing rests with the clinician who has clinical responsibility. It is for the local clinicians concerned to decide on where responsibility for a particular patient should lie, with the best interests of the patient in mind.

  No departmental guidance exists specifically on the prescribing of Erythropoietin.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give consideration to extending the category of medical exemptions for prescription charges to include those people who require long-term medication following a heart transplant.
  402
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The limited list of medical conditions which confer exemption from prescription charges was drawn up after consultation with the British Medical Association in 1968.

  There are already wide-ranging exemption arrangements, underpinned by the separate scheme for exemption on the grounds of low income, which ensure that no one need be deterred from obtaining their necessary medication on financial grounds. Nearly 80 per cent. of prescription items are currently dispensed free of charge.

  Mental Illness Hospitals
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is held centrally, and what information is requested from health authorities, about the implementation of the closure programme of mental illness hospitals and the monitoring of the consequences for former patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The care programme approach came into effect on 1 April. The needs of each patient, both for continuing health care and social care and for accommodation, are assessed before discharge and appropriate arrangements made.

  Regional health authorities will monitor implementation of the care programme approach consulting the regional offices of the Department's social services inspectorate as necessary. In addition, the Department has commissioned research into the operation of the care programme approach.

  The closure of hospitals is a matter for health authorities, which must take account of the views of the public, and must be agreed locally by the appropriate community health council or, if not agreed, referred to my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a decision.

  NHS Reforms
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce provisions as part of the health service reforms to preclude all possible conflicts of interest among district health authority officers between the service providing function and the service purchasing function.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. Draft guidance on standards of business conduct for national health service staff, including suggested measures to be taken by national health service employers to safeguard national health service interests at all times, has been prepared for consultation with national health service management and staff representatives and will be issued to the national health service in due course.

  Pharmaceutical Imports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of pharmaceutical imports by value are subject to regulation by the Medicine Controls Agency; what is the number of import licences issued by the medicine control agencies; if he will publish a list of those holding such licences; and in each case what is the number of inspection visits that have been made by the agency to the warehousing and stores of those importers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Medicines Control Agency issues product licences for medicinal products in
  403
  accordance with the Medicines Act and European directives. Such a licence must be obtained before a medicinal product may be marketed in the United Kingdom. No separate licence to import is needed, nor is the value of the product a factor in licensing decisions.

  Currently there are over 18,000 product licences in existence of which over 5,000 list a foreign manufacturer. In addition the MCA issues manufacturers licences and wholesale dealers licences of which there are currently 780 and 1,200 respectively. Wholesale dealers trading in medicinal products which originate from outside the EC are subject to site inspection every two years; those who trade from within the EC every five years.

  Family Practitioners
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest family practitioner committee payments per 10,000 registered population for each family practitioner area in London.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table shows payments made by family health services authorities in London in 1989–90, per 10,000 registered population, in respect of general medical, dental and opthalmic services and the pharmaceutical service. Figures include superannuation contributions and are net of patient charges.

  FHS Payments per 10,000 registered population 1989–90

  FHSA

  £'000

  Barking and Havering

  814

  Barnet

  757

  Brent and Harrow

  780

  Bromley

  810

  Camden and Islington

  812

  City and East London

  857

  Croydon

  818

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  746

  Enfield and Haringey

  716

  Greenwich and Bexley

  829

  Hillingdon

  811

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  821

  Kingston and Richmond

  827

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  760

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  786

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  855

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make it mandatory for the price of the ingredients of a prescription to be shown on the receipt given to the patient.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The additional time and expense in requiring pharmacists, dispensing doctors and appliance contractors to calculate the ingredient cost and to issue receipts to patients for more than 380 million prescription items dispensed each year would not make the best use of the resources available to the NHS.

  Health Benefits Low Income Scheme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he has any proposals to revise the AG1 procedure in order to assist claimants, particularly elderly claimants.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 June at columns 300–01.
  404
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the AG1 procedure since April 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since April 1988, when form AG1 and associated claims procedures first came into use, a number of representations have been received, mainly about the length of the form and its complexity. In addition my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently received a report from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux about the national health service low income scheme and form AG1.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many AG1 claim forms were incorrectly or insufficiently completed and had to be returned to claimants for completion during the last year for which statistics are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Between 1 April 1990 and 31 March 1991, 361,521 claim forms were returned to claimants either because they were incorrectly completed or because further information was required. This represents approximately 35 per cent. of the total claim forms received during the period.

  There is currently a review of the administration of the NHS low income scheme. Simplification of form AG I is a principal aim of that review.

  Asthma
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he is supporting into the causes and pattern of incidence of asthma and related conditions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. In 1989–90, the latest year for which figures are available, the MRC spent £911,000 on asthma-related research.

  The Department is also supporting a randomised controlled trial concerned with improvement in general practice services to patients with asthma.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if his Department will carry out an evaluation of energy by contract hire as a way of achieving the 15 per cent. fuel saving in the national health service as prescribed by the Government;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential saving in energy costs in hospitals achievable through energy by contract hire systems.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The use of contract energy management schemes could make a contribution to energy conservation in certain circumstances, but the way in which individual health authorities and NHS trusts achieve the target of a 15 per cent. saving in energy consumption over the next five years is, essentially, a matter for local management to decide. We have made it clear that comprehensive investment appraisals of energy conservation measures should be carried out and the possible use of contract energy management will be one of the options to be evaluated.
  405
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to achieve the objective of a 15 per cent. fuel saving in the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Regional health authorities have been given the objective of achieving the Government-wide energy saving target of 15 per cent. over the next five years. To assist them in achieving their objective, comprehensive guidance on energy efficiency measures can be found in ENCODE published by NHS Estates, a copy of which is available in-the Library. Following the publication by the Audit Commission of its occasional paper on saving energy in the national health service, officials from NHS Estates have been participating with the Energy Efficiency Office and Audit Commission in a series of promotional seminars. In addition, a strategic guide for general managers on energy efficiency will be published shortly.

  Salmonella
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the latest figures for reported cases of salmonella poisoning as a whole and for those associated with enteritidis PT4 strain for the first quarter of 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The total number of human isolations of salmonella reported by the Public Health Laboratories Service division of enteric pathogens in England and Wales for the periods in question are contained in the April and July 1991 issues of the PHLS/SVS "Update on Salmonella Infection", copies of which are in the Library.

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any decision has been made on the future management of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been carefully considering a proposal from Porton International to acquire the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. The recent conflict in the Gulf raised a number of questions about certain defence-related capabilities which are unique to CAMR. Although we see no reason in principle why much of CAMR's work should not be transferred to the private sector, some of its work, including the public health and defence-related work, needs to remain under public sector control. We have therefore decided that the sale of CAMR would not at present be appropriate. We shall be giving further consideration to the arrangements needed for CAMR to fulfil its public health and defence-related roles, and to the options for its future management and financing. This decision does not affect the continuing business arrangements between CAM R and Porton International. A further announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Census
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the 1991 census preliminary report for England and Wales will be published.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The preliminary report for England and Wales containing counts of the population recorded as 406
  present in each local authority area has been laid before Parliament by the Registrar General and is published today. The corresponding report for Scotland is also published today.

  The report includes a description of the main findings from the first counts and an explanation of the limitations of the figures, which can give only a broad picture of the patterns of population change since the 1981 census.

  These preliminary figures show that the fastest-growing regions were East Anglia, the south-west, and the east midlands. Fewer people were counted in Greater London and all six metropolitan counties in 1991 than in 1981; with the most significant decreases occurring in metropolitan districts, including the principal cities. The fastest-growing local authority districts were generally those in remote rural areas, those which include new towns, and those in resort and retirement areas.

  A comprehensive and detailed analysis of population change will be possible once the first computer-processed figures of the resident population are available. These will start to become available towards the end of this year and be completed by the middle of 1992.

  The census monitor giving counts of people sleeping rough referred to in my answer of 9 July at column 337 is also published today.

  Copies of these reports have been placed in the Library.

  Abortions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton of 15 July, if he will meet the district general manager of Waltham Forest health authority, the hon. Member for Leyton and relevant NHS, community health council and other organisations providing abortion services to discuss Government policy on the provision of second abortions and those health authorities refusing them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The level of gynaecological provision is, like that of other NHS services, a matter to be determined taking account of local circumstances and priorities. Such decisions are best taken locally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. S. Wayne, the chairman of Waltham Forest district health authority, for further details about the health authority's policy.

  Petroleum Coke
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests have been made regarding the dangers of excessive combustion gases and the high sulphur content of imported petroleum coke for domestic heating.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Tests carried out in 1973 by Warren Spring laboratory on behalf of the Department of Environment showed that petroleum coke can have a higher sulphur content than coal and that because of its high burning tendency, if used incorrectly, it could damage the metal parts of appliances. The fuel showed some tendency to split.

  It is not recommended for use in closed fires and fireguards are advised for open-grate fires as a safeguard to consumers.

  Burning of any fossil fuel gives off sulphur dioxide. In most parts of the United Kingdom sulphur dioxide levels have fallen during the past decade and in general do not now reach levels likely to produce significant health effects.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) why it was decided to restrict care services for sufferers of Alzheimer's disease to those aged over 64 years;

  (2) if he has any plans to introduce residential care services apart from elderly people's homes or acute psychiatric establishments for young people suffering from dementia;

  (3) if he has any plans to introduce specialist day care facilities to sufferers from Alzheimer's disease below the age of 64 years;

  (4) what plans he has to extend provision for care services for sufferers of Alzheimer's disease to all who have the disease.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Government policy in respect of people suffering from any form of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, is that a comprehensive range of services should be available locally. The objective is to enable sufferers to live in their own homes, with appropriate support for both them and their carers, for as long as is feasible, or in appropriate residential care.

  It is for individual health and local authorities to determine the health and social needs of mentally ill people in their areas, including those suffering from dementia and, within existing resources, to provide services to meet those needs, including the needs of younger mentally ill people with Alzheimer's disease.

  National Health Service Hospitals (Thefts)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the annual cost of thefts of property from national health service hospitals;

  (2) what information he has about the total annual cost of thefts of property from national health service premises;

  (3) what steps are taken by his Department to monitor the thefts of property from national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The summarised accounts of health authorities in England for 1989–90 record a total of £3,413,698 in the category of losses of equipment and property due to theft, fraud or arson, neglect of duty and gross carelessness.

  The Department requires health authorities to report the number and value of losses in an annual statement; these statements are audited along with the annual accounts by statutory auditors. Authorities need to seek departmental write-off approval for those cases which involve sums above delegated limits; where theft is suspected the police are required to be notified.

  The National Health Service Security Manual which was sent to all health authorities in 1984 was commended by the Department as a good practical guide on matters relating to security of equipment, stock and premises. The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts is currently updating the manual and the Department has contributed towards the pre-publication costs. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave the opening address at a security conference on 7 May, organised by NAHAT, to heighten health authorities' awareness of security issues.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures and through specific programmes of support and assistance. It continues to be the policy of the Department and the national health service to provide equal opportunity to all potential suppliers of whatever size, to trade on a value-for-money basis. This policy underpins all national health service and departmental contracts with suppliers. To help small businesses, a guide on how to do business with the national health service was revised and re-published in January 1991—"Business Links: A Suppliers Guide"—a copy of which is available in the Library. It advertises our link line telephone service that is available to all suppliers wishing further help in selling to the national health service. In addition, the national health service procurement directorate and national health service supplies departments continue to respond to large numbers of requests from businesses that wish to enter the national health service market. The national health service deals with several thousand suppliers through over 3,000 delivery points. It is not practicable to monitor centrally the precise extent to which the national health service draws on small businesses, but it is estimated that they continue to represent some 80 per cent. of suppliers. The Department offers similar encouragement to small businesses, but is unable at present to give an indication of the levels of business with them. It is, however, proposed to collect such information from the 1992–93 year onwards using new computer systems.

  St. Mark's Hospital, City Road
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the St. Mark's hospital, City road, London.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that the matter is currently under discussion between the regional health authority and City and Hackney health authority.

  Selby War Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the projects for improvements, upgrading or expansion, and their costs, carried out at Selby War Memorial hospital since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. My right hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. John Pratt, the chairman of York district health authority, for details.

  Transplant Operations
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the total number of transplant operations that have taken place in the United
  409
  Kingdom since 1961; and if he will list the numbers who have benefited from cornea, heart, kidney, liver, lung and pancreas transplants.

  Year

  Cadaveric kidneys

  Heart

  Heart/lung

  Liver

  Lung

  Pancreas

  Cornea1

  1972

  438

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K

  1973

  470

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K

  1974

  503

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K

  1975

  616

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K

  1976

  604

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K

  1977

  691

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K

  1978

  849

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K

  1979

  842

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K

  1980

  988

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K

  1981

  905

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K

  1982

  1,033

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K

  1983

  1,144

  53

  1

  20

  —

  —

  N/K

  1984

  1,443

  116

  10

  51

  —

  —

  N/K

  1985

  1,336

  137

  37

  88

  —

  10

  529

  1986

  1,493

  176

  51

  127

  3

  6

  770

  1987

  1,485

  243

  72

  172

  4

  8

  961

  1988

  1,575

  274

  101

  241

  16

  8

  1,270

  1989

  1,732

  295

  94

  295

  39

  —

  1,758

  1990

  1,730

  329

  95

  359

  52

  5

  2,135

  All figures prior to 1978 were collected manually and should be viewed with caution.

  1 Not all cornea transplants are recorded centrally and the actual figures are known to be higher.

  Source: The United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority formerly the United Kingdom Transplant Service.

  Langton House Unit
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish an independent inquiry, to which previous residents can give evidence, into the treatment of young people at Langton House adolescent and young people's unit.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to set up such an inquiry.

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make it his policy that any regulations on the labelling of tobacco products on sale in the United Kingdom apply fully to all imported items as well as to items produced within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The effect of Council directive 89/622/ EEC concerning the labelling of tobacco products will be to introduce partial harmonisation of the regulations governing tobacco products in the EC. This permits such products to be imported from other EC member states provided that they have complied with the directive and that the health warnings and the statement of tar and nicotine yields appear in English. Tobacco products imported from outside the Community will be required to comply with the United Kingdom labelling regulations applicable to products manufactured in the United Kingdom.

  District Health Authorities—Income from Fund Raising under Section 5 of the Health Services Act 1980

  1987–88 £(cash)

  1988–89 £(cash)

  1989–90 £(cash)

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  72,758

  North Tees

  107,532

  188,578

  57,012

  West Cumbria

  81

  0

  0

  South West Durham

  130

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  20,213

  118,743

  Harrogate

  1,376

  601

  423,992

  Bradford

  0

  1,478

  29,855

  410
  Mr. Dorrell
  The table gives the numbers and types of transplants performed in NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom for the years for which records are held, according to information supplied by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority.

  District Health Authority Income
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each district health authority for each of the past three years(a) how much money has been raised by fund raising and (b) the percentage this represents of the total local district health authority budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 July 1991]: Health authorities are empowered to raise money directly by appeals, collections etc., under section 5 of the Health Services Act 1980; such fund raising is undertaken through authorities' trust funds, which have charitable status. Figures for fund raising from the accounts of those district health authority trust funds in England taking advantage of this facility are shown in the table. Funds raised through the activities of third parties such as leagues of friends are not separately identifiable and are often accounted for separately.

  While representing a useful incidental source of income the sums raised are supplementary to the cash advances made by the Department and represent a very small proportion of the total annual revenue expenditure incurred by the authorities concerned. Consequently the percentage figures, the highest being 1·3 per cent., but the majority below 0·5 per cent. have not been shown in the table.
  411

  1987–88 £(cash)

  1988–89 £(cash)

  1989–90 £(cash)

  Dewsbury

  0

  1,417

  1,078

  Leeds Western

  1,251

  5,833

  2,911

  Nottingham

  169,326

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  5,935

  71,715

  67,209

  Sheffield

  61,596

  7,751

  2,579

  Peterborough

  0

  0

  3,954

  West Suffolk

  199,626

  381,444

  240,461

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  0

  0

  2,250

  South West Hertfordshire

  232,107

  381,431

  239,839

  Harrow

  3,189

  1,740

  0

  Hillingdon

  24,667

  16,692

  21,816

  Ealing

  5,757

  2,474

  3,602

  West Essex

  209

  0

  1,261

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  7,189

  10,742

  1,501

  Islington

  0

  26,334

  34,878

  City and Hackney

  251,456

  1,001,629

  679,731

  Newham

  0

  56,251

  27,689

  Waltham Forest

  7,825

  9,059

  16,856

  Eastbourne

  16,411

  0

  0

  Canterbury and Thanet

  487,914

  245,118

  112,061

  Bexley

  6,478

  2,900

  31,911

  Greenwich

  517

  2,262

  665

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  0

  74,518

  36,182

  South West Surrey

  5,121

  6,442

  5,285

  Mid Surrey

  0

  0

  5,934

  East Surrey

  3,712

  2,978

  70,833

  Chichester

  0

  204,328

  419,543

  Worthing

  6,273

  6,094

  6,152

  Croydon

  48,984

  254,744

  246,685

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  0

  4,093

  2,997

  East Dorset

  347,954

  573,868

  1,113,997

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  575,769

  427,276

  193,300

  Winchester

  12,958

  6,469

  2,538

  Basingstoke

  1,095

  0

  1,377

  Swindon

  486,016

  23,136

  49,586

  Bath

  10,415

  13,487

  7,176

  Milton Keynes

  30,143

  22,694

  11,122

  Kettering

  0

  0

  8,337

  Northampton

  13,440

  13,279

  17,758

  Oxfordshire

  6,740

  0

  0

  Southmead

  0

  2,862

  2,877

  North Devon

  14,769

  214,499

  274,568

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  396

  Mid Staffs

  0

  0

  17,724

  Rugby

  0

  62

  527

  North Warwickshire

  0

  844

  1,680

  East Birmingham

  0

  18,698

  57,334

  South Birmingham

  22,602

  47,873

  46,763

  West Birmingham

  73,946

  5,712

  1,776

  Dudley

  1,456

  5,009

  10,000

  Sandwell

  0

  568

  33,862

  Solihull

  8,900

  32,630

  88,457

  Walsall

  14,294

  47,987

  36,013

  Crewe

  492

  0

  0

  Halton

  0

  0

  866

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  69,123

  Lancaster

  27,244

  0

  0

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  6,624

  0

  0

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  557,584

  189,390

  6,111

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  0

  0

  8,692

  North Manchester

  433

  0

  0

  Central Manchester

  0

  9,129

  1,827

  South Manchester

  0

  0

  1,250

  Salford

  0

  18,992

  16,822

  Tameside and Glossop

  0

  3,286

  75,405

  Trafford

  1,270

  30,723

  0

  Notes:

  1. The figures are shown without deduction of any expenses incurred. All trust fund income from subscriptions and donations; legacies, dividends; and other sources is excluded.

  2. Sums (totalling £503,334 in 1989–90) raised by Special Health Authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals and by Special Trustees for certain London and provincial teaching hospitals, which are therefore not identifiable with district health authorities, are excluded.
  412

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hounds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issue guidelines to those organisations using hounds for hunting purposes on the risk to animal health from taenia hydatigena spread by infected hounds; and if he will require such organisations to worm their hounds effectively and to cook casualty meat and offal prior to being fed to such hounds.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so.

  Declared catches of salmon and grilse by rods and commercial methods, 1966–90.

  Commercial catch

  Rod catch

  Year

  England1

  Wales1"

  Scotland

  England (excl. N.E. drift and T/J nets)

  N'thumbria and Yorkshire (drift and T/J nets)

  N'thumbria (drift nets only2)

  Yorkshire (drift nets only)

  England1

  Wales1

  Scotland

  1966

  42,229

  14,501

  366,139

  26,595

  15,634

  —

  1,129

  17,816

  17,444

  71,864

  1967

  54,844

  13,259

  526,894

  28,485

  26,359

  —

  2,331

  13,056

  16,552

  77,796

  1968

  44,755

  6,836

  381,466

  20,005

  24,750

  —

  1,497

  7,960

  8,613

  52,616

  1969

  73,956

  8,118

  510,189

  24,132

  49,824

  —

  2,854

  8,066

  8,112

  52,069

  1970

  122,045

  8,280

  346,207

  27,054

  94,991

  —

  3,494

  8,876

  10,155

  62,829

  1971

  83,423

  9,295

  374,236

  23,070

  60,353

  —

  4,838

  8,192

  11,561

  49,525

  1972

  73,552

  10,126

  409,842

  21,871

  51,681

  —

  2,906

  10,108

  14,749

  59,646

  1973

  84,760

  9,145

  464,704

  21,918

  62,842

  —

  3,698

  9,600

  11,311

  66,306

  1974

  71,247

  9,168

  417,853

  18,491

  52,756

  —

  4,966

  10,430

  14,330

  59,920

  1975

  77,968

  11,507

  362,090

  24,517

  53,451

  —

  7,297

  10,162

  14,254

  68,252

  1976

  34,759

  7,970

  254,400

  19,058

  15,701

  —

  3,239

  5,623

  5,171

  48,674

  1977

  71,259

  6,600

  268,684

  18,371

  52,888

  —

  12,827

  8,629

  10,371

  64,567

  1978

  68,088

  7,562

  290,028

  16,458

  51,630

  —

  4,448

  7,638

  9,835

  77,396

  1979

  56,726

  4,827

  238,580

  13,262

  43,464

  —

  4,305

  7,578

  6,503

  81,165

  1980

  62,193

  7,275

  223,525

  16,413

  45,780

  —

  3,667

  11,905

  9,672

  70,504

  1981

  90,877

  9,037

  262,166

  21,764

  69,113

  —

  10,077

  11,425

  10,742

  63,293

  1982

  62,739

  4,472

  271,549

  12,572

  50,167

  —

  6,537

  7,220

  6,287

  64,754

  1983

  97,334

  4,834

  289,508

  20,057

  77,277

  —

  12,245

  7,430

  7,381

  66,070

  1984

  79,274

  3,947

  261,619

  19,979

  59,295

  —

  7,810

  7,219

  3,802

  58,673

  1985

  72,465

  3,465

  196,570

  15,109

  57,356

  —

  9,291

  10,725

  8,876

  76,090

  1986

  85,416

  5,031

  276,074

  21,991

  63,425

  —

  8,059

  11,849

  8,498

  75,185

  1987

  59,193

  4,535

  197,653

  23,050

  36,143

  —

  2,562

  11,509

  8,202

  71,126

  1988

  72,307

  5,010

  164,772

  21,458

  50,849

  42,066

  5,399

  16,857

  15,989

  96,488

  1989

  63,882

  5,058

  190,820

  22,429

  41,453

  31,328

  4,908

  9,274

  5,454

  88,007

  19903

  67,469

  4,312

  97,372

  15,939

  51,530

  40,496

  7,723

  9,471

  4,636

  71,646

  1 Data for 1966–1982 for England and Wales will be included in an authoritative compilation to be published shortly; however, pending publication these data should be regarded as provisional.

  2 Drift net catch data for the Northumbria region were not reported separately before 1988.

  3 Data not yet confirmed.

  Veterinary Investigation Centres
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the numbers of(a) scientific and (b) non-scientific staff employed at each veterinary investigation centre according to different grades.

  (a) Scientific staff

  VI Centre

  PSO

  SSO

  HSO

  SO

  ASO

  Aberystwyth

  —

  —

  2

  4

  1

  Bangor

  —

  —

  1

  2+11

  2

  Bristol (Langford)

  —

  —

  1

  4

  6

  Cambridge

  —

  1

  1

  3

  7

  Carmarthen

  —

  1

  —

  5

  3

  Lincoln

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5+11

  Newcastle

  —

  1

  1

  1

  7

  Norwich

  —

  —

  1

  2

  8

  Penrith

  —

  1

  —

  2

  7

  Preston (Barton Hall)

  —

  1

  —

  3

  8

  Reading

  —

  —

  1

  2

  6+11

  Shrewsbury

  —

  —

  2

  2

  8

  Salmon
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the catch statistics for salmon and grilse both by commercial methods and by rod-and-line for each year from 1966 to the latest date for which figures are available; if he will show separate figures for England, Wales and Scotland; and if he will detail for each such year the catch by the drift nets operating in the North sea from Northumberland and Yorkshire.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Mr. Gummer
  The numbers of(a) scientific and (b) non-scientific staff employed at each veterinary investigation centre according to the different grades in post on 1 June 1991 are:
  415

  VI Centre

  PSO

  SSO

  HSO

  SO

  ASO

  Starcross

  —

  —

  1

  3

  5

  Sutton Bonington

  —

  1

  2

  2

  7

  Thirsk

  —

  —

  3

  7

  Truro

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Winchester

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3+12

  Worcester

  —

  1

  1

  3

  9

  Wye

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  QC Unit located at Lincoln VIC

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  The Grades are:

  PSO—Principal Scientific Officer.

  SSO—Senior Scientific Officer.

  HSO—Higher Scientific Officer.

  SO— Scientific Officer.

  ASO—Assitant Scientific Officer.

  1 Part-time

  (b) Non-Scientific staff

  VI Centre

  LA

  EW

  AO

  AA

  Typist

  Aberystwyth

  1+12

  —

  11

  1

  11

  Bangor

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Bristol (Langford)

  2

  1

  1

  1+11

  1+11

  Cambridge

  2

  1

  1

  1+13

  1+11

  Carmarthen

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lincoln

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Newcastle

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Norwich

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1+11

  Penrith

  1

  1

  1

  2+11

  1

  Preston (Barton Hall)

  3

  1

  1

  1+11

  1

  Reading

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Shrewsbury

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Starcross

  2

  1

  1

  1+11

  1

  Sutton Bonington

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1+11

  Thirsk

  1+11

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Truro

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Winchester

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Worcester

  4

  1

  1

  3

  —

  Wye

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  The Grades are:

  LA—Laboratory attendant.

  EW—Experimental worker.

  AO—Administrative officer.

  AA—Administrative assistant.

  1 Part-time.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of(a) cattle, (b) pigs, (c) poultry and (d) sheep in the catchment area of each veterinary investigation centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member on 4 July 1991 at column 184, the catchment

  Veterinary investigation centre

  Numbers of cattle

  Numbers of sheep

  Numbers of pigs

  Numbers of poultry (fowls)

  Bristol

  868,000

  1,211,000

  503,000

  7,480,000

  Cambridge

  277,000

  772,000

  725,000

  9,946,000

  Lincoln

  199,000

  451,000

  879,000

  7,326,000

  Newcastle

  356,000

  2,339,000

  101,000

  1,844,000

  Norwich

  146,000

  199,000

  838,000

  8,695,000

  Penrith

  542,000

  2,504,000

  67,000

  2,204,000

  Preston

  643,000

  1,327,000

  435,000

  7,425,000

  Reading

  407,000

  831,000

  450,000

  4,815,000

  Shrewsbury

  648,000

  1,884,000

  261,000

  5,803,000

  Starcross

  667,000

  2,005,000

  192,000

  3,337,000

  Sutton Bonington

  448,000

  1,010,000

  271,000

  5,120,000

  Thirsk

  558,000

  2,072,000

  991,000

  6,963,000

  Truro

  401,000

  687,000

  75,000

  844,000

  Winchester

  284,000

  491,000

  200,000

  6,427,000

  Worcester

  513,000

  2,096,000

  244,000

  8,289,000

  Wye

  163,000

  1,009,000

  103,000

  3,392,000

  Aberystwyth

  270,000

  3,882,000

  17,000

  1,028,000

  416
  areas of veterinary investigation centres are complex. The best estimates of the numbers of (a) cattle, (b) pigs, (c) poultry and (d) sheep in the catchment area of each veterinary investigation centre in England and Wales based on the June 1989 agricultural census information are:
  417

  Veterinary investigation centre

  Numbers of cattle

  Numbers of sheep

  Numbers of pigs

  Numbers of poultry (fowls)

  Bangor

  345,000

  3,335,000

  37,000

  3,178,000

  Carmarthen

  543,000

  2,829,000

  45,000

  2,011,000

  Cumbrian Farmers
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total amounts of grants and subsidies paid to Cumbrian farmers in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  The schemes listed are:

  (£'000s) Schemes

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–911

  1991–92

  AIs1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  142

  1,253

  1,625

  2,221

  1,688

  n/a

  FDGS1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  29

  88

  n/a

  F & CGS1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  189

  1,530

  n/a

  ESA1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  49

  59

  64

  n/a

  FW2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  8

  0

  CSCS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  242

  175

  130

  140

  147

  27

  SAP3

  1,026

  2,097

  5,365

  3,760

  6,218

  4,510

  5,661

  6,240

  7,359

  10,668

  n/a

  SCPS4

  557

  539

  523

  1,029

  1,009

  1,361

  1,361

  1,399

  2,126

  n/a

  n/a

  HLCA1

  5,373

  5,561

  5,609

  5,614

  5,773

  6,529

  6,702

  6,820

  7,080

  7,654

  8,444

  SAS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  63

  92

  n/a

  n/a

  Totals

  6,957

  8,197

  11,497

  10,403

  12,999

  12,785

  15,184

  16,328

  19,303

  21,847

  8,472

  Notes:

  1Calendar Years.

  2Scheme Years: November 1989 to March 1990

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to June 1991.

  3Scheme Years: Spread over three years: Apply December Year 1, Payment April Year 2 onwards, April Year 3 close.

  4Scheme Years: 1981 =June 1981 to May 1982

  1982 = July 1982 to July 1983

  1983 = August 1983 to July 1984

  1984 August 1984 to July 1985

  1985 = August 1985 to June 1986

  1986 = July 1986 to June 1987

  1987 = July 1987 to June 1988

  1988 = July 1988 to June 1989

  1989 = July 1989 to June 1990.

  5Up to w/e 28 June 1991—Scheme not available for whole period.

  Regional Offices
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the numbers of staff in different grades employed at each of his regional and divisional offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested for my Department's regional (RO) and divisional (DO) office organisation in England is as follows:

  Number

  Northern region

  Leeds RO

  210

  Beverley DO

  93

  Carlisle DO

  105

  Newcastle DO

  110

  Northallerton DO

  80

  Eastern region

  Cambridge RO

  359

  Chelmsford DO

  90

  Huntingdon DO

  90

  Lincoln DO

  96

  Norwich DO

  112

  418

  AIS

  Agriculture improvement scheme

  FDGS

  Farm diversification grant scheme

  F & CGS

  Farm and conservation grant scheme (EC and national)

  ESA

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  FW

  Farm woodland scheme

  CSCS

  Chernobyl sheep compensation scheme

  SAP

  Sheep annual premium

  SCPS

  Suckler cow premium scheme

  HLCA

  Hill livestock compensation allowance

  S-AS

  >Set-aside scheme

  Number

  Midlands and Western region

  Wolverhampton RO

  339

  Crewe DO

  109

  Nottingham DO

  131

  Preston DO

  95

  Worcester DO

  142

  South Eastern

  Reading RO

  218

  Guildford DO

  103

  Maidstone DO

  88

  Oxford DO

  100

  South Western

  Bristol RO

  210

  Exeter DO

  184

  Gloucester DO

  119

  Taunton DO

  125

  Truro DO

  119

  The numbers recorded include veterinary staff and headquarters staff stationed at regional and divisional offices but who do not form part of the regional organisation.
  419
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the full report of the ministerial review of his Ministry's regional organisation; when he expects to take a final decision about the closure and reorganisation of regional and divisional offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am considering the future structure of the Ministry's regional organisation and will be making an announcement shortly.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  The Department has continued to contribute significantly to this process. We have maintained pressure for a more market-orientated common agricultural policy, both in the 1991 price-fixing agreement and in the discussions on reform of the CAP which commenced in February and have recently resumed. A reformed CAP, along lines acceptable to the United Kingdom, together with worldwide reforms to systems of agricultural support being negotiated in the current GATT round, would provide further encouragement for competitive and efficient agricultural industry. Change on these lines would be in the long-term interests of both larger and smaller farms.

  We have also continued to offer farmers the opportunity to diversify their enterprises and income-generating activities through our various schemes including the farm woodlands scheme, set-aside, the farm diversification grant scheme and the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. We are reviewing the first round of environmentally sensitive areas and are consulting on our proposals for change.

  All the schemes operated by the Department are closely monitored. Reports on particular schemes are published from time to time.

  Salmonella
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of salmonella submissions under(a) Processed Animal Protein Orders, (b) Layer Breeders and Hatcheries Orders and (c) Zoonoses Orders for each veterinary investigation centre for each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not possible to supply the specific information requested. The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Imported Birds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what analysis he has made of the results of mortality studies, and his review of the legal powers available to Her Majesty's Government, in relation to import arrangements for wild caught birds.

  Mr. Maclean
  With the assistance of the RSPCA, we have made a preliminary analysis of the statistics for the two years for which data are available. The results show some correlation between mortality of individual species, which suggests that in principle the data can be used to assist in deciding whether a species is particularly vulnerable to captivity.

  Discussions with the Department of the Environment are continuing on further restrictions and the powers which may best be used to implement them.

  Irradiated Food
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether compound ingredients of food which do not have to be listed under clause 16 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 have to be listed and labelled if they have been irradiated; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether food which has been irradiated and is a compound ingredient needs to be labelled as irradiated as outlined in clause 16(3) and (4) of the Food Labelling Regulations 1984.

  Mr. Gummer
  Regulations introduced on 1 January this year, which take into account EC labelling rules, require the labelling of irradiated food and listed food ingredients for pre-packed sales. Additional requirements are included for non-pre-packed sales and food sold by caterers.

  Exemptions in regulation 16 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1984, as amended, which apply EC rules, provide that if a particular ingredient does not need to appear on the label, the fact that it may have been irradiated need not appear either. This exemption has obtained in other member states where irradiated food has for some time been permitted. We are currently seeking to persuade other member states that this exemption under the EC directive should be withdrawn for irradiated ingredients.

SCOTLAND

  Schools Expenditure
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of capital expenditure on schools in(a) each regional authority in Scotland and (b) Scotland in total, in each year since 1978–79 in constant prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 5 July, c.235–36.

  Appointees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the names of his appointees to the(a) Countryside Commission for Scotland, (b) Crofters Commission, (c) Rent Assessment Panel for Scotland, (d) Red Deer Commission, (e) Scottish Dental Practice Board, (f) Scottish Transport

  421
  Group, (g) Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards, (h) Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, (i) Horticultural Development Council, (j) Meat and Livestock Commission, (k) National Radiological Protection Board, (l) Sea Fish Industry Authority and (m) Director-General of Electricity Supply.

  Mr. Lang
  The following tables show the names of those appointed as at 1 July 1991. Table 1 lists appointments made solely by me. Table 2 lists those appointments made jointly with other Ministers.

  Appointments made by the Secretary of State for Scotland as at 1 July 1991

  Countryside Commission for Scotland

  J. Roger Carr, CBE (Chairman)

  John Arnott

  Quintin Brown

  Bruce Cowe, MBE

  Ronald D. Cramond, CBE

  Prof. Charles H. Gimingham

  Mrs. Susan Harvey

  Cllr. Alastair W. Henry

  Eric Langmuir, MBE

  Innes Miller

  Dr. William E. S. Mutch

  Prof. John C. Smyth, OBE

  W. Mark Turnbull

  Dr. Adam Watson

  Crofters Commission

  Hugh A. M. Maclean (Chairman)

  Alasdair Cameron

  Brian T. Hunter

  Donald M. Macdonald

  Peter Morrison

  D. A. Morrison

  William Ritchie

  Rent Assessment Panel for Scotland

  George F. Robertson (President)

  Mrs. M. L. J. Walker (Vice-President)

  Local Chairmen

  A. D. Anderson

  J. F. Barron

  J. M. Barton

  M. J. Burns

  Mrs. L. J. M. Campbell

  Miss A. Chisholm

  J. D. Crerar

  A. C. W. A. Eccles

  S. T. M. Ellery

  W. S. Forrest

  J. R. Gardiner

  Miss S. T. Givens

  D. Graham

  J. M. D. Graham

  The Hon. Simon E. G. Guest

  Miss C. S. Henderson

  Professor J. A. M. Inglis, CBE

  E. G. Kennedy

  Professor P. N. Love, CBE

  Miss D. McGhie

  A. D. Mackay

  R. L. Mackinnon

  B. McMullan

  J. G. Malcolm-Smith

  J. M. Mayger

  Miss M. Millar

  N. J. A. Robertson

  J. G. L. Robinson

  E. O. St. John

  H. D. Sheldon

  O. H. Speirs

  R. S. Swinton

  G. W. Tait

  W. F. Walker

  B. C. T. Wood

  422
  Local Valuers

  J. M. Bennett

  G. H. Campbell

  K. I. Crichton

  R. Crozier

  F. M. Halliday

  J. S. Harrison

  R. J. Heaney

  Mrs. U. L. Heaney

  T. Henaughen

  W. Howie

  M. Kay

  W. M. Kerr

  W. O. Lawrie

  A. C. Love

  M. Lygate

  D. H. McCalum

  W. M. McCash

  R. R. McConnell

  Table 2

  Appointments made jointly with other Ministers as at 1 July 1991

  Advisory Committee on distinction awards

  Sir Gordon Robson, CBE (Chairman)

  Archibald Rennie, CB

  Dr. V. R. Bennett

  Dr. J. L. T. Birley

  Prof. D. C. Carter

  Dr. J. O. M. C. Graig

  Dr. Vera Dallos

  Sir Herbert Duthie

  T. A. English

  Sir Anthony Grabham

  Prof. W. W. Holland

  Prof. F. Lachmann

  Prof. P. Lachmann

  Prof. M. H. Lessof

  Prof. June Lloyd

  J. A. P. Marston

  D. M. F. Moran

  D. K. Nichol

  Prof. K. D. Peters

  Prof. M. Rosen

  D. Seel

  S. C. Simmons

  Dr. D. R. Sweetnam

  Prof. Margaret Turner-Warwick

  Prof. L. G. Whitby

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Lord Carlise of Bucklow (Chairman)

  John F. A. Archer, QC

  David Barker, QC

  Sir Derek Bradbeer, OBE

  Daniel Brennan, QC

  David C. Calcut, QC

  Hugh Carlisle, QC

  Barry W. Chedlow, QC

  John Cherry, QC

  Miss B. Cooper, QC

  Miss Diana Cotton, QC

  John Crowley, QC

  Thomas Dawson, QC

  Kevin Drummond, QC

  C. Fawcett, QC

  William Gage, QC

  Edward Gee

  Barry Green

  Graeme Hamilton, QC TD

  Sir Arthur Hoole

  His Hon. Judge James Kingham

  James Law, QC

  Michael E. Lewer, AC

  Crawford Lindsay, QC

  Donald Mackay, QC

  His Hon. Judge Lewis McCreery

  Lord Macaulay of Bragar, QC

  Sir John Palmer, QC JP

  I. Michael S. Park, CBE

  423

  Timothy Preston, QC

  Miss S. A. Ritche, QC

  D. B. Robertson, QC

  Conrad Seagroatt, QC

  L. Stuart Shields, QC

  Mrs. Janet Smith, QC

  Robert Smith, QC

  Evan Stone, AC

  D. Martin Thomas, OBE QC

  David P. O. Thomas, QC

  Peter Weitzman, QC

  His Hon. Judge David West-Russell

  Charles Whitby, QC

  John L. Williams

  Horticultural Development Council

  Frank Thomlinson, CBE (Chairman)

  Don Goodwin, MBE

  Ron Murdy

  A. McCutchion

  Mrs. Patricia Lunn

  Tony Gould

  John Derek Taylor

  Peter Henry Shepherd

  Andrew Logan

  Michael George Holmes

  P. Emmett

  Geoffrey Coles

  Ken James

  Paul Middlebrook

  John Evans

  Tom Wood

  T. Peter M. Thomson

  J. Sephton

  A. P. Shirley

  H. B. Lowe

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Geoffrey R. John (Chairman)

  Rolf Werner Mattes

  George C. Adams

  John Baker, MBE

  Donald T. Y. Curry

  A. R. Manson, CBE

  Peter Redshaw

  Meurick R. E. Rees, CBE, JP, FRAGS

  Mrs. Evelyn Rose, MBE

  Allan Roxburgh

  James F. Royan, OBE

  Colin G. Smith

  Jeff G. Steer

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Professor T. R. E. Southwood (Chairman)

  Professor Ann Barrett

  Professor J. H. Edwards

  Professor H. J. Evans

  Professor E. M. Grant

  Professor P. Haggett

  Professor T. R. Lee

  Professor R. M. May

  Mrs. S. Morrison

  Dr. R. Owen

  Professor J. Peto

  Professor G. M. Roberts

  Martin Trowbridge

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Chairman)

  Eric Davey

  John Adams

  John Craddock

  Prof. Mike Haines

  William Hay, CBE

  Frank Ledwidge

  Duncan MacInnes

  Ian McFadden

  Miss Elizabeth Stevenson

  David Stevenson

  David Vickers

  424

  Colin Warwick

  Director General of Electricity Supply

  Prof. Stephen Littlechild

  Training Grant Scheme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the expenditure envisaged for the training grant scheme in Grampian.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I regret that I am unclear as to the identity of the scheme about which the hon. Member is seeking information. If he will write to me giving more details I will endeavour to be of assistance.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is held on, or estimate made of, the number of successful claims and the total and average amounts of compensation awarded by courts or settled out of court in respect of industrial injuries during each of the last 10 years, based on the date of the injury, both in cash terms and adjusted to take account of inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Interim Development Orders
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report all existing quarry sites in Scotland which will be subject to the new provisions relating to interim development orders in the Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords].

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. The Scottish Office Environment Department is carrying out a survey of planning authorities to establish the number of extant IDO permissions and the nature of the conditions attached to them.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the most detailed study to be carried out by the Scottish Office to improve the information currently available on interim development orders in Scotland; and when he expects to be able to publish the results.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Environment Department wrote to planning authorities and other interested parties on 28 June seeking information on the number of IDO permissions extant, on the proportion currently providing the basis for mineral extraction and on the conditions, if any, attached to the permissions. Responses have been requested by 14 October and I expect to publish the results by the end of the year.

  Mineral Extraction
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to allow for compensation for the owners of mineral extraction rights in circumstances where planning permission is refused on environmental grounds.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is a fundamental principle of the planning system that compensation is not
  425
  payable for a refusal of planning permission. This would only encourage speculative applications. The right of appeal is available to all applicants for planning permission if they feel their application has been unjustifiably refused.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider calling in all proposals to reopen and work mineral extraction rights to allow local public inquiries where there are substantial objections to the proposals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The circumstances in which my right hon. Friend will consider calling in planning applications notified to him are set out in circular 29/1988 and the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1988. He has no plans to amend the circular or the direction.

  Hospital Waste
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his reply of 15 July,Official Report, column 472, how hospital waste not burnt at the required temperature by incinerators is disposed of.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The clinical waste element of hospital waste is rendered safe by the process of incineration. The residual ash from that process, which has also been rendered safe by the process, is disposed of at landfill sites. Where it is practical and cost effective the household waste element of hospital waste is also incinerated. The remainder of the household waste element of hospital waste is disposed of at landfill sites.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  The importance to the Scottish economy of a vigorous and energetic small firms sector cannot be overstated, and small businesses continue to benefit from the comprehensive schemes of support that the Government have introduced. Policy responsibility lies within the Scottish Office Industry Department although, until 31 March 1991, the services were delivered mainly through the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board; they are now delivered through their successor bodies. In addition to providing services specific to Scotland, these bodies also had responsibility for the delivery and monitoring in Scotland of United Kingdom services on behalf of other Departments, including the Department of Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry. The success of these policies is demonstrated by statistics for VAT registration. In 1980, 9,800 additional companies registered for VAT. In 1989 the comparable figure was
  426
  16,800, an increase of 71 per cent. At the end of 1989 the total number of VAT-registered businesses in Scotland was 113,200, an increase of 19,800 or 21 per cent. on the comparable figure for 1979.

  There follows a description of the services available to small firms in Scotland during the periods 1989–90 and 1990–91, and some of their achievements. For the period 1989–90 the Scottish Office Industry Department made 167 offers of regional selective assistance to the value of over £17 million to small companies—those employing fewer than 200 worldwide. This contributed to the creation of 3,080 planned new jobs and the safeguarding of 340 existing jobs. In 1990–91, 131 offers of regional selective assistance were made to the value of over £20 million to small companies and which contributed to the creation of 3,290 planned new jobs and the safeguarding of 560 existing jobs. Under both the investment and innovation elements of the regional enterprise grants scheme, 432 offers to the value of £4 million were made in Scotland in 1989–90 to companies employing under 25 people, contributing to the creation of 1,640 planned new jobs and the safeguarding of 1,660 existing jobs. In 1990–91, offers of regional enterprise grant to the value of £4·6 million were made, contributing to the creation of 1,650 planned new jobs and the safeguarding of 1,550 existing jobs. Residual offers to small companies under the regional development grants scheme, the last applications for which were accepted on 31 March 1988. totalled £100,000 with the potential for 50 associated jobs. During the periods in question, the better business service scheme was administered by the SDA and the HIDB. The scheme allows small companies to have access to subsidised professional business advice and in 1989–90 some 8,090 offers of assistance were made with an associated value of £3·7 million. In 1990–91 6,900 offers of assistance were made with an associated value of £3·3 million.

  Scottish Development Agency support for small businesses included the provision of financial assistance and a wide range of advisory services, including the small firms service in Scotland and the administration of DTI's consultancy initiatives, under the enterprise initiative. In addition, the SFS offered an integrated and complementary range of business services including the Government business shop, the Euroinfocentre, a franchise desk and a Companies house satellite office. Under the consultancy initiatives, some 1,158 consultancy projects were undertaken during 1989–90 and in 1990–91 the figure was 1,200. In 1989–90 the SFS handled 17,286 inquiries, the figure for 1990–91 being 16,805. Figures for investment in small firms are not yet available for this period, but across all sectors in Scotland in 1990–91 the SDA invested £7 million and safeguarded 4,985 jobs.

  As well as delivering a small firms counselling service in its area, the Highlands and Islands Development Board was responsible for a wide range of activities in support of businesses, most of which were small, to help them overcome the difficulties in operating in this rural part of the United Kingdom. The measures taken include financial support to business, provision of factories and assistance with business advice and training. In the period 1989–90 the board approved 983 offers of financial assistance worth £19·4 million on projects involving proposed private sector investment of £51·1 million and the planned creation or safeguarding of 2,700 jobs. For the period 1990–91 the board approved 1,071 offers of financial assistance worth £21·6 million on projects

  427
  involving proposed private sector investment of £54·9 million and the planned creation or safeguarding of 2,800 jobs. In the period 1989–90 the HIDB completed 7,208 sq m of factory floor space. In this period, some 3,200 jobs were housed in HIDB factories. In the period 1990–91 the HIDB completed 7,061 sq m of factory floor space. At the end of the period a total of some 3,300 jobs were housed in HIDB factories.

  The network of local enterprise trusts in Scotland was formed in 1981 and there are now some 44 of them. They are private sector-led, but represent a partnership between the public and private sectors in the provision of business advice, counselling and training both to new and existing businesses. The total funding cost of the enterprise trusts during the year 1990–91 was £9·5 million. The percentage of SDA input to this total was 19 per cent., an increase of 2 per cent. from the previous year. This levered a further 19 per cent. from the local authorities and 28 per cent. from the private sector, in cash and kind, representing a total of £4·4 million. During the year the trusts estimate they have provided about 45,000 counselling sessions, some 13,000 of these to pre-start clients. Some 8,000 jobs were created or saved in new and existing businesses assisted by enterprise trusts and 3,255 new businesses were started by enterprise trust clients.

  The establishment on 1 April 1991 of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise represented a new approach to enterprise creation and development in Scotland, and is central to the Government's plans to give further impetus to the Scottish economy. The initiative is unique in two important respects; firstly, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have taken over responsibility for the design and implementation of Training Agency programmes in Scotland and are responsible for integrating these with the economic development activities previously discharged by the Scottish Development Agency and Highlands and Islands Development Board. Secondly, SE and HIE have contracted out a range of functions to a network of private sector-led and run local enterprise companies. Through this network business people and others prominent in the wider community will develop and shape training arrangements and business development programmes to match Scottish needs and to meet local circumstances in a manner that has not been possible before. It is appropriate that local people who are in the best position to judge should have responsibility for deciding the balance of provision most suited to the circumstances of the area concerned. Local enterprise companies work within a policy framework set by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and, while they are required to fulfil their contractual obligations to these bodies, they are given all possible freedom to act on their own initiative with a minimum of constraint. It is encouraging that a complete network of 22 local enterprise companies has been established in Scotland so quickly, and the Government's view of a decentralised and business-led approach to enterprise creation is clearly a widely shared one.

  The deregulation initiative, a Government programme to reduce the bureaucratic burden which impinges upon all businesses, but perhaps disproportionately so in the case of smaller companies, is supported strongly by the Scottish Office. Future action on the initiative will concentrate strongly on improving the relationship between the business community and local authorities, and on
  428
  encouraging business people to take the lead in identifying, and in bringing to the attention of Government examples of regulation or legislation which they perceive as an unnecessary burden on business. Unique within the United Kingdom, the Government business shop in Glasgow continues to provide a single advice point on the range of Government regulation affecting business. Business people are able, in one location, to speak to advisers from Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, DSS and the Health and Safety Executive. The Scottish Office Industry Department is co-operating with the Employment Service in encouraging small businesses to develop trading links with the newly privatised industries. Additionally, plans are in hand to organise a Scottish seminar on how small companies may do business with the large public utilities.

  Rosyth
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional resources he anticipates will be given to local authorities and local enterprise companies to counteract the impact on their local economies of the decline in employment arising from the job losses involved by recently announced and anticipated reductions in employment at Rosyth naval base and dockyard.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Local authorities will be submittiiig financial plans to the Scottish Office in the autumn. These plans will contain the local authorities' proposals for capital expenditure in 1992–93 and subsequent years and it will be up to the authorities concerned to include in these any projects they consider necessary to help tackle employment reductions at Rosyth.

  For the current year the local enterprise company for the Rosyth area, Fife Enterprise, has a budget in excess of £22 million. The company has a number of projects and initiatives either planned or already under way to assist training and employment in the area. This includes an audit of the physical and staff resources available at Rosyth. The company has indicated its intention of discussing options with interested parties to identify appropriate action to tackle job reductions at Rosyth; and I am encouraged by the positive response it has already made to the announcement.

  The question of additional funding for the local enterprise company is primarily one for Scottish Enterprise in the light of the enterprise company's planned activities, the overall resources available in each financial year and all the circumstances bearing on competing demands for resources. It must also be borne in mind that the reduction in the civilian work force at Rosyth is not due to be completed until March 1995 and will involve some relocations and natural wastage, although there will inevitably be some redundancies.

  Court Proceedings (Television)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for the use of live television facilities in cases involving child abuse or sexual abuse have been granted or refused, since the commencement of the provisions of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; what were the reasons given for refusals; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  These provisions will be brought into effect shortly to allow pilot schemes at Edinburgh and Glasgow to proceed.

  Farms
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farms are in use in Renfrewshire; if he will list them; and how many people they employ.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Scottish counties ceased to be used for agricultural statistics purposes after 1975 following local government reform. For the June 1990 census returns there were 269 main farm holdings in Refrew district of Strathclyde region with 316 full-time or part-time working farmers and spouses, and employing 169 full-time workers and 158 part-time and casual workers. This information is collected for statistical purposes under the Agriculture Act 1947 which restricts disclosure of information on individual holdings. It is thus not permissible to list the individual holdings in Renfrew district.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish those residential homes provided by Scottish Homes with a hostel deficit grant for homes catering for people with learning difficulties.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: Ark and Key housing associations are in receipt of hostel deficit grant from Scottish Homes in respect of the residential accommodation they provide for people with learning difficulties at the following locations:

  Central

  Stenhousemuir

  Stirling

  Alloa

  Grangemouth

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annan

  Dumfries

  Stranraer

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  Glenrothes

  Grampian

  Fraserburgh

  Inverurie

  Peterhead

  Highland

  Fort William

  Lothian

  Livingston

  Dalkeith

  Musselburgh

  East Linton

  Penicuik

  Edinburgh (four homes)

  Strathclyde

  Bellshill

  Dunoon

  Gourock

  Cumbernauld

  Helensburgh

  Milngavie

  Glasgow (five homes)

  Tayside

  Arbroath

  Forfar

  Perth

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in cash terms, and at 1991–92 prices, what has been the capital allocation to each regional and district council in Scotland for each of their service responsibilities in every year since 1979.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 17 July 1991]: This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Rail Bridges
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of rail bridges in Scotland; what monitoring of their structural condition is carried out; by whom and how frequently; and what is the total annual cost involved.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply. The information is as follows:

  There are 9,194 rail bridges owned by British Rail in Scotland; 5,587 are operational and 3,607 are non-operational. They are subject to a visual examination every year and a detailed examination at intervals not exceeding six years by appointed examiners engaged by British Rail at an annual cost of £0·4 million. There are a further 3,400 non-operational bridges which have been sold and are no longer the responsibility of British Rail.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Students' Benefits
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to increase social security benefits for students.

  Mr. Newton
  Financial support for full-time students is properly the responsibility of the education system. There are no plans to extend the categories of students who are entitled to housing benefit and income support, but for those eligible, the allowances and premiums are uprated on the same basis as for other claimants.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total number of people claiming income support in the United Kingdom at the most recent date for which final figures are available, 12 months and two years before.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In Great Britain in 1988 4,352,000 claimants were receiving income support, in 1989 there were 4,161,000 and in 1990, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 4,180,000. Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries May 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young people aged 16 and 17 years are receiving income support for the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  An estimated 21,000 16 and 17-year-olds were claiming income support in May 1990, the most recent date for which figures are available.
  431
  Source: Income Support Statistics, Annual Enquiry May 1990.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward proposals to make income support available in full from the time of claim.

  Miss Widdecombe
  For those over pension age, full entitlement is paid from the payday which coincides with or next follows the date of claim. For those under pension age, entitlement accrues from the date of claim and is paid on the first following payday. These arrangements are in line with the way wages, other benefits and pensions are paid and there are therefore no proposals for change.

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the take-up by people with disabilities of the benefits to which they are entitled.

  Mr. Scott
  The increase in take-up of benefits by disabled people and their carers over the last 12 years demonstrates our continuing commitment to ensuring that people receive what they are entitled to. For example, there are now three times as many people in receipt of attendance allowance as there were in 1979, and take-up of mobility allowance has increased sevenfold over the same period.

  We intend to build on this strong position in publicising the introduction of disability living allowance and disability working allowance next year. We shall involve disabled people and their organisations fully in the preparatory work for the publicity campaigns to ensure effective take-up of these benefits.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total value of the average pensioner's savings, investments and home; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total value of the average pensioner's savings, investments and home(a) currently and (b) in 1978–79.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the average value of pensioners' savings and investments doubled in real terms between 1979 and 1988. The average value of property owned by pensioners increased by over 65 per cent. during the same period.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current average award for family credit.

  Mr. Jack
  The average of the awards current at the end of June was well over £31.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security over what range of net income are families eligible for family credit.

  Mr. Jack
  The level of income at which eligibility for family credit runs out depends on the number of children 432
  in the family and their ages, but even the smallest family, with one child under 11, could get family credit if their net income is less than £130 a week—about £155 gross. For families with more, or older, children, the levels are much higher; for example, a family with four children, aged three, eight, eleven and 16 could be eligible with net income of £195, about £254 gross. Child benefit order books, and the notifications sent where payment is made directly into an account, contain a personalised message about family credit setting out the level for that particular family.

  There is no minimum qualifying level of income for family credit, although the parent, or at least one of them in a two-parent family, has to be working for 24 hours a week or more.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annualised value of the average family credit award expressed as an increase in gross annual earnings.

  Mr. Jack
  The average amount of the family credit awards current at the end of June 1991 was £31·41. For a person paying national insurance contributions and tax at the standard rate this would equate to an increase in gross earnings of nearly £2,475 a year.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the equalisation of the state pension retirement age.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since 1 January this year we have received a large number of representations from organisations concerned with the interests of pensioners, from employers, from various representatives of the pensions industry as well as a number of letters from hon. Members and members of the public.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about the level of national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received representations from employers' organisations expressing opposition to proposals put forward by the European Commission which would result in national insurance contributions being levied on earnings below the current lower earnings limit.

  We have also received a small number of representations on behalf of self-employed people about the recent annual increase in their national insurance-contributions.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much and what percentage of national health service expenditure is financed by national insurance contributions; and by how much the category A old -age pension could be increased if the national health service were wholly financed out of other taxes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1990–91 £4·3 billion of NI contributions income went towards the cost of the NHS; about 15 per cent. of gross NHS expenditure. The level of retirement pension is set by law each year according to the movement in prices and is not determined by the balance in the NI fund. It would not therefore be affected by any change in the funding arrangements for the NHS.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on occupational pension schemes since his statement of 26 June.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since 26 June we have received a number of representations from, among others, the Confederation of British Industry and the National Association of Pension Funds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the TUC and departmental officials are holding a series of discussions with pensioners' interests. We have also received a number of questions from hon. Members on this matter.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received about the introduction of the disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  When we published our proposals for the introduction of the two new benefits, disability living allowance and disability working allowance, in "The Way Ahead—Benefits for Disabled People" (Cmd 917), we said that we would welcome comments and suggestions from disabled people and the organisations that represent them. We have met representatives of those organisations to hear their views and are grateful to them and to the many individuals who have taken the trouble to write in with comments on our proposals for both new benefits.

  Child Benefit
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the typical size of family receiving child benefit; and what that family will receive per week from October.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the typical size of a family receiving child benefit; and what they will receive per week from October 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Over 40 per cent. of families in receipt of child benefit have only one child and from October will be receiving £9·25 per week—an increase of £2, or over 27 per cent., this year. This gives a family an additional annual income of £480.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the total numbers of young people whose parents were receiving extended child benefit in each of the months from January to May for each of the years 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Child benefit normally stops after a child reaches 16 and leaves full-time education. It can however be extended for a limited period for 16 and 17-year-olds while they are looking for work or on a youth training place.

  The child benefit computer counts, on a weekly basis, the number of awards current for children covered by extended child benefit. The following figures represent the weekly average in each month:
  434

  Number

  1990

  January

  1,033

  February

  1,659

  March

  1,874

  May

  2,620

  1991

  January

  1,184

  February

  1,826

  March

  2,208

  April

  3,257

  May

  4,302

  For the majority of 16 to 17-year-old school leavers, extended child benefit is not applicable because they start work or find a youth training place before the extension period begins. This is demonstrated by the following figures which show the total numbers of 16 and 17-year-old school leavers for the periods covered by the question:

  Number

  Christmas 1989

  8,418

  Christmas 1990

  8,073

  Easter 1990

  52,156

  Easter 1991

  45,036

  Note: No figure is shown for April 1990 because the extension period for Christmas leavers finished on I April and the period for Easter leavers did not start until 30 April.

  Maternity Payment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department is currently undertaking on the adequacy of the £100 maternity payment for low-income expectant mothers.

  Mr. Scott
  None.

  Written Answers
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parliamentary questions for written answer have been answered by his Department so far in the current Session, and in the comparable period for the last Session; and if he will publish a table of how many answers(a) do not give the information requested because of (i) disproportionate cost or (ii) other reasons, (b) give an undertaking to write to the hon. Member who asked the question and (c) were referred for answer to the chief executive of a next steps agency.

  Miss Widdecombe
  From the start of this Session to 17 July we answered 1,762 questions for written answer. By 17 July in the previous Session we had answered approximately 1,930. The information requested about answers is in the table.

  Session to 17 July

  1990–91

  1989–90

  Disproportionate cost

  52

  36

  Other reasons1

  77

  141

  Undertaking to write

  5

  3

  Referred to agency chief executive

  72

  0

  1 Most of these advise that "the information is not available". Referrals to information in the Library or previous answers are not included.

  Spending
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how social security spending is forecast to change over the next three years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Total social security spending is forecast to rise from £59 billion in 1990–91 to £75 billion in 1993–94. This represents a real-terms increase of 9·8 per cent. over the period.

  Disability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the mechanism whereby direct payments continue to be made to severely disabled people to make their own personal assistance arrangements under his proposals for the future of the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 16 July at columns 133–34.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the residency rules for severe disablement allowance so as to make them no more stringent than those for attendance allowance or the new disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on Tuesday 16 July at column 134.

  Mortgagors
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentages of supplementary benefit/income support recipients were mortgagors in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following numbers and percentages of supplementary benefit/income support recipients had an amount for mortgage interest added in their benefit assessment for the years in question:

  1980

  11986

  1990

  Number

  134,000

  356,000

  310,000

  Percentage of all income support recipients

  4

  7

  7

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiry. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and whole per cent.

  1 No Annual Statistical Enquiry was produced in 1985.

  Benefit Rates
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the 1991–92 benefit rates, in the form used in the Official Report, 25 October 1989, columns 845–54.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the schedule.
  436

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefit rates from April 1991

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Old rates 1990

  New rates 1991

  Attendance allowance

  higher rate

  37·55

  41·65

  lower rate

  25·05

  27·80

  Child benefit

  only, elder or eldest for whom child benefit is payable

  7·25

  8·25

  each subsequent child

  7·25

  7·25

  Child's special allowance (see note on Child Dependency Increase)

  9·65

  10·70

  Community charge benefit

  Personal allowances

  single

  18 to 24

  28·80

  31·15

  25 or over

  36·70

  39·65

  lone parent—18 or over

  36·70

  39·65

  couple—one or both over 18

  57·60

  62·25

  dependent children

  under 11

  12·35

  13·35

  11 to 15

  18·25

  19·75

  16 to 17

  21·90

  23·65

  18

  28·80

  31·15

  Premiums

  family

  7·35

  7·95

  lone parent

  9·70

  10·05

  pensioner

  single

  11·80

  13·75

  couple

  17·95

  20·90

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  14·40

  15·55

  couple

  21·60

  23·35

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  17·05

  18·45

  couple

  24·25

  26·20

  disability

  single

  15·40

  16·65

  couple

  22·10

  23·90

  severe disability

  single

  28·20

  31·25

  couple (one qualifies)

  28·20

  31·25

  couple (both qualify)

  56·40

  62·50

  disabled child

  15·40

  16·65

  carer

  10·00

  10·80

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  11·75

  13·00

  lower rate

  19·40

  10·40

  Capital

  upper limit

  116,000·00

  16,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15·00

  15·00

  various specified employments

  15·00

  15·00

  lone parent—in receipt of IS

  15·00

  15·00

  lone parent—not in receipt of IS

  25·00

  25·00

  437

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Old rates 1990

  New rates 1991

  where the claimant has a partner

  10·00

  10·00

  single claimant

  5·00

  5·00

  Other income disregards

  war disablement pension and war widows pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  110·00

  10·00

  student loan

  110·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  120·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  7·35

  8·05

  Dependency increases

  Adult Dependency increases

  For spouse or person looking after children, with:—

  retirement pension on own insurance invalidity pension, unemployability supplement and, if beneficiary over pension age, unemployment benefit

  28·20

  31·25

  non-contributory retirement pension, invalid care allowance and severe disablement allowance

  16·85

  18·70

  sickness benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  27·00

  29·95

  unemployment benefit

  23·05

  25·55

  maternity allowance/sickness benefit

  22·10

  24·50

  Child Dependency increases

  For each child with:—

  retirement pension, widows benefit, invalidity benefit, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement and sickness/ unemployment benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  9·65

  10·70

  Note: It is intended to make regulations so that, for child dependency increases, child's special allowance and guardian's allowance, the rate for the child will be abated by any increase in child benefit for that child.

  Earnings rules

  Invalid care allowance

  20·00

  30·00

  Unemployment benefit (daily rate)

  2·00

  2·00

  Therapeutic earnings limit

  35·00

  39·00

  Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  1,820·00

  2,028·00

  War pensioners' unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  1,820·00

  2,028·00

  Adult dependency increases with sickness benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  22·10

  24·50

  (b) over pension age

  27·00

  29·95

  maternity allowance

  22·10

  24·50

  unemployment benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  23·05

  25·55

  (b) over pension age

  28·20

  31·25

  438

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Old rates 1990

  New rates 1991

  retirement pension, invalidity pension, severe disablement allowance, unemployability supplement where dependant

  (a) is living with claimant

  37·35

  41·40

  (b) still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

  45·09

  45·09

  retirement pension, invalidity pension and unemployability supplement where dependant not living with claimant

  28·20

  31·25

  severe disablement allowance where dependant not living with claimant

  16·85

  18·70

  invalid care allowance

  16·85

  18·70

  Child dependency increases level at which CDIs payable with long-term benefits are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner for first child

  100·00

  110·00

  for each subsequent child

  13·00

  14·00

  Family credit

  Adult credit

  36·35

  38·30

  Child credit

  under 11

  8·25

  9·70

  11 to 15

  14·15

  16·10

  16 to 17

  17·80

  20·05

  18

  25·10

  27·95

  Applicable amount (ie taper threshold)

  57·60

  62·25

  Capital

  upper limit

  18,000·00

  8,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  110·00

  10·00

  student loan

  110·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  120·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  7·35

  8·05

  Guardian's allowance—each child (see note on Child Dependency Increase)

  9·65

  10·70

  Hospital downrating

  20 per cent, rate

  9·40

  10·40

  40 per cent, rate

  18·80

  20·80

  Housing benefit

  Personal allowances single

  16 to 24

  28·80

  31·15

  25 or over

  36·70

  39·65

  lone parent

  under 18

  28·80

  31·15

  18 or over

  36·70

  39·65

  439

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Old rates 1990

  New rates 1991

  couple

  both under 18

  43·80

  47·30

  one or both over 18

  57·60

  62·25

  dependent children

  under 11

  12·35

  13·35

  11 to 15

  18·25

  19·75

  16 to 17

  21·90

  23·65

  18

  28·80

  31·15

  Premiums

  family

  7·35

  7·95

  lone parent

  9·70

  10·05

  pensioner

  single

  11·80

  13·75

  couple

  17·95

  20·90

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  14·40

  15·55

  couple

  21·60

  23·35

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  17·05

  18·45

  couple

  24·25

  26·20

  disability

  single

  15·40

  16·65

  couple

  22·10

  23·90

  severe disability

  single

  28·20

  31·25

  couple (one qualifies)

  28·20

  31·25

  couple (both qualify)

  56·40

  62·50

  disabled child

  15·40

  16·65

  carer

  10·00

  10·80

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  11·75

  13·00

  lower rate

  19·40

  10·40

  Non-dependant deductions rent rebates and allowances aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  10·85

  13·50

  others, aged 18 or over, or on Income Support and over 25

  4·55

  5·70

  low earnings threshold

  56·05

  62·15

  Service charges for fuel

  heating

  7·35

  8·05

  hot water

  0·90

  1·00

  lighting

  0·60

  0·65

  cooking

  0·90

  1·00

  all fuel

  9·75

  10·70

  Amount ineligible for meals three or more meals a day

  single claimant

  13·15

  14·20

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  13·15

  14·20

  each child under 16

  6·60

  7·15

  less than three meals a day

  single claimant

  8·75

  9·45

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  8·75

  9·45

  each child under 16

  4·35

  4·70

  breakfast only—claimant and each member of family

  1·60

  1·75

  Capital

  upper limit

  116,000·00

  16,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  440

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Old rates 1990

  New rates 1991

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15·00

  15·00

  various specified employments

  15·00

  15·00

  lone parent—in receipt of IS

  15·00

  15·00

  lone parent—not in receipt of IS

  25·00

  25·00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10·00

  10·00

  single claimant

  5·00

  5·00

  Other income disregards

  war disablement pension and war widows pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  110·00

  10·00

  student loan

  110·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  120·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  7·35

  8·05

  Income Support

  Personal allowances

  single

  under 18—usual rate

  21·90

  23·65

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  28·80

  31·15

  18 to 24

  28·80

  31·15

  25 or over

  36·70

  39·65

  lone parent

  under 18—usual rate

  21·90

  23·65

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  28·80

  31·15

  18 or over

  36·70

  39·65

  couple

  both under 18

  43·80

  47·30

  one or both over 18

  57·60

  62·25

  dependent children

  under 11

  12·35

  13·35

  11 to 15

  18·25

  19·75

  16 to 17

  21·90

  23·65

  18

  28·80

  31·15

  Premiums

  family

  7·35

  7·95

  lone parent

  4·10

  4·45

  pensioner

  single

  11·80

  13·75

  couple

  17·95

  20·90

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  14·40

  15·55

  couple

  21·60

  23·35

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  17·05

  18·45

  couple

  24·25

  26·20

  disability

  single

  15·40

  16·65

  couple

  22·10

  23·90

  severe disability

  single

  28·20

  31·25

  couple (one qualifies)

  28·20

  31·25

  couple (both qualify)

  56·40

  62·50

  disabled child

  15·40

  16·65

  carer

  10·00

  10·80

  441

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Old rates 1990

  New rates 1991

  Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in residential care homes

  old age

  1155·00

  160·00

  very dependent elderly

  1170·00

  185·00

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  1155·00

  170·00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  1155·00

  170·00

  mental handicap

  1180·00

  195·00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  1215·00

  230·00

  (b) (over pension age)

  1155·00

  160·00

  others

  1155·00

  160·00

  maximum Greater London increase

  23·00

  23·00

  nursing homes

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  1210·00

  255·00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  1210·00

  255·00

  mental handicap

  1225·00

  260·00

  terminal illness

  1260·00

  275·00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  1255·00

  290·00

  (b) (over pension age)

  1210·00

  255·00

  others (including elderly)

  1210·00

  255·00

  maximum Greater London increase

  23·00

  33·00

  Amounts for meals where these cannot be purchased within the accommodation (daily rate)

  breakfast

  1·10

  1·10

  midday meal

  1·55

  1·55

  evening meal

  1·55

  1·55

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in

  private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes personal expenses

  10·55

  11·40

  dependent children

  (a) Under 11

  4·30

  4·65

  (b) 11 to 15

  6·35

  6·85

  (c) 16 to 17

  7·35

  7·95

  (d) age 18

  10·55

  11·40

  hospital

  higher rate

  11·75

  13·00

  lower rate

  19·40

  10·40

  local authority (Pt III) accommodation

  9·40

  10·40

  the Polish home Ilford Park:

  maximum amount for accommodation and meals

  1155·00

  160·00

  personal expenses for claimant

  13·95

  15·10

  personal expenses for partner

  13·95

  15·10

  personal expenses for dependent children

  (a) Under 11

  4·30

  4·65

  (b) 11 to 15

  6·35

  6·85

  (c) 16 to 17

  7·35

  7·95

  (d) age 18

  12·55

  13·55

  Housing costs deduction for non·dependants

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  10·85

  13·50

  others, aged 18 or over, or on Income Support and over 25

  4·55

  5·70

  low earnings threshold

  56·05

  62·15

  Deduction for direct payments

  fuel debt 5 per cent. rate

  1·85

  2·00

  fuel debt 10 per cent. rate

  3·70

  4·00

  arrears of housing costs

  1·85

  2·00

  arrears of water rates

  1·85

  2·00

  Deductions for arrears of Community Charge

  single debtor

  1·85

  2·00

  442

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Old rates 1990

  New rates 1991

  couple debtors both with IS

  2·90

  3·15

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  19·50

  21·00

  Capital

  upper limit

  18,000·00

  8,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3.000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5·00

  5·00

  higher earnings

  15·00

  15·00

  war disablement pension and war widows pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  110·00

  10·00

  student loan

  110·00

  10·00

  student's convenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  120·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  7·35

  8·05

  Industrial death benefit

  Widow's pension

  higher rate

  46·90

  52·00

  lower rate

  14·07

  15·60

  Industrial disablement pension

  18 and over, or under 18 with dependants

  100 per cent.

  76·60

  84·90

  90 per cent.

  68·94

  76·41

  80 per cent.

  61·28

  67·92

  70 per cent.

  53·62

  59·43

  60 per cent.

  45·96

  50·94

  50 per cent.

  38·30

  42·45

  40 per cent.

  30·64

  33·96

  30 per cent.

  22·98

  25·47

  20 per cent.

  15·32

  16·98

  Under 18

  100 per cent.

  46·90

  52·00

  90 per cent.

  42·21

  46·80

  80 per cent.

  37·52

  41·60

  70 per cent.

  32·83

  36·40

  60 per cent.

  28·14

  31·20

  50 per cent.

  23·45

  26·00

  40 per cent.

  18·76

  20·80

  30 per cent.

  14·07

  15·60

  20 per cent.

  9·38

  10·40

  Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)

  5,090·00

  5,640·00

  Unemployability Supplement plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity

  46·90

  52·00

  higher rate

  10·00

  11·10

  middle rate

  6·20

  6·90

  lower rate

  3·10

  3·45

  Maximum reduced earnings allowance

  30·64

  33·96

  Maximum retirement allowance

  7·66

  8·49

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  61·40

  68·00

  intermediate rate

  46·05

  51·00

  443

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Old rates 1990

  New rates 1991

  normal maximum rate

  30·70

  34·00

  part-time rate

  15·35

  17·00

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  30·70

  34·00

  Invalid care allowance

  28·20

  31·25

  Invalidity benefit

  Invalidity pension

  46·90

  52·00

  Invalidity allowance

  higher rate

  10·00

  11·10

  middle rate

  6·20

  6·90

  lower rate

  3·10

  3·45

  Maternity allowance

  35·70

  40·60

  Mobility allowance

  26·25

  29·10

  One-parent benefit

  5·60

  5·60

  Pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, workmen's compensation (supplementation) and other schemes

  Total disablement allowance and major incapacity allowance (maximum)

  76·60

  84·90

  Partial disablement allowance

  28·20

  31·25

  Unemployment supplement plus where appropriate increases for early incapacity

  46·90

  52·00

  higher rate

  10·00

  11·10

  middle rate

  6·20

  6·90

  lower rate

  3·10

  3·45

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  61·40

  68·00

  intermediate rate

  46·05

  51·00

  normal maximum rate

  30·70

  34·00

  part-time rate

  15·35

  17·00

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  30·70

  34·00

  Lesser incapacity allowance

  maximum rate of allowance

  28·20

  31·25

  based on loss of earnings over

  37·55

  41·65

  Retirement pension

  Category A or B

  46·90

  52·00

  Category B (lower)—husband's insurance

  28·20

  31·25

  Category C or D—non-contributory

  28·20

  31·25

  Category C (lower)—non-contributory

  16·85

  18·70

  Additional pension

  (increased by 10·9%)

  Increments to basic and additional pension, contracted out deductions (from pre April 1988 earnings) and graduated retirement benefit

  (increased by 10·9%)

  Contrated out deductions and increments to contracted out deductions (from post April 1988 earnings1)

  (3% paid by scheme 7·9% paid by state)

  Graduated retirement benefit (unit)(pence)

  6·14

  6·81

  Addition at age 80

  0·25

  0·25

  Severe disablement allowance

  Basic rate

  28·20

  31·25

  444

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Old rates 1990

  New rates 1991

  Age-related addition (from December 1990)

  higher rate

  110·00

  11·10

  middle rate

  16·20

  6·90

  lower rate

  3·10

  3·45

  Sickness benefit

  Over pension age

  45·00

  49·90

  Under pension age

  35·70

  39·60

  Social fund

  Maternity payment

  100·00

  100·00

  Capital limit

  aged under 60

  1500·00

  500·00

  aged 60 and over

  1,000·00

  1,000·00

  Statutory maternity pay

  Lower rate

  39·25

  44·50

  Statutory sick pay

  Lower rate

  39·25

  43·50

  Standard rate

  52·50

  52·50

  Unemployment benefit

  Over pension age

  46·90

  52·00

  Under pension age

  37·35

  41·40

  Occupational pension abatement

  35·00

  35·00

  War pensions

  Disablement pension (100 per cent. rates)

  private or equivalent

  76·60

  84·90

  officer (£ per annum)

  3,994·00

  4,427·00

  Age allowances

  40 per cent.-50 per cent.

  5·40

  6·00

  over 50 per cent, but not over 70 per cent.

  8·35

  9·25

  over 70 per cent, but not over 90 per cent.

  11·95

  13·25

  over 90 per cent.

  16·70

  18·50

  Disablement gratuity (base figures for calculation purposes only)

  specified minor injury

  5,090·00

  5,640·00

  unspecified minor injury

  2,799·50

  3,102·00

  Unemployability allowance

  personal

  49·80

  55·25

  adult dependency increase

  28·20

  31·25

  (a) increase for first child (adjusted for ChB increase)

  19·65

  9·70

  (b) increase for subsequent children

  19·65

  10·70

  Invalidity allowance

  higher rate

  10·00

  11·10

  middle rate

  6·20

  6·90

  lower rate

  3·10

  3·45

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  61·40

  68·00

  intermediate rate

  46·05

  51·00

  normal maximum rate

  30·70

  34·00

  part-time rate

  15·35

  17·00

  Comforts allowance

  higher rate

  13·20

  14·60

  lower rate

  6·60

  7·30

  Mobility supplement

  29·15

  32·35

  Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum)

  30·64

  33·96

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  30·70

  34·00

  445

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Old rates 1990

  New rates 1991

  Severe disablement occupational allowance

  15·35

  17·00

  Clothing allowance (£ per annum)

  higher rate

  104·00

  115·00

  lower rate

  66·00

  73·00

  Education allowance (£ per annum) (maximum)

  120·00

  120·00

  War widow's pension (private)

  widow

  60·95

  67·60

  childless widow under 40

  14·07

  15·60

  age allowance

  (a) age 65 to 69

  7·00

  7·75

  (b) age 70 to 79

  13·50

  14·95

  (c) age 80 and over

  20·00

  22·20

  children's allowance

  (a) increase for first child (adjusted for ChB increase)

  113·40

  13·65

  (b) increase for subsequent children

  113·40

  14·65

  Orphan's pension

  (a) increase for first child (adjusted for ChB increase)

  114·70

  15·10

  (b) increase for subsequent children

  114·70

  16·10

  Unmarried dependant living as spouse (maximum)

  58·90

  65·55

  Rent allowance (maximum)

  23·20

  25·75

  Adult orphan's pension (maximum)

  46·90

  52·00

  Widower's pension (maximum)

  60·95

  67·60

  Widow's benefit

  Widow's payment (lump sum)

  1,000·00

  1,000·00

  Widowed mother's allowance

  46·90

  52·00

  Widow's pension standard rate age related

  46·90

  52·00

  age 54 (49)

  43·62

  48·36

  53 (48)

  40·33

  44·72

  52 (47)

  37·05

  41·08

  51 (46)

  33·77

  37·44

  50 (45)

  30·49

  33·80

  49 (44)

  27·20

  30·16

  48 (43)

  23·92

  26·52

  47 (42)

  20·64

  22·88

  46 (41)

  17·35

  19·24

  45 (40)

  14·07

  15·60

  Note: For deaths occuring before 11 April 1988 refer to age-points shown in brackets.

  1 These items either inserted for the first time or amended, between April 1990 and April 1991.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the saving to his Department in community charge benefit subsidy payments as a result of poll tax capping in(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92; and if he will set out the saving in respect of each designated authority.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to increase or abolish the £500 capital limit for social fund payments.

  Mr. Scott
  On 14 June this year I announced our intention to abolish the capital rule for cold weather payments from next winter. We have no plans to alter the present capital limits for other payments from the social fund, which currently stand at £500, or £1,000 for people over 60.

  Pensioners (Home Ownership)
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the number of pensioners who own their own home and have repaid their mortgage.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated that, in 1988, around 3·4 million homes were owned outright by either a single pensioner or a pensioner couple.

  Dementia
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to introduce legislation for retrospective reinstatement of rights and benefits for those sufferers of dementia who have lost their jobs, either volutarily or through dismissal, and who have only later been diagnosed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No. Legislation already exists to allow an adjudication officer to reconsider retrospectively a decision to reduce or refuse benefits. Section 104 of the Social Security Act 1975 allows a review of a decision by an adjudication officer or social security appeal tribunal at any time if the officer or tribunal is satisfied that the decision was given in ignorance of, or was based on a mistake as to, some material fact.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the scope of welfare benefits available to younger sufferers from dementia.

  Mr. Scott
  Benefits for people with long-term sickness or disability are awarded, not on the basis of the medical condition from which a person is suffering, but on the effects and needs to which that condition gives rise. People suffering from dementia may receive a wide range of benefits. That range will be further increased in April 1992 when disability living allowance is introduced to provide new help for people with care or mobility needs. People entitled to disability living allowance will be eligible for the disability premium within the income-related benefits.

  Spending Priorities
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is considering any changes to his Department's spending priorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Priorities within the Department's expenditure are kept under review, but we have no specific proposals for change at present.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his feasibility studies into the options for the disposal of decommissioned nuclear-propelled submarines are complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The policy for disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines is still under active consideration. No final decision has yet been taken.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of all nuclear-powered submarines which have either been decommissioned or are awaiting decommissioning.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Dreadnought and Churchill are at Rosyth and Warspite and Conqueror at Devonport.

  Iraq
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what level of extra pay and allowances over and above normal salaries members of the armed services receive while on duty in refugee camps in Iraq.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The normal rules for service pay and allowances have been applied to members of the armed forces employed on Operation Haven.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the present strength of the British Army is serving in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The latest figures available show the proportion to be about 11 per cent. of the total strength or 12 per cent. of the trained strength.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which sections of his Department had accounts with BCCI.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the next steps initiative.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Ministry of Defence is making a substantial response to next steps. Two executive and six defence support agencies have been established, employing over 34,000 service and civilian staff.

  My Department's response to next steps is part of the major programme of defence management reform, which has been described in successive Statements on the Defence Estimates. Next steps places particular emphasis on efficiency, standards of service to customers and value for money. The Ministry of Defence's support organisations provide services to internal and external customers, including operational units. Higher standards of service and performance will enhance the overall effectiveness of our defence capability. Agency disciplines will be
  448
  important in shaping the smaller, more flexible and higher-quality support structure that will be needed in the future. The agency programme will be an important part of my Department's contribution to the citizens charter initiative.

  My Department will undergo substantial restructuring as a result of "Options for Change" and the PROSPECT study of the headquarters. We therefore intend to proceed on the basis of a two-year next steps programme. This will give us more scope to take account of continuing work on "Options for Change" and PROSPECT, while maintaining the necessary momentum on next steps.

  We shall aim to make early progress on reviews of agency status for tri-service helicopter repair, the Ministry of Defence police, the defence operational analysis establishment, central computer bureau services, the defence animal centre, defence statistics, common services, the Queen Victoria school, Dunblane and the Duke of York's royal military school, Dover. We would aim to complete as many as possible of these reviews and, if the outcome is positive, establish agencies by the end of this financial year. We shall continue our review of RAF training, taking into account current studies of the structure and organisation of the RAF support area, aiming to complete it as soon as we can. We shall also begin reviews of naval training, Army logistics, test and evaluation, human factors research and some communications services, aiming to complete these by the end of the second year. Other organisations may be added to the list as the future shape of the support area becomes clearer. Equally, there is no presumption from inclusion in the list that the organisation concerned will become an agency. This is a review process which involves, inter alia, consideration of alternative options, including privatisation and contracting out.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps have so far been taken to identify and discipline those responsible for attempting to pervert the process of the Civil Service Appeals Board in the case of Mr. Colin Wallace;

  (2) if he will invite the Metropolitan police to investigate the attempt to pervert the process of the Civil Service Appeals Board in the case of Mr. Colin Wallace;

  (3) if he will invite Mr. David Calcutt to conduct a further, open-ended review of the case of Mr. Colin Wallace with a remit to identify all those responsible for the conspiracy to pervert the due process of the Civil Service Appeals Board.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have no reason to believe that the officials who communicated with the Civil Service Appeals Board did so other than in good faith. No further inquiries are considered necessary.

  Nuclear Test Ban
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the 1991–92 allocation of £2,441 million targeted for research and development under section 2.3, page 10, of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1991, Volume 2" (Cm. 1559-II), is intended for research into the verification of a nuclear test ban.
  449
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Government expenditure on unclassified work in relation to verification amounts to less than one tenth of I per cent. of the total R and D budget. The Government also undertake some classified work in related areas, details of which cannot be revealed on grounds of national security.

  Strategic Nuclear Force
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the £1,445 million allocated for 1991–92 to the strategic nuclear force, section 2.3, page 10, of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1991, Volume 2" (Cm. 155941), is attributable, respectively, to(a) nuclear warhead testing in the United States of America, (b) nuclear warhead design and development,(c) radiological protection at atomic weapons establishments, (d) nuclear waste storage and disposal at atomic weapons establishments and (e) safety assurance testing for transportation of warheads.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information requested at(a), (b) and (e) is classified. The information at (c) and (d) is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under which sub-heading in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991" (Cm 1559-II) environmental protection and research activities of his Department's activities are subsumed; and if he will publish an estimate of the total annual allocation of defence expenditure to environmental matters accounted for in the estimates.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This Department's expenditure on environmental measures cannot be separately identified.

  European Defence Initiative
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's current annual financial commitment to the European long-term initiative for defence; and how much he estimates it is likely to be for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Our current commitment of £1 million is for collaborative research over the next four years; it is envisaged that work will not begin until 1992. Funding for Euclid over the next five years will be determined in the light of agreements reached for further collaborative projects.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next meet his European counterparts to discuss the European long-term initiative for defence.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No meetings are currently planned specifically to discuss the European long-term initiative for defence, Euclid. However, the subject may be raised at the next meeting of Defence Ministers from the participating nations in spring next year.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping
  450
  small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Further to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 24 July last year, Vol. 177, column 121, I can inform him of the following: our new suppliers service has given marketing advice to about 2,400 companies over the last 12 months; our fortnightly Contracts Bulletin now includes details of sub-contract opportunities and allows sub-contractors to purchase advertising space; and during 1990–91, 38 defence research contracts, with a total value of £1·18 million were placed under our small firms research initiative.

  Details of payments to small firms during 1990–91 are not yet available, but during 1989–90, about 6,200 small companies secured headquarters contracts, with a total value of approximately £1 billion. Just over half this went to businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Over the same period, MOD establishments awarded over 200,000 local purchase orders to small firms, at a total value of £100 million.

  Navy Bases
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the estimated annual costs of operating each of the Royal Navy bases and the anticipated savings or additional costs arising from the decisions made to rationalise the Royal Navy's support infrastructure.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cash allocation for each of the naval bases for the current financial year is:

  £ million

  Portsmouth

  148·1

  Devonport

  122·9

  Faslane

  74·8

  Rosyth

  64·8

  Portland

  14·8

  The savings expected from the naval support rationalisation measures announced by my right hon. Friend on 16 July 1991, Official Report, columns 148–49, amount to approximately £275 million over 10 years.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers and types of vessels which will be based at each of the Royal Navy bases in the light of the decisions made to rationalise the Royal Navy's support infrastructure.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Vessels are currently base-ported as shown in the following table. On 16 July my right hon. Friend announced our plans to transfer from Rosyth the four Type 42 destroyers and the Northern Ireland squadron—four vessels—to Portsmouth and Faslane respectively. Overall vessel numbers will change as the Royal Navy moves towards the smaller fleet set out in the 1991 Statement on the Defence Estimates.

  Portsmouth

  6 Diesel/electric submarines (SSKs)

  8 Destroyers

  7 Frigates

  3 Carriers

  7 Minor war vessels

  451

  5 Others

  Devonport

  9 Nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs)

  29 Frigates

  6 Others

  Faslane

  4 Ballistic missile submarines

  5 SSN 2 SSK

  Rosyth

  4 Destroyers

  27 Minor war vessels

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of naval and civilian personnel which he anticipates will be employed at each of the Royal Navy bases in the light of decisions made to rationalise the Royal Navy's support infrastructure.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of naval and civilian personnel currently at the naval bases are shown in 452
  the table. Proposals for the reduction in tasks at Rosyth naval base would entail 1,100 naval personnel transferring to Portsmouth and 100 to Faslane. Nine hundred civilian jobs would also be affected although it is too soon to say how many of these might be transferred to other naval bases. Some redeployment of civilian staff is envisaged in the light of the other restructuring proposals announced on 16 July by my right hon. Friend, but specific numbers have yet to be finalised. As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement, the MOD will now proceed to rationalise support activities in each of the naval base areas.

  Naval base

  Civilians

  Naval Personnel1

  Portsmouth

  5,800

  8,500

  Devonport

  3,850

  9,300

  Faslane

  2,000

  3,500

  Rosyth

  2,100

  4,200

  Portland

  700

  500

  1 Includes those in shore jobs, on board ships base ported at the Base or crews of ships being refitted there.

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

European Commission Presidency
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the length of the appointment of Mr. Jacques Delors with the European Commission, and when that period is due to expire.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, Mr. Delors was first appointed President of the Commission from 1st January 1985 for a term of two years. His appointment has subsequently been renewed and is due to expire on 31st December 1992.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer. Can he also indicate who makes the appointment, whether it is renewable indefinitely and whether it is for a fixed term on each occasion?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Yes, my Lords. There is no limit to the number of times Mr. Delors' appointment can be renewed, each time for a further two Years. The members of the Commission are appointed by common accord by the governments of member states. The Commission at present consists of 17 members. The President of the Commission is also appointed by common accord and is counted as one of the 17 members.

Employment Service Placement Target
2.37 p.m.
Lard McCarthy Lard McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the placement target of the Employment Service has been reduced during a period of rising unemployment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, my right honourable friend sets targets for the Employment Service which take account of planned improvements in its efficiency and effectiveness and the conditions prevailing in the labour market. I am convinced that the target of placing 1.3 million unemployed people into jobs, the equivalent of over 5,000 placings for every working day, for the current financial year is both demanding and realistic.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Visco ant for that reply. Does he not agree that on page 329 of the June issue of the Employment Gazette the Government admit that they have reduced the target by some 22 per cent. on last year? The reason they give is:
"the downturn in the labour market and the anticipated reduct on in vacancies".
458
In other words, as unemployment gets worse the Government reduce the target for the Employment Service because they do not propose to do anything about it. Is that fair?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords; nor is it correct. The Next Steps Agency is learning from experience. The targets this year are fewer and better formulated than last year when they were set on the basis of the limited historical performance information then available. In 1991–92 the Employment Service has 14 demanding targets covering job placings, help with job search, job preparation and training, and paying benefits accurately and promptly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the target is being reduced and the numbers being placed are falling that can only fuel further unemployment and that the Government's policy should be directed in the opposite direction?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the placings for next year reflect the success of placings for this year. To that extent the targets have not been reduced.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the CBI is reported this morning as saying that the prevailing fear of unemployment is undermining consumer confidence and presumably therefore retarding economic growth? In those circumstances is it not necessary for the Government to do far more in the way of job creation? Does he agree that that is not accomplished by reducing the targets as indicated?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are stepping up their very positive action by offering this year some 840,000 other opportunities to help unemployed people back into work as quickly as possible and the number is approaching 900,000 for next year. The Government view the matter very seriously and the Employment Service is now a billion-pound agency.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the effective way of dealing with the problem is for the Government to pursue economic and fiscal policies which will lead to the lowering of unemployment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I entirely agree. The Government are taking the necessary steps to combat inflation and thereby create the climate for renewed economic growth. That is the route to increased employment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, as a result of the reduction in the employment training budget, some training centres catering particularly for those in need of rehabilitation following a period in prison are having to limit adult training to those best able to benefit by securing jobs? At a time when government policy is said to be to reduce the prison population by expanding community punishment, is it not most inappropriate to be reducing job training for ex-offenders?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the prime concern of the Government is cost-effective training for individuals and not continued funding for any particular provider, either private or voluntary. Ex-offenders have preferential access to the full range of services and programmes offered by the Department of Employment. The time spent in custody counts towards the qualifying period for our major programmes, employment training and job clubs, and will count towards the employment action programme. Many ex-offenders are eligible immediately on release. The announcement on 19th June of new measures for the unemployed included an increase in funding for employment training for the training of 15,000 more people, particularly those with numeracy and literacy problems.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for all that he has said in answer to the questions, but he has not answered my original Question. Why are the Government planning a reduction in help for the unemployed when the numbers of unemployed are rising? The Government are doing all kinds of things but they plan to do less for the unemployed in terms of the placement service than they did last year. Why?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have gone a long way towards explaining why, but obviously I have not convinced the noble Lord. The number of opportunities for the unemployed is greater than at any other time. That is helpful in many ways. The Employment Service is doing an extraordinarily good job and the number of people flowing out of unemployment on a monthly basis is some 278,000.

Eastern Europe: Withdrawal of Soviet Forces
2.43 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
What Soviet forces have been withdrawn from Eastern Europe since 1988, and what further withdrawals they expect.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, all Soviet forces have withdrawn from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Arrangements have been made between the Soviet Union and Germany to regulate the withdrawal of all the remaining Soviet forces in the former GDR, which is due to be completed by the end of 1994. Although the Soviet Union has also agreed to total withdrawal from Poland, negotiations over timing and other arrangements continue.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. However, can he say what warning time the NATO Governments now estimate they have before the Soviet Union could launch a conventional attack on the West, or is the possibility regarded as too remote to make a guess worthwhile?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for having given me advance, if brief, notice of that question. Through reductions so far
460
achieved under the CFE treaty, and through the new ability to verify, we believe that the risk of a surprise attack no longer exists.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House, first, what Soviet land forces were transferred to the Soviet navy in breach of the conventional forces reductions agreement and, secondly, what tank forces were spirited east of the Urals to avoid being counted in the cuts?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot give exact figures as regards the numbers in the Soviet navy. However, under recent negotiations, agreement has been reached with the Soviets about arrangements for the navy. About 70,000 items were withdrawn from the treaty area before signature, of which more than 50,000 items of all five categories limited by the treaty are east of the Urals. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary expressed our anxieties during visits to Moscow. The Soviet Union was left in no doubt that it must resolve those problems. The British and other Allied action contributed to the success of the United States-Soviet negotiations.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. However, he will be aware that the fact that negotiations for the withdrawal of forces from Poland appear to have stalled is of considerable concern. Will the Prime Minister raise that issue and other similar issues when he goes to Moscow?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not know whether my right honourable friend will raise that issue. The Soviet anxiety over withdrawal from Poland stemmed from its concern to have sufficient cover for its troops withdrawing from Germany. I understand that progress is being made in those negotiations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to Moscow to discuss economic affairs and improvements in the Soviet Union, will he be able to question the large percentage of gross domestic product that is allocated to the armed forces in the Soviet Union?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the proportion of GDP employed in defence is greater for the Western countries than it is for the Soviet Union. Having said that, the figures are extremely difficult to make sense of, given the costing systems of the Soviet Union.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in calculating the possibility of a surprise attack against NATO, will the Government bear in mind the following point? When troops are removed from Central Europe, as they have been in recent months, and when, as has already been said, the Soviet Union withdraws behind the Urals and transfers many of its armoured vehicles to its navy (making the Soviet navy virtually the only navy in the world that now has tanks) it would take much longer to reinforce the European theatre from the West than it would take the Soviet Union to reinforce Europe from behind the Urals, given the tanks now in its navy.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, with progress so far—it is of course unending—the treaties that have been achieved give a degree of security to the West As I said, the question of arms reduction does not cease there. I shall bear in mind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, although we must obviously keep an eye on what is going on, it is bound to take time to resolve the difficulties in the cumbersome Soviet economy of trying to reverse the military-industrial conflict?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The restructuring of the Soviet political and economic life, initiated by President Gorbachev, is largely intended to reorientate the country away from the previous military emphasis. CFE force reductions and other arms control measures thus run with the grain of Soviet reforms and should benefit the Soviet economy as much as they do East-West relations.
Lard Beloff: My Lords, was the House right in understanding the Minister to say that the Soviet proportion of its GDP devoted to defence is less than that of the major Western countries? If so, the statistics available to the Minister are different from those available to anyone else.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have seen statistics along those lines. That is why I quoted them. On the other hand, I think that they are utterly meaningless in the context in which I saw them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord used to quoting utterly meaningless statistics from the Dispatch Box? Is it not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, that from all the statistics, meaningless or otherwise, that we have heard, the Soviet Union spends a vastly higher proportion of its gross domestic product on defence than any Western country? Does he agree that the Government—obviously from the Dispatch Box—have emphasised that point throughout, in order to make sure that the options for change do not go wrong?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am sorry if I confused the House. I did not mean to imply that the Soviet effort was in any way diminished by that. I merely tried to illustrate that, with a currency that is not operated similarly to our own, the figures do not make much sense in that context.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that calculations of the gross domestic product of tit! Soviet Union are made in the rouble? Whatever the value of the rouble may be, the figure is a percentage of output. I insist again on the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Is it not the case that the Soviet Union still spends a higher proportion of its gross domestic product—calculated on any basis that anybody cares to choose—on defence?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord is right; but he is not right about the basis on which GDP statistics are published.
462
Differences arise not only because there are various levels for the rouble but it also depends on what the Soviet Union declares as part of the defence effort.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I must confess that I was rather nonplussed at the noble Lord's reply, but as I do not have the statistics to hand, I let the matter go. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for bringing back the matter. The Minister did not tell us the statistics. Can he let us have them so that we can perhaps make a comparison?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, no, I cannot do that today. In fact that is not part of the Question.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in view of the Soviet withdrawals and its drastic cuts in military equipment, of which he informed the House last week; in view of the switch of loyalties in Eastern Europe; and in view of the Soviet economic bankruptcy and ethnic difficulties, does the noble Lord agree that the prospect of a secret invasion by the Soviet Union is not for consideration?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, indeed, we feel that it is very much reduced.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to rise again but this is an important question. We have been given certain answers. What puzzles me even further is how the Minister can have given an answer to the question if he did not have the statistics to which it referred. Can he enlighten us?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the answer to that is that I had the statistics last week in answer to another Question and I recalled them from memory.

Polish Citizens: UK Visa Restrictions
2.53 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now end visa restrictions for Polish citizens wishing to visit Britain, in view of the fact that restrictions have been abolished or are about to be abolished by the governments of all European states except the United Kingdom, Albania, Turkey, Iceland and Greece.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it would not be prudent to abolish visas while our embassy in Warsaw continues to receive very large numbers of applications from Polish nationals who do not meet the requirements prescribed in the immigration rules.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware of the terrible damage that that policy is doing to British-Polish relations, of which those who have Polish friends and relations are only too painfully aware? We are the people who listen to all the arguments and are attacked about the policy. Surely my noble friend agrees that it is time to show some generosity to a nation which has endured so much in the common cause of freedom not only in the Second

463
World War but in the Solidarity years when it was the leader of freedom in Eastern Europe? Can he give any special reason why we continue to be almost the odd man out in Europe over this affair?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, no visa regime is maintained lightly. However, the Government are concerned that visa abolition at present would result in large numbers of Polish nationals being turned back at our ports and airports by the immigration service because they are ineligible under the rules. That would be far worse for them and for our relations with Poland. The Government welcome genuine visitors from Poland and large numbers of them come here every year. In 1990 57,000 were admitted—more than from any other East European country. Last year 22,000 visa applications from Poland - that is over a third of the total received—were either refused or withdrawn.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many applications for visas were lodged by Polish citizens in 1990? Can he indicate the number of visas that were granted and the number refused? I am sure that the House would be grateful if he could give those figures without relying on his memory. Secondly, can he confirm that visa restrictions have been abolished or are about to be abolished by the governments of all European states except, I believe, Albania, Turkey, Iceland, Greece and the United Kingdom? Does he agree that that is rather strange company to find ourselves in?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I gave the numbers to noble Lords in answer to the last question. In 1990 57,000 were admitted to this country from Poland and visas were either refused or withdrawn for 22,000 of them. Because of our relationship with Poland large numbers of Polish citizens want to come to this country. For example, in 1989 our embassies in Prague and Budapest refused only 20 visa applications. That illustrates the difference in numbers of people who wish to come here from other countries compared with Poland.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I can personally endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, said? I have just returned from working in Poland. I saw queues of Poles standing and waiting for hours on end, through the night and during the day, outside the Consulate in Warsaw. I know that they often borrow money to reach the capital from outlying districts and have no means of paying for food or overnight accommodation. Does he agree that our policy brings discredit and disgrace to this country? Furthermore, does he know that applicants have to pay a fee of £20, whether or not a visa is granted, which is a great deal of money for the average Pole? Moreover, professionals and academics who have been invited to international conferences are often quizzed. I feel very strongly about this matter. What can the noble Lord reply?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made strenuous efforts to
464
avoid the queues which arose last year. Procedural, staffing and office layout changes have recently been made to that end and a same day service is now being provided for most visa applicants. Noble Lords will realise that it would be much more expensive for Poles who want to come to this country to be turned away at the airport and have to go all the way back. I should add that out of the 22,000 unsuccessful visa applicants in Warsaw last year, 20,000 withdrew before paying their fees, so they incurred no costs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a good reason for retaining visas when other countries do not is that people want to come to this country and do not want to go to them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend made an interesting point. It is important that many European Community member states which have long land borders depend much more heavily on post-entry immigration control than we do—for example, identity cards.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, far from it being the case that fewer Poles want to enter Germany and France than wish to come to this country, the pressure on Germany is far greater than it is on us? Is he further aware that the trouble which the Consulate in Warsaw has to take in order to deal with this situation could easily be overcome if visas were abolished?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. The Germans took the view that it would be extremely difficult for them to control their border with Poland by means of visas. That is a decision which they made.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say on what principles visas are granted or refused to people who come to this country from Poland? Of the 57,000 people to whom visas were granted last year, what proportion were economic migrants and what proportion wanted temporary visas for a short stay?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend detailed information of the number of people coming to this country. Obviously we welcome people who come for holidays and who attend official training and management schemes that we run. For example, this country has committed £50 million to the Know How Fund. That is for Poles to come to this country on technical and management training schemes.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, gave the House a somewhat shaming picture of scenes at the British Consulate in Warsaw. On 17th May last year the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, answering a similar Question, said:
"We are seeking larger, more suitable premises for the visa section". [Official Report, 17/5/90; col. 385.]
Are we still seeking them? Have we found them? What is happening?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is making strenuous efforts to

465
avoid the queues. The queues have been improved. They would be much worse at airports or ports in this country if we did not have visas.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there is a strong feeling in this country that it is strange that we cannot have as liberal a policy for the Poles on visas as we have for the Hungarians and Czechs? After all, Poland was the country for which we went to war. Many Poles fought for us and now live in this country. I hope that the noble Lord will persuade the Government to consider whether we should be bracketing the Poles, above all, with the Romanians, the Bulgarians and Soviet citizens.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have strong ties with Polar d. But we do not believe, for example, that the solution to Poland's economic problems lies in sending its workforce abroad.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is it not the case that the vast majority of Poles seek visas to enter the United Kingdom only as visitors? The economic position is totally irrelevant.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend is entirely correct. Over a third of the applicants were refused visas because they were regarded as people who wished to come to work in this country.

Petition: Sunday Trading
3.2 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I beg to present a petition from members and friends of Unity Chapel Lockleaze, Bristol, which prays that this House will support the existing prohibition on Sunday trading because the practice of keeping one day of rest in each week is a God-given directive for the health and good of the: people and the universal obligation based on creation and practice by Jesus Christ, and if the law of the land allows Sunday trading these practices and principles would be eroded.
This petition against the extension of Sunday trading bears nearly 70 signatures.
Petition presented.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House: will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. My noble friend the Leader of the House will then, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Citizen's Charter.
Midland Metro Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Midland Metro (No. 2) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Birmingham City Council Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Mental Health (Detention) (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
3.5.p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that she, having been informed of the purport of the Child Support Bill, has consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before your Lordships agree to the proposal, I suggest that there ought to be a moment of consideration. Indeed it seems highly questionable whether the Bill should be discussed today. It seems quite extraordinary—and I use that word in all its senses—that a Bill which only concluded its stages in the other place last Thursday is now presented with 21 pages of amendments for your Lordships to consider today and 12 new clauses—a substantial little Bill in itself. It was only this morning, that I was told by the Printed Paper Office that the Marshalled List of amendments was available. Those of us who live out of London and have to travel up especially did not see the list until midday. It is quite impossible to deal adequately with those amendments at such little notice.
It is an important Bill. It aroused general hostility in your Lordships' House from the two dozen or so Members who took a particular interest in it. No one except the two Ministers in charge of the Bill had anything good to say about it. It is a profoundly bureaucratic Bill. It starts by obtaining leave to recruit 4,700 civil servants, of whom 2,200 are new placements. For a Government who claim to be rolling back the frontiers of state, that seems odd. However, the problem does not stop there. There are wide invasions of traditional civil liberties in support of the Secretary of State in his powers under the Bill. There are over 100 regulation-making powers, of which only a dozen or so are subject to the affirmative

467
resolution procedure. It is difficult to think of any measure which is more profoundly bureaucratic. It deserves proper discussion.
The Bill proceeds at the outset by the ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts, as well as ousting the traditional function of Parliament to make the laws in favour of the Secretary of State doing so by regulation.
That is not the only matter in this Bill procedurally which gives cause for disturbance and concern. The second day of the Report stage continued until the early hours of the morning. It was very nearly two o'clock when we discussed the important constitutional matter of the parliamentary control of delegated legislation. The hour was so late and your Lordships were so pressed that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who had been leading admirably for the Opposition, postponed his remarks on that issue until the debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. Matters were so arranged that he had no opportunity to do so.
After that, I took the liberty of writing to the Chief Whip to ask that there should be a reasonable computation of the time that would be required on Third Reading. I was assured that the business before the Child Support Bill was purely perfunctory and that adequate time would be allotted. Your Lordships did not start consideration of the Bill on Third Reading until 4.20 p.m. By about 10.30 p.m. we had by no means reached the end of the many amendments on Third Reading, the majority of which were government amendments.
The noble Lord the then Chief Whip then scurried around the House begging Members not to move amendments, or to move them perfunctorily, and not to speak on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. The reason he gave was that if the business went on beyond 11 p.m. the following day's business would be lost.
The noble Lord made a personal appeal to me. I felt that unless the Government's business managers were hoist with their own petard they would never show proper consideration to your Lordships, and what has happened today shows that my misgiving was accurate. With the noble Lord the Chief Whip about to retire, I did not have the heart to make a speech on Bill do now pass, which I had come to London to do, and I moved amendments perfunctorily.
That is the background to and the history of the Bill. It cannot be considered entirely in isolation, because it is part of the course of conduct of business which has amounted to a devaluation of your Lordships' role in the Constitution.
In this Session alone we have had the War Crimes Bill, where the Parliament Act was invoked to deny your Lordships a voice in the decision. All constitutional lawyers in your Lordships' House, not least of all my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, were unanimous that that was an improper use of the Parliament Act. That was also the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who was the principal historian of the genesis of the Parliament Act; it was also the view of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who as a young man had taken
468
a personal interest in the passing of that measure. It did not stop with the War Crimes Bill. There was the Criminal Justice Bill, where your Lordships' views were again overridden, despite the fact that powerful voices had been raised in support of the provision which your Lordships inserted into the Bill. Even those who believed that your Lordships should give way on that matter so that the Bill's valuable provisions should not be endangered were convinced that the reasons given for refusing your Lordships' view did not stand up for a minute to investigation. That again was the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham.
More recently—only last week—we had the Finance Bill produced in your Lordships' House much later than was proper so that it had to be debated on Friday last. Nothing could be more inconvenient to those interested in the measure. I can only say that if such things happen, not only with this Bill but with all the other measures, your Lordships are in danger of seeing new brooms sweep your Lordships' House on to the dustheap of history. The Labour Party has produced a scheme for a reformed Second Chamber. It was subject of the most devastating criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in a debate in April last year; but if the Government behave in this way, they are presenting the Labour Party with a case for House of Lords reform on a plate.
The proper course is to do what is normally done at this time of year; namely, when the Commons finishes its deliberations and submits a substantial list of amendments—as was done with the Children Bill and the Courts and Legal Services Bill—to postpone discussion until the autumn. If that is done, your Lordships have an opportunity to study, in a way that we do not have today, what is proposed.
There is another matter: by this procedure amendments are in effect precluded. It is true that manuscript amendments are permissible on consideration of Commons amendments, but the Companion to the Standing Orders discountenances their use. I am sure that business managers on both sides would deprecate that breach of the spirit of standing orders. There are a number of amendments to the Commons amendments which should be made. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who jumped the gun and left us at the starting gate, has managed to put down some amendments, but those who saw the Commons amendments for the first time today, especially those who saw them only at midday, have had no chance to put down amendments.
I deprecate the procedure and ask your Lordships to join me in those deprecations.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word. The noble and learned Lord has made what I believe amounts to a personal attack on me.
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Denham: He did not do me the courtesy of informing me that he was going to do so. Had he done so, I should have been able to reply to his accusations at a little greater length.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I did not understand the excellent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, as an attack upon the former Chief Whip. He was rightly pointing out to the House that much legislation is ill-considered and, because it is ill-considered, is not as good as it should be by the end of the debate. That has consequences when the legislation is put into operation. He is right. His remarks were entirely proper. I hope that the House will take note of them. For too long not only under the present Government but also under previous governments we have felt that the quantity of legislation is more important than its quality. I have reached the conclusion over that period that we now want properly considered quality legislation which does not have to be altered practically every Session.
The appeal by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is reasonable and relevant. It should be taken into account by the Government and certainly by this House.
In relation to the Child Support Bill, like the noble and learned Lord, I received a copy of the amendments today; and I also received from the noble Lord, Lord Henley—and I thank him for this—Notes on Commons Amendments. Unfortunately, I have not yet had time to read them let alone assimilate them. Therefore, there is certainly a case for delaying this 13ill, as the noble and learned Lord requested, until the autumn spillover.
There is no reason why that should not be done. As I understand it, this Bill does not have to be put into operation immediately. Indeed, I understand that it will not come into operation until 1993. Therefore, would it not be better that we should properly consider the Bill and the Commons amendments when we hive plenty of time in the spillover period? We should not try to cram the discussions today into about two or three hours.
That is all I wish to say except to reiterate my firm support for the excellent case which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has put to your Lordships about legislation being considered properly by this House, and indeed by another place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is with great reluctance that I rise to comment on the handling of government business when I have such a great respect for the way in which my noble friend Lord Denham exercised his responsibility with regard to it, and when we have a new Chief Whip for whom I have also a very great regard.
I refrain from commenting on the merits of the Bill, and the history of how, when the Bill was previously before your Lordships, it was handled. However, I must say that I had no sight of these amendments until I arrived at your Lordships' House at 2.15 this afternoon. I then found, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out, that there are 21 pages and 135 Commons amendments. Many of them are very long and complicated. Speaking for myself, I require a day or two to fathom their significance, and how they affect the text of the Bill as it was when it left your Lordships' House.
470
was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Henley for giving us Notes on Commons Amendments. I am relieved to know that he has distributed them to noble Lords on other sides of the House as well as noble Lords on this side. I believe that that is a most commendable way of helping your Lordships to get through difficult and complicated Bills. However, we should not now be asked to deal with this Bill virtually without an opportunity of considering adequately, or at all in my case, this mass of amendments. As has been said by the noble and learned Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, nothing would be lost by considering the amendments in the spillover Session in October.
For those reasons, I earnestly hope that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who has displayed great patience and his usual learning and ability in piloting this difficult Bill, my noble friend the Leader of the House, and others on the Front Bench responsible for taking decisions with regard to our business, will heed what has been said. It is in order to maintain the reputation of your Lordships as Members of a revising Chamber that we should not be rushed into considering this matter this afternoon. I hope that further and wiser counsel will prevail so that we have a chance of considering the Bill later—preferably in October.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Renton. I do not wish to enter any argument concerning the activities of our former Chief Whip for whom we all have the greatest respect.
However, I should like to speak to the specific Bill before this House. This Bill was very contentious and there was little support for it when it first came to this House. Noble Lords on all sides have tried to do their best to amend the Bill, not because they disagreed with its principle but because of the way in which it will affect individuals throughout the country. Your Lordships' House has a specific duty to protect the individuals who will be affected directly by the implementation and application of the Bill when it becomes law.
Therefore, we have a duty to consider these Commons amendments with seriousness and a minimum degree of time, which has not been given to your Lordships today. Therefore, I join in the earnest request of my noble friend Lord Renton that the Commons amendments should be considered in the spillover period in October.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if I say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has raised a valid point, I do not wish for a moment to be construed as making any criticism whatever of the Government Front Bench. They have done what they can to facilitate the conduct of business and my noble kinsman's action in circulating Notes on Commons amendments is a truly notable courtesy for which I am deeply grateful.
Nevertheless, I cannot but agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is difficult to master such a mass of amendments in such a short time. It is not the first time that this has happened. Noble Lords may remember the National Health Service and

471
Community Care Bill when Commons Hansard was not available and we did not know why our amendments had seemed to be unsuitable to another place. That is a general and not a particular problem.
Perhaps I may suggest—and I hope that the Government Front Bench will find my suggestion agreeable—that the best way to deal with the matter is to refer the general question regarding the time available for consideration of Commons amendments to the Procedure Committee.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Renton. On Friday I telephoned the Printed Paper Office and asked for a list of amendments to be sent to me. The most extraordinary thing happened—it was lost in the post! It did not arrive either on Saturday or Monday morning.
Also, we should pay tribute to the voluntary organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux and the Child Poverty Action Group which have worked extremely hard to inform your Lordships of the various points of view held by their staff and the people that they represent. It has been quite impossible either to read the amendments or, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, the helpful notes given to us by my noble friend Lord Henley. It will be impossible to speak intelligently. In fairness to the voluntary organisations and the statutory bodies which have sought to help us, we should defer decisions on this Bill until a later date.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question before your Lordships is that the Commons amendments to this Bill should now be considered.
I have had the advantage of hearing a great number of views about this Bill as we considered it. As your Lordships will know, the Bill was initiated in this House as we considered it very carefully and in considerable detail. Resulting from that consideration, which I believe to have been careful and thorough, my noble friend Lord Henley and I gave a number of detailed commitments that are met by many of the amendments which we now have before us.
Other amendments deal with matters of detail, and of course the Commons, as the Second House, has had an opportunity of considering what your Lordships did in relation to sanctions in respect of failure to co-operate. On that matter the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, tabled amendments to the amendment approved by the Commons. We shall come to that later.
The main proposal is that we should defer the matter until after the Recess and take it up again in the spill-over period. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, the Bill contains a number of provisions for regulations, and the Government have made it plain that the regulations are to be the subject of extensive consultation.
We spoke of 1993 as being the time when we hope that the Bill as an Act will become fully operative. One knows from experience that where a provision of this kind exists, in order satisfactorily to implement it considerable time must be allowed for proper
472
consultation on the regulations and we must also prepare a great deal of instruction and guidance to the staff. Your Lordships have clearly drawn attention to the need for sensitivity in the area with which the Bill deals. The need for staff training is therefore extremely important. In addition, we must issue guidance more generally.
Those noble Lords concerned with the implementation of the Children Act know that that was enacted in 1989. We are hoping that it will come into force on 14th October of this year. But a large amount of work needs to be carried out even in relation to a measure of that sort. Those who are charged with implementing the Bill are clear that it is right that if possible the Bill should be available in the form in which Parliament passes it in order that that work can proceed. In addition to giving guidance to the staff and those immediately concerned, it is necessary also that the public generally should be informed about the Bill. Accordingly, it is highly desirable that it should be enacted before the Recess.
My noble friend Lord Henley and I were aware that the Bill had passed the Commons on Thursday. We therefore wanted to help your Lordships as much as possible to deal with it and for that reason we prepared—many of your Lordships have a copy—the booklet which deals in considerable detail with the amendments. That was done in order to assist your Lordships. My understanding is that the amendments were available on Friday as a result of the efforts of the Chief Whip. The comment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull suggests that they were available on Friday, although sadly in her case the ministrations of the Post Office do not appear to have been equal to the importance of the communication. The Marshalled List was available this morning in accordance with the ordinary system.
I do not know whether I am included in one of the new brooms to which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale referred. I hope perhaps that the newness is wearing off a little by this time. However, I assure your Lordships that the Government respect the work of this House and the way in which it performs its duties, indicating such in this case by having invited it to initiate the parliamentary consideration of the Bill and giving it a prime place in regard to this Bill. A corollary of that is that one must have regard to what the House of Commons has done and at the same time seek to preserve, before the Bill is due to come into operation, as much time as possible to secure all the work—which is considerable—that is required for the Bill ultimately to be implemented.
In the light of that explanation I hope that your Lordships will agree with the Motion I proposed, that the Commons amendments be now considered.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down perhaps he would be so kind as to allow me to intervene. When one glances at this no doubt helpful bunch of explanations of Commons amendments, with the useful groupings that they contain, one realises that one will have to think much

473
faster than I am capable of doing in order to follow the explanations given as each group of amendments comes up. Even a few hours of opportunity to absorb the implications would have been an enormous help.
Is there no hope of the business being so arranged that we could consider the matter, if it is vital that it comes into operation in early October, later this week? I can see no reason why it should come into force early in October. The commencement clause, Clause 48, does not indicate any urgency in the matter. Many things in public life are a choice of evils. But if there are two evils here, the choice is between the supposed evil of a slight postponement of the coming into force of the Bill or what I consider to be the greater evil of rushing the Bill through this afternoon.
Perhaps my noble and learned friend would be kind enough to consider those two alternatives and we may then persuade him to take a different view.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I explained, the intention is that the statutory provisions should come into full effect in 1993. The point that I am seeking to make is that in order adequately to prepare the work that is required for that, those in charge of the preparation require to know the form of the statutory provisions.
I indicated also that a fair amount of the subject matter of these amendments is either fairly technical in character or, more importantly, the result of undertakings given to your Lordships as the Bill went through being implemented. The business has been proposed on the basis that the Bill should be taken for consideration of its Commons amendments today. Provision has been made for other business for the remainder of this week and we must consider the convenience of those who have at least had some warning of the matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord would allow me to intervene. We all appreciate exactly what is being said. We are grateful to him for confirming that the Bill will not come into operation until 1993. However, we appreciate also—I certainly do—that there are administrative matters to be dealt with. As far as I can see, the number of orders which have to be agreed in the amendments are relatively few. But within the part of the Bill which is agreed and to which there are no amendments tabled, many other matters need to be discussed and need administrative preparation. Would it not be possible for those matters to be dealt with because they are already agreed, and for us to have a better opportunity, perhaps in the autumn or even later this week, to discuss the Bill as it should be discussed? I feel quite sure that the noble and learned Lord and the Government would not wish administrative convenience to be given precedence over proper consideration and discussion by this House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am wrong if I gave the impression that it is administrative convenience. It is the necessity of making proper provision for the Bill to take effect which is in issue here. As the noble Lord says, a good deal of the Bill is already agreed. But as far as I am concerned, it is
474
right that before any of the work involved with the implementation of the Bill is done—that work is quite considerable and important—those charged with the responsibility should know that the Bill has received Royal Assent.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, perhaps I can help. I wish to be quite frank with the House. I believe that it would be very difficult to postpone this business until after the Recess. The business of the House is very crowded from now on. However, situations like this arise from time to time. It is obviously right that these developments should be discussed. I am wondering whether it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to delay this matter for a little while for discussions to take place between the usual channels. I remind the House that there are two Statements to be taken so there is bound to be some delay before we can proceed very far with this Bill. I wonder whether it will be convenient for the House to postpone consideration of this business for a little while so that we can then at least discuss how we might best proceed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is a most helpful suggestion from my noble friend the Leader of the House. I wonder whether he can take it a little further. In considering what should be done—accepting, if he does, the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it is essential to pass this Bill before the House rises—will he bear in mind that, as I understand it, the House is not scheduled to sit on Friday of this week? Therefore, it should be possible to shift to Friday some of the other business to be dealt with this week and to insert this Bill in the vacancy so created. I do not ask my noble friend to commit himself to that, but will he consider it rather than force the House to what may be a difficult decision and perhaps even unpleasant for the Government?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I cannot greet that suggestion with much enthusiasm. In order to obtain Royal Assent before the Recess the Bill will have to be taken by this House not later than Wednesday because of the nature of the business in the other place. It could not be taken on Friday.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry. My noble friend has misunderstood me and I am sure that that is my fault. I was not suggesting that the Bill should be taken on Friday. It would be very inconvenient to do so. I was suggesting that he creates a vacancy, perhaps on Wednesday, by shifting the business scheduled for that day to Friday, which is vacant at present.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I move formally that consideration of the Commons amendments on the Bill be postponed until after the two Statements have been taken. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

BCCI: Inquiry
3.44 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, about BCCI. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a Statement to the House on Friday and indicated that the Government will commission an independent inquiry into precisely these matters. I am now able to tell the House that the inquiry will be undertaken by Lord Justice Bingham and that the terms of reference will be as follows: to inquire into the supervision of BCCI under the Banking Acts; to consider whether the action taken by all the UK authorities was appropriate and timely; and to make recommendations.
"All the matters that the right honourable gentleman has raised today will be covered in Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry. Lord Justice Bingham will have access to all relevant papers and officials and Ministers. I can assure the House that any relevant matter of any sort will be made available to Lord Justice Bingham. The conclusions of the inquiry will be made public".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in response to a Private Notice Question from my right honourable friend Mr. Kinnock in another place. It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I also had put down a Private Notice Question on this matter. I did so because I and my right honourable friend believed that, given the press allegations made over the weekend, the whole matter had gone beyond banking regulations and that it had now become, because of the security implications, a matter for Ministers. There is no question now of casting the Governor of the Bank of England as a fall guy. Ministers must have known what was happening otherwise there was a serious dereliction of duty.
I welcome the inquiry which the Government have set up and I also welcome the appointment of Lord Justice Bingham. I very much hope that, when he comes to take up office in this inquiry, Lord Justice Bingham will not dismiss lightly but investigate thoroughly the allegations made in the weekend press. He will no doubt be asking, as we ask, whether it is the case that more than a year ago security and intelligence services gave the Government—not the Bank of England—evidence, some provided by senior BCCI officials, of a serious criminal conspiracy, including the funding of terrorist groups, and that that led to the investigation known as Project Q. Lord Justice Bingham will no doubt be asking himself whether that allegation is true or false.
He will also no doubt be considering whether the evidence that was submitted at the time was
476
considered by the Joint Intelligence Committee of the Cabinet; whether papers were prepared for Ministers and whether they read those papers. Lord Justice Bingham will no doubt be asking himself whether that is true or false. Furthermore, he will be asking himself whether an interim BCCI-Price Waterhouse report of January 1991 showed that more than 40 BCCI accounts had almost certainly been used by Islamic jihad, part of the Hizbollah group, which is responsible for kidnapping British and other hostages in the Lebanon. I have no doubt that he will also be asking himself whether those allegations are true or false.
Since the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has promised ministerial co-operation in this matter, Lord Justice Bingham will no doubt also be asking himself whether it is true or false that it was an Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence who revealed the names of account holders to the Bank of England at an early stage. No doubt Lord Justice Bingham will be investigating whether the whole matter was considered by the Board of Banking Supervision which was set up, as your Lordships will be aware, under Section 2 of the Banking Act 1987, and whose independent members have the right to have their advice to the Bank of England placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Did the Board of Banking supervision consider the matter? What was its advice; was that advice placed before the Chancellor? If it is the case, as I understand it, that the board's advice to the Bank of England was rather different from what we have heard, was it reported to the Chancellor?
We are assured by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, and by other Ministers, that there will be no ministerial cover up. I hope that that is the case. We have to accept it from the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal that there will be no ministerial cover up. However, it is difficult to believe that the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the day knew nothing whatever about this matter.
I am glad to hear from the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal that the relevant papers can be sought by Lord Justice Bingham. Will the Minister confirm that Lord Justice Bingham can seek evidence on oath and that this will be a proper judicial inquiry, which will include the Ministers to whom the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal referred? This is a sorry and shabby affair. We hope very much that Lord Justice Bingham will be able to clear the matter up once and for all. We on these Benches will not rest until the truth is out, because there is a serious scandal which goes right to the heart of government.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in thanking the Leader of the House for having repeated the Statement. I should like to ask one or two questions, and 1 apologise if I am going over ground already covered by the Leader of the House—my note taking is not as efficient as it should be. I welcome the fact, as we all do, that there is to be co-operation from Ministers; indeed it would be astonishing were there not to be such co-operation.

477
First, may I ask specifically whether it is to be made quite clear to Lord Justice Bingham that he can invite any Minister of the Crown to give evidence and that any Minister of the Crown will agree so to do? Secondly, the noble Lord has said that the report of Lord Justice Bingham will be made publicly available. Is it being made clear to Lord Justice Bingham that he cant take evidence in public? That is an extremely important point. I should be very grateful if the Leader of the House would assist us by answering that question. Thirdly, what many of us find inexplicable about this whole sorry chapter of events is the fact that no one appeared to take any action, notwithstanding the fact that there was abundant evidence of wrongdoing by BCCI. I remind the noble Lord of the point which I made in our short debate on Friday afternoon; that is the evidence of the District Attorney for Manhattan, Mr. Robert Morgenthau. Mr. Morgenthau told the Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Sub-Committee of the United States Senate which was looking specifically into this issue that:
"In the summer of 1989, over the 4th July weekend, several members of my staff attended an international conference on money laundering in Cambridge, England. They learnt that BCCI had an international reputation for capital flight, tax fraud and money laundering that far exceeded the conduct charged in the Florida indictment".—[Official Report, 19/7/91; col.444. ]
I am sure this will be one of the many issues that Lord Justice Bingham will want to review. Many of us remain deeply puzzled that despite this evidence and a great deal of other evidence, no one bothered to take any action at all until the events of a few days ago.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, would expect me to reply to him in too gentle a manner, although he will expect me to reply to him frankly.
I ought to remind the House of a little bit of history. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Thursday urging the advantages of setting up an inquiry without delay. Such an inquiry was announced on Friday. After such an inquiry had been announced, the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition promptly denounced it as a cover up. He then called for a Statement in this House, which could have only one of two purposes: either to secure discussion of whether the security service was involved in these matters and, if so, the extent of the involvement, or to prejudice the findings of the independent inquiry. The right honourable gentleman must have known that security operations are never discussed on the Floor of the H ruse. One therefore wonders why he thought it proper to table a Private Notice Question in the other place today which of course has led to the making of a Statement in the other place and a Statement by me.
I do not have a vivid imagination, neither am I given to conspiracy theories, but some of us may—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I—
Lord Waddington: No, my Lords; I am entitled to reply. As the noble Lord asked me no questions at all, it is very appropriate for me to put it in this way. One is entitled to wonder why it was that a Private Notice Question was tabled in the other place. I am not given
478
to conspiracy theories, but there is a little whisper about a thing called the Citizen's Charter, with a press conference to follow.
However, coming now to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, the burden of his remarks were not questions to me, they were a recital of the kind of matters which he believed Lord Justice Bingham would be asking. 1 have no complaints about the noble Lord rehearsing in this House what he believes the questions will be; but it hardly seems to me to be possible to read such speculation as a list of questions to me. If they were questions to me, the noble Lord must surely know that I am quite unable to reply to them. If I were to reply to matters which are within the remit of the inquiry, I would be told that I was prejudging the inquiry. If I were to reply to matters concerning intelligence, then I would be breaching the convention which has been observed in this House and in another place for years that matters of security are never discussed here or in another place. For obvious reasons we do not even discuss whether there may be a security implication.
I turn now to the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who thanked me for making the Statement. He is right: Lord Justice Bingham will be able to call Ministers. The inquiry will be full and independent. It will be a non-statutory inquiry, as was Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry into Strangeways, and Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster. There is no need to invoke all the time-consuming apparatus of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, which was last used as long ago as 1978.
The noble Lord asked whether the proceedings would be held in public. We have to be very careful not to prejudice the criminal inquiries. I understand that it is the intention of Lord Justice Bingham not to hold the proceedings in public in the interests of expedition of ensuring maximum disclosure of material which is confidential and commercially sensitive. However, that does not mean that the results of the inquiry will not be published. As far as possible and without prejudicing possible criminal proceedings arising out of the inquiry of the Serious Fraud Office, and under the confidentiality provisions of the Banking Act, Lord Justice Bingham's recommendations will be made public. We all sincerely hope that he will be able to get down to work very quickly, and that he will be able to reach his conclusions as soon as possible.
I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may remind him of the report of the Procedure Committee. It states:
"A Lord who is speaking may be interrupted with a brief question for clarification. Giving way accords with the traditions and customary courtesy of the House".
My question for clarification was: is it in order for the noble Lord the Leader of the House to criticise personally a Member of another place?
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, is it not a fact—perhaps the Leader of the House can help us—that in another place a Private Notice Question can be asked only with the consent of the Speaker of the House? In that case the criticisms that the Leader of the House has

479
made in terms of my right honourable friend can be a reflection upon a decision taken by Mr. Speaker in another place. I should have thought that that is something that we should always seek to avoid.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I did not wish to cast any such reflection. There is a convention that when a Private Notice Question is asked for by the Leader of the Opposition the Speaker grants the request. Of course it is customary for someone to give way, but I am not sure that it is customary to give way half way through an argument. That is why I gave way at the end.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I wish to raise a question strictly related to the terms of reference of the inquiry. In the original Statement there was a reference to considering whether the existing law of the United Kingdom on prudential regulation was satisfactory or whether there should be any amendment or strengthening of that law. As I understand it, that does not appear in the terms of reference given to Lord Justice Bingham.
The point is important because, as I indicated when we were dealing with this matter a few days ago, I do not believe myself that the present United Kingdom law gives effect to the Community directive known as the second Banking Co-ordination Directive. That is not a criticism of the Government because, as I made clear at the time, that directive does not come into force until 31st December of next year. Nevertheless, it is clearly a matter of great public importance whether our law is good enough or whether it needs strengthening.
The point is of added importance because of the involvement of Luxembourg in these matters, a country which is also covered by the terms of the banking directive. We have to face the very difficult question of there being two supervisory bodies with different functions. I raise the point simply to clarify whether this will be considered by the tribunal or whether it will be considered elsewhere outside the tribunal's inquiry.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sure that the matters raised by my noble friend will come within the remit of the inquiry. One can hardly inquire into the supervision of BCCI under the Banking Acts without considering whether there were ample opportunities for supervision and whether the right mechanism was available to allow that supervision to take place. The terms of reference allow the inquiry to make recommendations. I read that to mean any recommendations which the inquiry thinks are relevant in the light of the history which will be revealed to it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Treasury received an invitation to attend the Conference on International Crime, to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which was held last year, but declined to attend? Will that matter come within the scope of the inquiry? Will the noble Lord please bear in mind that there does not seem to be any convincing reason, aside
480
from possible security implications affecting MI5 and the various other secret services, why this inquiry should not be held in public? There is a widespread demand in the country which has already been voiced on all sides of the House that it should be held in public. Is there any convincing reason why it should not be?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, there are the strongest reasons why the inquiry should not be held in public. Obviously there would be a risk of serious prejudice to criminal investigations. On the other matter, I am convinced myself that it is up to Lord Justice Bingham to ask himself what is relevant. The matters to which the noble Lord has referred are clearly matters which he will be entitled to consider.
Lord Havers: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, wrote his report about the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act he made the point that to hold such inquiries in public might make it impossible to prosecute people. Indeed, when I was Attorney-General there were a number of occasions on which I was asked to grant immunity in order that a witness should be able to give evidence to such an inquiry. That is the answer to the question.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. He is entirely right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarification. Is that not the reason why the evidence will not be given on oath, or will the evidence be given on oath? Is there not a relationship between the last question and the question I am putting? I have a second point on which I seek clarification. As I understand it—I seek assistance—the inquiry will be wide enough to cover all aspects of ministerial responsibility but will, one hopes, exclude any public consideration of security and intelligence matters.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend is right on the second point. I am rather diffident about expressing an opinion on those other legal matters, surrounded as I am by such legal eminence. My understanding is that it will be up to Lord Justice Bingham to decide whether he wishes evidence to be taken on oath. I do not believe that there is anything to prevent him, but I shall make inquiries about that. If I am wrong, I shall certainly write to my noble friend.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, I do not believe that there is power for Lord Justice Bingham to administer the oath unless the power is conferred upon him.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend may well be right. That is why I was cautious and diffident in giving my reply. I was worried about it myself. What I am undoubtedly right about is that very wide-ranging and thorough inquiries can be set up, as we know from the Woolf Inquiry and other inquiries that have taken place recently, without using the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many would welcome most strongly the insistence by Lord Justice Bingham that this inquiry should be held in private and not in public? That is absolutely essential. It would be impossible for the person leading the inquiry to ask certain questions in public which he might otherwise be able to ask in private. It would certainly prejudice the witnesses. It is absolutely essential that it is in private. I know that many people will agree with his view.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend has a very important point. By hearing evidence in private, one will undoubtedly ensure maximum disclosure of confidential and commercially sensitive material.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Leader of the House answer the question of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel about the procedure of this House with respect to personal criticism made in this House about a Member of another place? Turning to the independent inquiry, can he say whether there will be an interim report? As it is likely to be a long inqury, it might be helpful if there were an interim report, particularly with respect to Ministers' roles, given what we are now reading in the newspapers.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, on the first point, I cannot add anything to what I said earlier. On the second point, it will be up to Lord Justice Bingham to decide whether it might be worth while to have an interim report. I have no reason to believe that he will think it appropriate, but neither do I see anything in the terms of reference or the background to the matter which would prevent him from doing so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with the greatest respect, the noble Lord the Leader of the House did not gay anything on my first point.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, what was the noble Lord's first point?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I asked whether it is proper for a Member of this House to criticise personally a Member of another place. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could add a little bit to what he did not say in the first place.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, if I have erred, I apologise. Being somewhat a novice in such matters, I shall have to swot up on the subject to make sure. However, if I did transgress, obviously I am sorry.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, arising from the question asked by the noble Baroness, and by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not the position that it is out of order—or, in the words of the Companion to the Standing Orders, "to be discouraged"—for any Member of the House to refer to a private Member of another place in any critical way; but that it is always open to criticise, while preserving courtesy, not only the Government Front Bench but also the Opposition Front Bench when Members are speaking officially?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what I think may be a lifeline. However, I am not quite sure.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that I have frequently been attacked in the other place, and somewhat opprobriously from time to time? I have never complained. I presumed that Members of the other place were allowed to do so.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I hope that we have all got broad backs and that we do not become over-sensitive about such matters.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, returning to the subject of the inquiry, does the Leader of the House agree that two issues are involved? We are concerned not only with the question of BCCI, but also with the question of the whole regulatory system for banking in this country. Is it not a fact that, as a result of what has happened, local authorities (which, on the basis of information received from the Bank of England, have invested in the banks listed by the Bank of England) are now very concerned about investing in smaller banking institutions? There is a serious doubt as to which banks can be trusted. That is not putting the matter too seriously. Will this inquiry restore our old faith in the banking system of Britain?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we shall have to wait for the result of the inquiry. However, we could not have set up a more high-powered inquiry under a wiser person than Lord Justice Bingham.

The Citizen's Charter
4.12 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Citizen's Charter. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the Citizen's Charter White Paper.
This Government have consistently extended competition to raise standards and to give the citizen wider choice. We have introduced privatisation and competitive tendering; reforms to give new choice in health and education; and measures to give new opportunities in housing. These have worked to the benefit of the consumer.
"The White Paper I am introducing today will build on these measures. Action will be expected from all public services on a number of fronts. First, standards. We will expect public bodies to publish explicit standards of performance and the results they actually achieve. Targets will be set for improvement year by year.
"Secondly, accountability. Full, accurate information must be made readily available, in plain understandable language, about services provided. We will make it simpler to compare the performance of one body against another. This will put pressure on each one to emulate the best and provide consumers with a basis for making choice. Except where their safety is threatened, public servants should no longer be anonymous. We will expect them to identify themselves to the public,

483
with the giving of names on the telephone or in letters and, where appropriate, by the wearing of name badges.
"Thirdly, redress. Where problems occur, people are entitled to have an explanation, and to know what to do. Avenues for complaint should be well-publicised and simple. And when that does not suffice, there should be clear routes to compensation or redress.
"This Citizen's Charter initiative will cover all our public services, as well as those large utilities, which are now in the private sector. It is the widest ranging and most comprehensive ever undertaken by government. It will involve: more privatisation; wider competition; further contracting-out; pay more related to performance; published performance targets—local and national; comprehensive information on standards achieved; more effective complaints procedures; tougher and more independent inspectorates and auditing; and better redress for the citizen when things go badly wrong. The citizen is also a taxpayer; public services must give value for money within the tax bill the nation can afford. Today's White Paper is only the beginning of the charter process. Nevertheless, it contains well over 70 specific measures to raise standards.
"I would now like to set out for the House some of the main measures in our White Paper. First, on education. I commend to the House two old-fashioned concepts that are the benchmarks of success—reports and results. From the new school year parents will be guaranteed a school report on their child's progress. Parents have a right to be able to discuss this progress with their children's teachers, and we will ensure they know how to exercise this right. We will also require schools to publish in standard format results achieved. And we will ensure that tables comparing schools on a number of measures are published locally, and not just on exam results.
"There will also be significant reform of schools inspection. My right honourable friend the Member for Rushcliffe will be publishing detailed proposals later this summer. But I can tell the House today that there will be regular inspection of all schools, carried out with the help of independent people from outside, as well as inside, the education profession. Results of inspections will be distributed to parents. Tougher, more rigorous inspection will be the result.
"I turn, secondly, to housing. This Government have given new rights to millions of householders. But we are determined that those who remain in public sector housing secure a better deal. For housing associations there will be a stronger tenants guarantee. For council tenants, we will update and improve the tenants' charter that we first published 10 years ago. We will examine ways to simplify and to strengthen the procedures giving tenants a right to have small but urgent repairs done quickly. We are ensuring that they receive proper information on the standards of service they can expect. And for the first time we will consider
484
bids directly from tenants in the worst run estates who want to form housing action trusts. No longer will the improvement of their estates be frustrated by the opposition of the local council.
"We are particularly concerned at the low standard of management of housing. We will therefore bring forward proposals to extend compulsory competitive tendering into public sector housing management. The Citizen's Charter will end, once and for all, the patronising of tenants by incompetent town halls.
"Thirdly, on health. We have already introduced new contracts in the health service to raise the standards demanded of hospitals. Under the Citizen's Charter we will expect publication of clear standards for patient care right across the health service. And we will begin by taking two further specific steps for the benefit of NHS patients.
"For out-patients we will require new procedures on the handling of appointments. This will mean that the practice of calling many patients to an appointment at the same time, which has been widely deplored, will be brought to an end. For in-patients there have been substantial improvements in the quality and quantity of care provided. Nevertheless, a minority of people still have to wait too long for treatment.
"We therefore propose that from next April guaranteed maximum waiting times for in-patient or day care treatment should be published. The initial focus will be on those treatments where waiting lists are longest, and where the pain, discomfort, and general reduction in quality of life most significant. I have in mind hip replacements, hernia repairs, and cataract removals. Guaranteed maximum waiting times are being negotiated now but could range from only a few months to more than a year. If it appears that the treatment cannot be provided in the guaranteed time, the health authority or board will seek provision elsewhere including, if appropriate, from the private sector.
"Fourthly, I turn to transport. For road users, we will tackle the nuisance caused by road repairs. We will use new powers to make utilities digging up local roads co-ordinate their activity and complete work more swiftly. And, for large-scale road repairs, we will extend the use of "lane rental" incentives and penalties in order to reduce time taken for repairs. We will end the unnecessary coning off of miles of motorway when no work is being done.
"There are still too many long stretches of motorway without proper service areas. In order to speed up the provision of these facilities, we will end the present system under which the Department of Transport is solely responsible for identifying sites. In future we will allow developers to take the initiative in selecting sites to provide the facilities motorists need.
"We will reduce the delay in getting a driving test and make it easier to book appointments.
"The deregulation of coach services in the early 1980s has enabled a huge explosion in cheap

485
long-distance travel. Outside London, the deregulation of buses has brought in new operators and better value for money. We have decided that the time has come to deregulate bus services in London.
"Travellers on railways and Underground services have in too many cases been expected to endure sub-standard performance. The Government believe that here too further competition is desirable. We therefore expect to set out later this year detailed plans to privatise British Rail. BR's monopoly of the network will be ended. W. will also set up a new independent regulator to ensure fair access to the network and protect the customer.
"The Government will expect both BR and London Underground to be more open about standards of performance and methods of redress. British Rail will improve its compensation arrangements and it has been asked, as a start, to develop a new scheme, starting with annual season ticket holders. For the first time, where service over the previous year has been poor passengers will be entitled to discounts when their tickers are renewed.
"The Government want to relate pay to performance in all aspects of public service. As an example, on the Underground and railways we will expect records of punctuality and absenteeism to be taken into account where relevant, in packages of pay for drivers, guards, signalling staff and others whose service impacts most directly on the public. Dedicated workers should receive a better reward than those who fail the public.
"Fifthly, I turn to local authorities. Many of the measures that I have already outlined will help to improve their performance. However, there are two further steps which I wish to announce today.
"We will strengthen the powers of the Audit Commission. It will be empowered to publish comparisons which name local councils and education authorities. In future they will also be required to publish a formal response to auditors' reports. We will also extend the scope of compulsory competitive tendering.
"Sixthly, in central government we will promote more market-testing and extend contracting-out into new areas in the NHS, such as distribution, warehousing and non-emergency transport. We will publish a White Paper on this in the autumn. Government activities should not enjoy immunity from inspection and enforcement on such matters of health and safety. Except where national security is involved, all future legislation will ensure that Crown bodies are subject to the same inspection and enforcement procedures as others.
"Seventhly, we have new proposals on the Post Once. We will ensure that clear standards are widely publicised for service to the public. A new regulator will be appointed who will arbitrate on complaints, monitor performance and advise the Secretary of State on setting standards and protecting customer interests.
"Here, too, we believe that further competition would benefit the public. We will therefore narrow
486
significantly the level under which the Post Office has a monopoly for letter delivery. We will reduce it from the present £1 to a level much nearer the first-class stamp.
"Mr. Speaker, all these measures will bring direct benefits to our citizens. But we want to ensure that they have all the support that is needed in exercising the new opportunities that the Citizen's Charter will give.
"We will therefore act to strengthen the powers of the regulators of the public utilities on standards of service. We will ensure that the powers available to each will be brought up to the levels of the strongest. We will thus all be able to set guaranteed standards and require compensation to be paid where standards are not met. We will also enable them to require fixed appointment times for customers for whom that is important. We intend to end the annoyance caused to people waiting in all day for someone to call.
"In the public services, effective inspection is the key to maintaining standards. I have already outlined our proposals for inspection of schools. The Government will also introduce an independent element into other inspectorates. As a first step, more lay members will be appointed to the inspectorate of constabulary later this year. And there will be a full review of the independence and effectiveness of the social services inspectorate. Detailed proposals will be published later this year.
"We will also be consulting on the introduction of a new concept, the introduction of a network of lay adjudicators. These will be people who can help the citizen get a swift resolution of those small but irritating complaints which cause so much frustration.
"Finally, Mr. Speaker, the public are entitled to expect that essential services will not be damaged or interrupted by industrial action, which has not been put to the test of a ballot or which is unlawful in some other way. At present, if the employer does nothing, the citizen is powerless. We therefore propose to amend the law. We will give a new right to individual members of the public to seek an injunction to halt unlawful industrial action affecting services covered by the Citizen's Charter.
"This White Paper is only the beginning of the charter process. During the next few months, separate charters for specific services will he published. And we will be introducing a new charter standard for quality in public services. Only those who can meet the high standards that the public expect, will earn the right to display a new charter mark.
"We will introduce legislation wherever necessary to bring about the changes proposed. In addition, to drive the reform process through, I shall be setting up a special unit in the Cabinet Office. And I shall be appointing a panel of independent advisers to identify new areas for action and to help carry the programme forward. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that its first chairman will be Sir James Blyth, Director and Chief Executive of Boots.

487
"Mr. Speaker, the Citizen's Charter initiative will be fundamental to this Government's policies for the 1990s. It is a programme for a decade. There is much that is good in our public services. They contain a fund of talent, energy and commitment. Our new measures will release more of those qualities so that we can raise standards up to and beyond the best that is currently available. The charter programme will find better ways of converting the money that can be afforded into even better services. I want the people of this country to have services in which they as citizens can be confident and which public servants themselves can take pride.
"I commend these proposals to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, out of courtesy, I must thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating a Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I said "out of courtesy" because this was not a Statement that the Opposition required. It is the right of the Opposition to require Statements made in another place to be repeated in this House. However, our stance on this particular subject is neutral because we recognise exactly what the Government's intention is in making the Statement; we must expect that during this pre-electoral period the Government will use parliamentary time in order to make Statements of this nature.
I have one very serious point, but before reaching it, I should like to comment on some of the things the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said. I apologise to him for referring to page numbers. On page 6 of my text of the Statement I read that,
"The Citizen's Charter will end, once and for all, the patronising of tenants by incompetent town halls".
Is the noble Lord saying that all town halls are incompetent? Is he saying that some town halls are incompetent; many town halls are incompetent; Labour-controlled town halls are incompetent; or Conservative-controlled town halls are incompetent? Is this another attack on local government from the Government Benches? I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal could spell that out.
On page 8 of this long Statement, the expression is used:
"We will end the unnecessary coning off of miles of motorway when no work is being done".
I welcome this enormously, as a perpetual traveller along the M.4, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, knows. It will save me endless angry discussions with him in the Bishops' Bar, when I become extremely irritated, knowing that the whole thing is quite useless, because I have been held up in my travels. The Government have had 12 years in which to put the problem right. Surely they ought to have done better than that.
On page 10 of the Statement the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said:
"The Government want to relate pay to performance in all aspects of public service".
That is an important statement.
488
Does it mean that the pay of senior executives of utilities will be related to aspects of their service? We should welcome that. Does it involve public services such as British Telecom and British Gas? I understand from our endless discussions in the House when the privatisation Bills were going through that these are public service organisations. Does the Statement mean that pay for the chairmen and chief executives of the privatised utilities will be related to performance? That is an interesting concept. I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to elaborate on that when he replies.
The Statement then says:
"We will therefore act to strengthen the powers of the regulators of the public utilities on standards of service".
Many noble Lords and I have been active in your Lordships' House in ensuring that the powers of regulation of the privatised monopolies are strengthened. We have done so against speech after speech from the Government's Front Bench. We want the regulators to be stronger; the Government have always resisted it in Bills. On this, noble Lords on my right as well as behind me see eye to eye on the matter. If there is a privatised monopoly, there must be strong regulations. Therefore I welcome without reservation the sentence:
"We will therefore act to strengthen the powers of the regulators of the public utilities on standards of service".
Why did that not happen before? Why did we not have it when the Bills came before your Lordships?
A final point before I reach my major and important comment, is that I am happy to note that the first chairman of something called "a panel of independent advisers" will be Sir James Blyth, Director and Chief Executive of Boots. He is a distinguished industrialist. Do I take it that Sir James Blyth will give up his post as Director and Chief Executive of Boots? Is that not a full-time post? Presumably if he is to be the chairman of this important panel, he will have to devote a great deal of time to it. Inevitably, that will restrict the amount of time that he can spend in running the affairs of Boots, which we all know is a great British company.
The important, fundamental point arises on page 2 of the Statement. Here I am very serious. Again I quote from the Statement because it is important that your Lordships should be aware of what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said:
"Except where their safety is threatened, public servants should no longer be anonymous. We will expect them to identify themselves to the public, with the giving of names on the telephone or in letters and, where appropriate, by the wearing of name badges."
To my mind this raises a serious constitutional point. Are we now abandoning the concept of ministerial responsibility for Crown servants? Up to now it has always been a fundamental constitutional principle that Ministers take responsibility and not civil servants. Are we saying that public servants should no longer be anonymous? For example, if I had a trade and industry problem, instead of talking to the Secretary of State I could talk directly to the permanent secretary of the department. I could say, "You must identify yourself either by telephone or in letters and wear a name badge. By the way, I will know who you are and what you are going to do about it".

489
Is that not a fundamental breach of the major constitutional principle that the Civil Service is the service of the Crown? Ministers are appointed and elected from time to time to respond on their performance—no one else. It is a ministerial responsibility. That is a serious constitutional point and I hope that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will attend to it.
Other than that, I read and heard what the noble Lord said. It is a load of waffle.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches I too thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for reading to us the Prime Minister's Statement in another place. The Statement is interesting. As far as one can understand, the contemplated White Paper is a compendium of consumer and customer measures and initiatives of one kind or another aimed at achieving accountability, redress and higher standards in the public services.
I thought that for many years the invisible hand of the market was supposed to take care of these matters. It is n extraordinarily interesting change of direction for the Government, so close to a general election, to envisage a much more positive and powerful role for government in arriving at good consumer services. From these Benches we welcome that; but perhaps I may inquire what has happened to the invisible hand. Has it withered away? Is it like the monkey's paw, we are to see it no more? Do the Government no longer believe that the market and its adjusting mechanisms are adequate to ensure a proper supply of goods and services to customers?
Perhaps I may say generally about the White Paper that despite its long gestation, it still bears every sign of hasty delivery. In many aspects, it is extremely broad brush. Perhaps that is because it is a White Paper. I wish to inquire when we shall see details that will allow us to judge more accurately whether some of these broad proposals are as helpful as initially they appear to be.
The major criticism we make from these Benches of the so-called citizen's charter is that it does not have much to do with citizenship. It is a kind of consumer code rather than a citizen's charter. Even in its own terms it seems extremely inadequate to the subject which it addresses.
Perhaps we may take the instance of public utilities. From these Benches we urged at the time of privatisation and we still urge that there should be greater competition in the great public utilities that have been put into the private sector. The Government have not chosen to take the road of competition. One might argue that because they were so anxious to get a good price for the public assets they. were selling, they did not put properly competitive structures into the public utilities.
The first approach to achieving good results from the privatised public utilities is to see that they are fully competitive, and that there is a competitive structure within British Telecom. We do not agree with the party on the Benches to our left that British Telecom should be renationalised. However, we go further than the Government in believing that British Telecom should be given a more competitive basis on
490
which to provide good services to the customer. To the extent that competition is not possible in the public utilities, there must be firm regulation.
I noticed on page 12 of the Statement on the Citizen's Charter a reference to strengthening the power of the regulators. I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Leader of the House could confirm that that means an end to the so-called light touch of regulation. That was the guiding doctrine of the Government in the early days of privatisation—that all the privatised utilities would have light touch regulation. Where there is a remaining monopoly, albeit in the private sector, light touch regulation is incompatible with the public interest.
I have two other observations. First, this charter raises public expectations in a way which the Government might think to be somewhat excessive, even in an election year. From today onwards, from the day that the Citizen's Charter is prominently featured on television, to whom does the aggrieved citizen complain if his water is polluted, as it was overnight in Buckinghamshire; or if his stretch of motorway is coned off despite the efforts of the Ministry of Transport; or if the salary increase of the chairman of his public utility is thought to be excessive? The Government seem to be inviting us to assume that everything is now again the affair of government. If people are to take that literally, they will want to know to whom they should address their complaint about inadequate service. I should be most interested to hear the response of the Leader of the House.
My final point is that citizenship means a great deal more than a sort of consumer code. It really means redirecting power towards the man and woman in the street. It concerns civic rights and not simply consumer rights. It means equal votes, freedom of information and a Bill of Rights.
What has happened to freedom of information? It has been extensively leaked that Ministers at the Home Office thought that there might be a case for including freedom of information in the Citizen's Charter. Why is it that this country, almost alone, languishes without proper freedom of information? When a cruise liner crosses the Atlantic and health inspectors come aboard at both the British and the American ends, why is it that any results dealing with environmental conditions of the ship found by the British inspectors are kept secret, whereas the American results are fully published? Why is it that every scholar who wants to research the doings of government finds it easier to get in through the United States, where there is freedom of information, rather than here?
I suspect that the Government have been defeated by Whitehall yet again in putting together the Citizen's Charter. The real enemy of the citizen, if one uses "citizen" in the sense that most people throughout the world would understand it, is our centralised, secretive and closed system of government and administration.
Some of the Government's proposals are useful, and we acknowledge them. Some are cosmetic, and they can be fairly readily identified. But unless the Government are prepared to open up Whitehall and

491
the system of Government we shall continue to have what characterises all public matters in this country, that is, a culture of subjecthood rather than one of full citizenship.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that the Opposition did not require this Statement to be read in this place. I can only say that that shows a singular lack of discernment on the part of the Opposition because either the noble Lord was not listening to what I was saying or for some other reason he has failed to appreciate the significance of the Statement.
I do not think there will be many people in the country who will consider it is just waffle to guarantee a maximum waiting time for types of treatment within the NHS. Not many people who are suffering and needing a hip replacement will think it is just waffle to lay down the maximum time within which that operation should be carried out. There will be few parents in this country who will think it is just waffle to say that on every occasion their children will be entitled to have a school report, or to say that there should be a comparison of exam results to see how some schools compare with others. I do not think there will be many people so foolish as to imagine it is just waffle to extend the rights of tenants on run down council estates to get essential repairs carried out. Not many people will think it is just hot air to say to the long-suffering travelling public that if there is an unsatisfactory service on British Rail they will have new opportunities for compensation.
I could go on in that vein, but I will not bore the House. I have gone through many points, and it is absurd to describe a whole list of specific proposals as just waffle.
The noble Lord wanted to know to which councils we were referring with regard to the patronising of tenants by incompetent town halls. Of course we were not referring to all town halls. Many local authorities in this country give an excellent service, as does Westminster council nearby. The noble Lord must surely be closing his mind to the facts if he does not acknowledge that some local authorities patronise their tenants, and he must surely recognise that there are incompetent town halls.
To take Islington, a recent QC's report found administrative chaos as a result of having the cash office staffed by the innumerate, the filing done by the dyslexic and the disorganised, and the reception performed by the surly and the charmless. Then there is Manchester, whose ombudsman said that its actions fell a long way short of providing a satisfactory response, and which at the end of 1989 had the highest number of vacant dwellings in Britain. One only has to look at reports of the Audit Commission to see that some local authorities are performing well and providing a good service to the citizen, while other local authorities are behaving abominably.
The noble Lord did not appear to think much of the changes in the practice of coning off stretches of road, but I very much doubt whether any noble Lord here
492
has not recognised that unnecessary congestion is caused because miles of motorway are coned off while only a tiny part of the motorway is actually being worked upon.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I had thought that that was about the only part of the Statement with which the noble Lord agreed.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord liked something. I should not have thought that limiting the length of motorway coned off was quite as important as ensuring that one's mother gets a hip operation sooner. Again, it shows a singular lack of discernment on the part of the noble Lord.
I referred to pay related performance. The noble Lord tried to turn the argument into one about high pay for the executives of privatised industries. Nobody can doubt that the performance of British Gas has improved enormously since privatisation. Price increases have been contained since privatisation, so there has been better performance. Nobody can seriously doubt the improved performance of British Telecom. Fewer public telephones are out of order now compared with a short time ago, so there has been an improvement in performance. Whether it is right for senior executives to give themselves very large increases and thereby set a less than perfect example to others is a real issue, but it has nothing to do with improved performance, because improved performance has in fact been obtained by privatisation in those industries.
As far as powers of regulation are concerned, undoubtedly the regulatory powers have changed as various privatisation measures have gone through Parliament. We have learnt from our experience of the privatisation of successive utilities and have built on Oftel and Ofgas. However, we should not say that there is no room for further improvement. Indeed, we believe that there should be further improvements. Sir James Blyth's appointment will be part-time.
Regarding the identification of public servants, I cannot believe that the noble Lord really thinks that that has anything to do with ministerial responsibility. We are talking about a good customer service at, for instance, the DSS office. Anonymity does not affect responsibility. When people go to a place such as a DSS office it is surely reasonable, improves confidence and is likely to lead to better and more courteous service if the identity of the individual is known. It is equally obvious that if someone wants a new driving licence it helps enormously if, when grappling with the DVLC in Swansea, he can ask the identity of the person who is talking to him so that he can go back to that person and try to get better service.
I am grateful for the welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, gave to the charter. The noble Lord asked me whether the Government no longer believed in the market. I have to tell him with the greatest respect that he has missed the point. It is because so many public services are necessarily provided by monopolies and therefore the normal disciplines of the market do not operate, and because

493
there is no adequate competition, that one has to find other mechanisms for improving public service. That is what this exercise is all about.
This is a very long document and it will repay detailed study. It is also the case that it will be fleshed out as time goes on. More detailed proposals in each separate area will be forthcoming. The document is concerned with citizenship and with better service to citizens. I cannot agree with the noble Lord's strictures about the failure of the Government to introduce a freedom of information Bill. The charter is all about openness in public service delivery, openness about standards, openness about achievements and failures and a commitment to deal frankly and straightforwardly with patients, parents and users of all public services. One does not need a freedom of information Bill for that. This is a charter for citizens, not for those who wish to reduce ministerial accountability to this House.
Of course we are raising public expectations. We are right to do so. That is the engine for change. As a result of raising public expectations, as a result of focusing on what it is possible to achieve, I have no doubt whatsoever that we shall achieve the improvements which we all so much want. Mechanisms are already in place in certain areas. In other areas mechanisms will have to be put in place—new complaints procedures, new opportunities for people who are not satisfied with the way in which their complaints are dealt with to go to lay adjudicators, for example, for a proper adjudication of a matter.
I hope, therefore, that on consideration the House will welcome warmly this very radical, imaginative and forward-looking document.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will my nobleo friend congratulate our right honourable friend the Prime Minister on this very comprehensive plan for making it easier for consumers to obtain redress and to complain? Will he urge our right honourable friend to reject all the carping criticism and sour grapes, which were entirely predictable? Will he further remind any who have criticism of the power of the regulators that without privatisation there would have been no regulators and that it is our creation which we are strengthening? That is to be widely welcomed on behalf of consumers.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for all that she said. Privatisation has brought huge benefits. She is right to say that if we had not had privatisation we should not have the regulators and should not have this argument at all. No one will convince many people in the country that privatisation has not brought great benefits, as has contracting out in local authorities.
Lord Jay: My Lords, under this charter—if it is not waffle—if the Government as a result of providing inadequate finance to, say, London Underground cause great disruption and delays for passengers,
494
would those passengers who have suffered have a right of redress in the form of compensation from the Government?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord asked that question somewhat with his tongue in his cheek. It is absolutely certain that if one improves service one attracts more customers. Improving service does not necessarily result in increased cost. If everyone involved in the performance of a utility gives better performance, that attracts more customers and creates more resources for the improvements to which the noble Lord was no doubt referring.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House spoke of citizens' rights and referred to education, housing, health and transport. There was no mention of social services. Does he agree that we need to look into the social services of this country, first, at ministerial level where there is a great deal of overlap and a number of gaps between Ministries, and, secondly, from the point of view of local government? The social services have had a great deal of legislation put on their plate—the Children Act, so ably carried through this House by the noble and learned Lord, the National Health Service and Community Care Act, the Child Support Bill and parts of the Criminal Justice Bill.
I submit that the social services have had a difficult time over the past two years. Many social workers are excellent but there have been difficulties, as noble Lords will know from the reports of inquiries which have had to be held. Are the social services to be included in the better services in the Citizen's Charter?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend has put her finger on the issue. No one can think of the social services without thinking of local authorities and of the performance of local authorities. The performance of local authorities is a key issue raised in the paper.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider that many of us are deeply disappointed by the Statement because we believe that it rests on a fundamentally mistaken diagnosis? Does he accept the words of Sir Anthony Hidden in paragraph 15.1 of his report that:
"The link between the funding of safety and the future of safety is an obvious one"?
Does he accept that that link between funding and quality of service is true mutatis mutandis of other areas of public service? Does he accept that there are many people in this House and outside it who think that the Government could do more to improve local authority housing repairs by the revenue settlements they are about to announce than by this charter and more to shorten health service waiting lists by funding than by this charter? I sympathise with the noble Lord saying that he does not like the word "waffle", but should not a free market government accept that if they say they want something and are not prepared to pay for it that is waffle?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is the most defeatist comment that I have ever heard in all my life.

495
To say that within a given amount of resources there is never room for improvement and to argue that there is no point whatever in trying to inculcate an attitude of service among people who work in the public sector and that nothing whatever can be done without giving more and more money is a poor do. Of course there is a link between funding and quality of service, but the charter is concerned with delivering the best service within the resources available.
Everyone knows perfectly well that in every field of life one can either perform well or perform badly. Where there are two people with the same opportunities and the same resources, one can perform well and one can perform badly; one can give a good service to the public and the other can give a bad service to the public. The object of the exercise is not to cry that nothing can be done unless more money is thrown at the problem. It is to put new disciplines in place so that there are proper opportunities for people to complain when they do not think they are receiving the service they deserve; to provide more opportunities for people to receive compensation when they do not receive the service they deserve; more openness; and clear statements of what public services say they will deliver to the public so that if they do not then deliver what they say they will deliver they can be called to account. That is not a matter of money. It is a matter of putting in place proper mechanisms so that the individual has proper redress.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I welcome the Statement, which represents a significant step forward. We can always argue whether it goes far enough or whether further improvements can be made, but that it represents progress cannot possibly be denied. I suspect that it will ultimately prove much more important than even the Government themselves realise. There is an important statement about getting a foot in the door. Once you get a foot in the door, you can always push it open a little further. The worst possible attitude is to say, "We do not like this and we had better close the door right away", because you do not get any progress like that.
I was greatly intrigued by one of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He always introduces me to a new world, the existence of which I never suspected. I wonder whether he has ever completed an income tax form and whether he read it before he signed it. I am quite certain that he did, but he will find on the face of that form printed in clear the name of the inspector of taxes concerned.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I have completed an income tax return; indeed, I do so every year. Perhaps I may return the compliment. In 1977 he introduced me to a new world—he Price Commission—of which he was a distinguished chairman and my predecessor. I put that fact on record because I am always most grateful to him for introducing me to new worlds.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I adopt wholeheartedly what my noble friend has so eloquently stated. I
496
reiterate what I said earlier. If before privatisation we had insisted on the gas man telling the customer what he was called, no one in his right senses would have said that that in some way interfered with ministerial responsibilities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to make one or two comments and ask some questions about the Statement. Does the Leader of the House realise that his initial remarks about local authority housing were deeply insulting to many local authorities, their housing managers and staffs? I hope that he will in some way mitigate those statements. What redress will people have if they convert to housing action trusts? Does the Citizen's Charter extend to the action that people can take if they have mistakenly transferred to an HAT? Will the Minister comment on the tenants of private landlords? Are they to have their rights and privileges extended under the Citizen's Charter, because they are tenants too, often of bad managers?
The noble Lord referred to the extension of the scope for compulsory tendering for services in local authorities. What does that mean? Will it involve all services or only some? Do the Government intend to reduce local authorities to enabling bodies only? We would be interested to know exactly what the intentions are.
Does that Statement in any way supersede the assurance that was given in an Answer to a Starred Question last week that there was no question of the administration of public libraries being put out to competitive tender?
Finally—here I must declare that I am a member of the EETPU and an adviser to NALGO—with regard to the part of the Statement that referred to an individual citizen's right to pursue injunctions against trade unions, will that undermine the right to strike? Will it not create an administrative and judicial nightmare if each individual citizen has recourse to the courts to stop strikes? I wonder whether that matter has been considered. Perhaps the Leader of the House will deal specifically with that item.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the object of the exercise is not to insult local authorities but to obtain better services for those who live within local authority areas. I reiterate what I said earlier: one has only to loot, at the reports of the Audit Commission to see that there are great differences in performance among local authorities. It is not an insult to local authorities to draw attention to those differences in performance and strengthen the hand of the Audit Commission by empowering it to publish comparisons which name local councils in order to obtain the better performance that the citizen deserves.
On the question of the injunction in the case of industrial action, it does not undermine the right to strike. It will be a further deterrent against illegal industrial action; in other words, where there is no right to strike and where an employer can at present obtain an injunction, but where a private citizen cannot obtain an injunction in those circumstances in which an employer does not choose to do so.

497
A passage in the Citizen's Charter deals with housing action trusts. An individual citizen, not just a local authority, would be able to activate the process which might lead to a successful bid for a housing action trust.
On the question of public libraries, I have nothing to add to the statement made previously.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that the Statement will be widely welcomed by many people? Does the White Paper deal with the powers of the local government ombudsman? Many citizens have gone to the ombudsman and had their cases considered by him. He has come down in favour of the citizen, but the local authority has taken not a blind piece of notice of the complaint which the citizen has made and which has been upheld by the ombudsman. I trust that somewhere in the White Paper there will be powers to enforce the decisions found by the ombudsman.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, local authorities will certainly be required to respond to reports made by the Audit Commission. That is an analogous situation. Thus, when a person criticises a local authority, he or she can at least expect the local authority to show whether it will react or not. I cannot put my finger on any particular passage in the White Paper that deals with the enforcement of action against local authorities when there is a recommendation b y the local government ombudsman.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, although the Citizen's Charter is an important document in securing the rights of the citizens of this country, does the noble Lord agree that, in order to obtain the higher standards to which we are entitled as one of the most developed countries in the world, other actions are also required?
I should like to support the intervention of my noble friend Lord Russell, who said that proper funding of the public services is also required. When we refer to the recently privatised public utilities, we venture onto entirely new ground. Many noble Lords consider that the structure with which some of those utilities were privatised was not entirely right and did not allow the degree of competition which could lead to the best service. I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that, while the charter which is presented today is a big step forward, other actions also are required?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making clear, as is the case, that the charter is a big step forward. But I do not have anything to add to what I said a short time ago to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I feel that it would be an admission of defeat if we thought that nothing could be done in those areas without increased funding. We are talking about areas where in fact there has been an enormous increase in government funding over recent years. That makes the argument which has been advanced even weaker. Let us take, for example, investment in British Rail. There has never been greater investment in British Rail than there is now.
498
When the argument is that it is all about funding, it hardly seems to be a good point to quote the example of British Rail, for a start.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the noble the Leader of the House has announced a strikingly ambitious programme. Apart from the misbehaviour of our children and the failure of certain horses to run up to expectations, the charter seems to cover virtually every complaint in society. Can he tell us a little more about the costing of the programme? It is normal government practice when reaching major decisions for the Treasury to attach an estimated cost. Can he tell us first what is the estimated cost to government of monitoring this programme? Secondly, and more important, what is the estimated cost to all the public services of implementing the programme? Will the Government provide the extra resources to do that?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I believe that I made absolutely plain that the theme of this paper is how better service can be obtained within existing resources. There is no doubt that that can be done. Indeed, we have shown how it has already been done in various areas—for instance, in areas in which there has been privatisation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for referring to it as an ambitious programme, as indeed it is. Obviously he does not think that it is just hot air.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House enlarge on his comments in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, on freedom of information? Does he accept that the difference between a customer and a citizen is that the customer has the right to shop around and the citizen has the right to know? Unless that right is fully enshrined in law and applied to the private as well as the public sector, much of the good intention of the Citizen's Charter will not be effectively delivered.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, government is far more open now than it was in 1979 when we came into office. Act after Act can be quoted where there is greater openness by government. So, I am not inclined to take criticisms from a party which when it was in office took no steps in the direction to which the noble Baroness refers.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, have the Government given any thought to how public servants are to be motivated to give the service looked for in the Statement?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I fully understood the question. Would the noble Lord repeat it?
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I wonder whether the Government have given any thought to how public servants can be motivated to give the service that is called for in this Statement?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord is performance related pay. That is one of the answers. However, I should not like it to be thought that that is the only answer. Once one begins to take pride in an organisation that pride becomes

499
infectious and people want to provide a better service. But performance related pay is certainly one weapon that one can use.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
5.14 p.m.
Motion for consideration of Commons amendments resumed.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, following consultation through the usual channels, it has been agreed that the business should proceed as arranged. I should say that this has been agreed with the full consideration of what was said earlier this afternoon on the basis that this would be on balance more for the convenience of the whole House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not know whether it is in order to reply in any sense to the statement made by my noble friend. If so, I should be glad of the opportunity. We have been told that this has been agreed between the usual channels. I should like to say that the usual channels may have their own particular reasons, but whatever they are they would surprise me very much. I am sure that I speak for a number of noble Lords when I say that we deeply regret the decision. Speaking for myself, while the Statements were being made I was working as hard as I could to try to master some of the consequences of the amendments. I found a small mistake in one of them. I deeply regret that we have to proceed in this way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may add to what my noble friend Lord Renton said and say that I very much regret this decision and the grounds on which it is alleged to have been taken. It was said by my noble friend that the proposal to continue with the Bill—beginning now, at a quarter-past five in the afternoon—was for the convenience of the House. I do not believe that to be so. No doubt it is for the convenience of the usual channels. They have made these arrangements and it is convenient for them to adhere to them. To say that it is for the convenience of the House to tackle a Bill of such complexity and considerable importance—a Bill which was received by most of us only this morning—in a debate beginning quite late this very afternoon, is a misstatement.
It is not for the convenience of the House, nor, I say with respect, is it good for the reputation of the House. We are supposed to be a revising Chamber. Many noble Lords (if not I) have given great attention to this Bill and taken a great deal of trouble over it. Now to proceed as is suggested—namely; straightaway, with the Bill straight back from another place and with no opportunity whatever for reasonable consideration of the amendments and of whether we should accept them—is undoubtedly harmful to the position of the House as a revising Chamber. Like my noble friend, I immensely regret that the Government have taken that line.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that
500
what has now been decided is not for the convenience of the House but for the convenience of the Government and presumably the Opposition Front Bench. That is quite deplorable. As I have already said, in my view there is absolutely no reason why this Bill should not be discussed when we come back for the spillover period.
I find it quite reprehensible and truly amazing that we have just been discussing a citizen's charter, which is supposed to give more rights to the citizen, yet only a few minutes later we find that the rights of Members of Parliament are denied; namely, the right to proper consideration of a very detailed and important Bill. Whatever happens, I find the proceedings quite reprehensible and regrettable.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may speak from these Benches, as part of the usual channels. I do not believe that anybody within the usual channels would dissent from many of the comments that have been made. It is very unfortunate that the House is faced with such a situation at this stage of the year. It is not new. It tends to happen every year because that is the way in which foolishly we do our business.
We are very much at the behest of the Government's programme. We could seek to disrupt it. We could seek to continue the Session into August. But, on the whole, the usual channels try within reasonable limits to facilitate progress of business within your Lordships' House. The difficulty is that we are in the last week of the Session with a still quite heavy programme. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested that certain matters might be moved from Wednesday to Friday. That would cause considerable difficulties to the people who seek to do what they have to do on Wednesday and who have equal rights in those matters to noble Lords concerned with this Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to me. I made that suggestion in order to try to meet the wishes of those who wanted the Bill to become law before we rose. I wish to make it clear that my own preference is to carry the matter over until October when the Bill can be discussed fully, at leisure, and after proper consideration. Perhaps what the noble Lord said is a warning to me against ever trying to be helpful.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will not stop trying to be helpful. I say that merely to illustrate that in the present situation one moves one piece of jigsaw and finishes up with an even more confused pattern than one started with.
It is reprehensible that the House is faced with these problems. It is no way to run Parliament. It is no way for Parliament to be able to challenge the Executive. However, I hope that noble Lords will have some slight sympathy for the usual channels. The alternative of keeping the House sitting through August in order that the Government may achieve its business by the determined time is not a matter of which I wish to be part.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene.

501
However, that is not the alternative. There will be quite a lot of time in the spill-over period. The alternative is to consider the Bill during that period. I can assure the noble Lord that that will not affect the Bill. It will not affect it coming into operation in 1993. Work can be done between the start of the Recess and when we return. We can begin its implementation, if that is necessary, with discussions and so on. The noble Lord's suggestion is not the alternative.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I fear that it may be the alternative if the Government wish to pass this Bill before the Summer Recess. That may be a reprehensible demand from the Government, but it is part of the whole package of running your Lordships' House. We can do that only by consent, as we do with all other matters in your Lordships' House. I concurred with the programme. I may have been wrong. However, having done so, I fear that if it were to come to a Division on this issue, I should have to advise my noble friends to support the Motion that we continue with this business today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS [Page and line references are to Bill [157] as first printed by the Commons.]

Child Support Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
  Welfare of children: the general principle
  '.Where, in any case which falls to be dealt with under this Act, the Secretary of State or any child support officer is considering the exercise of any discretionary power conferred by this Act, he shall have regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by his decision.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I speak also to Amendment No. 2 which leaves out Clause 2.
  Your Lordships will recall that at Third Reading I accepted an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which placed a duty on the Secretary of State or any of his officers to consider the welfare of the child when exercising any power under this Bill. I made it clear at that time that further consideration of the provision was required and further amendment might be necessary. I had been considering a somewhat similar amendment but it had not been ready.
  Your Lordships will recall that as Lord Chancellor I was anxious about how the provision would impact on certain areas of the Bill. In the light of further consideration, the clause has been refined so that it applies only to provisions which require the exercise of discretion. In that way we have been able to leave out part of what had originally been proposed but also to emphasise that it was the welfare of any child that had to be taken into account, not just the particular child who might be the subject of the decision. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, all of us—whether or not we have had time to consider all the amendments—will remember the debate that took place on the
  502
  request to the Government to introduce a clause to show that the welfare of the child was taken into account in regard to any matter where discretion was required. I am particularly glad—because it may have some relevance to other amendments that we shall discuss—that the noble and learned Lord has emphasised the words "any child". It is not just the child of the parent seeking maintenance but any child involved in the matter, wherever that child may be.
  Baroness David: My Lords, my name was attached to a similar amendment, although my noble friend Lord Carter moved it. I am very glad that we have some provision in the Bill about the welfare of the child—and towards the beginning of the Bill too.
  The noble Lord, Lord Henley, kindly supplied me with the blue document, Notes on Commons Amendments, which states:
  "This duty applies only to the exercise of any discretionary power under the Bill".
  Can the noble and learned Lord give us a little explanation of that? There has not been time to look into it.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, both the original Clause 2 and the proposed clause had the advantage of being a statement of principle. I wish that we had more of them. The welfare of the child was to be the principle asserted in the clause as previously drafted and again now. The redrafting has the virtue to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, of being a less qualified expression of the welfare of the child. For that reason we should welcome it.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the amendment seems a definite improvement. One of the worries that has been voiced in the Bill, principally by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is that we may be losing sight of the welfare of the child of a subsequent union.
  The main purpose of the Bill is to save £400 million of public funds. I am the last to cavil at that. However, not a penny of that £400 million goes to any child, except very indirectly and obliquely, and possibly to any child of a taxpayer who may benefit in some way from the recovery of the £400 million.
  It may be that with the harsh, stringent mode of recovery which the Bill allows the Secretary of State and his minions, some sum over and above the £400 million will be available to the benefit of a qualifying child. But it has not been quantified. We have not been told how much that will be. It certainly must be set off against the fact that the absent parent may have formed another union and may have children. These very harsh methods of recovery may inure to the detriment of such a child.
  The amendment proposed is an improvement on the previous provision. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, indicated, such a statement of principle is of value to a court of construction. It is now clear that in any case where the point is raised, it is the benefit of the child of that subsequent union which must also be considered. I am not sure that there will be much scope for that, because the Bill is so harshly oriented in favour of clawing back from the absent parent money which will go primarily to the general

  503
  taxpayer; but there may be something over and above for the qualifying child. Having said that, there may—one never knows—be a point where the interests of the child of the subsequent union may be in question. Therefore, I join with your Lordships in welcoming the amendment.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should have said earlier that the noble Baroness, Lady David, initiated consideration of this matter. I referred to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, because I believe that he moved the formal amendment which I accepted, subject to revision. We were deprived of the presence of the noble Baroness on that occasion by circumstances beyond her control. I wish to acknowledge that point.
  With respect to the question asked by the noble Baroness, this matter arises only where a discretionary power is in question—where something is committed to the discretion of the Secretary of State or a child support officer. In such a case, the welfare of any child likely to be affected has to be taken into account. In the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the point was dealt with by saying that it was subject to the other provisions of the Bill, or words to that effect. We have tried to isolate the power to which that would be relevant in this way.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Clause 2, leave out Clause 2.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, which is consequential.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, in the collection of notes which my noble friend Lord Henley sent to us there is a grouping. In that grouping, Amendment No. 3, which is a simple amendment, is grouped with Amendments Nos. 14, 98 and 101. The amendments are set out on page 2. There is then a note showing the effect of the four amendments taken together. It would help me if we could be told whether it is intended to take each amendment separately as we come to it or whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor or my noble friend Lord Henley, when moving the Commons amendments, intend to discuss them as a group. If they are to be discussed each as a group, those noble Lords who do not have the benefit of the notes supplied by my noble friend will be at a great disadvantage. I do not find myself at a great advantage because these matters are so complicated that I have been unable in the time available, which was the time between the two Statements, to get beyond page 6 in my studies, and there are 57 pages of notes and comments. It would be idle, at any rate for me with my limitations, to pretend that I shall be able to understand what follows.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that when the time comes to consider Amendment No. 3, with which my noble friend Lord Henley will deal, he
  504
  will give such a cogent explanation of the matter that my noble friend will feel able to follow it. My question at the moment merely relates to leaving out Clause 2, which is entirely consequential upon Amendment No. 1.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 16 and 17.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 98 and 101.
  My noble friend Lord Renton referred to the Notes on Commons Amendments in which we have produced the same list of groupings as appears on the usual groupings list that he will be able to pick up in the Princes Chamber. We shall discuss the amendments in their groupings, as we do with any Bill. It is normally found to be for the convenience of the House if we discuss the amendments in groups.
  Lord Renton: My Lords—
  Lord Henley: My Lords, before my noble friend intervenes perhaps I may explain the purpose of the group of amendments.
  The amendments fix a common age of 12 from which a child may seek an assessment on his absent parent in Scotland. Without such an amendment, the provisions of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill currently before your Lordships' House would remove the existing civil law rights of boys aged 14 to 16 and girls aged 12 to 16 with regard to applications for aliment under this Bill. The amendments align the Child Support Bill and the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill and preserve existing rights. There is a further new provision which allows an application for maintenance made by a qualifying child in Scotland to be treated as an application on behalf of that child's siblings who are also children of the absent parent and are in the care of the same person as the applicant. That avoids the necessity of requiring independent applications from all the children within the family. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Henley.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I have not had time to mark the Bill while looking through the notes and comments. Several points arise. Not being a Scottish lawyer but only a rusty old English lawyer, it would be helpful for me to know the significance of Amendment No. 3, which asks us to omit "tutors" and "curators" from those whom the Secretary of State shall not prescribe as a category under the provision in Clause 3(3). Perhaps my noble friend will explain that point.
  The next point about which it occurred to me to ask is this: I have a grandson aged 12 who lives in Scotland. Under Amendment No. 14, we find:
  "A qualifying child who has attained the age of 12 years and who is habitually resident in Scotland may apply to the Secretary of State for a maintenance assessment to be made with respect to him if,

  505
  no one else has done so. I hope to think that my grandson would be intelligent and would find out what provision had been made, and, if no provision had been made, would find out who the Secretary of State was; what his address was; how to apply to him; and with what reasons the Secretary of State should be presented. On the face of it, and subject to further explanation, that is a rather heavy burden to place upon a child of 12, or even 13, 14 or 15.
  This is a point of substance which was discussed in passing at earlier stages of the Bill in our House. It was suggested that the provision needed to be made but that it would not be used very often. It was said that unle5.s the provision existed, a child may be deprived. I understand that. However, at the same time it would be he 1pful if my noble friend will tell us how the child, upon whom the opportunity and responsibility for his own welfare is placed, is to motivate the power given in Commons Amendment No. 14.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should hate to give the impression to the House or, indeed, the country at large that Members of your Lordships' House are not equally caring about children aged 12 or over in England and Wales.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, the amendment refers to Scotland.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I can well remember asking—and I believe it was echoed by noble Lords on the Benches behind me—why the provision applied only to Scotland. If it was a good right which was used. I asked why it should not be available in England and Wales. If it was not used at all, we asked why there was need for it at all.
  I believe that the noble and learned Lord replied, with all the authority which he carries with him in regard to the law of Scotland, that that was a tradition in Scottish law and that it had been part of Scottish law in relation to family and matrimonial proceedings that a child could apply for himself. It seemed wrong to deprive a Scottish child of a right embedded in Scottish law. However, it was said that it was infrequently used.
  Therefore, I do not understand it to be a matter of setting up a new procedure. I paraphrase my recollection of what the noble and learned Lord said. He said that not only was the provision rarely used, but he felt that it was not compatible with English law and procedure as we know it. He did not believe it right that the provision should apply in English law and le considered it to be unnecessary. That is my recollection.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend says he is rusty in the law. I am even rustier. However, I never show as brightly as he did. I can also say that I am as ignorant of Scottish law as my noble friend, and on this occasion I must rely on those who advise me.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, implied, the time for discussing whether such changes are necessary in English law has now passed. We are now considering Commons amendments. It is important to consider the matter fully in relation to Scottish law.
  506
  My noble friend asked two questions about the amendments. He asked why, in Amendment No. 3, the reference to "tutors" and "curators" has been removed. I assure my noble friend that those terms will become obsolete when the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill, which is to have its Third Reading today, becomes law. In any event, the terms are covered by existing references to parents and guardians. There are consequential amendments.
  My noble friend asked also about Amendment No. 14. He said that that placed a heavy burden on a 12 year-old. It merely replicates an existing provision which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, was used infrequently. We expect this clause to be used infrequently. Children will be able to obtain help and advice through the usual sources—welfare agencies and so on. Children's rights and the availability of help and advice will be well publicised.
  I hope that my remarks will reassure my noble friend that there is nothing sinister in the grouping of these four amendments. I shall continue to follow the suggested list of groupings which follows my Notes on Commons Amendments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  5.45 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  4 Clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
  5 Page 3, line 2, leave out from 'can' to 'to', in line 4, and insert 'comply with such regulations as may be made by the Secretary of State with a view to the Secretary of State or the child support officer being provided with the information which is required—'.
  6 Page 3, line 8, leave out 'child support maintenance' and insert 'amount'.
  7 Page 3, line 9, leave out from 'parent' to end of line 12.
  8 Page 3, line 25, at end insert:
  '( ) No application may be made under this section if there is in force with respect to the person with care and absent parent in question a maintenance assessment made in response to an application under section 6.'.
  9 Clause 6, page 3, line 43, after '(b)', insert 'she'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 15 to 18. These are all minor drafting or technical amendments which improve or tighten up the wording of Clauses 4, 6 and 7.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 en bloc.—(Lord Henley.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, it seems to me that Amendment No. 18 contains a mistake. If your Lordships look at page 5, line 30, it can be seen that we are invited to put in a new paragraph (a) after the word "section" in line 30. However, if that happens it will have a very strange result. It will mean that the words in brackets:
  "but subject to any regulations made under subsection (8)",
  which seem to be an essential part of the present subsection (6), would be postponed until after the new paragraph (a), to which those words in brackets are not relevant.

  507
  Therefore, instead of reading, as Amendment No. 18 does,
  "page 5, line 30, after 'section' insert",
  it should read:
  "page 5, line 31, at end insert",
  and then the new paragraph (a) should be inserted. That makes sense.
  I do not know if anything can be done to correct what appears to be a clear mistake in the Commons amendment. However, it shows the importance of giving time to consider them. I have not been able to go beyond the next page in my considerations so I am unlikely to be making any further constructive and helpful points. I shall be unable to point out any more mistakes, if there are any. Surely this is a mistake which by hook or by crook—if those are not unfortunate words—should somehow be corrected.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the point which my noble friend makes. I spoke to a group of amendments. Perhaps we may take Amendment No. 18 separately when we reach it. I shall then be able to answer my noble friend.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, what should we do without the eagle eye of the noble Lord, Lord Renton? I have said that before and I say it again. When the Minister is considering the very important point raised by the noble Lord, and since we are dealing also with Amendment No. 9, because we have all been trying very hard to remove otiose words from statutes, will he tell me why we must insert the word "she" in Amendment No. 9 at page 3, line 43?
  If the Minister will look at page 3 line 43, he will see that it clearly states, referring to the parents of a qualifying child,
  "she shall, if—(a) she is a person with the care of the child; and (b) is required to do so by the Secretary of State, authorise the Secretary of State".
  Why in the name of heaven—if I may ask that without being profane—does one need the word "she" repeated? As an amendment coming from another place to this House that seems to be a little pitiful.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, bearing in mind the contents of the Interpretation Act, the word "he" would have been just as appropriate if that was to be inserted.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we are dealing also with Amendment No. 5. I desire merely to draw to your Lordships' attention that that is one of the many amendments which add regulation-making powers to the Bill. When it came before your Lordships originally, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, counted 92 regulation-making powers. When it left your Lordships' House considerably more bureaucratised, there were 100. We are now adding more. When the matter came before Standing Committee A, the Minister, who conducted the proceedings with great ability, said that things were not as bad as they seemed, referring to the 100-odd regulations. Some were procedural; some had something to do with the formula.
  I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on more than one occasion attempting to obtain the Minister's
  508
  computation. I finally released him from answering until the end of the Recess because it never occurred to me that we should be dealing with the Bill today. Therefore he is exonerated from blame for not answering my last letter. However, before we conclude the consideration of the Commons' amendments, I should like to know what the computation is regarding the number of regulation-making powers and whether or not he can give the breakdown that I asked for in my last letter.
  My other point concerns the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If I may say so the noble Lord, Lord Renton, slightly misapprehended what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, meant. It is not a question to be resolved by the Interpretation Act. It is a purely grammatical point. I am glad that it was raised because it was a point that I found puzzling—why, from a grammatical point of view, it was necessary to insert "she" at that point.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall start with Amendment No. 18. I told my noble friend that I would wait until we reached that amendment but I have received advice and the amendment is correct. The last few words in subsection (6) will be the concluding words of the new subsection (6A).
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may say that he deals with the point succinctly but with little clarity. Perhaps he will concentrate on the words in the amendment tabled by another place, which read,
  "Page 5 line 30, after 'section', insert".
  Perhaps the Minister, with myself and the noble Lord, Lord Renton—if I may say that with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton—will look at page 5, line 30. The word "section" is the third word in the line. Does the Minister seriously suggest to the House that we are asked to insert, after the word "section" in that line, right in the middle of subsection (6), subsection (6A) which states,
  "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to comply with any request made under subsection (6)",
  and then to continue with the words in brackets,
  "but subject to any regulations made under subsection (8)"?
  Is that the intention?
  Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I think one should add that if we were to do that we would have the strange situation of having two subsections followed by some words in brackets which apparently were not intended to be included in any subsection.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry, but both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are wrong. The words in brackets move to the end of the new subsection (6A). Subsection (6A) comes in after "section"; the words in brackets follow as the end of the new subsection (6A) and we then continue on with subsection (7). It is absolutely clear and I think that both noble Lords may be a little mischievous in trying to imply a lack of clarity on this occasion.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend continues we must get the position right. If what he says is so, will he explain whether the words in

  509
  brackets at the end of subsection (6) are intended, as would be the result if they come at the end of subsection (6A), to refer only to subsection (6A) and no longer to refer to subsection (6), to which they did appear to refer?
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I too may intervene. Surely one of the difficulties is the way in which the amendment has been drafted. The bracket in line 30, which states,
  "but subject to any regulations made under subsection (8)",
  will now read,
  "but subject to any regulations made under subsection (9)".
  It would be much clearer if the amendment had been tabled more fully in order to explain the change. Subsections (7) and (8) will presumably become subsections (8) and (9) under the new format of subsection (6A) becoming subsection (7).
  Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend appreciates that the numbering will change but the word s,
  "but subject to any regulations made under subsection (8)",
  will be attached to subsection (6A) rather than to subsection (6) and will refer to what is now subsection (8). Once renumbered, they will obviously be subsections (6), (7), (8) and (9). I believe that is quite clear.
  Perhaps I may turn to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. The noble and learned Lord said that I had not replied to his last letter. I am not quite sure which his last letter was.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I exonerated the Minister because there were so many letters succeeding one another rapidly when I found that we were taking the business today. He is not to blame in respect of the last letter, though I did feel that there was a certain amount of evasion and shuffling in relation to the first two letters I wrote attempting to understand what the Under-Secretary meant in Standing Committee A.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally accept that I am not to blame because I did reply to that letter. I replied to it on 11th July. The noble and learned Lord wrote again sometime just before last weekend and asked why he had not received a reply. For that I am not to blame and can only attach partial blame to the Post Office. Copies of the reply of 11th July were again sent last Friday on the signature of my private secretary.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister's private secretary. I received the earlier letter but it crossed a letter of mine.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord accepts that I replied to what amount to his last letter. Since then a subsequent letter arrived this morning to which I shall reply in due course. It may be helpful if I read a short extract from the litter of 11th July to the noble and learned Lord, in case he has not read it. It relates to the question of regultion-making powers and whether or not they are procedural.
  "It is always going to be possible to argue that a specific regulation-making power is or is not procedural. It is also the case that some of the regulation-making powers could be
  510
  viewed as both procedural and the formula' or as both procedural and 'information gathering'. As this is so much a question of judgment, I do not think it helpful to count up the powers as you suggest. We are, I would suggest. likely to disagree over any definitions chosen. I am sure you would argue that there would not be merit in a debate on the question of definitions. Such an exercise would necessarily involve a heavy commitment of time on the part of lawyers and administrators here".
  I hope that that will satisfy the noble and learned Lord.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. I was trying to find out what the Under-Secretary meant when he said 20 were procedural. There were then another few which I believe was double counting. One can argue a great deal about was is procedural. I felt that I was being shuffled off in being told that there was a difficulty over definition. I wanted to know what the department's computation was.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, I do not believe that it would serve any purpose to try to count up the number or decide which were procedural and which were information-gathering. I cannot go beyond what I said in the letter. There remains one last point which was raised by noble Lords concerning this group of amendments. I refer to Amendment No. 9 inserting the word "she". I hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would accept that it improves the grammar and clarifies the point. However, I have obviously failed to do so. I do not accept that the word is otiose.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I rise again to say that the noble Lord the Minister is always courteous and endeavours to help the House. I wish that he would not use words like "mischievous" as regards any of us who are trying to help with this Bill and to better it. The way in which we have all participated on all sides of your Lordships' House during the past sessions of the Bill—tribute was paid to us very generously by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—shows that none of us deserves criticism of that kind. Our criticism is meant honestly and not to create mischief.
  Having said that, will the Minister explain why it is abundantly clear what the clause means and what is its subject matter—that is to say, the parent—before one uses the word "she", which is repeated in the lines before the amendment? The noble Lord may well say, "Please get a move on because it does not much matter". I do not mind that. I object that the noble Lord does not seek to explain the reason for the amendment coming to us from the other place saying that we should insert the word "she" in order to make the matter clear. The matter is abundantly clear without it and it is tautologous to repeat the word "she".
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I am the first to apologise to the noble Lord for accusing him of mischievousness. I know that he would never behave in that manner in this House. I shall try to remind him if he should ever forget himself and so do. As I said in introducing this group of amendments, they are

  511
  largely drafting amendments to improve the clarity. Obviously, the noble Lord does not agree with me, but I continue to say that it improves the clarity to insert the word "she" before the clause in order to re-emphasise the fact that "she" is the subject of the clause. Obviously the noble Lord does not accept that. On this occasion I believe that the word improves the clarity.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 Clause 6, page 3, line 45, at end insert:
  '(1A) The Secretary of State shall not require a person ("the parent") to give him the authorisation mentioned in subsection (1) if he considers that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

  (a) if the parent were to be required to give that authorisation; or

  (b) if she were to give it,

  there would be a risk of her, or of any child living with her, suffering harm or undue distress as a result.
  (1B) Subsection (1A) shall not apply if the parent requests the Secretary of State to disregard it.'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. Clause 6 is concerned with cases where the caring parent is in receipt of social security income-related benefits. We have made clear on many occasions that we think it right that a caring parent in this situation should normally co-operate with the child support agency in obtaining maintenance from the absent parent. Not to do so places a heavier burden on taxpayers, many of whom have children of their own to bring up.
  We have also made clear on many occasions that we recognise that there will be cases where it would be unreasonable to require a parent with care to comply with the provisions of this clause. We spent some considerable time on this aspect of the clause when the Bill was with us at an earlier stage in its passage through Parliament. Noble Lords may recall that, when debating at Third Reading what should constitute good cause for parents with care not to comply with the obligations imposed on them by this clause, I said we were considering bringing forward an amendment which provided for exemption from the requirement to co-operate where we were reasonably satisfied that the consequences of seeking maintenance would be a risk of harm or undue distress to the caring parent or her children. I gave an assurance to this House that I would recommend to my right honourable friend in another place that such an amendment should be put before another place if at all possible. I am glad to tell the House that suitable wording was found which resulted in the amendment now before us. At this stage I pay particular thanks to my noble kinsman Lord Russell who took a keen interest in this matter. His contribution has been well-considered and very helpful. I am sure that, although he is still not fully in accord with our aims in this area, he feels that we have moved some considerable way towards meeting some of the concerns he put forward. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Henley.)
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. I thank my noble kinsman for the efforts he has put into bringing it about.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I too welcome the amendment. I wish to make a couple of short points about it. There have to be reasonable grounds before the Secretary of State decides not to require the person to give him authorisation. The reasonable grounds are amplified by adding the words,
  "if … there would be a risk of her, or of any child living with her, suffering harm or undue distress".
  One can imagine circumstances in which the absent parent threatened that unless the authorisation were withdrawn, she would suffer. He would see to it that she did suffer in some way or another. In other words, he would threaten her. Obviously, it would be wrong to anticipate decisions of the court when we say that there should be "reasonable grounds". No doubt the Government thought about that and satisfied themselves that if there has been a threat from the absent parent, with the fear of distress, that would not be reasonable grounds. It would mean that the Secretary of State was conniving at a threat and that would be wrong.
  The other matter is a purely drafting point. The amendment states,
  "shall not require a person ('the parent')".
  The further references are to the parent. It would have been better drafted if the amendment simply read,
  "shall not require the parent"
  and left out the words "a person". I suppose it is now too late to put that right.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for the purpose of clarifying something which may be of concern to the House. This is a risk which "she" has to run or any child living with her. I have taken it for granted—and I should like the Minister to help me on this point and to tell me if I am right or wrong—that as this is a discretionary power vested in the Secretary of State, any child affected by this decision would be covered because of the Commons Amendment No. 1 that we dealt with earlier. The reason I say that is that the wording of this amendment limits the matter to any child living with "her". We could think of many cases. One such case, for example, is that one of the children of both parents is living with the father. There could be a risk of harm to that child or some damage sustained by that child at the hands of the father if this authorisation is given. I am taking this point for granted which is why no amendment was put down. Bearing in mind that this is an exercise of discretion that the interest of any child will be taken into account, will the noble Lord confirm that I am right?
  Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to point out that the amendment relates to any child living with "her". The noble Lord makes a very valid point that it might be another of her children living, as he suggests, with the father and she might fear for that other child's safety. I hope very much that since we have considered the first two amendments

  513
  today that that would be a matter that the child support officer would take into consideration when reaching a decision under this new subsection.
  My noble friend asked about reasonableness, and what kind of evidence one would expect to be produced before the child support officer made his decision on good cause. If there is some corroborative evidence life for the child support officer would be a lot easier, and any corroborative evidence would be welcome. However, the absence of such evidence will not mean that a claim for good cause will automatically fail when we expect that quite often the only evidence available will be the statement of the caring parent. The noble Lord might know of an existing commissioner's decision, which I mentioned at a 1 earlier stage of the Bill, which stated that in the absence of supporting evidence, the claimant's words should be accepted unless it is inherently implausible or inconsistent. That is the approach that will be used here. I beg to move.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  11 Clause 6, page 4, line 1, leave out 'That authorisation' and insert 'The authorisation mentioned in subsection (1)'.
  12 Page 4, line 19, after 'to', insert 'the Secretary of State or'.
  13 Page 4, line 39, at end insert:
  '(12) The fact that a maintenance assessment is in force with respect to a person with care shall not prevent the making of a new maintenance assessment with respect to her in response to an application under this section.'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 en bloc.—(Lord Henley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  14 Clause 7, page 4, line 40, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
  '(1) A qualifying child who has attained the age of 12 years and who is habitually resident in Scotland may apply to the Secretary of State for a maintenance assessment to be made with respect to him if—

  (a) no such application has been made by a person who is, with respect to that child, a person with care or an absent parent; or

  (b) the Secretary of State has not been authorised under section 6 to take action under this Act to recover child support maintenance from the absent parent (other than in a case where he has waived any requirement that he should be so authorised).

  (2) An application made under subsection (1) shall authorise the Secretary of State to make a maintenance assessment with respect to any other children of the absent parent who are qualifying children in the care of the same person as the child making the application.'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Henley).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  15 Clause 7, page 5, line 17, leave out from 'can' to 'to', in line 19, and insert 'comply with such regulations as may be made by the Secretary of State with a view to the Secretary of State or the child support officer being provided with the information which is required—'.
  16 Page 5, line 23, leave out 'child support maintenance' and insert 'amount'.
  17 Page 5, line 24, leave out from 'parent' to end of line 27.
  18 Page 5, line 30, after 'section', insert:
  '(6A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to comply with any request made under subsection (6)'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 18 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 4.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 18 en bloc.—(Lord Henley.)
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I should have raised this matter earlier; it concerns Amendment No. 18. I do not understand it typographically, or perhaps grammatically. The amendment states:
  "(6A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to comply with any request made under subsection (6)".
  Subsection (6) states:
  "The child who has made the application (but not the person having care of him) may at any time request the Secretary of State to cease acting under this section".
  There I thought one inserts the words of the new subsection (6A). I may have misread it entirely; but at the moment I do not understand how it works.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I dealt with this at some length in response to my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I believe my friend Lady Elles. I said that in Clause 6 the words in brackets have been removed and attached to Amendment No 18, that is, the new subsection (6A). The words after 'section' become attached to the new subsection which is subsection (6A). I hope the noble and learned Lord now understands the point that was being made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and which I hope I dealt with earlier.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I may have misunderstood. But if the noble Lord having looked into the matter is satisfied that that is right, there is no more to be said. If it is wrong, he can still ask leave to move a manuscript amendment.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to say right away that I have looked at this again in the light of the explanation of the Minister. I now see what the clause

  515
  is meant to be. I apologise if in any way I led him to think that I was adamant in feeling that his amendment was wrong.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I should like to say to the noble and learned Lord that I am satisfied that the amendment is correct and does not need any form of manuscript amendment. I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept that other noble Lords are satisfied with my explanation.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  6.15 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  19 Clause 8, page 6, line 5, at end insert:
  '( ) The Lord Chancellor or in relation to Scotland the Lord Advocate may by order provide that, in such circumstances as may be specified by the order, this section shall not prevent a court from exercising any power which it has to make a maintenance order in relation to a child if—

  (a) a written agreement (whether or not enforceable) provides for the making, or securing, by an absent parent of the child of periodical payments to or for the benefit of the child; and

  (b) the maintenance order which the court makes is, in all material respects, in the same terms as that agreement.'.

  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 to 68 en bloc. These amendments will allow us the alternatives of either continuing to make child maintenance agreements effective through the courts as consent orders or through the new agency's collection and enforcement powers. They will also allow the agency, when resources are available, to collect and enforce any other form of child maintenance or spousal maintenance where the agency is collecting related child maintenance. These amendments fall into two categories. Amendments 65, 66 and 63, 64, 67 and 68 amend Clause 28 to extend the categories of maintenance which the Secretary of State may arrange to collect.
  The upshot is to allow him to collect, and where necessary enforce, the payment of two different classes of periodical payment. First, he can arrange to collect any periodical payments which are payable for the benefit of children regardless of whether they arise from court orders or binding agreements. Such orders may have been made because the child fell outside the scope of child support maintenance; for example, because the order was made against his stepfather. Secondly, the Secretary of State can arrange to collect any periodical payments which are payable to or for the benefit of people other than children, but only where he is also arranging the collection of child maintenance. The second class is designed so that maintenance which is linked can be collected together. For example, an absent parent may have to pay maintenance to his former wife in her own right as well as pay child support maintenance to her for the benefit
  516
  of their children. It is naturally desirable in terms of efficiency and convenience for all concerned, that both be collected under the same arrangements.
  I should add that the main task of the agency will be to collect maintenance for children who fall within the child support scheme, and it may not be possible for its services to be extended in this way at the outset. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make such arrangements when he considers it judicious to do so.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Renton: Yes, my Lords, I think I do so agree. I must now confess that I have reached the stage in our proceedings when I am entirely without prior preparation. It may well shorten the proceedings, but it is an unhappy state to be in. Paragraph (a) of the amendment states:
  "a written agreement (whether or not enforceable)".
  Why are those words in brackets?
  It reminds me of an occasion years ago when I was making a forlorn attempt to get an agreement enforced. The learned judge, who was a county court judge, said to me, "Mr. Renton, I think I must put to you the question: when is an agreement not an agreement?" He provided the answer by saying, "When it is not enforceable". There may be a simple answer to this for Scotland. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will say if there is. In England, I do not think the answer is so simple. Of course people purport to make agreements; but if they are not enforceable by law, the courts do not enforce them. In the context of this amendment it would be helpful to know what the real effect in law would be in England and in Scotland of the words "whether or not enforceable".
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of this clause is to give the Lord Chancellor, or in relation to Scotland the Lord Advocate, power to, in effect, limit the application of this section. This section generally prevents the court from exercising any power which it has to make a maintenance order in some circumstances. I believe it is right that the power we have to prevent the section from restricting the power of the court should be as wide as is reasonable. Therefore I think it is wise that the courts should have power to make orders, if we decide that that is required, even where the parties have made a written agreement which is not enforceable. In other words, the mere fact that the parties are content with the agreement is all that matters. It does not matter for the purposes of this provision whether the agreement is enforceable in law.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  20 Clause 8, page 6, line 27, at end insert:
  '(6A) This section shall not prevent a court from exercising any power which it has to make a maintenance order in relation to a child if—

  (a) a disability living allowance is paid to or in respect of him; or

  517

  (b) no such allowance is paid but he is disabled,

  and the order is made solely for the purpose of requiring the person making or securing the making of periodical payments fixed by the order to meet some or all of any expenses attributable to the child's disability.
  (6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A), a child is disabled if he is blind, deaf or dumb or is substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, mental disorder or congenital deformity or such other disability as may be prescribed.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. In moving this amendment, I should like also to take Amendment No. 99.
  During earlier discussions of the Bill a number of noble Lords—notably the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Meston—asked about the Government's intentions where extra costs were involved where a child was disabled. I said that we were giving thought as to what was the best way of ensuring the interests of the child who is disabled while being fair to the parent who pays maintenance. This amendment is the outcome. It adds to the cases provided for by Clause 8 whereby the courts will be able to make awards of maintenance for children in certain circumstances in addition to any award of child support maintenance under the formula. It will mean that a person with care of a disabled child will be able to make such an application to the courts as well as being able to ask the child support agency to make a maintenance assessment for everyday living expenses. So a disabled child will not be excluded from the benefits of the new system but there will be the additional ability to apply to the courts for a top-up award. We thought carefully about the mechanism for this. We see the courts as being best placed to deal with the issue of extra maintenance, in special circumstances, for such costs. While there have been varying suggestions about the best way to deal with this important issue, there is widespread agreement that provision for these costs involves a large element of discretion because individual circumstances can vary so much.
  The two amendments are designed to have that effect. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, from these Benches I thank the noble and learned Lord for introducing the amendment. It improves the Bill considerably in the light of what was said at the Committee stage and at other stages of the Bill's progress through this House.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to associate those on these Benches with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, so that I shall not be out of it, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carter, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the amendment and the other place for making it.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Elles and to those noble Lords
  518
  who have spoken for supporting the amendment. It has been a difficult matter. We have eventually got the correct solution to it. I am grateful for the support that the amendment has received.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  21 Clause 8, page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (8).
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. In moving this amendment, I should like also to take Amendments Nos. 23 and 100.
  The purpose of this new clause is to deal with what happens where a court maintenance order or maintenance agreement exists in relation to a child when the agency makes an assessment in relation to him. The clause replaces subsection (8) of Clause 8, and Amendment No. 21 removes that particular subsection. Amendment No. 100 adds the definition of maintenance agreement to the interpretation clause, Clause 45.
  In particular, the regulations under this clause may provide that the order or agreement shall cease to have effect or be modified to the extent provided by the regulations. That is to ensure that the individual is not expected to pay twice in respect of the same liability.
  The remaining matters dealt with in the new clause are of a technical and procedural nature concerning the relationship between court orders and maintenance agreements and maintenance assessments, and the relationship between the courts and the agency when the provisions of the Bill come into force.
  We said in the White Paper that children who have existing court orders for child maintenance who come within the provisions of this Bill should eventually be able to benefit from the dedicated tracing and assessment services which the agency will provide, including, importantly, the regular review of circumstances. This new clause will provide for that to happen. I commend the amendments and the new clause to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will appreciate the noble and learned Lord's explanation, especially in regard to Amendment No. 23 which is a very long new clause. I shall not delay the House on this occasion or indeed wrestle with the patience of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, I can tell him that the profession is a little anxious about the flexibility and to some extent the vagueness of the clause in regard to the regulations that may be made. I am intimating this to the noble and learned Lord as he may wish to take some opportunity of explaining exactly how the regulations are expected to turn out even before they happen. He may find that the profession will be only too anxious to discuss the ambit of this clause with him.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, the new clause in Amendment No. 23 is long, complicated and has considerable implications for the making of subordinate legislation. It is just the situation that arises

  519
  under the clause that makes one regret that one simply has not had a chance to work it through. One appreciates the explanation given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. As so often is the case, it was given at a speed faster than my mind can register. There it is. In the circumstances, we are being asked to accept it.
  The new clause is headed:
  "Relationship between maintenance assessments and certain court orders and related matters".
  That, in itself, indicates the very wide scope of the clause and its implications. If my noble and learned friend can give us a really clear idea of how these regulations are likely to work out in practice, I believe that it would be most helpful.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can explain—although I thought I had already done so—the purpose of the clause. It is to give us a power to link the new agency and its powers with existing court orders. The last thing we want is for the same liability to be covered twice. It is a difficult and detailed matter to say which applies. Obviously the agency will not want to take over the whole burden at once. There are a large number of maintenance obligations in question. We have to do this in such a way that the system will continue to work. One of the difficulties of making such changes is that we must do so while the existing system continues to work.
  I readily undertake to ensure that the Government will discuss the details of these regulations with the profession. Obviously, we want to have very wide consultations about precisely how this should be done. My own view at present is that it should happen in stages by reference to some criterion, such as the age of the child. I believe that that would be a reasonable way of doing it because it would give an indication of the period during which an agreement has to run. We are not wedded to any particular method. However, I underline the fact that this is an extremely difficult problem. In principle, what we want to achieve is simple; but the detail of it is quite difficult. I do not think that I can enlighten my noble friend any further on precisely how we shall approach the matter. We shall want to engage in quite detailed consultations on these matters before we make a decision.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I should like to express my gratitude for his further explanation. However, when he says that there will be consultations with the profession can we assume that these will not only take place with the Law Society (which is deeply involved) and perhaps with the Bar Council, but also, in particular, with the Family Law Bar Association?
  The Lord Chancellor: Certainly, my Lords; I intend to include them very distinctly "in the profession" in regard to this particular matter.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  22 Clause 8, page 6, line 45, leave out and insert
  'III'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69, 74, 75, 90, 96, 97, 112, 119 and 120.
  These amendments are of a minor and technical drafting character. They came to light as being necessary as a result of the careful examination of the Bill which was made when various other amendments were put forward. I hope that your Lordships will be prepared to accept these amendments on that basis.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  23 After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
  Relationship between maintenance assessments and certain court orders and related matters
  '.—(1) Where an order of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this subsection is in force with respect to any qualifying child with respect to whom a maintenance assessment is made, the order—

  (a) shall, so far as it relates to the making or securing of periodical payments, cease to have effect to such extent as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State; or

  (b) where the regulations so provide, shall, so far as it so relates, have effect subject to such modifications as may be so determined.

  (2) Where an agreement of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this subsection is in force with respect to any qualifying child with respect to whom a maintenance assessment is made, the agreement—

  (a) shall, so far as it relates to the making or securing of periodical payments, be unenforceable to such extent as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State; or

  (b) where the regulations so provide, shall, so far as it so relates, have effect subject to such modifications as may be so determined.

  (3) Any regulations under this section may, in particular, make such provision with respect to—

  (a) any case where any person with respect to whom an order or agreement of a kind prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) has effect applies to the prescribed court, before the end of the prescribed period, for the order or agreement to be varied in the light of the maintenance assessment and of the provisions of this Act;

  (b) the recovery of any arrears under the order or agreement which fell due before the coming into force of the maintenance assessment,

  521
  as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and may provide that, in prescribed circumstances, an application to any court which is made with respect to an order of a prescribed kind relating to the making or securing of periodical payments to or for the benefit of a child shall be treated by the court as an application for the order to be revoked.

  (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for—

  (a) notification to be given by the child support officer concerned to the prescribed person in any case where that officer considers that the making of a maintenance assessment has affected, or is likely to affect, any order of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this subsection;

  (b) notification to be given by the prescribed person to the Secretary of State in any case where a court makes an order which it considers has affected, or is likely to affect, a maintenance assessment.

  (5) Rules may be made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (rules of procedure) requiring any person who, in prescribed circumstances, makes an application to a magistrates' court for a maintenance order to furnish the court with a statement in a prescribed form, and signed by a child support officer, as to whether or not, at the time when the statement is made, there is a maintenance assessment in force with respect to that person or the child concerned.
  In this subsection—
  "maintenance order" means an order of a prescribed kind for the making or securing of periodical payments to or for the benefit of a child; and
  "prescribed" means prescribed by the rules.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. I have already spoken to this amendment and it has been discussed.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  24 Clause 12, page 8, line 31, leave out subsection (6).
  25 Clause 12, page 8, line 34, at end insert:
  '(7) Any proceedings (other than for an offence) in respect of any act or omission of a child support officer which, apart from this subsection, would fall to be brought against a child support officer resident in Northern Ireland may instead be brought against the Chief Child Support Officer.
  (8) For the purposes of any proceedings brought by virtue of subsection (7), the acts or omissions of the child support officer shall be treated as the acts or omissions of the Chief Child Support Officer.'.
  Lard Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
  Amendment No. 24 removes an unnecessary subsection. The Secretary of State already has a general power to appoint a chief child support officer in subsection (3). Amendment No. 25 will enable proceedings, such as those for judicial review, to be brought against the chief child support officer in Great Britain where the relevant child support officer who made the decision in question resides in Northern
  522
  Ireland but is dealing with cases from Great Britain. That will make it easier for clients of the child support agency where their case has been dealt with by the child support centre in Belfast.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 and 25.—(Lord Henley.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive my intervention, but I have not had time to work this through. In subsections (7) and (8) of Amendment No. 25 there is no reference to Northern Ireland. Indeed, Clause 12 is not confined to Northern Ireland. If I have understood my noble friend's explanation and the note which preceded it correctly, subsection (8) is intended to apply only in Northern Ireland.
  I am sorry, I apologise to the House. I believe that I now see the position. I hope that I will be forgiven. However, it seemed to me to be an important point. I assume that it will only be in Northern Ireland that the chief child support officer will be the person to be sued rather than the child support officer who is actually dealing with the case, and that outside Northern Ireland it will be that child support officer who will be eligible to be sued.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is in fact wrong. If he looks at the fourth line of Amendment No. 25—that is, subsection (7)—he will see that it states,
  "a child support officer resident in Northern Ireland may instead".
  As my noble friend will know, there will be a number of child support centres. It is proposed that one of these should be in Belfast. However, even if it were not proposed that there should be one in Belfast at present, it may be so in the future.
  It is to cover the situation where the child support officer is dealing with a case in Northern Ireland which relates to Great Britain. The chief child support officer could be sued in regard to a decision taken by a Northern Ireland child support officer. I hope that that explanation is clear to my noble friend.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  26 Clause 13, page 8, line 39, after 'application', insert 'or needed in connection with the collection or enforcement of child support or other maintenance under this Act'.
  27 Page 8, line 40, leave out 'person as may be prescribed' and insert 'persons as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26 and 27.
  These amendments are intended to clarify the intentions of Clause 13. Amendment No. 26 makes it clear that the requirement to provide information already in Clause 13 will apply equally to information required for the collection and enforcement of amounts of maintenance, as it will to information required to make an assessment.
  Amendment No. 27 deals with the people who will
  be required to provide information. We intend to specify the circumstances in which people will be expected to provide information, rather than simply list all categories of people who will be required to give information; we think that that would go wider than we intend. The amendment better reflects that intention. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26 and 27.—(Lord Henley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  28 Clause 13, page 8, line 44, after 'may', insert
  —(a)'.
  29 Page 8, line 44, at end insert '; or
  (b) disclose it to the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland for purposes of any enactment corresponding to this Act and having effect with respect to Northern Ireland.'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. These are purely technical amendments which allow information collected for the purposes of the benefit Acts to be used for the assessment, collection or enforcement of child support maintenance in Northern Ireland. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 and 29.—(Lord Henley.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, when one looks at Clause 48 one discovers that parts of the Bill are to apply directly to Northern Ireland. However, it is clear that other legislation on this subject will apply to Northern Ireland. Can my noble friend give the House a broad idea of the effect of the words:
  "of any enactment corresponding to this Act and having effect with respect to Northern Ireland"?
  Now under direct rule a great deal of legislation that is applicable to Northern Ireland is carried out by Order in Council. Therefore, may we assume that the reference in Amendment No. 29 will include legislation by Order in Council, even though the word "enactment" is used?
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that I can assure my noble friend that that will be the case. However, if I am wrong I shall write to him to set the matter right. Reciprocal provision exists whereby information collected for benefit purposes in Northern Ireland can be used for child support purposes in Great Britain. That must be included in the corresponding Northern Ireland enactment. I presume that that means by provisions, but if I am wrong I shall write to my noble friend.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  30 Clause 14, page 9, line 8, leave out subsections ( 1) to (3) and insert:
  '.—(1) Where, in a particular case, the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so for the purpose of acquiring information which he or any child support officer requires for purposes of this Act, he may appoint a person to act as an inspector under this section.
  (2) Every inspector shall be furnished with a certificate of his appointment.
  (3) Without prejudice to his being appointed to act in relation to any other case, or being appointed to act for a further period in relation to the case in question, an inspector's appointment shall cease at the end of such period as may be specified.
  (3A) An inspector shall have power—

  (a) to enter at all reasonable times—

  (i) any specified premises, other than premises used solely as a dwelling-house; and

  (ii) any premises which are not specified but which are used by any specified person for the purpose of carrying on any trade, profession, vocation or business; and

  (b) to make such examination and enquiry there as he considers appropriate.'.

  31 Page 9, line 26, leave out 'the powers conferred upon him by this section' and insert 'his powers'.
  32 Page 9, line 27, leave out from 'question' to end of line 28 and insert 'any person aged 18 or over whom he finds on the premises.'.
  33 Page 9, line 29, leave out 'powers conferred upon him by this section' and insert 'his powers'.
  34 Page 9, line 33, leave out from 'premises' to end of line 34 and insert 'any trade, profession, vocation or business'.
  35 Page 9, line 42, leave out subsections (7) to (10).
  36 Page 10, line 12, leave out 'under this section'.
  37 Page 10, line 12, leave out from 'produce' to end of line 18 and insert 'his certificate'.
  38 Page 10, line 20, leave out 'person exercising powers conferred by this section' and insert 'inspector exercising his powers'.
  39 Page 10, line 26, at end insert:
  '( ) In this section—

  "certificate" means a certificate of appointment issued under this section;

  "inspector" means an inspector appointed under this section;

  "powers" means powers conferred by this section; and

  "specified" means specified in the certificate in question.'.

  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
  Amendments Nos. 30 to 39. Amendment No. 32 follows on from an amendment at Third Reading prompted by my noble friend Lady Elles, who asked whether the term "person" meant any child under 18. This amendment seeks to clarify the wording in the subsection. While still ruling out the possibility of anyone under 18 actually being interviewed, we have deleted the absolute prohibition on interviews taking place in the presence of those under 18. This enables, for example, a 17 year-old interpreter or a small child needing supervision to be present.

  525
  We are aware of course that we shall need to ensure that what takes place at the interview is in no way detrimental to the child. We shall therefore be issuing guidance to inspectors to safeguard against this happening.
  Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 are in response to the representations made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and other noble Lords during the Bill's passage through this House. They are the result of undertakings that I gave to the noble Lord.
  In the majority of visits to employers' premises by officers of the child support agency it will not be necessary for the official to have inspectorate powers but just to have an official identity card. It will be necessary to use these powers only if the employer or employee proves to be unco-operative. We propose to restrict the authorisations to act under Clause 14 to cases where other means of obtaining the necessary information have failed.
  Amendments Nos. 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 enable inspectorate powers to be used only where there is separate authorisation on behalf of the Secretary of State to be given to a specific officer for a specific employer or self-employed person or premises. This authority will last only for a specified time limit.
  Amendments Nos. 31 and 33 delete words which are unnecessary because of a definition of powers inserted by Amendment No. 39.
  As always, your Lordships took a particular interest in this clause. I am grateful for your contributions in improving the clause so that the legislation is now in line with the reality of what is required practice. I commend these amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 39.—(The Lora Chancellor.)
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was most gracious in the way in which he introduced the amendments. All noble Lords on all sides of the House were most anxious about the intrusion permitted under the Bill as it stood. Now the situation must be dealt with case by case. There must be an ad hoc authorisation and the inspector so authorised by the Secretary of State in any particular case will be furnished with a certificate of his appointment.
  I do not say that this power, even so limited, is not an invasion of personal rights. However, having argued the case during earlier stages of the Bill as effectively as I could, supported as I was by many noble Lords from all parts of the House, I can only accept with gratitude the improved situation that now exists.
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, I too thank my noble and learned friend for the considerable improvement in the drafting of this clause. However, I express anxiety because new Clause 14(4) will allow questioning of a person over the age of 18 even in the
  526
  presence of a child under that age. I know that that can cause considerable pain and suffering to children. I hope that in the light of the amendment that has now been made, strict guidelines will be given to inspectors about how they should proceed in such a situation.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I entirely agree that the provision is a considerable improvement on what went before. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we should not let it appear as though all is now sweetness and light. Extraordinary powers of intrusion are involved in this provision. The test is whether any ordinary creditor has the right—even the restricted right; the final last resort right under this clause—to enter a place of employment to interrogate the employer and fellow workers and to threaten them with prosecution unless they answer the question he asks? The answer is that no private person has any such right. Therefore we are condoning the granting of an exceptional power to a public servant.
  On Report and at Third Reading your Lordships considered what Dicey said about the rule of law: it is the equal subjection of all citizens, whether official or not, to one law exercised in the civil courts. The provision is a grave derogation from that. Although it is only right to pay tribute to the care that has been taken to restrict the intrusion the provision is inconsistent with the traditional view of the rule of law in this country.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to disagree with my noble and learned friend on the point. Perhaps we should leave it at that for the present. I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I sought to explain why an absolute exclusion is not appropriate, but I agree with my noble friend that this power has to be exercised very sensitively. We shall ensure that that happens. The Secretary of State will be directly responsible to Parliament for any authorisations given under the clause.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind what we have heard about the citizen's charter, presumably the authorisation will, first, name the officer, who will be obliged to give his name to the factory owner or anyone else. Will the authorisation contain a photograph so that there can be no doubt that the man has authorisation to enter and interview?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I see no reason to quarrel with the requirements. I do not believe that the clause specifies anything other than what subsection (10) states:
  "Every inspector…shall be furnished with a certificate of his appointment".
  If one is dealing with someone who is unco-operative it will be necessary for the inspector to establish to that person that he is the person appointed. The method that the noble Lord has in mind seems to me the most likely, although recent photographs that I have seen vary somewhat in how closely they depict the person. However, that is probably the best method available and on that basis the noble Lord can feel reassured.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  40 Clause 16, page 11, line 21, at end insert:
  '( ) The child support officer to whom an application under this section has been referred shall not proceed unless, on the information before him, he considers that it is likely that he will be required by subsection (5) to make a fresh maintenance assessment if he conducts the review applied for.'.
  41 Page 11, line 36, leave out subsection (6).
  42 Clause 17, page 12, line 7, leave out 'under paragraph 16 of Schedule I'.
  43 Page 12, line 11, leave out 'under paragraph 16 of Schedule 1'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 to 43. With them, I wish to take a large number of other amendments: Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 126, 127 and 130.
  These amendments are designed to make minor improvements and corrections to the reviews and appeals clauses. They are set out in the notes, but perhaps I may go through the main ones briefly.
  Amendment No. 40 seeks to provide that, if a change in circumstances is reported which will not result in a fresh assessment, the child support officer will not have to carry out the whole review procedures. That point was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, earlier.
  Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43, 45 and 46 remove provisions about effective dates which are already adequately covered in Schedule 1. Amendment No. 50 corrects a drafting omission and Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 remove inconsistencies. Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 together make minor drafting amendments to Clause 22(3) to ensure the word "by" applies to all four paragraphs, not just to paragraph (a).
  Amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 58 correct the wording in Clause 23 to prevent someone who has taken no interest in the appeal process at either the child support appeal tribunal or commissioner stage by-passing that process and applying for leave to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal (or, in Scotland, the Court of Session). Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 are minor drafting amendments which recognise the distinct office of regional chairman of the child support appeal tribunals as opposed to other full-time chairmen and specifically allow for the appointment of regional chairmen by the Lord Chancellor.
  Amendment No. 130 provides for a consequential amendment to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. I commend to your Lordships Amendments Nos. 40 to 43, which I shall, with the leave of the House take en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 to 43.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, would it be in order for me to comment on Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 or shall we have the opportunity to raise them when my noble and learned friend reaches them later? I believe he
  528
  took them with Amendments Nos. 40 to 43. Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 concern the right to appeal. I am not in a position to apologise to the House because I have not had time to examine carefully the meaning of the three amendments. They relate to depriving somebody of the right of appeal who has not already been a potential appellant in earlier stages. Can my noble and learned friend elaborate on the kind of people who would be prevented from appealing under the new amendments? Perhaps I am out of order. My noble and learned friend may wish to deal with this later.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments earlier, when it would have been perfectly in order for the noble Baroness to comment. If she agrees, I shall take Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 a little more slowly when we reach them.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  44 Page 12, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'that' in line 18 and insert:
  '(5) An application under this section shall give the applicant's reasons (in writing) for making it.
  (6) The Secretary of State shall refer to a child support officer any application under this section which is duly made; and the child support officer shall conduct the review applied for unless in his opinion there are no reasonable grounds for supposing'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 at the same time.
  We debated the reviews and appeals provisions at some length during the passage of the Bill through this House and we listened carefully to what your Lordships said. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who put down at Report stage two amendments to the internal review clause. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, wrote to the noble Earl about our proposed changes and these amendments are the result.
  We concluded that there should be a simpler access to a review and that the onus for considering the grounds for review should rest with the child support officer. Amendment No. 44 removes the requirement for applicants for a Clause 17 review to have to state which of a specific list of grounds for review applies to their request. Instead, they will merely have to state in writing their reasons for requesting a review. That is the internal, first stage review, to ensure that matters are correct.
  This amendment also removes the 28-day time limit from the face of the Bill, but we intend to cover this aspect in regulations along with the effective dates of any revised assessment or decision as a result of the review.
  Where there has been a clearly frivolous appeal, the child support officer may refuse to review. This will not affect the applicant's appeal rights, as in Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 we clarify the intention that there should be a right of appeal against the child support officer's refusal to review.

  529
  Amendment No. 49 removes the need to appeal on one of three specific grounds and therefore allows appeals to the child support appeal tribunal on any grounds. This brings the appeal provisions in line with that proposed for the Clause 17 review in Amendment No. 44. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  45 Page 12, line 36, leave out subsection (11).
  46 Clause 18, page 13, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. I spoke to these with Amendment No. 40. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 and 46.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  47 Clause 19, page 13, line 27, after 'officer', insert:
  '(a)'. .
  48 Page 13, line 27, after '17', insert:
  '(b) to refuse an application for such a review,'.
  49 Page 13, line 28, leave out from 'decision' to end of line 32.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49. I spoke to these with Amendment No. 44. I commend the amendments to you: Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  50 Page 13, line 33, after 'of', insert 'the chairman of
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 40. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. If my noble and learned friend was in the middle of a sentence, I apologise. I wished to ask what was proposed about an adjournment for refreshments. It is now seven o'clock. We are not halfway through the amendments, although some of the later ones have been spoken to. It is bad enough that your Lordships should be treated as a sausage machine for government legislation. It would be quite intolerable if
  530
  your Lordships were required to work the treadmill in order to operate that machine. I can remember trying a case which concerned the interrogation of a Polish student by the secret police. One of the means of breaking her will—which was unsuccessful—was to deprive her of food while she was being interrogated.
  Your Lordships are already at a disadvantage on this Bill. Those of us who saw the Marshalled List and the amendments only at midday have been unable to scrutinise the provisions in the way that we feel it is our duty to do. If we adjourn now in the usual way, not only can we refresh and replenish ourselves physically but we shall be able to have a quick look through some of the remaining amendments. I should be grateful if we could be told what the proposal is.
  7 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very much under tutors and governors in these matters. I obviously want to consider the convenience of the House, but I certainly would not like to think that your Lordships were so starved that you could not follow my explanations. I feel that perhaps progress on the Bill may itself be sufficient refreshment to enable us to proceed, at least for some time. Perhaps we may continue for a little and see how we progress. We may be so refreshed by our progress that the problem may disappear.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think that the hardship expressed by the noble and learned Lord can be put in these words: it is objectionable to be a sausage machine without being able to eat sausages. Apparently that was the complaint that the noble Lord was making, but I feel that it is necessary for us to concentrate on carrying through our debates on the amendments without interruption.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord says "without interruption", but speaking for myself I had to drive 100 miles to get here this morning. I did not come from home but from further away, and I had a very quick lunch. Except for seeing the Chief Whip for a short time, I have been in the Chamber since Prayers. I think that our deliberations would gain if we had a pause for refreshment and to consider some of the notes and amendments that we have not yet reached and which some of us have not had time to scrutinise.
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Renton, and I feel rather like the Polish girl who was interrogated: we can still go on despite having no refreshment. I was always taught that the one qualification of being in politics was stamina, so I very much support my noble and learned friend in hoping that we continue with the work before us in this House as speedily as possible.
  Lord Rochester: My Lords, I have another interest to declare in that later this evening I hope to take part in the Third Reading of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill. There is another item of business to come between this item and that. I hope that that point may be taken into consideration in the decision which your Lordships reach.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  51 After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
  Child Support Commissioners for Northern Ireland
  '.—(1) Her Majesty may from time to time appoint a Chief Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland and such number of other Child Support Commissioners for Northern Ireland as she may think fit.
  (2) The Chief Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland and the other Child Support Commissioners for Northern Ireland shall be appointed from among persons who are barristers or solicitors of not less than 10 years' standing.
  (3) Schedule 4 shall have effect with respect to Child Support Commissioners for Northern Ireland, subject to the modifications set out in paragraph 8.
  (4) Subject to any Order made after the passing of this Act by virtue of subsection (1) (a) of section 3 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the matters to which this subsection applies shall not be transferred matters for the purposes of that Act but shall for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section be treated as specified in Schedule 3 to that Act.
  (5) Subsection (4) applies to all matters relating to Child Support Commissioners, including procedure and appeals, other than those specified in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51. With this amendment I wish to take Amendments Nos. 102, 110, 111, 128 and 129. These amendments provide for the creation of a chief and other child support commissioners for Northern Ireland to mirror the arrangements for Great Britain. I commend the amendments to the House. I believe it is right that we should make a provision for Northern Ireland in respect of these appeals.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that all of your Lordships will agree about the substance of the amendments. I am glad to say that the amendments to the schedule, being amendments of previous legislation affecting Northern Ireland, like other amendments to the schedule which we have already dealt with, are done by textual method. But there is one paragraph in Amendment No. 128 which inserts a new paragraph 8 into Schedule 4 which is done by the non-textual method.
  For the sake of the record, I point out that it reads:
  "(a) for any reference to a Child Support Commissioner (however expressed) there were substituted a corresponding reference to a Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland".
  In the existing legislation presumably there are not many references to the child support commissioner. One would hope that the textual amendments would be made instead of just stating it in this way. Of course my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has a responsibility with regard to statutes in force, which are much more easily and better compiled from the
  532
  point of view of the user if textual amendment is always made instead of there being non-textual references.
  I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to deal with that. It may be that expressing it in this way is an instruction to the editors of Statutes in Force that they shall do the textual amendment. But at any rate it is an important point that should be dealt with.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, so far as this is concerned what we are doing is adapting the provisions of Schedule 4 to the Bill to the fact that we are seeking to appoint distinct commissioners for Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is right that Schedule 4 of the Bill should be modified by this provision.
  Perhaps I have to make an occasional deviation from the principle of textual amendment, which I support as a way of doing it, but this is a different point. This is modification of a schedule to the Bill so that in its application to Northern Ireland it will have this effect. Therefore the whole schedule would be printed. If we were printing only for Northern Ireland it might be thought right to put in the Northern Irish provisions, but the modification that we are making here is a modification of this Bill, not a modification of another enactment.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that explanation. If we had not been so rushed and had had some opportunity for refreshment I might not have made that point.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is a particular privilege and refreshment to me that I am able to enlighten the noble Lord as we go through the provisions. I am very grateful to him.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  52 Clause 22, page 14, line 38, leave out 'the ground that the decision was wrong in' and insert 'a question of'. .
  53 Page 15, line 22, leave out 'by' and insert 'of.
  54 Clause 23, page 15, line 48, after 'made', insert 'by'.
  55 Page 16, line 1, leave out 'by'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 52 to 55. I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 40.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 52 to 55.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  56 Clause 23, page 16, line 1, leave out from 'who' to 'was' in line 5.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56. I have already spoken to this, but my noble friend Lady Elles wished to raise a point on it so I have taken it separately.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving me the opportunity to comment on Amendments Nos. 56 to 58. As I understand it from the explanation in Notes on Commons Amendments the effect would be to,
  "prevent potential parties to an appeal who have not taken any part in the appeal to either the child support appeal tribunal or to the child support commissioner being able to apply for leave to appeal".
  That appears to represent a significant change from the previous position. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could expand further on that point.
  It may be that by this time of the day one becomes a little dyslexic, but Amendment No. 56 reads:
  "Page 16, line 1, leave out from 'who' to 'was' in line 5".
  I do not understand how that would operate. Who would be deprived of the right of appeal by that change? Such a right appeared in the Bill previously but has now been deleted. I should be grateful to my noble and learned friend for an explanation.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of Amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 58 is to modify Clause 23. People who have not taken part at the earlier stage could have immediate access to the court. If they were entitled to take part at an earlier stage but chose not to do o it would be wrong for them to have immediate access to the courts. Their right of appeal would of course be protected as they would still be able to exercise their rights to request a review or to appeal, as appropriate, by taking an interest in the matter earlier.
  As the matter was originally expressed it looked as though one could stand aside from the whole procedure until it reached the courts at the highest level and one could then become involved. That does not seem to us to be appropriate, and the purpose of Amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 58—and I think that they achieve the purpose—is to restrict the appeal rights to those who have been involved in the earlier stage.
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that explanation which clarifies the point.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  57 Clause 23, page 16, line 6, after 'decision', insert
  'or appeal decision'.
  58 Page 16, line 15, at end insert
  '; and
  "original decision" means the decision to which the appeal decision in question relates'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 and 58.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 and 58.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  59 Clause 24, page 17, line 13, leave out 'applicant' and insert 'child'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59. The amendment changes the jurisdictional test in Case E so that it refers to the child being habitually resident in Scotland. That seems to be a more appropriate test than the original test. The basic test of the child support agency's competence would appear to be best achieved by applying not to the applicant but to the child.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, although this appears a small drafting correction it is an important amendment of substance and we should welcome it.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is indeed an amendment of substance and is, I believe, a considerable improvement.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  60 Clause 25, page 18, line 1, leave out 'satisfied that the case does not fall' and insert 'not satisfied that the case falls'.
  61 Clause 26, page 18, line 27, leave out 'satisfied that the case does not fall' and insert 'not satisfied that the case falls'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60 and 61. Amendment No. 60 makes a necessary adjustment to ensure that an application may always be made to a court for a declaration of parentage whenever, without such a declaration, Clause 24 would prevent an assessment being made on the assumption that the person alleged to be a parent was in fact a parent of the child in question.
  Amendment No. 61 achieves exactly the same result in respect of Clause 26, which makes corresponding provision in Scotland. I believe that this is an important drafting improvement in both respects and I commend the amendments to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60 and 61.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  62 Clause 27, page 18, line 37, leave out 'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to' and insert 'The Secretary of State may'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62. This is a drafting amendment to rectify an inconsistency. As presently drafted the clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to collect maintenance whenever a maintenance assessment has been made. As your Lordships know, we should prefer the parties to come to a satisfactory agreement for the

  535
  payment of maintenance, if that were possible, rather than for the agency automatically to collect in every case.
  For mandatory applications for parents with care who are receiving benefit the agency would need to be sure that any such private arrangement was secure. For a voluntary application it will be entirely for the party concerned to decide whether to use the agency's collection services. The amendment ensures that that would be possible. This is also an important amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  63 Clause 28, page 19, line 27, leave out 'under section 27,'.
  64 Page 19, line 28, leave out 'child support maintenance' and insert 'payments under section 27 or subsection (1A),'.
  65 Page 19, line 30, leave out from 'payable' to 'to' in line 33.
  66 Page 19, line 34, at end insert:
  '(1A) The Secretary of State may arrange for the collection of any periodical payments or secured periodical payments of a prescribed kind which are payable for the benefit of a child even though he is not arranging for the collection of child support maintenance with respect to that child.
  (1B) Where—

  (a) the Secretary of State is arranging, under this Act, for the collection of different payments ("the payments") from the same absent parent;

  (b) an amount is collected by the Secretary of State from the absent parent which is less than the total amount due in respect of the payments; and

  (c) the absent parent has not stipulated how that amount is to be allocated by the Secretary of State as between the payments,

  the Secretary of State may allocate that amount as he sees fit.'.
  67 Page 19, line 39, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.
  68 Page 19, line 42, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 63 to 68. I have already spoken to the amendments with Amendment No. 19.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 63 to 68.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  69 Clause 29, page 20, line 16, leave out first 'as'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69. I have spoken to the amendment with Amendment No. 22.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  7.15 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  70 Clause 30, page 22, line 20, leave out 'requirement imposed on him by the regulations' and insert 'regulation under this section which is designated for the purposes of this subsection'.
  71 Page 22, line 21, at end insert:
  '(8A) In subsection (8) "designated" means designated by the regulations.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 70 and 71. Without the amendments it would be a criminal offence not to comply with the requirements of a deduction from earnings order or any related regulation. Some of the related regulations will cover minor matters such as the procedure to be followed in complying with an order. The amendments mean that the criminal sanction will apply only to designated regulations and will therefore allow for minor provisions to be excluded. I believe that this also is an important improvement.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 70 and 71.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I suppose that we have to agree to the amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may agree with me that it is going rather far with regulations to find that they and not primary legislation are to affect the application of the criminal law and that the wording of regulations will determine whether or not a crime has been committed.
  This is a somewhat indirect method of legislating by regulation as it affects the criminal law. I suppose that we have no option but to accept it, but I feel obliged in passing to say that I hope that it is a practice which we shall not see very often.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to express my agreement with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made. I agree with him that we cannot do much about it now, but the growing tendency to legislate by regulation requires attention.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment is designed to limit the effect of that provision, so I hope that, pursuant to the principles which my noble friend and the noble Earl have mentioned, they will consider it an improvement. Instead of all the regulations being made the subject of a criminal offence, the regulations would be required to specify that point and we are seeking to target the regulations better and make them more effective.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  72 Clause 31, page 22, line 46, at end insert:
  '(4) On an application under subsection (2), the court or (as the case may be) the sheriff shall not question the maintenance assessment under which the payments of child support maintenance fell to be made.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 72. The amendment prevents a magistrates' court, or in Scotland a sheriff, from questioning the maintenance assessment when considering an application for a liability order. It does not seek to restrict a person's right to challenge decisions made under the Bill but rather seeks to ensure that disputes are heard in the correct forum. A review and appeals mechanism is provided for in Clauses 17 and 19 of the Bill. Either party wishing to challenge a maintenance assessment may use these facilities to do so.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 72.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if an assessment or the way in which it has been reached is the subject matter of a judicial review, does the amendment, bearing in mind that it refers to "the court", prevent the tribunal dealing with the judicial review from querying the assessment?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the opening words of the amendment are,
  "an application under subsection (2)",
  which I believe to be an application for assessment for a liability order by the Secretary of State. Therefore, it is not a judicial review application. The operation of the subsection is restricted to an application under subsection (2). It is for that reason that the answer to the noble Lord's question is no.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  73 After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
  Enforcement in the county courts
  '.—(1) Where a liability order has been made against a person, the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid, shall, if a county court so orders, be recoverable by means of garnishee proceedings or a charging order, as if it were payable under a county court order.
  (2) In subsection (1) "charging order" has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Charging Orders Act 1979.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 73. In moving this amendment, should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 77 to 79.
  I am pleased to bring forward this new clause for your Lordships' approval. It fulfils a commitment that I gave in this House on Report and on Third Reading. Your Lordships will recall that there was much discussion of the enforcement measures that would be available to the agency. Concern was expressed from all sides of the House on the effectiveness of those
  538
  enforcement powers in obtaining maintenance payments and minimising the numbers of maintenance debtors who came before the courts for committal proceedings.
  The enforcement powers of garnishee and charging orders can be used by maintenance creditors at the moment where the maintenance order is registered in the county or High Court. Although they are rarely used now, and likely to be used only in the minority of the cases by the agency, we believe that they will provide an effective and useful addition to the agency's enforcement powers. Comparable methods in Scotland are already provided for in Clause 35. They are tried and tested measures in matters of maintenance recovery. A garnishee order once obtained from the court can be used to recover a debt from funds held in the debtor's bank account. A charging order may be used to place a charge on the debtor's property in order to recover a debt.
  There is a consequential amendment to the imprisonment clause which makes it clear on the face of the Bill that, before considering making an application to the courts for committal proceedings, the agency will have to have attempted either garnishee or charging order action, or distraint.
  Amendment No. 78 alters the minimum age of imprisonment to 18. That is to ensure that the Bill is compatible with the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill which raises the minimum age for such detention from 17 to 18.
  Amendment No. 79 is to make clear that, in Scotland, the Secretary of State may apply for a warrant for the civil imprisonment of a liability order defaulter. Without this amendment, there could be some doubt as to whether it would be for the creditor—that is, the parent with care—or for the Secretary of State to apply to the court for the warrant. Given the arrangements for England and Wales, that would be undesirable.
  I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 73. (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  74 Clause 34, page 24, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).
  75 Clause 35, page 24, line 31, after 'warrant', insert 'anywhere in Scotland'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 74 and 75. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 22.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 74 and 75.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  76 After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
  Liability orders: enforcement throughout United Kingdom
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for—

  (a) any liability order made by a court in England and Wales; or

  (b) any corresponding order made by a court in Northern Ireland,

  to be enforced in Scotland as if it had been made by the sheriff.
  (2) The power conferred on the Court of Session by section 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (power of Court of Session to regulate civil procedure in the sheriff court) shall extend to making provision for the registration in the sheriff court for enforcement of any such order as is referred to in subsection (1).
  (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for, or in connection with, the enforcement in England and Wales of—

  (a) any liability order made by the sheriff in Scotland; or

  (b) any corresponding order made by a court in Northern Ireland,

  as if it had been made by a magistrates' court in England and Wales.
  (4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, make provision for the registration of any such order as is referred to in that subsection in connection with its enforcement in England and Wales.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76.
  This amendment introduces a technical provision which will allow enforcement of a liability order throughout the United Kingdom, regardless of where the order was made. This provision mirrors existing provisions in the Maintenance Orders Act 1950. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  77 Clause 36, page 24, line 44, leave out from 'sought' to 'he' in line 46 and insert—

  (a) to levy an amount by distress under this Act; or

  (b) to recover an amount by virtue of section (Enforcement in the county courts),

  and that amount, or any portion of it, remains unpaid'.
  78 Page 25, line 20, leave out '21' and insert '18'.
  79 Page 26, line 13, at end insert:
  '(14) Where a liability order has been made, the Secretary of State (and he alone) shall be regarded as, and may exercise all the powers of, the creditor for the purposes of section 4 (imprisonment for failure to obey decree for alimentary debt) of the Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) Act 1882.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 77 to 79. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 73.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 77 to 79.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  80 Clause 39, page 27, line 40, after 'that', insert
  '(a)'.
  81 Page 27, line 42, at end insert
  '; and
  (b) arrears of child support maintenance are recovered.'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80 and 81.
  These amendments are concerned with deductions from benefit in respect of child support maintenance. They allow a deduction to be made both in respect of an on-going liability and in respect of outstanding arrears. Deductions in respect of both an on-going liability and arrears are already made in respect of, for example, fuel and water charges. There is an existing maximum level of deduction in respect of arrears. We intend that both deductions will count towards that maximum. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80 and 81.—(Lord Henley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  82 After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
  Jurisdiction
  '.—(1) A child support officer shall have jurisdiction to make a maintenance assessment with respect to a person who is—

  (a) a person with care;

  (b) an absent parent; or

  (c) a qualifying child,

  only if that person is habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
  (2) Where the person with care is not an individual, subsection (1) shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted.
  (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the cancellation of any maintenance assessment where—

  (a) the person with care, absent parent or qualifying child with respect to whom it was made ceases to be habitually resident in the United Kingdom;

  (b) in a case falling within subsection (2), the absent parent or qualifying child with respect to whom it was made ceases to be habitually resident in the United Kingdom; or

  (c) in such circumstances as may be prescribed, a maintenance order of a prescribed kind is made with respect to any qualifying child with respect to whom the maintenance assessment was made.'.

  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82.
  This new clause provides for the territorial jurisdiction for the child support agency. Your

  541
  Lordships will see that, for the agency to have jurisdiction to make a maintenance assessment, it will be necessary for all the parties to a maintenance application to be "habitually resident" in the United Kingdom. That should provide an easily understood and simple test. Habitual residence is a test that is already recognised within existing family law legislation.
  Where one of the parties is regarded as habitually resident outside the United Kingdom, the agency will not have jurisdiction to make an assessment. Such cases will be, as now, for the courts to decide as the particular circumstances can be complex and the courts, using their discretionary powers, are better placed to deal with them. I commend the new clause to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, this is useful clarification, but we should bear in mind that increasingly in the years to come—it has already started—people who are citizens of this country and Her Majesty's subjects of this country will go to live in the EC. Some people already have holiday homes in the EC and spend a good deal of their time there. If, for example, the absent parent, who is the person who should perhaps be made responsible, is in that position, it appears that the child support agency will have no jurisdiction. It may be that it is too soon for us to start legislating for circumstances of that kind, but they are circumstances on which we should invite my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to comment, if he feels in a position to do so, before the Bill leaves the House.
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I should like to ask him a question similar to that asked by my noble friend Lord Renton. I am not sure of the meaning of the phrase,
  "or qualifying child".
  If a child of 17 or 18 is studying at a university on the continent, would the parent qualify as being habitually resident in the United Kingdom even though the qualifying child was no longer resident in this country but was a student on the continent or anywhere else for that matter?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Elles raised the question of whether a student studying abroad would necessarily be classed as habitually resident abroad. The mere fact that one is studying abroad for a period would not necessarily make that person habitually resident abroad. However, if the child in respect of whom maintenance is sought is habitually resident abroad, that would not apply. In other words, the agency would have no jurisdiction to make an assessment. The matter would then arise in the courts which would have the power to make the assessment in that case. If they made an order, they would have the benefit of the reciprocal arrangements within the EC which have recently been set up. From the point of view of convenience and effective administration, this is the right way to go about the matter. The agency should work only if all
  542
  parties are habitually resident within the United Kingdom. Otherwise, the courts should deal with the matter.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  7.30 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  83 After Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
  Failure to comply with obligations imposed by section 6
  '.—(1) This section applies where any person ("the parent")—

  (a) fails to comply with a requirement imposed on her by the Secretary of State under section 6(1); or

  (b) fails to comply with any regulation made under section 6(7).

  (2) A child support officer may serve written notice on the parent requiring her, before the end of the specified period, either to comply or to give him her reasons for failing to do so.
  (3) When the specified period has expired, the child support officer shall consider whether, having regard to any reasons given by the parent, there are reasonable grounds for believing that, if she were to be required to comply, there would be a risk of her or of any children living with her suffering harm or undue distress as a result of complying.
  (4) If the child support officer considers that there are such reasonable grounds, he shall—

  (a) take no further action under this section in relation to the failure in question; and

  (b) notify the parent, in writing, accordingly.

  (5) If the child support officer considers that there are no such reasonable grounds, he may give a reduced benefit direction with respect to the parent.
  (6) Where the child support officer gives a reduced benefit direction he shall send a copy of it to the parent.
  (7) Any person who is aggrieved by a decision of a child support officer to give a reduced benefit direction may appeal to a child support appeal tribunal against that decision.
  (8) Sections 19(3) to (5) and 20 shall apply in relation to appeals under subsection (7) as they apply in relation to appeals under section 19.
  (9) A reduced benefit direction shall take effect on such date as may be specified in the direction.
  (10) Reasons given in response to a notice under subsection (2) may be given either in writing or orally.
  (11) In this section—
  "comply" means to comply with the requirement or with the regulation in question; and "complied" and "complying" shall be construed accordingly;
  "reduced benefit direction" means a direction, binding on the adjudication officer, that the amount payable by way of any relevant benefit to, or in respect of, the parent concerned be reduced by such amount, and for such period, as may be prescribed;
  "relevant benefit" means income support, family credit or any other benefit of a kind prescribed for the purposes of section 6; and
  "specified", in relation to any notice served under this section, means specified in the notice; and the period to be specified shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83.
  When the Bill was first introduced into this House, it contained in Clause 22 a provision for reducing the benefit of the parent with care in a case where she has failed without good cause to comply with a requirement to authorise recovery of child support maintenance. This clause attracted a good deal of debate in Committee. Your Lordships decided to remove the clause from the Bill following a vote during Committee stage. The arguments have been considered very carefully, as have the views expressed by all those who made representations to us. We have concluded that it would be right to reintroduce provision for a reduction in benefit. But the new clause differs in very substantial respects from the former Clause 22 because we have recognised some of the matters which have been raised.
  We have said all along that, in the same way that absent parents who can afford to pay maintenance for their children should not simply be able to choose to put the burden on the taxpayer, so parents with care have a responsibility to do what they can.
  We have considered very carefully the arguments made by your Lordships and the points put to us subsequently and we see no reason to change our view on the principle. The situation is that what one might call an encouragement—an increase—would be extremely costly because most people will give the necessary co-operation. The difficulty is to devise a suitable sanction. We have made changes in the way in which we suggest that the procedure should work.
  We do not believe that it is right that a parent should be able lightly to choose not to seek maintenance for the child and pass the task of supporting her child to the taxpayer instead. If there are grounds to believe that requiring her to authorise the Secretary of State to seek maintenance puts her or the child at risk of harm or undue distress, it is different. We have already put forward that amendment. That is not the sort of case which this new clause is intended to cover. This clause looks at the position where, after having given the parent every opportunity to reconsider and explain her reasons, it is not considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is any risk of the type envisaged. These are the cases in which we propose that there should be a reduction in her personal benefit. This is important. Therefore I should like to take your Lordships through the new clause, expanding on what we propose to do where necessary.
  Subsection (1) sets out the circumstances in which this new clause will apply; namely, that the caring parent has not complied with the obligations imposed on her by Clause 6 to provide authorisation and information to the Secretary of State to enable him to seek child maintenance from the absent parent.
  I shall say a few words here about how we intend to deal with cases in which caring parents refuse to comply with the provisions of Clause 6. Where a parent with care who is required to give the Secretary of State authorisation to seek maintenance refuses to do so, we intend that there should be a "cooling-off
  544
  period—say, six weeks—during which time she can think over the whole question and decide to comply or provide the Secretary of State with reasons, or to expand on the reasons that she has already given for her refusal. I should just like to make perfectly clear that this cooling-off period occurs before the case is referred to the child support officer to consider action under this new clause. It is not the specified period mentioned in subsection (2) of the new clause, about which I shall say more shortly.
  We have spoken at some length about the types of circumstance which would provide good grounds for non-co-operation; that is, where there is a risk of harm or undue distress to the caring parent or any children living with her if the maintenance application were to proceed. I believe that there can be no doubt that we have responded positively to people's anxieties on the issue of good cause. I should like to acknowledge the help that noble Lords have been able to give us on that matter in focusing more on the consequences than on the actions which might give rise to the reasonable cause.
  If at the end of that six-week period the caring parent has declined to give authorisation and has not provided good reasons, her case will be referred to a child support officer, who may, under subsection (2) of this new clause, give her written notice requiring her either to comply or to give him reasons for not complying within a period to be specified in regulations. It may be useful for noble Lords to know that, for this second period—that is, following the cooling-off period already provided when the Secretary of State considered the issue—we think that a shorter length, perhaps of two weeks, would suffice. This is a further opportunity for her to reconsider and provide further information.
  Subsection (3) requires the child support officer, when this second period has come to an end, to have regard to any reasons provided by the parent. If he considers that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there would be a risk of harm or undue distress to the caring parent or any children living with her if the caring parent were to be required to comply, then under subsection (4) he can take no further action under this section; that is, there will be no reduction in the parent's benefit.
  I should just like to point out that the child support officer is having to make the same sort of judgment as the Secretary of State has to make under subsection (1A) of Clause 6. It is important to emphasise that this ensures that two different people are looking at the question of the reasons for non-co-operation. Only where the Secretary of State is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is a risk to the parent or her children will he pass the case to a child support officer, and only when this second person considers there are no such reasonable grounds will he issue a reduced benefit direction.
  That direction will be copied to the parent, who will have the right of appeal against the decision of the child support officer to a child support appeal tribunal. The direction will specify the amount and duration of the benefit direction and this will be set out in regulations.

  545
  In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pressed us to say what were the Government's intentions in respect of the size and duration of the reduction. At the earlier time we were lot able to be too specific in answer to the question. But I can now respond. This is a very difficult area and we have given a great deal of thought to it. We feel that the rate and period of reduction need to be pitched at the minimum level to make caring parents think seriously about non-co-operation without good grounds.
  We propose that the benefit reduction should last for 18 months. For the first six months the reduction will be set at 20 per cent. of income support adult personal allowance—just under £8 a week at current benefit levels. For the final 12 months, the reduction rate will be lowered to 10 per cent. We believe that this level and duration of reduction achieves the right sort of balance to encourage the parent to think about her responsibilities and the benefits of maintenance to the child. I f, in the light of experience, it turns out that this rate and duration of reduction is not pitched at the right level, then powers exist to change it. This is one of the advantages of setting them out in regulations. It is open to the caring parent to comply with the provisions of Clause 6 at any time. If she does so, the reduced benefit direction will be withdrawn.
  In this connection, one has to think not only of the caring parent but also of the person who has the liability for the maintenance. We must be careful not to encourage a situation in which that person can buy off his liability by seeking to buy off the co-operation of the caring parent. It is very important to have in mind that not only is the caring parent involved in this matter but also a person who might wish to seek to buy off his liability: therefore the price must have regard to that as well. It is not just the caring parent whom one has to consider, it is also the possibility of inducement being offered by the person who is subject to the liability.
  To sum up, we believe that the provisions contained in this new clause are both important and necessary. We think it right that the caring parent should think carefully about the advantages to her children of maintenance. It would provide a regular income which can be of considerable help if she wishes to return to work. For caring parents on family credit or disability working allowance there is an immediate advantage, as the first £15 of any maintenance will be disregarded. Before reducing benefit, we shall be giving the caring parent ample opportunity either to comply with Clause 6 or to make representations as to why she should not comply. But ultimately, if the caring parent decides without good reason not to comply, then we feel that a benefit reduction is in order.
  I commend this new clause to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 83
  83A Line 20, leave out ("may give a reduced benefit direction with respect to the parent.") and insert:
  ("shall notify this to the parent, in writing.
  (5A) A notice under subsection (5) above shall include a statement as to the right of the parent to appeal to a child support appeal tribunal against the child support officer's decision and shall specify the time limit for bringing such an appeal.
  (5B) If the parent decides not to appeal, the child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction only after the expiry of the time limit for bringing an appeal.
  (5C) If the parent appeals a child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction only after the outcome of that appeal has been notified in writing to the parent.")
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there are occasions in the history of this House when this Chamber seems to be nearer to the response of the public of this country than does the other place. I should have thought that when this House threw back Clause 22 of the Bill, we did just that. If a poll were taken of the citizens of this land as to whether they wanted the people of the income limit about which we talk to suffer the penalty that has been described by the noble and learned Lord—I shall go into that in a moment—I would guess that about 80 per cent, if not more, of the population would say, "Don't have such a provision in the Bill".
  The other place decided that we were wrong in throwing out Clause 22. Nothing that I can say and nothing that your Lordships can do at this stage can reinstate it. From a practical point of view, we are left with saying, "The power is there. Let us see that it is administered in as fair, just and merciful a way as possible". That is the start of my address to your Lordships in support of Amendment No. 83A.
  Your Lordships will have noticed that in the amended clause to which the noble and learned Lord referred, subsections (5) and (6) provide that, if the child support officer considers that there are no reasonable grounds for thinking that harm or distress will be occasioned, he may give a reduced benefit direction. Under subsection (6), where he gives that direction he shall send a copy of the direction to the parent. There is not a word about giving the parent the opportunity to know in clear and simple language that there is a right of appeal and that the way to exercise that right of appeal shall be in a certain form.
  Therefore the first part of my amendment provides that there shall be a notification in writing and that a notice,
  "shall include a statement as to the right of the parent to appeal to a child support appeal tribunal against the child support officer's decision and shall specify the time limit for bringing such an appeal".
  Your Lordships may consider that it is but elementary justice to bring to the attention of citizens—especially the type of citizens to whom we refer—in clear, lucid, simple terms the right of appeal and the time limit specified by it.
  On many occasions we have been told that there is a similarity between the provisions that are made with regard to this benefit and voluntary unemployment deduction. It is interesting that one of the

  547
  organisations that has done much to help us in our treatment of the Bill has reminded me that the experience in decision-making on voluntary unemployment deductions is not a brilliant one from the point of view of the Ministry involved. The Chief Adjudication Officer's Report for 1989–90 reported that in a third to a half of cases "insufficient evidence" for the decision was cited by officers and a significant proportion of appeals is decided in the claimant's favour.
  The noble and learned Lord referred to a deduction. I shall refer briefly to the amount. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will refer to the amount in more detail when he moves his amendment. With regard to a person against whom a prima facie finding has been made and confirmed by another officer (if that procedure were adopted) that she has reasonable grounds for thinking that harm will occur or that she will be caused undue distress, that penalty will fall immediately before the appeal is heard. I am trying hard not to use dramatic language; it does not appeal to your Lordships as a rule. That will mean in many cases literally not having enough food or clothing in the household. That is why I refer your Lordships—noble Lords may think quite fairly—to experience in what is supposed to be another field where decision-making has been upset by an appeal tribunal in many cases.
  Is it therefore not just—I believe that it is the rule in Australia—that on receipt of the notice, an appeal may or may not take place within a limited time, and that the penalty falls only after that time has been expended, if there is no appeal. If there is to be an appeal the penalty falls only after the appeal has been adjudicated. One is entitled to refer to the minority, and not always to the majority. Let us consider the minority of cases where the appeal will be successful, if the argument is that that will be a minority. Ought we to be responsible for the suffering and hardship which is caused until the appeal is heard? The appeal may be successful.
  I seek the spirit that your Lordships showed when throwing out Clause 22 completely in asking for the same support as your Lordships gave in all quarters of the House to a modification to the new clause. It is with some confidence that I leave the amendment in your Lordships' hands. I beg to move.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 83A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 83, be agreed to.—(Lord Mishcon.)
  Earl Russell: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I warmly support the amendment. It seems to us to be unjust that the penalty should be inflicted when a hearing is still pending and when it might well turn out that that penalty was unjustified.
  I agree with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. Significant improvements have been made in the clause. But where a single mother is deprived of benefit pending a hearing, the effect of that deprivation may often be to force her compliance which perhaps after an appeal she may not have been held liable to give. Therefore the effect of the
  548
  procedure as laid out could be to diminish the force of the concessions which have already been made. They are real. I shall welcome them at greater length later.
  The trouble is that the Government have altogether underestimated the severity of the penalty that they are imposing upon single mothers. For that reason, it will have a much greater in terrorem effect upon those from whom compliance can be obtained than the Government suppose. The amount of hardship and injustice that will be caused will be much greater than the Government envisage. Finally, I echo entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the report of the Chief Adjudication Officer. I have read it. It is a disturbing document. It suggests that we should let the appeal process go its length before any penalty is put in place.
  Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on managing to get the amendment tabled when we only saw the Commons amendments on Friday. How did he manage to do something so clever?
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble Baroness wishes me to reply immediately, I accept the compliment at once, but it was not all that clever of me. Having taken soundings, I anticipated what the Commons might do. I therefore read some papers before Friday. On Friday morning when I was told what the Commons amendments had been, I tabled my amendment.
  Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. The matter was of great interest to me. I have some questions for my noble and learned friend, who took the Children Bill 1989 through the House. I have dealt with cases where women on their own have applied for their children to be taken into care under the Children Act 1948 because they had no money to feed them. How will the Children Act 1989 and this Bill work together? If a woman's income support is to be reduced and she has two children—a sturdy child who can manage with little food and a delicate child who cannot—and she realises that she cannot care for them because her income has been reduced and applies for them to be taken into care, what will be the position? She is caring for the children but she knows that she cannot continue to do so. It is the bulrushes story all over again. She applies for the children to be taken into care, and is therefore doing her duty by the children if she cannot feed them. Where does my noble and learned friend stand on the two pieces of legislation, which are contradictory? I shall be grateful for an explanation.
  Some of the women whom a number of us have seen find it difficult to explain clearly why they do not want to give the father's name. A woman who has the child as a result of rape is diffident about saying that the child is the child of a man who raped her. That is an extreme case, but there are other cases where the woman is fearful that if she gives the man's name he will treat her cruelly. There is another point. She may know that the man who has fathered her child has abused other children and she may not want that man anywhere near her child because he has a history of

  549
  abuse. He has not been charged, but she knows of it. There are many women who know that a man has abused children but who do not want to go before the court.
  The Children Act 1989 and the Child Support Bill are in juxtaposition. It will be an extraordinarily difficult matter for social security officers and it will be equally difficult for social workers within social services departments. I have great admiration for the drafting of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Before making up my mind, I should like to know how my noble and learned friend will advise people on the extraordinarily difficult position that is created by the Bill.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am against Amendment No. 83. As my noble friend Lord Mishcon explained, it is probably too late for us to throw it out in its entirety; and so I support Amendment No. 83A. Earlier today we had brought before us a citizen's charter. I wonder whether the women whom we are discussing believe that the charter refers to them. I wonder whether the Prime Minister, when he was mulling over the Citizen's Charter, had read the Child Support Bill. Had he considered the Child Support Bill? Had he considered the implications of Amendment No. 83, because they are serious for those who will bear the brunt of them?
  I have been informed—it may be more, it may be less—that single women may lose up to £8 per week in benefit because, for one reason or another, they refuse to name their child's father. Does anyone here have any concept of what £8 per week might mean to a woman and children living on the breadline? It could mean disaster. If someone is living on £80 a week and loses £8 per week, that means that the child or the woman will starve, and the latter is more likely.
  I hate to be emotional, but one can only treat the issue emotionally. To subject a family on such a low income to a further reduction in its income is nothing short of cruel. If a parent subjected the child to that action voluntarily, that parent might well be accused of child abuse. Here we have the state abusing the child. Whichever way we look at it, it is the child who will suffer. I therefore regret that the Commons sought to put back Clause 22 into the Bill. My noble friend Lord Mishcon is right: in many cases this House may have a better realisation of the consequences for ordinary people of actions taken by Parliament.
  Earlier we debated whether we should discuss the Bill today. Unfortunately the Government decided that they must have the Bill, not 48 hours hence, not a couple of months hence, but today. That was absurd. Indeed, the absurdity of it came to me when I went to my office for a couple of minutes to fetch a letter which I had to post. On my desk was an envelope containing a letter relevant to this debate. Had not gone to my office, I should not have seen the letter. It was from an organisation called Women Against Rape. Many of your Lordships will have heard of that organisation. I have, and I do not agree with everything it says. However, it has a right to be heard because rape and the possibility of rape has much to do with the amendment.
  550
  Because I believe that the organisation has a right to be heard, I shall read out two or three sentences from the letter. First, it states:
  "A government amendment has restored the 'penalty' clause which the Lords removed, making it all the more urgent to stop the Bill rushing through to the Royal Assent".
  I say to Women Against Rape I am afraid that we cannot do that. The Front Benches have agreed that we must rush it through. The letter goes on:
  "Mothers will be forced to re-establish connections with men they may have escaped from, and if they refuse, they can lose £7.93 a week from already inadequate benefits".
  It goes on to state:
  "The Law Lords are at this moment considering an Appeal Court ruling making rape in marriage illegal. In their comments on this case, they made clear that they want to oppose this rape, and consider that in the twentieth century it cannot be defended. Yet the Child Support Bill promotes rape in marriage".
  That is the view of Women Against Rape about rape in marriage.
  The letter goes on to state that the new amendment will not only increase poverty, but will put both women and children in danger of rape, violence and other assaults. The letter states:
  "The government say that women who have good reason to fear violence from the man may be exempt from penalty for 'non-co-operation'. But they will have to make their case to the Child Support Agency—and, inevitably, reveal the father's identity. Once the information is given, who can count on the Agency to respect their fears? Many will lose benefit rather than risk it".
  Finally, it states:
  "Another circumstance where women would not be forced to claim from the father is where the child has been conceived as a result of rape. But to benefit from this concession women would be required to tell officials about rape and assault which many cannot speak about to anyone".
  We know that that is true.
  Therefore, at least Women Against Rape has had a hearing, although it is not the hearing that it should have had. I hope that the House will take into account what the organisation said. I hope also that my noble friend's amendment will be supported and passed this evening.
  8 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships have heard a number of moving and well informed speeches. Having heard them, I fear that what I am about to say will sound cold-hearted and arid.
  The first matter which we must consider is the background to the clause. The original Bill contained Clause 22 which was highly objectionable to your Lordships. One is bound to ask why it was in the Bill at all. The answer is that in its original form it was entirely characteristic of the Bill.
  However, your Lordships removed it. The Government now put forward a new clause as an alternative. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was inclined to say that there was nothing we could do about that other than to amend it. I venture to disagree. Your Lordships could throw out that new clause and the Government will then have to decide whether they really want the Bill as much and as urgently as they say. They must decide whether they are therefore prepared to accept your Lordships' rejection.

  551
  On the other hand, they may seek to reinstate the clause. There is plenty of time for that—a whole week. Those matters do not take very long going along the corridor. When I say that I venture to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I am strongly in favour of his amendment to the new clause if we have to put up with it.
  There is one other matter I should like to mention about the parliamentary background. This is one of the few issues which came before your Lordships when the House was full at a reasonable hour. We had had that experience before when discussing the Courts and Legal Services Bill. Noble Lords who wanted an amendment to be considered withdrew all the earlier amendments so that, to the Government's consternation, a particular amendment came before your Lordships when the House was full. The matter was fully debated and the Government were defeated.
  So it was on this occasion. The Government fought valiantly with all the dialectic skills which the Government's Ministers command. Nevertheless, a full House, listening to the issues, had no doubt that the original Clause 22 was quite intolerable and it was removed.
  Having said that about the background, on the main point, there are two contestants with which your Lordships are concerned: one is the child support officer, representing the Secretary of State and battling on behalf of the Treasury—there is nothing wrong in that but the interest is that the money shall be secured; on the other hand, there is the parent. There are two conflicting interests. Who decides? Is it consonant with our system and concept of justice that the issue is decided by the child support officer? And yet that is the case under the new clause.
  It seems to me at the very least that one can accept is what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposes: that there should be an appeal. I should like the issue to go to a court because a court is the proper body to decide what is good cause for withholding information. It is a question which courts in this country, in Scotland and all over the common law world decide every day. The courts should decide that and not one of the interested parties; namely, the child support officer.
  I should like the issue to be decided by a court. However, the next best thing is to allow an appeal. Again, I should like the appeal to be made to a court of law but faute de mieux to a child support tribunal. That was one of the bureaucratic additions imposed on the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. At least that is something. The child support officer's word is not to be final in his own interests. There is to be the right of appeal, albeit to an administrative tribunal; at any rate, it is an appeal to an institution with some neutrality.
  I desire to add only two short points which are nothing like as important as the issues I have been venturing to air before your Lordships. One relates to a phrase which fell from the lips of my noble and learned friend; that is, "failure to co-operate". The phrase occurred also in a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when I corresponded with him in regard to interim assessments.
  552
  It is said that a person brings the evil on himself by failure to co-operate; that means, failure to give the information that the child support officer desires. Perhaps your Lordships have heard the phrase before. We have read it repeatedly. Even the secret police excuse their actions by saying that the unfortunate man brought it entirely upon himself by failure to co-operate; that all he needed to do was to answer the questions put to him.
  My other point is that I cannot see that the new clause covers the case of a woman who says, "I cannot give you the name because I do not know it", either because she has been promiscuous at the time of conception or because she genuinely does not know the name of her paramour. So far as I can see, the child support officer must have regard to any reason given by the parent that there are reasonable grounds for believing that injury will come to the children. What about reasonable grounds of sheer ignorance? Is that covered? Perhaps my noble and learned friend will enlighten your Lordships on that point.
  As I said earlier, when Clause 22 was debated it was before a full House. Unfortunately this matter is being debated before a fairly empty and quite famished House. In those circumstances I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will press his amendment to a Division. If he does I shall have not the slightest hesitation in supporting him in the lobby.
  8.15 p.m.
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I did not hear everything he said in support of his amendment. Unfortunately I was called urgently to the telephone. Judging by the atmosphere and the kind of things he was likely to say, I support his intention.
  First, it is highly regrettable that another place which purports to represent the people of this country failed to support the decision of the House of Lords in abolishing Clause 22. Anybody who has done voluntary social work for many years—including myself—will know perfectly well, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, what a 10 per cent. reduction of a minimum income support benefit will mean to a woman with a child or children to support. I find that intolerable.
  Further, the woman may attempt to obtain part-time work. Anybody who has done that at any stage of their lives knows that a woman can never obtain more than 75 per cent. of the male earning wage. That too should be taken into account.
  With the permission of your Lordships, I should like to make a number of other points. The first relates to the question of the child support officer. During the Committee and earlier stages of the Bill I was able to bring to your Lordships' attention decisions made by child support officers acting on behalf of the Department of Social Security which, to say the least, did not act on reasonable grounds in dialing with individual cases before it. That evidence came from the CAB which is a reputable organisation throughout the country. The wording used by child support officers horrified me.

  553
  The fact that child support officers can make the decisions that they are asked to make is totally subjective. Are the Government to set up guidelines which will restrict them in making those decisions? There is no mention in the clause of regulations which will define the reasonable grounds on which a child support officer may make a decision. That in itself is dangerous because different decisions may be given throughout the country by different child support officers as to how they regard the interpretation of "reasonable grounds".
  My other point which is fundamental and anathema to the clause is that it is a grave miscarriage of justice. Who is the person at fault? It is the man who has failed to maintain. The idea that one can insert a clause in a Bill and erect a kind of Aunt Sally and say, "Failure to comply therefore, bash, your benefit is reduced", is an extraordinary way to bring justice to the country and particularly to the most unfortunate of people—I will not call them deserving but certainly they are the people in the lowest category of incomes, support, happiness and home.
  The introduction of the clause by another place is lamentable and not worthy of the kind of welfare which on the whole this country is praised for maintaining. It is a grave dereliction of the kind of thing we should be doing in this House. Once again, I insist that it is a miscarriage of justice. Why should a woman who has been deserted and been left with her children be made to commit, so to speak, a crime which carries a penal financial sanction when the culprit is the man who has failed to maintain and provide money for her support and that of her children?
  Finally, I ask my noble and learned friend to take into consideration that in Australia—where this form of support is arranged through the Inland Revenue or the taxation authorities—the cases where women have failed to give information are very few indeed. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can give an undertaking that, where a child support officer can obtain legitimate information from the Inland Revenue or any other source, that will be taken into account before the child support officer makes a decision. Perhaps I failed to read the amendment carefully, but I see nothing in the clause which obliges the child support officer to discover information concerning the culprit—the man who has failed to pay—or whether there is any way in which he can be traced without that information being given by the woman. If there is, I find it even more intolerable that a woman in that position should be penalised in the way the clause proposes.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, while I share the indignation of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, the best that I can do is support my noble friend Lord Mishcon. There is no time to cover the whole of the ground again. We must make the best of the situation which is in our hands for decision. I find the approach of the Government to this matter unspeakably mean.
  In the philosophy of the Government and in the terms of this Bill, when we put children first we are putting first the need to extract money from the absent
  554
  parent in support of his child. That is what we are thinking of and nothing beyond it. We are not considering the child as a person or the family as a whole. We are considering what we can extract from an absent parent even though the mother of the child feels unable to co-operate, if that is the word, or disclose the reasons why she would feel fear and acute distress were she to give the information that the income support officer can follow up.
  If we have to find a reason for accepting the position where non-disclosure can be a reason for continuing the existing system, the most we should seek is an expression of fear and apprehension in terms and from a person whom the child support officer can accept in good faith. To expect a woman to deploy reasonable grounds for fear and apprehension is asking for the disclosure of a state of mind. One's mind boggles at the kind of interrogation that a bureaucratic income support officer might apply to a woman in order to probe whether her grounds were reasonable. I find it abhorrent and unspeakably mean. For the Government to proceed on the lines they suggest is despicable. I hoped that when we got rid of Clause 22 we would never see its like again.
  If some excuse is necessary then what I have outlined is as far as we can go. Nevertheless, we have before us an amendment and it is the least that we should accept. It has been stated in reasonable terms. My noble friend is far too courteous and reasonable with your Lordships' House on occasions. I admire him greatly, but I would admire him more if we could see more of his fire and indignation when confronted with a situation of this kind.
  I hope that we shall press my noble friend's amendment. We cannot let it go on the terms submitted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in support of the main amendment. I cannot understand what type of mind is applied to this problem in the terms that we have before us. I can only suppose that the provision comes from people who have never experienced this kind of situation and who cannot possibly understand it. The problem is there. Such a situation is very deeply ingrained in the mind of a woman. If we are concerned with the welfare of the children that lies in accepting the judgment of the mother in the circumstances. It is not putting children first to pursue the matter to the extremes provided for in the main amendment. Therefore, I hope that we support my noble friend's amendment.
  Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I apologise for rising again. When my noble and learned friend comes to reply I hope that he will answer the questions that I asked him. However, I forgot one. If a woman names a man and he is pursued, found and says that he was not the father of the child, while knowing perfectly well that she was perhaps living with one or two other men, who is to say who is the father of the child? If she persists in saying that he is and he persists in saying that he is not, then what happens?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as that question is so fresh in my mind I shall deal with it first. There are provisions in the Bill for determining these matters, if necessary, by a declaration of parentage. It is obvious

  555
  that what the woman says may or may not be correct. There is a question as to whether or not a declaration of parentage should be taken. Much will depend on the nature of the evidence available on both sides of the question. There is no situation in which a man will find himself saddled with a responsibility of this kind except in pursuance of a court declaration that he is the father of the child. Declarations of parentage are mentioned specially and are matters for the court and not the agency.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, wondered if the Prime Minister, in studying his proposals for the Citizen's Charter, was aware of these proposals. The answer is, yes; they are perfectly consistent with the Citizen's Charter. My noble friend Lady Elles put her finger on the point that the person who is in default in the case we are dealing with is the absent parent. We have to take reasonable steps to seek to work out that liability. The purpose of the clause is not to penalise the woman at all.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is what it is doing.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, for the moment I am talking about the purpose of the clause, which is to get the necessary information. In the nature of things the Secretary of State is unlikely to have the information unless he gets it from the woman. If he has the information in some other way (one of your Lordships has suggested that that might happen) then he certainly will not seek it in the way which we are now considering. If he has the information already, he is not going to pursue the woman for the sake of doing so. He is pursuing her purely for the purpose of obtaining information which is necessary in order to pin the proper responsibility on the person who has that responsibility.
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. Does he agree that, where a child support officer asks a woman for information and she fails to give it for one reason or another, that officer can attempt to get information from the Inland Revenue or any other source before continuing the course set out in the clause?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend is well aware that there are many difficulties in getting information from the Inland Revenue. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, would be the first to elaborate on that proposition if required. The purpose of the agency and of the inspector's powers that have been mentioned, is to get information in some circumstances. The nature of the information required is such that, if it is available in some other way or through some other method, obviously the Secretary of State will use the other method. We are only concerned here with the situation where it is necessary to get the information from the mother.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale asked about the situation if the parent has not got the information. Clause 6 is the basic clause. Subsection (7) makes it quite clear that she,
  556
  "shall, so far as she reasonably can, comply with such regulations as may be made by the Secretary of State with a view to the child support officer being provided with the information which is required to enable the absent parent to be traced".
  That is the principal point. If for some reason such as that suggested by my noble and learned friend she does not have the information, there is no question of her being pursued. The situation is where the caring parent is refusing to give information which she may be reasonably required to give in the circumstances. I used the phrase "co-operating with the child support officer". That seems to be a perfectly reasonable phrase in the circumstances of this case.
  There is an appeal to the tribunal and from the tribunal to the commissioner, with the leave of either. There is an appeal to the court on a question of law with the leave of either the commissioner or the court. Therefore, there is a complete system of appeal to the court on matters of law that might arise from decisions of the child support officer. The main matter in Amendment No. 83A, which is what we are properly considering now—
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has just pointed out that there is appeal to a court on a point of law. However, whether there is a good cause is surely not a point of law, but a question of fact and degree.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not know that I should like to affirm that proposition without qualification. The question of whether a given set of facts amounts to a good cause may be a question of law. Certainly I have seen decisions on questions of law in the courts that closely resemble that kind of question. In any event, that is the situation.
  The question is whether the decision of the child support officer should contain a statement of a right of appeal. That is the ordinary practice, and it is the practice that will be followed here. Therefore, the first part of the noble Lord's amendment is not necessary because in all benefit decisions a statement is contained in the decision about the nature of the right of appeal and to whom an application by way of appeal is to be made.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, that will not be in the Act. One does not know whether another government will decide that, as it is not in the Act, it is not necessary to carry out what is a procedure elsewhere. Secondly, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that it certainly cannot do any harm? If this is the normal procedure, why is it harmful to insert it in the Bill?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the ordinary rule has stood on regulations in respect of the other benefits. I see no reason why that would not be an appropriate way of dealing with this situation.
  Regarding the second part, the question of deferment, when the decision is made to reduce benefit it comes only after two periods—one period of six weeks and one period of two weeks—during which the caring parent has ample opportunity to make

  557
  representations as to why she should not have to comply with the obligations imposed under Clause 6. The length of time we are giving the caring parent to consider her decision, plus the fact that both the Secretary of State and the child support officer have to be sure that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that harm or undue distress will occur to the parent or her children if the maintenance application were to go ahead, demonstrates that we see the benefit reduction as very much a matter of last resort.
  My noble friend Lady Elles referred to the position in Australia. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did so also. It is true that in Australia the decision does not take effect until after an appeal has been decided. However, one has to think of the whole system. I understand that in Australia the benefit is lost altogether. That may well be an explanation of why, as my noble friend says, there are very few cases in Australia where people fail to give the information. Therefore, it may well be that a fairly solemn sanction of that kind has proved in Australia to be very effective without the need for actually using it. That is an important aspect of this matter. One must show that Parliament intends that, subject to the safeguards, the decision, which is subject to appeal, should be effective when it is taken. I am all in favour of the safeguards. We have described them in some detail, with help from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others, in the amendments that we have already dealt with. If an appeal is successful, the money is repaid. In this amendment we are not dealing with the amount. We shall come to that in due course. For the sake of good order, it would be right to discuss these amendments—Amendment No. 83A and the others—in the proper order. I shall come to that when and if these later amendments are moved.
  Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene for just one moment. Is the noble and learned Lord being wholly fair when he tells us that there is already a considerable period during which the person can consider the appeal? First, the noble and learned Lord gave a period of six weeks, and then a fortnight. Surely the six weeks was the so-called cooling off period to which he referred earlier. That six weeks precedes the decision of the adjudication officer. Surely someone cannot appeal in advance of the decision. Therefore there is only a fortnight—not eight weeks—as the noble and learned Lord appeared to tell us.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, both the six weeks and the fortnight are before the appeal, the purpose being that the Secretary of State will be considering the situation. The cooling off period of six weeks is allowed before that decision is taken; there is a further fortnight before the child support officer can decide.
  I do not wish to mislead anyone. Both of these periods are before the decision is taken. I am saying that we have allowed the state of affairs in any event to run on for those eight weeks. I believe that that has to be taken into account. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is seeking, even after the Secretary of State has decided to go ahead, and the child support officer has decided on the situation put
  558
  before him, that then—even if the child support officer has decided that the benefit reduction should be made—no effective reduction is to take place until an appeal period has elapsed, or an appeal has been taken. One can see that that is the kind of situation which might very well encourage appeals. If there is substantial benefit in an appeal, it will encourage one, whereas, as my noble friend has pointed out, the situation is one in which one would want the system to operate properly. What we have proposed in these amendments, with the safeguards to which I referred earlier, is a proper basis for giving justice to people in these circumstances.
  I have one final point. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, spoke as if those of us who are proposing these matters do not understand at all the situation. I think I do understand the situation; I understand the delicacy of it. We have tried to construct a system which recognises that delicacy at the same time as recognising that there are some people in the world, as my noble friend Lady Elles said, who would like to pass the responsibilities which are naturally theirs to other people. We have to strike a reasonable balance between these two. That is what these amendments seek to do. I well understand the difficulty in which women can find themselves in that situation. We have sought to provide very full and proper safeguards for them. I believe that the amendment that the other place has passed, taken with the earlier amendments to which I referred, provide that balance.
  I invite your Lordships not to accede to Amendment No. 83A, notwithstanding the courteous, gentle, or possibly even fiery, way in which it was laid before us.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not think that any of those adjectives will apply to what I am now going to ask the noble and learned Lord before he sits down. It is a very short question.
  Can the noble and learned Lord indicate the maximum period that is likely to occur—and indeed the minimum period that is likely to occur—before an appeal is determined, during which time, as he knows, under the amendment brought from the other place the woman concerned will suffer the penalty week by week?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is difficult to give either a maximum or a minimum period. Appeals under this provision would be appeals that would merit being taken rather specially; in other words getting expedition for them. However, the appeal process has to be a fair one and therefore involve a certain amount of time. The noble Lord is assuming that the decision appealed from is, on balance, likely to be incorrect when he makes the assumption that it is right that the appeal should be treated as if it were successful in the period until the appeal decision is ultimately taken. I believe that the money is secure since it is with the state. There is no way in which the money will be recoverable. We are not seeking to do that, and the noble Lord's amendment does not seek to do that. We are not seeking to recover the money

  559
  by way of arrears if the appeal is unsuccessful. I believe that the balance that we have is better in the circumstances.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if it were one case in four, I believe that your Lordships would want to take the view that an injustice would be done by deducting this £8 plus per week from this little family week by week until the decision had been reached. The figures which I gave concerning the adjudication officer in another instance showed that it was a success rate of certainly more than one in four. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
  8.40 p.m.
  On Question, Whether Amendment No. 83A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 83, shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 55.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

  Avebury, L.

  Macaulay of Bragar, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Birk, B.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Milverton, L.

  David, B.

  Mishcon, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Desai, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Peston, L.

  Ennals, L.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Faithfull, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Flowers, L.

  Rea, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L. [ Teller. ]

  Rochester, L. [Teller.]

  Russell, E.

  Grey, E.

  Shackleton, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Hayter, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  Holme of Cheltenham. L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  White, B.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Winstanley, L.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Winterbottom, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Arran, E.

  Hooper, B.

  Astor, V.

  Howe, E.

  Auckland, L.

  Huntly, M.

  Beloff, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Kitchener. E.

  Blatch, B.

  Long, V.

  Boardman, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Constantine of Stanmore, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Palmer, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Quinton, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Reay, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Flather, B.

  Romney, E.

  Glenarthur, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Henley, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

  Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  560

  Trumpington, B.

  Wise, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Wyatt of Weeford, L

  Waddington, L.

  Young, B.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 83A disagreed to accordingly.
  8.47 p.m.

  AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 83
  83B Line 40, leave out ("such amount, and for") and insert ("an amount not exceeding such amount and for a period not exceeding")
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the best way to achieve what my arithmetic tells me is another four or five votes in order to succeed on this amendment is to be brief. There may have been some diversion of opinion in regard to the last amendment which I believe there should not be on this amendment. The amendment states that there shall be no fixed penalty and that there shall be a discretion to make the penalty a maximum and to inflict a penalty of below the maximum in certain cases. All that one does by this amendment is to grant a discretion.
  .Your Lordships will remember that the granting of a discretion is extremely important. With Commons Amendment No. 1 we decided that we would give in all cases of discretion consideration to the welfare of the children. Therefore, by granting this discretion, we shall be able to take into account the welfare of the children. That is not a consideration which can necessarily be taken into account when there is a fixed penalty and no way of altering it.
  If I may say so, anyone who votes against this amendment—I hope that I am not putting it too high; and I am trying to be as fiery as my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby would want me to be—must really have a very hard heart or have been absent from the Chamber, as is so often the case, and not heard my speech before voting on the amendment. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, one of the penalties of the hasty procedure which we have had today is that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I have not succeeded in getting our act together. I have had consultations about this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but unfortunately he is not able to be here this evening. I have also put down Amendment No. 83C, which should stand in my name but which, according to the Marshalled List, is attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
  I should like to answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I acquired my information, as I regularly do in these circumstances, by listening to the proceedings in another place last Thursday. It is the only practical way of doing so. That is why I think that there is here a general question which is worthy of attention.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is addressing a real problem. I sympathise with him. I agree with him about the need for discretion. One case is not exactly like another. But the noble Lord, no doubt inadvertently, did slightly mislead the House when he said that anyone who voted against his amendment

  561
  must have "a very hard heart". His amendment is not the only way to achieve the objective. Amendment No.83C, which I intend to move shortly, also allows for the element of discretion. It is a perfectly tenable view that either way of achieving the discretion is preferable to another.
  I am not happy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because it allows the amount of benefit deduction to be fixed by regulation. As I have said during many stages of this Bill, that seems to be an improper use of regulations. My noble kinsman has often said that the right way to deal with the question of legislation or regulations is to put the general principles into legislation and the details into regulations. I do not argue with that view. However, the question is: what are general principles? I have asked my noble kinsman before to recognise that there is a subjective element to that question. A matter of general principle is what people generally disagree about on grounds of principle.
  It seems to me that there is nothing more important left to argue about than the size of the deduction for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, outlined so eloquently. I entirely agree with him that the question is whether people will have enough to eat. I cannot think of any question of more importance in principle in legislation than whether it will in fact have the effect of lowering people's living standards below subsistence level. I believe that it is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that the legislation which is passed does not have that effect. I therefore cannot be happy about leaving the size of the deduction to be altered by regulation.
  An other reason I take that position is that the attempt on which the Secretary of State, the noble and learned Lord and my noble kinsman are engaged is one which has been repeated many times—I was going to say, over the past five centuries. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, rightly corrected me: we shoul3 go back to the bulrushes. Time and again attempts have been made by people who, like the Secretary of State, were perfectly reasonable people, to compel single mothers to name the fathers of their children. They set out to apply—and I think that I am using the words of the noble and learned Lord, although I do not have a note of them to hand—the minimum penalty necessary to secure compliance. They did not secure compliance. Therefore, they felt it necessary to increase the penalty again so as to secure compliance.
  There are recorded cases of people leaning on the clergy to withdraw the sacrament of baptism from children of single mothers until the mother named the father. There are cases of all sorts of things happening in this direction. It used to be a matter which fell on the ratepayers of an individual parish. Therefore, whether the ratepayers were liable depended upon whether the child was born in that parish. I once found in a church warden's account an entry recording the payment of one shilling for carrying a woman with child, in labour and very near the time of her delivery, outside the boundary of the parish. I think that it would take a film producer to do justice to that journey. I cannot do so myself.
  562
  I do not suggest that the Secretary of State will go to those lengths. I believe that he will draw back and realise that he is attempting the impossible before he gets there. However, before that happens, I think that he will be tempted, because he is not achieving the intended effect, to increase the deduction from benefit even above the excessive level at which it already stands. I believe that he is embarking on a road which is very broad and one which is full of temptation. He will be tempted to continue increasing the penalty until it reaches a level where compliance will be secured. I do not believe that there is any such level. That is a conclusion drawn from 500 years of history.
  For that, among many other reasons, I am not prepared to allow regulations to give the Secretary of State permission to fix the amount of deduction at whatever level seems fit to him. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will not press his amendment. However, if he does, I cannot advise my noble friends to vote for it.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before I speak in my official capacity to this amendment I should point out that if Amendment No. 83B is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 83C as it pre-empts the former. I should also confirm that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is correct. Amendment No. 83C was tabled by him. Due to a misprint on the Marshalled List, he does not have the honour which should be accorded to him in that respect.
  Amendment No. 83B, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, shortly pointed out, seeks to give a discretion in the amount of the deduction made. It is obviously right that there should be a degree of discretion in connection with whether or not one should go to this length. However, once one has reached that stage, one is working against the background of a system of formula, assessments and so on. It seems right that the amount of the deduction should be something which is known in advance so that everyone knows exactly where they stand. Accordingly, we say that the amount of the deduction should be determined—and this will be the subject of discussion later—by regulation, but that the amount actually prescribed should be deducted on the basis which I have already outlined for the time that I indicated.
  The amount of the deduction is best dealt with under the next amendment if it is moved. We believe that our proposed deduction is fixed at a level that does not give rise to the kind of problem mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull in her earlier questions to me. They did not arise strictly in relation to Amendment No. 83A but in relation to these later amendments. Our view is that only the personal income benefit will be affected and only to a maximum of 20 per cent. In Australia the whole benefit is deducted in the same situation. We do not believe that the result will be the kind of situation that my noble friend described.
  As regards Amendment No. 83B, the Government's view is that once one reaches this stage it is correct that the deduction should be fixed under the regulation.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am torn between the ideals that I am sure many noble Lords present wish to pursue—that is, the protection of the women whom we have in mind—a belief that my amendment is right and a belief that if I do not press the amendment to a Division there will be a little more unity in the House as regards the protection that we all wish to see. It is on that basis that I shall not press the amendment.
  Amendment No. 83B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 83, by leave, withdrawn.
  9 p.m.

  AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 83
  83C Line 40, leave out ("and for such period") and insert ("not exceeding 5 per cent of the amount specified for the time being in paragraph 1(1) (e) of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, and for such period not exceeding 13 weeks.")
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 83C.
  Until we reached this new clause we had been discussing what were mainly beneficial amendments. The fact that I have not said so does not mean that I do not appreciate that fact. Today we have received a number of concessions that are to be warmly welcomed. We have received concessions about the welfare of the child. There has been an amendment to the words with regard to complying with any regulation, about which we argued in Committee. On Report in another place last Thursday a valuable concession was made on passported benefits. We have been told that the regulations are to be put before the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is extremely welcome. We have had an amendment about harm and undue distress, which I have mentioned briefly and which I welcome warmly.
  In passing I wish to ask my noble kinsman a question about my understanding of that amendment. When we discussed the matter on Third Reading some of the evidence put before the House involved a threat of harm to other members of the family. In particular, threats were mentioned to the single parent's mother. She is not mentioned in the Government's wording, but I should like to be told that I am correct in my understanding that violence against the single parent's mother would be thought to be liable to cause undue distress to the single parent. I hope that my reading of the provision is correct.
  I believe that one concession deserves another. I confess that throughout the proceedings on the Bill it had been my intention to try once again to remove the clause if another place had decided to reinsert it. I have not done so because compromise, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, once said of consultation, is a two-way street. Anyone who believes in a bicameral parliament must believe in the virtues of compromise. Compromise, like toleration, does not deserve the name until it hurts.
  For that reason I have not moved the deletion of this clause. By my own test, that decision deserves the name of compromise. It does so for the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, with great
  564
  eloquence and power. However, merely because it is the biggest concession that can be made means that it is not unreasonable to say that I regret that in order to put the compromise in balance we are, like Oliver Twist, legitimately entitled to ask for a little more.
  My three objections to the clause were that it was wrong in principle, that it was not enforceable and that it took people below subsistence level. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to single mothers "lightly choosing" not to comply. I ask him how he knows that they have lightly chosen. Knowing the secrets of other people's marriages is a great deal more difficult than the late Dr. Kinsey ever supposed. I do not believe that I can tell whether people lightly choose not to comply. If the clause stands I shall not know whether we are merely treading on corns or whether we are treading on broken bones.
  The other issue was raised by the Secretary of State in Committee in another place. He asked whether it was acceptable for someone to say in effect, "I want the taxpayer to pick up the Bill because I want nothing to do with the other parent". Whether anything is acceptable raises the question: what is the alternative? From the beginning of our debates on the Bill I have recognised the interest of the taxpayer as being valid. However, I have never recognised it as being the only valid interest.
  There are two other issues that I should put above the interest of the taxpayer. The first is the limits of the possible. I have already touched on the reasons why I believe the clause goes beyond the limits of the possible, and I shall not develop that argument. The second issue is that it appears to be a priority that we should keep the mother and child alive and adequately fed. That is the basic motive of the whole social security system. I do not find it believable that we can take 20 per cent. away from the mother's benefit without harming the child. I simply do not see how that can be done.
  There is a danger to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, rightly drew attention. When women are reduced to the point where they cannot care for their children, they abandon them or put them into care. There have been hundreds of such cases in past centuries, going back to the bulrushes. If that is the effect of the Bill, it will cost a great deal more to the Exchequer than the present situation. That is one reason why it is vital to me that, although I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the need for discretion, there should nevertheless be a maximum deduction written into the Bill.
  My noble kinsman and I have had many arguments about whether income support is a subsistence benefit. I shall not repeat anything we have said in those arguments, but I ask him to consider the duration of the deduction. Six months at 20 per cent. and a further year at 10 per cent. is so unusual that, if there is anything like it anywhere else in the social security system, I cannot think what it is. It seems to me already to underline the point that the level of penalty needed to secure compliance will rise above the level of the tolerable before it secures compliance.

  565
  It is also a point of substance raised in another place that it will put many people into a position where they live on a short income for too long to be able to repay the social fund loans. Thus again we shall have more people who are too poor to obtain money from the social fund. To put it no higher, that is a perturbing situation.
  On the level of income support, I shall deal only with the major piece of evidence that has come out since my noble kinsman and I last debated the subject. It is the survey of which many of us know by the Nat oval Children's Home. It showed that 10 per cent. of children under five miss meals for lack of money; 20 per cent. of mothers go hungry regularly; and 44 per cent. have done so in the past year. The survey also showed that a healthy diet costs 17 per cent. more than an unhealthy diet. It found that, whereas for average families food takes 12.4 per cent. of the budget, for families on income support it takes 43 per cent. of the budget. That tends to show that for those on income support food is very tight indeed. It shows that on a deduction of 20 per cent. from present levels of income support, matters are likely to become impossible.
  I wonder whether it is in the public interest to make that situation worse. I shall not dwell on the argument of common humanity. I shall dwell on the argument of National Health Service costs. Malnutrition tends to produce ill health, both mental and physical, which tends to be expensive. I also believe that a deduction on that level is an invitation to crime. It is an invitation that we should be unwise to give. I beg to move.
  Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the amendment. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I do not so on humanitarian grounds at this stage but purely on economic grounds. If one does not look after these women and children it will cost the country a great deal. They will not be costly for the Treasury but for the local authorities, which do not have the money they require to run their services. As I said in an earlier debate, the local authority social services department will be put into a terrible dilemma. Suppose the parents cannot look after their children and ask for them to be accepted into care. If the children are weighed and measured and found to be underweight through lack of food, what does the local authority do? I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could expound on the dilemma that could be faced by the local authorities.
  I support the amendment on economic and also humanitarian grounds. In addition, there is the terrible dilemma of the social services departments, which must meet the needs of children in their area under Part II of the Children Act 1989.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, although frankly I have reservations about Commons Amendment No. 83, I did not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, I warmly support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the reasons he has given. I stress that it seems to be necessary to have something on these lines so as to ensure that the reduction of benefit does not cause misery.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, 1 could not have said what I feel from these Benches any better than has the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his last sentence.
  9.15 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we propose that the regulations, which are subject to affirmative resolution, would fix the deduction, and I have already indicated what we have in mind.
  So far as I am concerned, the situation is that it is right for the deduction to be fixed, and it is right to fix it at a level which is likely to be effective for its purpose. I am grateful for the degree of compromise which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has signalled in his speech, and nothing I say is intended in any way to undervalue that, but the circumstances that we are seeking to deal with are those in which there has been a deliberate refusal without good cause—because that is the purpose of it—to give the information which is necessary for the Secretary of State to effect the obligations against the person who really has them, namely the absent father.
  That is the background. We say that this must be fixed on a basis that will make it work. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, says that there will be a temptation to push it higher and higher. We have undertaken that what we shall propose in the regulations is the amount that I have said for the period that I have said; that is, 20 per cent. for six months and 10 per cent. for a further 12 months, making 18 months in all. The intention is—although there is some question about this in a later amendment—that that would be in respect of a given liability, once only.
  Your Lordships are concerned about the woman in question. We believe that a deduction of this kind, while it would be testing, would not have the effect that the children would be so deprived that they would have to be taken into care. That is the answer I gave before to my noble friend Lady Faithfull. We believe that to be right—that the deduction is one that would not have the effect of putting the children at risk of going into care.
  The situation that has to be kept in mind is the possibility of buying off this responsibility. If one fixes the obligation at a low level such as is proposed in the amendment, it would be very low indeed at 5 per cent. of the amount in respect of income support, and only for 13 weeks. The total amount involved is so small that it would pay the father many times over to give the woman that amount in order to free himself of the liability.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. He regards a total amount of 5 per cent. as so small as not to fit in with his ideas, but I think many of us would consider his suggestion of 30 per cent. to be too big. Also, it is not to be written into the statute; it is to be left to administrative practice, and what he says would not be binding in law on this point.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if I have misheard my noble friend he will correct me. I am saying 20 per cent. for the first six months and 10 per cent. for the

  567
  following 12 months, making 18 months in all. These figures do not add up to 30 per cent. because they are applied at different times.
  However, the point I am making is an important one. One has to look at the very real likelihood that the person with the real responsibility, the person on whom we are trying effectively to lay the responsibility, would think it easy to buy off his responsibility at that stage, with the consequent deprivation of the child or children for the rest of their lives of dependency. Therefore, I submit to your Lordships that the figure of 5 per cent. is much too small. According to my calculations, and I am subject to correction, it would make a total for the 13 weeks of £26.
  A noble Lords: Too much!
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is much too small—I have to interpolate on the intervention from a sedentary position—to be effective.
  There is no point in having that procedure unless it is effective. Therefore, the correct procedure is not for it to be fixed by administrative means but to be fixed by regulation under the statutory powers, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. In that situation your Lordships will be able to see exactly what the circumstances are and, if necessary, be able to change the provision. However, if your Lordships accept the amendment it will be impossible to raise it above £26–5 per cent. for 13 weeks, making a total of £26. I await the noble Earl's calculation in a moment.
  The amendment would undermine the purpose of the benefit deduction. Unless the benefit deduction can be effective there is no point whatever in having it. Therefore, while I understand the argument, I suggest that the figure proposed in the amendment is much too small to make it an effective sanction to deal with a deliberate refusal to co-operate in enabling the Secretary of State properly and effectively to calculate the support for the children who ought to be supported.
  Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me. Three times he has said that it is necessary to fix the deduction at a level which is likely to be effective. Effective to do what? If we assume that a woman has withheld the information for what she believes to be good reasons, does the noble and learned Lord mean that it will be effective in making her change her mind and decide that she does not have good reasons?
  The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords. The point of the procedure which we have been discussing is to ascertain whether she has good reason. If she has good reason no deduction is applied. The purpose of the deduction is to deter people from wilfully and deliberately refusing to give the information when they have it. That is the paradigm case which the provision is designed to deal with. The appeal provision and decision-making are intended to
  568
  differentiate the one from the other. One cannot argue about the size of the deduction on the basis that the decision to apply the deduction is itself a wrong one.
  Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon, but is it not a fact that the woman herself has decided that she has good reason and someone else has decided that she does not have good reason? To be effective the deduction must persuade her that she was wrong and did not have good reason.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there must be a limit to this. It is not right for the noble Lord to speak after I have spoken, but that will be the last time so far as I am concerned. The noble Lord is confusing the two cases. There may well be people who know perfectly well that they have no good reason but refuse to comply; the sanction has to deal with those cases.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for the care and courtesy of his reply. I do not think that he expected to convince me. I shall not answer him at length. I might risk repeating what I have already said, but he has made two miscalculations. He has underestimated the amount of sanction necessary to secure compliance. In the past women have been whipped until their backs were bloody to secure compliance with that requirement. It was not enough.
  I do not think that the noble and learned Lord proposes to go that far, but it will not be effective even if he does. He has altogether underestimated the severity of the deprivation. He talks about £26 over 13 weeks. I have not checked the figure, but I think it is in the target area. If that is a sacrifice of 26 meals over 13 weeks to people who already are not in the position to have one square meal a day, that is significant. I commend the amendment to the House.
  9.25 p.m.
  On Question, Whether Amendment No. 83C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 83, shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents: 39; Not-Contents, 48.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Avebury, L.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Macaulay of Bragar, L.

  Birk, B.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Butterfield, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  David. B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Desai, L.

  Peston, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Rea, L.

  Faithfull, B.

  Renton, L.

  Flowers, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

  Russell, E. [Teller.]

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Grey, E.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Tordoff, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Winstanley, L.

  569

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Arran, E.

  Hooper, B.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Howe, E.

  Astor, V.

  Huntly, M.

  Auck and, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Belofl, L.

  Long, V.

  Belstead, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrechnish, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Boardman, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Carnock, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Romney, E.

  Elliot of Morpeth, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Flather, B.

  Thomas of Gwydir. L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Trumpington, B.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Henley, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

  Young, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 83C disagreed to accordingly.
  9.32 p.m.

  AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 83
  83D After subsection (11) insert:
  ("( ) Once a reduced benefit direction has been given in respect of a parent no further reduced benefit direction may be given in respect of her failure to comply with any requirement under section 6(1).").
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall be mercifully brief. It will be quite obvious to Members of the House who have heard all the previous debates and have voted after having heard them that this is an amendment which is simple to explain. It seeks to ensure that a benefit penalty cannot be repeated merely because a parent with care moves from one benefit to another. Examples of that are moving from income support to family credit or disability working allowance, or, after a break in the benefit claimed, moving back on to the same benefit. I beg to move.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 83D, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 83, be agreed to.—(Lord Mishcon.)
  Earl Russell: My Lords, not even God judges twice in the same cause. On these Benches we are happy to support the amendment.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, some specification may be required about judging twice in the same cause. In broad terms I entirely sympathise with the aims of the amendment. I do not think it right that when someone has had a benefit reduced for 18 months we should look to reimpose a reduction if there has been no material change of circumstances. That would in effect negative the maximum period about which we have spoken.
  However, the amendment goes further in its effect. It would mean that it would never be possible to issue a second direction in any circumstance. But there may be many situations in which it would be appropriate to
  570
  give more than one reduced benefit direction to a caring parent. For example, if a caring parent leaves benefit six months after a reduced benefit direction has been given and then reclaims benefit, or claims a different benefit and still refuses to co-operate, there is a strong case for arguing that it would be right to give a further reduced benefit direction to cover the unexpired portion of the previous reduction. In the example that I have given, that is one year. The amendment would not allow that. It would enable the spirit of the amendment to be in effect abused.
  Moreover, in circumstances involving, say, a new question of liability, it would not necessarily be right to be restricted in that way. I can assure noble Lords that it is not our intention that a parent with care should have a benefit reduced for more than 18 months. But, as I have explained, there may be special circumstances when that may be better achieved by the issue of further directions.
  It is a matter of detail. I can undertake to the noble Lord that that will be dealt with in the regulations. I am sure that we shall be able to produce regulations which carry out the spirit of the amendment without the technical difficulties to which I have referred. I hope that, in the light of that undertaking, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the debates in the Chamber today started on an angry note, that the business that we have been conducting should not be taken at such short notice. It is perhaps part of the spirit of this House that debates are ending on a courteous note from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he intends in regulations to carry out the spirit of the amendment. In those circumstances it would be wrong of me to divide the House. I am grateful to him even if he has not gone as far as I should have liked.
  Amendment No. 83D, as an amendment to Amendment No. 83, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment No. 83 agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  84 Clause 41, page 29, line 1, at end insert:
  '( ) may require any information which is needed for the purpose of determining the amount of any such fee to be furnished, in accordance with the regulations, by such person as may be prescribed;'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 84.
  The amendment allows the agency to request information so that any reductions or exemptions from fees may be assessed. Exemptions or reductions will be available to those who cannot reasonably be expected to meet the full fee. In making such an assessment the agency will require certain information on the individual's's income and circumstances. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 84—(Lord Henley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  85 After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
  Right of audience
  '.—(1) Any person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section shall have, in relation to any proceedings under this Act before a magistrates' court, a right of audience and the right to conduct litigation.
  (2) In this section "right of audience" and "right to conduct litigation" have the same meaning as in section 119 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.'.
  86 After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
  Right of audience: Scotland
  '. In relation to any proceedings before the sheriff under any provision of this Act, the power conferred on the Court of Session by section 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (power of Court of Session to regulate civil procedure in sheriff court) shall extend to the making of rules permitting a party to such proceedings, in such circumstances as may be specified in the rules, to be represented by a person who is neither an advocate nor a solicitor.'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with Commons in their Amendments Nos.85 and 86. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 107 and 109.
  These two new clauses will provide that officers of the department may be able to commence proceedings and conduct hearings on enforcement matters in magistrates' courts, and in Scotland in a sheriff court, in connection with child support maintenance matters. Amendments Nos. 107 and 109 make the necessary consequential amendments for Scotland to the extent provisions. I commend the amendments to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 85 and 86.—(Lord Henley.)
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps one matter could be clarified by the Minister. It may be that on this occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may wish to intervene. Having regard to the provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act, and the tribunal that is to be set up in order to decide upon rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation—I raise no point about the right of audience—what precisely does the "right to conduct litigation" mean? It will now be under the authority of the Secretary of State and not the tribunal, and will not be under any provision that I can find in the Courts and Legal Services Act. What does that litigation refer to? How far does it go? Does it go to the House of Lords?
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, who is intended to be the subject of the order? Is it the child support officer?
  Lord Henley: My Lords, in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, it is the child support officer. It would probably be safer if I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rather than respond to his questions now. I hope that he will accept that.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not wish to be discourteous to the Minister, but I have to decide whether to advise my noble friends to vote for the
  572
  amendment or not to vote for it. It is a serious point when the Secretary of State is given the power in the Bill to decide that people in his department should be able to conduct litigation. That does not mean that they have to be legally qualified. What sort of litigation? To what stage? Are appeals on law to the House of Lords to be covered by the clause?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, invited me to intervene, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say that Amendment No. 85 applies only to proceedings before the magistrates' courts. It does not apply to the House of Lords or any other tribunal. The corresponding provisions in relation to Scotland will relate to proceedings before the sheriff.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I assure him that his emphasis that the provision applies only to litigation before the magistrates' courts will give comfort in many quarters. It is extraordinary that the words "right to conduct litigation" are included, because that is most unusual before the magistrates' courts. I should have thought that rights of audience would have been sufficient.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware those are two distinct concepts. It was thought right to make it clear that persons authorised by the Secretary of State were entitled to instruct, for example, counsel in the magistrates' court if they wanted to do so. All the rights that are required for the proper conduct of litigation in the magistrates' court can be exercised by the person authorised by the Secretary of State. I believe it is a reasonable provision. The principal subject would be the liability order and proceedings for enforcement.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  87 After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
  Unauthorised disclosure of information
  '.—(1) Any person who is, or has been, employed in employment to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if, without lawful authority, he discloses any information which—

  (a) was acquired by him in the course of that employment; and

  (b) relates to a particular person.

  (2) It is not an offence under this section—

  (a) to disclose information in the form of a summary or collection of information so framed as not to enable information relating to any particular person to be ascertained from it; or

  (b) to disclose information which has previously been disclosed to the public with lawful authority.

  (3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence—

  573

  (a) he believed that he was making the disclosure in question with lawful authority and had no reasonable cause to believe otherwise; or

  (b) he believed that the information in question had previously been disclosed to the public with lawful authority and had no reasonable cause to believe otherwise.

  (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

  (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both; or

  (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

  (5) This section applies to employment as—

  (a) the Chief Child Support Officer;

  (b) any other child support officer;

  (c) any clerk to, or other officer of, a child support appeal tribunal;

  (d) any member of the staff of such a tribunal;

  (e) a civil servant in connection with the carrying out of any functions under this Act;

  and to employment of any other kind which is prescribed for the purposes of this section.
  (6) For the purposes of this section a disclosure is to be regarded as made with lawful authority if, and only if, it is made—

  (a) by a civil servant in accordance with his official duty; or

  (b) by any other person either—

  (i) for the purposes of the function in the exercise of which he holds the information and without contravening any restriction duly imposed by the responsible person; or

  (ii) to, or in accordance with an authorisation duly given by, the responsible person;

  (c) in accordance with any enactment or order of a court;

  (d) for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, any proceedings before a court or before any tribunal or other body or person mentioned in this Act; or

  (e) with the consent of the appropriate person.

  (7) "The responsible person" means—

  (a) the Lord Chancellor;

  (b) the Secretary of State;

  574

  (c) any person authorised by the Lord Chancellor, or Secretary of State, for the purposes of this subsection; or

  (d) any other prescribed person, or person falling within a prescribed category.

  (8) "The appropriate person" means the person to whom the information in question relates, except that if the affairs of that person are being dealt with—

  (a) under a power of attorney;

  (b) by a receiver appointed under section 99 of the Mental Health Act 1983;

  (c) by a Scottish mental health custodian, that is to say

  (i) a curator bonis, tutor or judicial factor; or

  (ii) the managers of a hospital acting on behalf of that person under section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984; or

  (d) by a mental health appointee, that is to say—

  (i) a person directed or authorised as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of rule 41(1) of the Court of Protection Rules 1984; or

  (ii) a receiver ad interim appointed under sub-paragraph (b) of that rule;

  the appropriate person is the attorney, receiver, custodian or appointee (as the case may be) or, in a case falling within paragraph (a), the person to whom the information relates.'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87.
  During the passage of the Bill some concern has been expressed about the confidentiality of personal information collected for the purposes of the Bill. I fully understand the concerns expressed by a number of your Lordships in this area and hope that the new clause, which introduces a safeguard against unauthorised disclosure of such information, goes some way towards meeting those concerns.
  If an officer discloses information when not authorised to do so, he will, by virtue of the amendment, be guilty of an offence. That will remind officers that information is to be disclosed only when there is a specific authority to do so. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87—(Lord Henley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  9.45 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  88 Clause 42, page 29, line 17, at end insert:
  '(aa) extending the categories of case to which section 17 or 18 applies;'.
  89 Page 29, line 21, at end insert:
  '( ) for the adjustment, for the purpose of taking account of the retrospective effect of a maintenance assessment, of amounts payable under the assessment;
  ( ) for the adjustment, for the purpose of taking account of over-payments or under-payments of child support maintenance, of amounts payable under a maintenance assessment;'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 en bloc.
  Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 extend the list of subjects which may be covered by regulations made under Clause 42. We have always recognised that there are a large number of regulation-making powers in this Bill but we have tried to be explicit about the likely content of these regulations by giving headings such as we have here. For that reason, we have brought forward these amendments.
  Amendment No. 88, in particular, is designed to ensure that provision can be made for appeal rights against certain decisions made by child support officers which are not directly connected to the making of assessments.
  Amendment No. 89 adds the example of regulations dealing with adjustments of the amounts of maintenance payable under an assessment because of over or under payments or because of a retrospective revision of an assessment; for example, following an appeal.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  90 Clause 43, page 29, line 33, after 'Chancellor', insert the Lord Advocate'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  91 Clause 43, page 29, line 36, after 'containing', insert '(whether alone or with other provisions)'.
  92 Page 29, line 37, leave out 'or (7)' and insert '(7) or (8)'.
  93 Page 29, line 37, leave out '10(2)'.
  94 Page 29, line 37, after '39' insert '(1), (Failure to comply with obligations imposed by section 6)' .
  95 Page 29, line 38, after '41', insert 'or under Part I of Schedule 1 or an order made under section 40(1) or (6)'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 to 95 en bloc.
  Amendment No. 91 is a technical amendment, the effect of which is to allow that a statutory instrument
  576
  which includes regulations made under clauses listed within Clause 43(2) may also include regulations subject to the negative procedure. In other words, regulations which would otherwise be subject to the negative resolution will be affirmative if included in a package containing affirmative regulations.
  On looking at the various regulation-making powers, in order to understand fully and grasp the effect of proposals for affirmative resolution procedure regulations, we thought it wise to have alongside them others from the negative resolution provisions. Therefore, we have made this proposal so that the higher procedure would apply when it applies to any part of the package.
  Amendments Nos. 93 and 95 correct one of the references to a regulation-making power within this clause. Amendment No. 95 makes orders made under Clause 40(1) and Clause 40(6) subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Amendment No. 92 restores the regulation-making power in Clause 6(10) to being subject to the affirmative procedure, which it was throughout the passage through this House. In addition, we intend to retain subsection (9) which was included in error in its place. This makes the regulations of a further regulation-making power subject to the affirmative procedure. Similarly, Amendment No. 94 extends the list by including new Clause 8. It also replaces Clause 39 by Clause 39(1).
  I hope that I have answered the point which my noble and learned friend raised on Amendment No. 92.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 to 95.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I entirely agree with what has been said on Amendment No. 91.
  As regards Amendment No. 92, am I right in thinking that it implements an undertaking which my noble and learned friend gave on Third Reading when I moved an amendment relating to the affirmative resolution procedure? I rather think that it is because I have corresponded with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about it. I agreed with the way that it was done. Am I right in thinking that that is what has happened? I did not understand Amendment No. 93. My noble and learned friend explained that a mistake crept in and has now been removed.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 92, the noble and learned Lord is correct. Amendment No. 93 corrects references to the regulation-making powers dealing with the formula and makes orders under Clauses 40(1) or 40(6), subject to affirmative resolution. Amendment No. 95 is strictly speaking an implementation of the matter referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps in any case your Lordships will allow me to raise two matters that I should have mentioned earlier. At Third

  577
  Reading I tabled an amendment to make Clause 24(7) subject to affirmative resolution. That was a misprint. There is no subsection (7).
  Subsequently, in a letter to my noble and learned friend dated 17th May, I corrected that to subsection (2). I believe that it should be Clause 27(2). I wrote also to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in that regard but it slipped out of the correspondence. I should like to be advised of what happened. It is clearly a provision that should be subject to affirmative resolution.
  The other matter to which I wish to refer was mentioned earlier. I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Henley, could answer the specific questions I asked arising out of the speech of the Under-Secretary in Standing Committee A. In other words, I should like to know how many regulation-making powers now exist. It must be around 110 with the amendments we have made. Of those, only 13 are subject to affirmative resolution, which seems rather odd. That means that all those 110 minus 13 are considered to be trivial or consequential. That is plainly not the case. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would answer the questions I raised in my latest letter, which I wrote on Friday evening or Saturday morning, having discovered that the Bill was in today's business.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, it is difficult to keep up with the letters of the noble and learned Lord. As I explained earlier when I assured him that I had responded to letters about which he had doubt, I received a further letter from the noble and learned Lord only this morning. I shall respond to that in due time. In regard to the number of regulation-making powers and whether or not some are procedural, I can go no further than I did in my letter of 11th July from which I quoted at length earlier this afternoon.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I could not possibly object to the noble Lord replying by letter. Even if we received the information now there would be nothing we could do about it.
  The noble Lord did not refer to my other question regarding the point I raised with my noble and learned friend. It relates to what would now be Clause 27(2).
  I can check that.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is Clause 27(2). These are regulations about the manner of payment which appears to be appropriate for the ordinary negative resolution procedure regulations. I do not see that it would be right to require them to be specially handled.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  92 Clause 43, page 29, line 37, leave out 'or (7)' and insert '(7) or (8)'.
  93 Page 29, line 37, leave out '10(2)'.
  94 Page 29, line 37, after '39' insert '(1), (Failure to comply with obligations imposed by section 6)'.
  95 Page 29, line 38, after '41', insert 'or under Part I of Schedule 1 or an order made under section 40(1) or (6)'.
  96 Clause 44, page 30, line 13, after 'the', insert 'Lord Chancellor or the'.
  97 Clause 45, page 30, line 23, at end insert:
  "child benefit" has the same meaning as in the Child Benefit Act 1975;'.
  98 Page 30, leave out line 28.
  99 Page 30, line 30, at end insert "'disability living allowance" has the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1975;'.
  100 Page 30, line 38, at end insert:
  "maintenance agreement" has the meaning given in section 9(1);'.
  101 Page 31, leave out line 11.
  102 Clause 47, page 32, line 9, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'the provisions of this Act, other than provisions which relate to the appointment of Child Support Commissioners for Northern Ireland.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 92 to 102. I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 92 to 95. I believe I am right in saying that I have dealt with all the amendments up to and including Amendment No. 102.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 92 to 102.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  103 After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
  Application to Crown
  '.—(1) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under section 13 requiring prescribed persons to furnish information may be exercised so as to require information to be furnished by persons employed in the service of the Crown or otherwise in the discharge of Crown functions.
  (2) In such circumstances, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed, an inspector appointed under section 14 may enter any Crown premises for the purpose of exercising any powers conferred on him by that section.
  (3) Where such an inspector duly enters any Crown premises for those purposes, section 14 shall apply in relation to persons employed in the service of the Crown or otherwise in the discharge of Crown functions as it applies in relation to other persons.
  (4) Where a liable person is in the employment of the Crown, a deduction from earnings order may be made under section 29 in relation to that person; but in such a case subsection (8) of section 30 shall apply only in relation to the failure of that person to comply with any requirement imposed on him by regulations made under section 30.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103. This is an amendment to provide for Crown servants, when giving information required for the purposes of the Bill, to be subject to the provisions in the Bill. It also enables inspectors to gain access to Crown property and to interview Crown servants subject to the conditions specified in the regulations. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I have no objection to the amendment. I wish to raise one small point about clarification. I listened with interest to the debate on the subject in another place. It may be that we shall now have an answer to a question that I asked when the Bill was in Committee. What happens when the requirements of this Bill clash with the requirements of official secrecy? I can imagine that such a clash will happen on occasions. I shall be glad of some idea of what will happen then.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I cannot envisage such a clash happening. However, if it did happen I believe that the theoretical answer is that the later Act will take precedence. In so far as it covered a situation, it would require to be given effect notwithstanding an earlier statute. As I have said, I cannot envisage a clash of the type that the noble Earl has in mind.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  104 Clause 48, page 32, line 38, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State or Lord Advocate or by any of them acting jointly.'.
  105 Page 32, line 40, at end insert '(including, in particular. for different cases or categories of case)'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104 and 105. As far as these amendments are concerned they provide for a range of transitional measures and consequential amendments to be made by order by the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Advocate or by some of them jointly according to the circumstances. As I explained earlier, the transitional arrangements are likely to be quite complicated. I sought to explain that before. That is why Amendment No. 106 is fairly complicated and comprehensive. However, we shall deal with that in a little more detail in a moment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104 and 105.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  106 Clause 48. page 32, line 40, at end insert:
  '(3A) An order under subsection (2) may make such supplemental, incidental or transitional provision as appears to the person making the order to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions brought into force by the order, including such adaptations or modifications of—

  (a) the provisions so brought into force;

  (b) any provisions of this Act then in force; or

  (c) any provision of any other enactment, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.

  (3B) Different provision may be made by virtue of subsection (3A) with respect to different periods.
  (3C) Any provision made by virtue of subsection (3A) may, in particular, include provision for—

  (a) the enforcement of a maintenance assessment (including the collection of sums payable under the assessment) as if the assessment were a court order of a prescribed kind;

  580

  (b) the registration of maintenance assessments with the appropriate court in connection with any provision of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a);

  (c) the variation, on application made to a court, of the provisions of a maintenance assessment relating to the method of making payments fixed by the assessment or the intervals at which such payments are to be made;

  (d) a maintenance assessment, or an order of a prescribed kind relating to one or more children, to be deemed, in prescribed circumstances, to have been validly made for all purposes or for such purposes as may be prescribed.

  In paragraph (c) "court" includes a single justice.
  (3D) The Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate may by order make such amendments or repeals in, or such modifications of, such enactments as may be specified in the order, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act (including any provision made by virtue of subsection (3A)).
  (3E) This Act shall, in its application to the Isles of Scilly, have effect subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106. This is an amendment which gives power to make orders to deal with the transitional provisions which will be required. The Bill is designed to set up a new scheme for the assessment, collection and enforcement of child maintenance in the great majority of cases. The Bill sets out in some detail the nature of the new scheme, both the way the maintenance will be assessed and the powers and duties of the child support agency on behalf of the Secretary of State in order that this should be done. We have already said that we believe that the child support agency should begin work in April 1993; it will have a potential case load of 2 million customers, representing around 3 million assessments every year. It will not be possible for the agency to take on all its work at once—the take-on will have to be very carefully phased. The purpose of this clause is to give the necessary flexibility in order to make these arrangements, which will be the subject of extensive consultation by regulation.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  MANUSCRIPT MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 106
  Earl Russell 106A Earl Russell moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106.
  I hope your Lordships will read the Commons amendment with some care. When I read it it caused me a good deal of surprise. The parentage appears to me to be by Henry VIII out of Humpty Dumpty. Even in these permissive days, I have some doubt whether that is a legitimate parentage.

  581
  I have no objection to the stated purpose of the clause as it is set out in the Notes on Commons Amendments, which my noble kinsman has very kindly made available to us. The notes state that:
  "These amendments allow for detailed provisions regulating the transitional period until the Child Support Agency is fully operational to be made through commencement orders or other orders".
  I have no problem with that. I want to know why another place has found it necessary to use quite such sweeping and arbitrary words to bring that provision into effect.
  In dealing with the Executive, there are two duties which rest upon Parliament. There is a duty of scrutiny, and there is a duty of control. Until I hear the reply. I am engaged simply on the duty of scrutiny. I want to know why these powers need to be so sweeping. I want to know why all these powers are needed; and I want to know—and this is the most important one for our purposes—could they have been worded in a less arbitrary manner?
  This is a new commencement clause which emerged very late in the proceedings. There was not a single word spoken about it in another place. Therefore, we are going to hear today the first full explanation of why the Government want this clause. It may be simply to ensure the central purposes of the Bill. If so, I must say that this House has already approved the central purposes of the Bill. I would regard it as most improper at this stage to do anything to question them. However, I want to understand why it is necessary to have quite so much power to achieve the central purposes of the Bill.
  The other idea that came into my mind was that I wondered whether the Government feared that they had left something out of the repealing schedule. There I would find it rather more difficult to help them, because this House cannot really hand over to the Secretary of State the task of repealing statutes. If the Secretary of State has forgotten to repeal a statute, then lie must come back to this place and we would, I am sure, do our level best to be co-operative.
  I understand that it will be a complicated commencement; it will be a staged commencement for one thing. There is a process of meshing-in together the agency and the courts. I can see a good many problems in the commencement. I am reminded of the commencement of community care. Therefore, I can see that the powers which are set out in subsection (3C) of the government amendment may well be necessary. I do not intend to query that.
  What I am unhappy about in the proposed subsection (3C) is the words,
  "may, in particular, include".
  The subsection does not state that the Secretary of State nay make provision. It states that the powers,
  "may, in particular, include".
  That naturally leads me to ask: what else can the Secretary of State do? I looked at the record of the government amendment. In subsection (3A) I found a power to make such modification,
  "as appears to the person making the order to be necessary".
  That is a subjective judgment. The machinery for any further parliamentary control over the Executive will be very limited. It will only be a matter of the Secretary
  582
  of State's own judgment whether anything done under that subsection is relevant to the commencement of the Bill.
  Powers are also sought to bring about modification of,
  "any provisions of this Act then in force"
  The Secretary of State may amend his own Bill. That makes me wonder what all of us—in "all of us" I include the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble kinsman—have been doing in using a great deal of concentration and carrying out a great deal of work in trying to make the Bill better. If the Secretary of State can simply amend the Act as he sees fit, I do not see why all our labours have been necessary.
  I am even more concerned about the provision allowing the Secretary of State to vary any provision of any other enactment. I have already argued that the Bill puts the Secretary of State into the way of temptation to behave in a more and more arbitrary manner. I do not want to make that temptation more acute by equipping it with these quite extreme powers. In making these remarks, I mean nothing personal to the Secretary of State or indeed to any successor he may have in the future. I believe that these powers should not be trusted to anyone. I am reminded in fact of the comment of one of my American colleagues about a new mortgage. "If I were a banker, I would not lend me that much money". I do not believe that these powers are proper, whoever has them.
  We may be given undertakings. If so, I shall accept them absolutely in relation to the present incumbents of their offices. But we are dealing here with the powers of the Secretary of State in 1993. We have no idea who will be Secretary of State in 1993, nor indeed do we have any idea of what undertakings he will feel bound by. The amendment states that the Secretary of State may modify any enactment. I admit that that applies in so far as it is relevant to the commencement of the Bill; but it is only the Secretary of State's judgment of what is relevant to the commencement of the Bill. So far as I can see, if we pass this clause we shall give the Secretary of State power to modify the due process clause of Magna Charta, to modify habeas corpus or the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, to modify the arbitrary imprisonment provision of the Petition of Rights. I could go on, but I shall not.
  I do not believe that the Secretary of State intends to do any of those things. But that is something which Parliament in its official capacity cannot presume. If we confer these powers on the Secretary of State, they are gone. We do not want to sound like the Emperor Caligula in what is doubtless an apocryphal story. It was said that he used in a fit of drunken rage to say of his friend, "Off with his head". He would then send for the friend the next morning only to be told, "He is executed". "Oh", the emperor would say, "I did not intend it". If any such use is made of these powers it will not be good enough for Parliament to say, "Oh, we did not intend it". If we grant these powers we must accept the possibility that they might be used.
  I know that they are limited to the commencement of the Bill. But that, in a phased commencement, is a

  583
  long period of time. One of things which worries me very much about the government amendment is there is no time limit put upon it.
  I am also worried by subsection (3D) of Amendment No. 106. It states:
  "The Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate may by order make such amendments or repeals in, or such modifications of, such enactments as may be specified in the order".
  In other words, the Lord Chancellor—and I do not say the noble and learned Lord because I am referring to any Lord Chancellor for the time being—will at last have achieved the true Gilbertian aspirations of his office: he will indeed embody the law. It is possible that there are good reasons for what is proposed, but I do not see them. However, I shall listen to what is said.
  I have one final question which is on a less serious level. Section (3E) refers to a special provision for the Isles of Scilly. I very much doubt that I would wish to object to it. However, I should like to know the reason for it and whether the Isles of Scilly have asked for the provision.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106.—(Earl Russell.)
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this Bill makes an extraordinary leap forward in the arrogation by the Secretary of State of powers traditionally vouchsafed to Parliament and to courts of law. This is an example of the invasion of traditional parliamentary rights; in other words, to amend legislation. I support the remarks made by the noble Earl. However, there is one other point that I venture to bring to the attention of your Lordships. I have in mind subsection (3C). I am especially concerned about paragraph (a). It gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations providing for,
  "the enforcement of a maintenance assessment (including the collection of sums payable under the assessment) as if the assessment were a court order of a prescribed kind".
  Apart from the extent to which that provision goes constitutionally, the extraordinary thing is that the provisions of Clause 48 are not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure under what is now Clause 43. In other words, if there is any provision which ought to subject to the affirmative resolution, it is (3C) (a). It falls under both the first and the second headings of the report of the Joint Select Committee of 1972–73. Because it is such a power, it is not trivial or consequential. Moreover, it also falls under the second heading in that it involves a charge on a citizen. It is too late now to make that an affirmative resolution procedure provision. Therefore, it seems to me that the right course for us to take is to remove the whole provision as suggested by the noble Earl.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to ask one short question. The noble Earl raised some very important points. He also pointed out that Amendment No. 106 went through the other place without any discussion, so there is no benefit of ministerial reply to any amendments or questions. Is there any precedent for such a clause as this?
  10.15 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the clause deals primarily with the commencement of these provisions. As I indicated earlier, the provisions will deal with almost 2 million customers, which represents about 3 million assessments each year. Therefore it is important that the work should be taken on in phases, as is obvious, in order that the arrangements should work. Precisely how that phasing will be worked out must be a matter of experience as we enter the transitional period.
  Under the present law there are a number of provisions dealing with maintenance. However, it is not right that they should be repealed because they continue to be effective until the transition is made effective. Due to the nature of the task that the agency will be taking on we cannot be certain during what period a particular burden of work will pass to the agency.
  The principles are settled in the Bill. I regard the clauses as clearly subsidiary to the principles. For example, the idea that any of the powers could be used in the way suggested by the noble Earl in relation to Magna Carta would not be correct. Before an order can be made under this provision it must be shown that the order is reasonably regarded as necessary or expedient in connection with:
  "the provisions so brought into force"
  by the order, as is stated in subsection (3A) (a) of the amendment. That includes such adaptations or modifications as are provided for. It is a cardinal principle of the interpretation of a statute of this kind that the powers are given only to effect the policy of the statute. It must be a reasonable exercise of the power before it would be sustained. I suggest to your Lordships that in presenting his argument the noble Earl has perhaps naturally exaggerated the alleged subjective nature of the power. One cannot use the power unreasonably and then attempt to cloak that with the idea that it appeared to the person making the order to be necessary or expedient—
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, surely the Government must know which provisions of which enactments they will need to repeal or amend as the Act comes into force. Therefore, instead of providing for any provision of any other enactment, could the provisions not have been put into a schedule and referred to by name?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that might be possible but it depends. For example, some degree of modification might be required before the provisions came into effect. The law contains a number of provisions dealing with maintenance but I believe that this is a reasonable way to deal with the matter as subsidiary to the question of the commencement of the statutory provisions.
  We hope that the interim period will be reasonably smooth. In that case it may be possible to bring forward the rest of the work quickly. On the other hand, if difficulties are experienced in carrying out the assessments on the first tranche the matter must be dealt with more slowly. It is therefore right that the existing jurisdiction should be retained and modified

  585
  only when the agency is ready to take over. It will always be necessary in that situation to make detailed modifications to the force of quite a number of existing enactments to cover different stages in the transition period. I am conscious that the clause ranges widely but the scheme is quite ambitious in order to effect an important change in the way in which the maintenance is collected.
  The situation is clearly related to subsections (3A) and (2), which explicitly refer to the order as making provisions supplemental to the commencement of provisions under the Act. I submit that that clearly limits the scope for the detailed provisions that are made.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale spoke of the provisions of subsection (3C) (a) as:
  "the enforcement of a maintenance assessment (including the collection of sums payable under the assessment) as if the assessment were a court order of a prescribed kind".
  Obviously that provision might be required to relate a new maintenance assessment to existing orders. Accordingly, I submit that that is a reasonable provision.
  So far as concerns the Isles of Scilly, the purpose of subsection (3E) is for safety. It is unlikely to he needed but the way in which the Bill is to be brought into force may require that special provisions be made for the Isles of Scilly because of their special situation. This appears to me to be a reasonable arrangement.
  The nature of the clause is not precisely covered by previous precedents because the nature and the burden of the transition are unprecedented. I believe that the clause has the right balance of flexibility and structure to make it appropriate for dealing with a complicated transition from existing arrangements to the new arrangements. I must emphasise that all along we must have a system which operates the arrangements. We cannot completely stop enforcing maintenance for a period in order to bring in the new provisions. We must effect the change at the same time as keeping a comprehensive and effective system in place. For these reasons, I invite your Lordships not to accept the Motion.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, he said that he thought subsection (3C) (a) was reasonable. He did not say why it was not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not see that these provisions, which are in the nature of transition provisions, need the affirmative resolution procedure. After all, they are supplementary arrangements in a commencement order. That is the purpose. It is a commencement order for the statutory provisions. The idea is that, because of the nature of the transition, the commencement order needs to be somewhat more complicated in this case than in many others. I believe that the negative procedure is appropriate in the circumstances. It goes without saying that the provisions will be carefully considered before they are put into effect by Parliament.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I ask a question of the noble and learned Lord before he sits down. Would he be prepared to take back this clause, maybe only until tomorrow morning, to consider whether it can he drafted in a less arbitrary manner? I am sure that if we were only to sit down round a table we could come to some agreement on this. Is the noble and learned Lord prepared to help to that end?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all I can say is that those who drafted this clause did so conscious of the sort of constraints that this House would wish to see imposed on the clause. I strongly feel that the noble Earl, in making his comments, has not given sufficient weight to the place in which this clause appears and the purposes quite clearly stated in the clause which will govern any exercise of power under it. I honestly do not think that I can do more than abide by the clause as it is. which has passed the other place. Having regard to the advice I have received from those involved in drafting the clause, I do not believe that the time between now and tomorrow morning would be such as to produce any sensible modification of it.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I can only say that I am extremely sorry for that answer. I understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying. I understand the limitation of purpose, that it is only to effect the policy of the statute and only to bring it into force. I do not think I object to what the noble and learned Lord is trying to do, as I understand it, but I cannot feel happy at having words of this sort passed into an Act of Parliament to remain there, to he used in circumstances that we cannot foresee by people whom we cannot foresee.
  I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord could not respond to the invitation to spell out in a schedule all the statutes he wanted powers to modify. That was just the sort of suggestion where I was hoping some common ground could have been found, but it has not been. I do not think we can agree to let Ministers change the law as seems to them best. That is not the sort of crust it has ever been Parliament's business to give.
  Here I should like to make an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who put down a Question last spring asking the Government to abandon the use of Henry VIII clauses. I then took a position rather more moderate than that of the noble Lord. I asked for the Government to go back to the position of the Donoughmore Committee. I think that I was wrong and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was right. Like alcohol, Henry VIII clauses are addictive, and prohibition is the only answer. The only way to bring them under control is to have it known that whenever they are put in Bills this House will divide against them. I urge the House to disagree with the Commons in Amendment No. 106.
  10.28 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Motion (No. 106A) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided Contents. 23; Not-Contents, 43.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Avebury, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.[Teller.]

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  David, B.

  Peston, L.

  Desai, L.

  Rea, L.

  Flowers, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Russell, E. [Teller.]

  Hacking, L.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Macaulay of Bragar, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Ampthill, L.

  Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

  Arran, E.

  Hooper, B.

  Astor, V.

  Howe, E.

  Beloff, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Long, V.

  Blatch, B.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Butterfield, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Reay, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Romney, E.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Seccombe, B.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Elles, B.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Trumpington, B.

  Flather, B.

  Ullswater, V.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Henley, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Resolved in the accordingly.
  10.36 p.m.
  On Question, Commons Amendment No. 106 agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  107 Clause 48, page 32, line 41, leave out 'and 33' and insert '33, and (Right of audience)'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 107. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 85.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 107.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  108 Clause 48, page 32, line 41, after '33', insert 'and paragraph 2B of Schedule 5'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 131 to 133 and to Amendment No. 135.
  These are all technical amendments. Apart from Amendment No. 135, the amendments deal with matters of bankruptcy and provide that child support maintenance will be treated in the same way as court orders for maintenance are now in England and Wales. The amendments for Scotland extend the principles of the existing law on bankruptcy in Scotland to obligations to pay child support maintenance.
  588
  Amendment No. 135 adds to the definition of "maintenance order" in Section 106 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 a maintenance assessment within the meaning of this Bill. I commend the amendments to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  109 Clause 48, page 32, line 42, leave out 'and 26' and insert 26 and (Right of audience: Scotland)'.
  110 Page 32, line 43, leave out 'section 47(1)' and insert 'sections 47(1) and (Child Support Commissioners for Northern Ireland)'.
  111 Page 32, line 44, leave out 'Schedule 2' and insert 'Schedules 2 and 4'.
  112 Page 33, line 10, leave out subsection (10).
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 109 to 112. I have already spoken to these amendments with earlier amendments.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 109 to 112.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  113 Schedule 1, page 36, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert—
  'AE=Z x Q x(A/A+C)
  where—
  A and C have the same values as in the calculation made under paragraph 2(1);
  Z is such number as may be prescribed; and
  Q is the aggregate of—

  (a) any amount taken into account by virtue of paragraph 1(3)(a) in calculating the maintenance requirement; and

  (b) any amount which is both taken into account by virtue of paragraph 1(3)(c) in making that calculation and is an amount prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.'.

  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 113.
  I do not think there is any disagreement that parents should continue paying maintenance even when the maintenance requirement is met. Children should be able to benefit from the prosperity of their absent parent in the same way as children in families that are not broken do. But we believe that there comes a point where an automatic formula is not appropriate.
  We made it clear in the White Paper that it was our intention to set a cut-off point at which an absent parent who was well off would not automatically continue to pay extra maintenance under the formula. Provision for that is made in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1.
  This amendment deals with the way in which the cut-off point is to be worked out. It proposes that it should be worked out by setting a maximum amount of extra maintenance to be paid per child. We believe

  589
  that the amendment, by changing the approach for the setting of the cut-off point, so that it looks more at what is due to the children rather than looking to the parents' income in isolation, is a better approach.
  We believe that it is consistent with the aim of better providing for the interests of children.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 113.—(Lord
  Henley.)
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if anybody looking at the amendment understands its purpose (which was so clearly explained by the Minister), he is certainly a better mathematician than I ever was. Although I cannot do any more in regard to this Bill, certainly in the future when legislation is to affect simple people -especially when it affects simple people - I can only plead that complicated formulae are used which none but experts could ever hope to understand. One of those experts happens to be the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and another, I am sure, is the Minister. But they must be in a minority in this land.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, it may console the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to learn that, as it contains one formula, the proposed amendment is in fact much simpler than the combined effect of the two formulae that were in the Bill originally and which are now to he replaced. Although this may not be the best Bill to include something like eight or nine formulae, formulae have their place. Perhaps at this late hour I may use colloquial English. There is a thing called the Renton Report, in which it is suggested that in suitable circumstances formulae such as this one could be used. They do sometimes help.
  Having said that, will my noble friend clarify a point. which puzzles me? It arises from what he said and which is in his note. My puzzlement perhaps arises from my lack of understanding in the time available.
  The noble Lord said that this formula determines the maximum amount to be paid by the absent parent. Does that mean that, by order, a lesser amount than that maximum amount could be ordered by him to be paid? If so, and if he means what he says in the note, the matter is of some importance.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the formula is the bureaucratic heart of this bureaucratic Bill. The Renton Committee gave its blessing to the use of formulae, particularly in revenue statutes, but even there it gave warning that they must not be incomprehensible to the people to whom they were addressed. If I may say so, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that all these formulae are quite incomprehensible to the people to whom they are addressed.
  In correspondence with my noble and learned friend about another provision of the Bill, a letter came to me stating that it was important that the Bill should be understood by ordinary people. How many ordinary people will understand Schedule 1? Let us not forget who those ordinary people are. As my noble and learned friend pointed out many months ago, the
  590
  two typical people are those in Example 3 in the White Paper: a young man with under average earnings with a younger wife with two children. One goes further. The provisions have to be understood by girls of 12 years and upwards and boys of 14 in Scotland.
  It is against that background that one considers what the amendment provides. Curiously enough, it amends a provision to which I drew attention at Report stage and whose virtues the noble Lord, Lord Henley, offered to defend on a blackboard. As it was the early hours of the morning, your Lordships graciously dispensed with that kindness. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out that this was a shorter formula. However, it is a great mistake to think that everything is said by the way in which it is shown in the amendment.
  Let us consider lines 5 to 13—AE refers to the additional assessment:
  "AE=Z x Q x (A/A+c)".
  But each of those terms requires explanation. The proposed schedule states:
  "Z is such number as may be prescribed".
  In other words, it is completely at large. It continues:
  "Q is the aggregate of … any amount taken into account by virtue of paragraph 1(3) (a) in calculating the maintenance requirement … and any amount which is both taken into account by virtue of paragraph 1(3) (c) in making that calculation and is an amount prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph".
  If that were all, it would probably be enough for the hopeful young maintenance creditor or debtor. But in fact one has to spell out what A and C mean.
  Your Lordships will find A at page 34, line 37, which leads on to page 36, line 19. You will find C at page 34, line 38, which refers forward to page 36, line 30. That is the work that they have to do. When they have done it, the formula looks like this:
  "AE=Z x Q x (N-C/(N-C) x (M-F))".
  That is a mouthful for anyone seeking maintenance or advising in a citizens' advice bureau, or indeed for any parliamentarian. I suggest that it is an outrage to put such legislation before Parliament and then to state not only in letters to Ministers but in speeches in another place that the essence is to make the Bill comprehensible to ordinary people.
  The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend will allow me to intervene. Has the Minister by any chance forgotten the number that he first thought of?
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that I was unable to bring along a blackboard. On the previous occasion when we discussed various formulae it was rather late at night. We seem to be repeating ourselves. It may have something to do with the fact that schedules come towards the end of the Bill.
  I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for welcoming the use of formulae on certain occasions. This is an occasion when the use of a formula can be justified, and I shall set out what the algebraic formula means.
  But first I shall deal with a point made by my noble friend. He asked whether the formula set a maximum

  591
  and whether less can be payable by order. The answer is no. How much maintenance anyone pays is by a fixed deduction rate until the maximum is reached. How much is paid depends therefore upon income and affordability, which are built into the formula. I am not sure whether that was the point that my noble friend was trying to make. If he was also worried that that provides a maximum beyond which one could not go and that therefore the children might not be able to benefit from an absent parent whom we might call seriously rich rather than one having more income than the average, Clause 8 enables the courts to make awards in addition to formula awards.
  I shall now give an explanation of the algebra contained in the amendment. Where the total assessable income of both parents is more than sufficient to meet the maintenance requirement in full, the maintenance the absent parent will be expected to pay will be composed of two elements—the basic element and the additional element. It is the additional element (the AE) about which we are talking. The basic element is defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 and represents the amount of the maintenance requirement the absent parent should pay based on his share of the total assessable income.
  The definition of the additional element which will apply normally is found in paragraph 4(1) and looks at the amount of the absent parent's assessable income left after he has met his share of the maintenance requirement. A lower deduction rate will apply to that income. However, if the use of that formula were unrestricted, some people with very high incomes would pay large amounts of maintenance. As I have already said, there should be a cut-off point for the amount of maintenance generated by the maintenance formula.
  In looking at what that cut-off point should he, we were guided by three considerations. First, it should reflect the number and age of children to whom the maintenance requirement applies—the more children, and the older the children, the higher the cut-off point. Secondly, the cut-off point should rise over time to match rises in income and prices, and we do not want to have to amend primary legislation to change the level of the ceiling. Finally, it is right to take account of the caring parent's ability to support her child when looking at the cut-off point for that child.
  The way we had drafted paragraphs 4(3) and 4(4) did not satisfy those conditions. We believe the amendment achieves our aim. It ensures that the total maintenance paid by both parents depends upon the maintenance requirement plus some multiple (named Z in the formula) of the aggregate Q of the amounts used in calculating the maintenance requirement and which are paid for the child or children and is therefore linked to the number and age of children. The multiplier and some of the amounts will be prescribed in regulations which will he affirmative and hence open to debate. As the amounts are linked to income support rates, the cut-off point will increase when benefits are uprated. The amount payable by the absent parent will depend upon his share of the total assessable income.
  592
  The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. criticised the complexity of the formulae and said that it is very difficult for the man in the street to understand them. We had some fairly light-hearted discussion on the formulae generally at earlier stages of the Bill. I appreciate that they can be difficult to understand but we shall make available guidance which can spell out those matters in a way which legislation cannot do but in a way which will make it possible to understand for the man in the street or his adviser.
  With that assurance, I commend the amendment to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  114 Schedule 1, page 37. line 16, after 'that' insert 'where the prescribed minimum amount fixed by regulations made under paragraph 7 applies'.
  115 Page 37. line 18, leave out from 'than' to end of line 19 and insert 'that amount'.
  116 Page 37. line 32, leave out 'sub-paragraph (1) "the' and insert 'this paragraph the "
  117 Page 37, line 41, leave out 'unless the case is one to which section 39 applies' and insert—
  '(3) In any case to which section 39 applies, and in such other cases (if any) as may be prescribed, sub-paragraph (2) shall not apply'.
  118 Page 38, line 7, leave out 'qualifying'.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114 to 118 en bloc. Amendment No. 116 is a minor technical amendment. Amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 117 amend paragraph 7, which provides for a minimum payment of child maintenance. Potentially that could apply to all absent parents except for those on income support. The amendments make provisions to specify exceptions to the minimum amount.
  Amendment No. 118 amends paragraph 9, which provides for a number of regulation-making powers relating to the calculation of the parent's income and capital for the purposes of the maintenance assessment. It includes provision for the income of a child to be included in exempt income in any case where the child is the child of a parent whose resources are being assessed. That is needed to offset the allowance made in exempt income.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114 to 118.—(Lord Henley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  119 Schedule I. page 39, line 2, leave out 'dealing with any application or appeal under this Act'.
  120 Page 39, line 3, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 119 and 120.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  121 Schedule 1, page 39, line 20, at end insert—
  '(e) where a new maintenance assessment is made with respect to any qualifying child with respect to whom the assessment in question was in force immediately before the making of the new assessment.
  (1A) A maintenance assessment made in response to an application under section 4 or 7 shall be cancelled by a child support officer if the person on whose application the assessment was made asks him to do so.
  (1B) A maintenance assessment made in response to an application under section 6 shall be cancelled by a child support officer if—

  (a) the person on whose application the assessment was made ("the applicant") asks him to do so; and

  (b) he is satisfied that the applicant has ceased to fall within subsection (1) of that section.'.

  122 Page 39, line 26, at end insert—
  '(2A) Where—

  (a) at any time a maintenance assessment is in force but a child support officer would no longer have jurisdiction to make it if it were to be applied for at that time; and

  (b) the assessment has not been cancelled, or has not ceased to have effect, under or by virtue of any other provision made by or under this Act,

  it shall be taken to have continuing effect unless cancelled by a child support officer in accordance with such prescribed provision (including provision as to the effective date of cancellation) as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make.'.
  123 Page 39, line 30, after 'sub-paragraph', insert '(2A) or'.
  124 Page 39, line 32, leave out 'under this paragraph'.
  125 Page 39, line 42, after 'such', insert 'supplemental, incidental or'.
  Lard Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 121 to 125 en bloc. These amendments amend paragraph 16 of Schedule 1, which deals with the termination of assessments. These various amendments expand the provisions detailing the circumstances when assessments can be cancelled and make minor drafting amendments.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 121 to 125.—(Lond Henley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  126 Schedule 3, page 41, line 38, leave out 'to act as full-time chairmen'.
  127 Page 42, line 1, after 'appoint', insert 'regional and other'.
  128 Schedule 4, page 44, line 28, at end insert:
  'Northern Ireland
  8. In its application to Northern Ireland this Schedule shall have effect as if—

  (a) for any reference to a Child Support Commissioner (however expressed) there were substituted a corresponding reference to a Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland;

  (b) in paragraph 2(1), the word "pensions" were omitted;

  (c) for paragraph 3, there were substituted—

  "3. A Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland, so long as he holds office as such, shall not practise as a barrister or act for any remuneration to himself as arbitrator or referee or be directly or indirectly concerned in any matter as a conveyancer, notary public or solicitor.";
  (d) in paragraph 4—

  (i) for paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (2) there were substituted—

  "(a) from among persons who are barristers or solicitors of not less than 10 years' standing; and";

  (ii) for sub-paragraph (3) there were substituted—

  "(3) Paragraph 2 applies to deputy Child Support Commissioners for Northern Ireland, but paragraph 3 does not apply to them."; and
  (e) paragraphs 5 to 7 were omitted.'.
  129 Schedule 5, page 44, line 45, at end insert:
  'The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (c. 36)
  1A. In paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (certain judicial appointments to be an excepted matter), after the words "for Northern Ireland", where they first occur, there shall be inserted "the Chief and other Child Support Commissioners for Northern Ireland".'.
  130 Page 44, line 45, at end insert:
  'The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c.24)
  1B.—(1) The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In Part I, (disqualifying judicial offices), the following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
  "Chief or other Child Support Commissioner (excluding a person appointed under paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991)."
  "Chief or other Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland (excluding a person appointed under paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991)."
  (3) In Part III (other disqualifying offices), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place—
  "Regional or other full-time chairman of a child support appeal tribunal established under section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991".
  The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c.25)
  1C.—(1) In Part I of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying judicial offices), the following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
  "Chief or other Child Support Commissioner (excluding a person appointed under paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991)."
  "Chief or other Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland (excluding a person appointed under paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991).".
  131 Page 45, line 8, at end insert:
  'Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c.66)
  2A. (1) The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 32 (vesting of estate and dealings of debtor after sequestration)—

  (a) in subsection (3)—

  (i) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

  "(c) any obligation of his to pay child support maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991,";
  (ii) after "relevant obligations" where second occurring there shall be inserted "referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above";
  (b) in subsection (5) after "Diligence" there shall be inserted "(which, for the purposes of this section, includes the making of a deduction from earnings order under the Child Support Act 1991)".
  (3) In section 37 (effect of sequestration on diligence), in subsection (5A) for "or a conjoined arrestment order" there is substituted ", a conjoined arrestment order or a deduction from earnings order under the Child Support Act 1991".
  (4) In section 55 (effect of discharge under section 54), in subsection (2) (d)—

  (a) after "being" there shall be inserted "(i)";

  (b) at the end there shall be inserted—""or

  (ii) child support maintenance within the meaning of the Child Support Act 1991 which was unpaid in respect of any period before the date of sequestration of—
  (aa) any person by whom it was due to be paid;
  "or
  (bb) any employer by whom it was, or was due to be, deducted under section 29(5) of that Act.".'.
  132 Page 45, line 8, at end insert:
  'The Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)
  2B. In section 281(5) (b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (effect of discharge of bankrupt), after "family proceedings" there shall be inserted "or under a maintenance assessment made under the Child Support Act 1991".'.
  133 Page 45, line 20, at end insert:
  '(4A) In section 72 (effect of sequestration on diligence against earnings)—

  (a) in subsection (2) after "order" there shall be inserted "or deduction from earnings order under the Child Support Act 1991";

  (b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

  "(3A) Any sum deducted by the employer under such a deduction from earnings order made before the date of sequestration shall be paid to the Secretary of State, notwithstanding that the date of payment will be after the date of sequestration.";
  (c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
  "(4A) A deduction from earnings order under the said Act shall not be competent after the date of sequestration to secure the payment of any amount due by the debtor under a maintenance assessment within the meaning of that Act in respect of which a claim could be made in the sequestration.".'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 to 133 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 to 133.—(The Lord Chancellor).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  134 Schedule 5, page 45, line 22, leave out ', there shall be added at the end' and insert:

  (a) in paragraph (c) for "within the meaning of the Wages Councils Act 1979" there shall be substituted ", namely any enactment, rules, deed or other instrument providing for the payment of annuities or lump sums—
  596

  (i) to the persons with respect to whom the instrument has effect on their retirement at a specified age or on becoming incapacitated at some earlier age, or

  (ii) to the personal representatives or the widows, relatives or dependants of such persons on their death or otherwise,
  whether with or without any further or other benefit;"; and

  (b) at the end there shall be added—'.

  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134. This amendment is intended to deal with the effect of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1897. The purpose of it is to ensure that the obsolete reference in that Act to the now repealed Wages Council Act 1979 is removed and replaced with a definition of a superannuation scheme for the purposes of determining the debtor's net earnings; that is, the debtor's net pay capable of being subject to an earnings arrestment. In my submission, that is important to make effective the basis to which the formula is applied in this case.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, it is difficult to see what this amendment has to do with child support, although one sees that it makes clear certain provisions of the 1987 Act, to which my noble and learned friend referred. At this late hour I do not press him to explain the connection. We all admire the stamina, patience and application that he has revealed for the past six-and-a-half hours. I hope that neither he nor your Lordships will ever again have to undergo a similar experience.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. It would be fair for me to share his hope with regard to the future. With regard to this specific definition, it is important for the basis of the formula that it be expressed correctly and that is why it is included in the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  11 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  135 Schedule 5, page 45, line 26, at end insert:
  '(6) In section 106 (interpretation) in the definition of "maintenance order"—

  (a) the word "or" where it appears after paragraph (g), shall be omitted; and

  (b) at the end there shall be inserted "or

  (j) a maintenance assessment within the meaning of the Child Support Act 1991.".'.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 135. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 108. I thank your Lordships for your patience and support at this hour enabling us to reach this stage.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 135.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Amendment (privilege) made.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill, and read a first time.

British Technology Group Bill
11.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords. I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Reay.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I hesitate to detain the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor after his marathon on the previous business, but I must protest that this is an important Bill and we are receiving the Report at 11 p.m. on the Mond ay before the Recess. I believe that it is not proper for this House to consider a Bill of this importance on Report at this late hour. Having said that, I do not wish to divide the House on this Motion.
On Question, Report received.
Clause 1 [Vesting of property etc. of NRDC and NEB in a successor company]:
Lord Flowers Lord Flowers moved Amendment No. 1.
Page 1, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not nominate a company for the purposes of this section unless he is satisfied that the articles of association of the company include a provision for the appointment of at least one person as a director of the company after consultation with such persons appearing to him to be representative of the Universities and Research Councils of the United Kingdom as he considers appropriate and not withstanding anything in the Companies Act 1985 no such provision shall be altered without the consent in writing of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Bill was debated in Committee at a somewhat earlier hour of the day, there was wide support for amendments which sought to provide some guarantee that the successor company would continue to carry out the business for which BTG is justly famous. The essential nature of that business concerns the development of the results of basic research into industrially profitable products and processes. Most of the research originates in the universities and their associated teaching hospitals and in the laboratories of the research councils. It is a business which takes many years, sometimes decades, to bear fruit, and the protection of intellectual property rights arising in many different fields of science is therefore a difficult matter requiring specialised experience.
The amendments to which I referred were withdrawn in the hope that the Government would think again. I gladly acknowledge that Ministers seem to have gone some way to meeting our anxieties in the latest draft of the articles of association, which in places adopt my own words. Our anxiety with the Bill as it stands is neither with the intentions of Government nor with the articles; it is with the fact that e guarantees we seek and deem essential if the company is to continue to provide services of the kind
598
now offered, are contained in the memorandum of association and not on the face of the Bill and may therefore be changed by a vote of the shareholders.
Despite our best efforts inside and outside your Lordships' House, Ministers have been unbending in this respect and perforce I must try again. They are willing to relax the articles of association, but not the Bill itself. It seems that the Government wish to legislate by article but not by Bill, but that they cannot do. If the articles are as binding as the Government make out, the essence of them might as well feature on the face of the Bill. If they are not, then a fortiori the Bill itself should provide the guarantees we seek.
I understand very well that the Government do not wish to hedge the Bill around with a mass of narrow restrictions. That would greatly reduce the value of the company to a potential purchaser and therefore rob the taxpayer of possible gains. At the same time, one has to recognise that, in the longer term, the continuing profitability of the company, and therefore the continuing gains to the taxpayer from its activities, depends on it being able to attract the kind of business it now attracts. That means that it must continue to enjoy the trust of the research community it serves, otherwise it might as well go off and manufacture marmalade. Indeed, that might be more profitable in the short term.
Perhaps it will be argued that the amendments that we are discussing this evening are causing intolerable uncertainty for the staff of the company. But if we do not get the Bill right it would be well to remember that there are not many marmalade makers on the staff of BTG. I assume that the Government are interested in the longer-term profitability of the company, not merely in its sale price on privatisation. However, there is nothing in the Bill to justify that assumption. I am therefore seeking the minimal amendment which would permanently enshrine in the Bill some essential flavour of the work of the company.
After taking professional advice, I have come to the conclusion that the best way forward, although it is certainly a minimalist approach, is to write into the Bill something that is already in the draft articles; namely, that there shall be at least one director of the company, appointed in an appropriate manner, to represent the research community. Of course, I shall be happier if there are two such directors or more, but the phrase "at least one" at least permits the more generous interpretation already allowed by the articles of association.
Perhaps this proposed measure will slightly reduce the value of the company to a buyer who would find the presence of a representative of the research community not to his taste. That would confirm my worst fears. It is, as I have said, a matter of balancing the short-term value of the sale against the continuing profitability of the company, which depends on it being able to retain the confidence of the research community. If that confidence is retained I can assure your Lordships that there will be no shortage of prospective buyers. On the other hand, if the directors of the company are not in a position to insist that the

599
essential characteristics of the company are to continue, the confidence of the research community will be lost.
What will then happen? Some universities—a few that are exceptionally strong in research—have already made internal arrangements to secure their own intellectual property rights and to develop the results of their research with appropriate firms of their own choosing. Even so, much of their more specialised business remains with BTG. Other universities will do likewise, or more likely will take advantage of offers of assistance from one or more of those that already have the facilities. In other words, a rival BTG will develop within the research community itself, probably in a university and since that will certainly have the confidence of its potential customers, it will attract away not only the business but also the staff of the existing BTG. That would be a shameful waste—a further stumbling block in the way of innovation for the benefit of industry and ultimately of the taxpayer.
It must be clear that thoughts such as these must be coursing through the minds of potential members of any consortium that the Government may have in mind to purchase the company. I am thinking of venture capital firms, universities and charitable foundations, all of which will be concerned about the continuing profitability of the company. If the Government refuse to concede the desirability of putting some reasons for confidence on to the face of the Bill, these people and organisations will draw their own conclusions, as will the scientists themselves.
I am the chairman of a charitable foundation that is considering whether to invest in the successor company. It will not do so in order to support the Government; that would not be a charitable action. It will do so, if at all, only because it is convinced that it would be a sound investment from its own, purely charitable point of view. I doubt, frankly, whether my fellow trustees would be impressed by the assurances so far provided by the Government, unsubstantiated as they are by the wording of the Bill. I would hazard a guess that trustees and investment committees of many other foundations will take the same line at the end of the day, no matter what interest they have shown so far.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and myself is an exceedingly modest one. It is intended to provide an indication on the face of the Bill that the essential nature of this company and its business will continue. I have heard it said that the Treasury strongly opposes any attempt to modify the Bill in this way because of the precedent it would create. We are dealing with a company that even the Government must by now realise is unique, requiring unique measures. We should not skulk behind our fears of raising precedents. I have spoken for too long and it is late. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my first question—which I regard as a serious one—is: what is the hurry about this Bill? The Bill simply enables the Secretary of State to sell the British Technology Group to some person or persons as yet unidentified,
600
in a future which we cannot yet see. It seems to me very odd—to use a mild adjective—that we should be here at this time of night considering such a measure.
I cannot refrain from expressing some regret that my noble friend the Leader of the House, who was so recently in his place, did not feel able to stay and share with us some of the pain which I think is attendant upon further consideration of this measure now. In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, I do not want to repeat all the arguments that he used, but I want particularly to express my intense dislike of this growing habit of governments to legislate by means of articles of association or to half legislate by such means. Articles of association, or a draft of them such as we have available to us—I do not say "before us" because we cannot amend them—are useful as an indication of what is in the Government's mind at the present time or what the Secretary of State has in his mind now. They give no assurance about the intentions of whoever may be the eventual purchasers of the company.
Perhaps I may trespass on your Lordships' indulgence for a moment to give one example of why I dislike this in detail as well as in principle. The definition of "permitted person" occurs on page 14 of the draft articles. In paragraph 5, on page 16, we see the sentence:
"If, to the knowledge of the directors, any person other than a permitted person is or becomes a relevant person, including, without limitation, by virtue of being deemed to be one, the directors shall give notice to all persons, other than persons referred to in paragraph 10 below, who appear to the directors to have interests in the relevant shares, and, if different, to the registered holders of those shares".
If your Lordships were to go so far as to describe that as verbal garbage, I should find it exceedingly difficult to dissent. I certainly should not like in any way to give my implied approval to such material. I do not wish to dwell any further on a painful subject. I have tabled an amendment which I shall propose with reasonable brevity. I do not wish to repeat those points now. I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, having put my name to the amendment, I should like to say something about it without repeating the, to my mind, convincing and detailed arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. After the discussion at earlier stages of the Bill, I am surprised that it has been necessary to put down this amendment since one should have thought that the Government themselves would have been so anxious to allay the fears of the scientific community that they would have put forward this provision.
As the Minister knows, the issue is whether the British Technology Group should continue to provide the services it has provided under a different form of ownership or whether it should be treated as one of the Government's assets, available in order to stimulate the flow of petty cash. A fear, arising from statements from the Treasury or Treasury-inspired statements about the undesirability of giving precedents for other privatisation measures, is bound to be in people's minds.

601
The Government have had a perfectly easy and straightforward way of allaying our doubts. They could have said that they undoubtedly wish that the services which BTG provides for the scientific community should continue; that they appreciate that these services are necessarily long-term in their financial return; and that, to ensure that this is so, they will provide for appropriate directors who, being in touch with the scientific community, would know what were the opportunities which BTG might have and the dangers which it should avoid.
Therefore, I believe that it is necessary—and I think that the House will also find it so—for the Minister to explain why the Government have not acted in that way. Is it that they fundamentally disbelieve in the future potential of BTG and that they are not interested in making possible the development of inventions and discoveries made in our institutions of higher education and in our research laboratories? Alternatively, do they have some other way in which they propose to demonstrate that devotion?
As I have said before in many other contexts—and I believe it is worth repeating—the Government are on a had wicket when it comes to dealing with universities and the scientific community at present. Their record has been challenged in many respects, often on finance al grounds. However, here we have something which is, in a way, costless; namely, the nomination of a couple of directors to a future privatised company. Her Majesty's Ministers now have a chance to say, "We have been misunderstood. We are, in fact, in favour of British science. We should like to see the development to the utmost of what can be discovered by the talents of our scientists and inventors. We gladly offer this, or an alternative method". If they are unable to do so, I fear that they are, even at this time of night, making a grave political mistake.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Beloff, in what they said. This is a test of the Government's intentions as regards BTG and its future. However, having said that I support them in principle, I must say that I have certain reservations about the text of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. It seems to me—I hope that I am not anticipating the speech about to be made by the noble Lord, Lord Reay—that to put into articles of association something which, notwithstanding anything in the Companies Act, cannot be altered unless the Secretary of State consents to it in writing, cuts across our companies legislation.
While I approve of the spirit of the amendment—and I very much hope that the noble Lord will accept that spirit—I am sure that the noble Lord will wish to take it to his own counsels to ensure that it is drafted appropriately. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, this is something which is a matter of principle for the Government. Either they wish to support BTG and its future in the transfer of technology from universities into the commercial reality or they do not.
I do not wish to pursue that argument on this amendment because I have other arguments to put forward in regard to future amendments. However, as I said, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord
602
Reay, will accept the spirit of the amendment which has been offered, and that he will produce something on Third Reading which is appropriate to the parliamentary draftsmen.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am convinced by the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, supported on all sides of the House. I am convinced by his strong argument that the community from which the ideas will be emerging will be much happier if it believes that on the board of the company will be someone who understands the work that it is doing. It should be someone who will have contact with a wide range of people in the network of inventive science in this country. In the past the work of people in the research councils and in the universities has flowered, while others have taken the profitability because people in high places have been unaware of the possibilities for development. People in laboratories need that information to give them confidence in the body that is to be set up.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and I have been friends and colleagues in the same environment for approximately 30 years. It comes as natural to me to rise in his support. I have already declared my interest in this matter. However, I want your Lordships to understand why I am so dubious about what the Government are proposing. On one interpretation of their proposal they will render nugatory 10 years of my life; that is one quarter of my professional career.
The corporation was the conception of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who can no longer be in his place but who I was glad to see in the Chamber at Question Time. I was the midwife or chief executive of the corporation. For 10 years I appointed the young men. I was not a tree under whose shade other trees do not grow. The young men I appointed were the future managing directors of that corporation and they did very well. They took the seed that I had sowed and turned it into fruit. Each year £1½ billion worth of goods were manufactured under licence from the corporation. It had a royalty revenue of £30 million per year. I began that corporation with a total loan capital of £5 million, of which I used only £3 million. The whole amount was paid back with compound interest in the course of the years.
I believe that to be an achievement. The Government are laying an axe to the root of that tree by threatening the future potential sale of the BTG to philistine asset strippers who will stop all forward development on a large scale. On Second Reading and in Committee I told your Lordships how the next big revenue earner will be based on a product for which the authority of development was under my managing directorship 35 years ago. In some cases that is what it takes to make a major technological breakthrough.
On one view of the matter all that will come to an end. The assets will be stripped. "I'll take the cash and let the credit go—nor heed the rumble of the distant drum", is what the asset strippers will think, say and

603
do. The distant drum will be the technological development that they have not looked forward to 35 or 40 years ahead.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the normal organisation of a well-managed public liability company. The shareholders meet only once a year in annual general meeting. There they elect the directors of the company, who are thereby given the authority to manage its affairs for the next 12 months. They then report and submit their accounts. They also submit themselves on rotation for re-election by the shareholders. That is all that the shareholders have to do with the management of the company. If the Government are to find some future shareholder who will submit to those conditions they will have a long way to hike because they have already submitted themselves to a restriction that no one may own more than 15 per cent. of the shares. That is quite a big shareholding.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord who replies for the Government will say that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, is a bad precedent. It is not, for the simple reason that it is not even a precedent. I can give the precise precedent for what he proposes: it is the upper board structure of BP. When it was a big public company—as it still is—it had a government nominee always on its board. The reason I can speak on this with such assurance is that one of the latest government nominees—Sir Frederic Harmer—is an old friend and colleague of mine who was nominated to the meteorological committee, of which I was chairman. He represented the shipping interests. For the amusement of his wife, he and I made a tape recording of our reminiscences of our careers which included exactly how he was promoted to the board of BP as government nominee.
As in The Hunting of the Snark, one threatened its life with a railway-share, I can threaten the noble Lord's ministry with a tape recording of the precedent on which my noble friend Lord Flowers is entitled to rely.
I have been active behind the scenes in the past few weeks, testing opinion. I tested the opinion of a City company of which I am a liveryman. It was quite intrigued with the idea that it might be nominated as one of the great and the good which might hold shares in this passive owning of shares. I have discussed it with a charity which was intrigued with the idea that it might own shares. I have discussed it with the university of which I am chancellor and it is intrigued. I have discussed it with the Royal Society of Chemistry. There is a possibility that we could get together a consortium of research councils, universities, charities and City companies, all of which could be the great and the good, earning revenues from shares of which they disinvested themselves in order to invest in the future BTG. This is a viable proposition, I am convinced it could be carried through to a successful conclusion. What I want from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on behalf of the Government, is an undertaking that they will do nothing to subvert our efforts to try to bring such a consortium into being.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise at this late hour because I feel that although this is a somewhat technical matter, much cultural and historical fact hinges on it. For far too long the sad story of the British decline has hinged on the fact that there is a great contempt for knowledge, especially professional knowledge. For far too long we have thought that basic research was a luxury which the practical men did not need.
We have now reached a stage of industrial technology where that can no longer be the right answer. Basic research is vital to industrial technology. It is in the universities and nowhere else that basic research is developed. It is folly to think that one can ignore academics.
I am not a scientist, I shall never do any useful research for BTG, but I passionately believe that unless we integrate basic research into industrial technology right from the beginning in an important place we shall once again have missed the bus. The German caricature is of the professor who becomes managing director. We need to do the same. I believe that BTG has, after some difficulty, developed a good combination of university and industrial cooperation. It is important that we should not lose it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kirkwood had hoped to speak on the amendment. He has had to leave in order to attend a conference in Cambridge early tomorrow morning. In his absence, I wish simply from these Benches to express my strong support for the principle underlying the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I too should like to be associated with this amendment. We argued at great length at Second Reading and in Committee on the virtues and merits of BTG, especially since 1985 and the new management. The new BTG has offered the capacity to move and to draw virtues from both the public and the private sector, to be able to loop back British inventiveness into British industry, to hoard the long-term quality of research and development and to be able to move from patenting and development to exploitation in the public as well as the private interest.
These are all the distinctive virtues of BTG that the academic and research communities fear—let us hope wrongly—may be jeopardised by movement into the commercial sector, with some of the short-termism that unfortunately has been all too evident in British research and development in the private sector over the past 20 to 25 years.
It seems to me that this is now the time for the Government to give the signal back to the university community that the privileged status of the universities and research councils in terms of the articles of association should be protected and enshrined in law. If the Minister can give us that assurance tonight and can give that signal to universities, it will dispel many of the fears that universities have and the threat, if one likes, that they may have to re-invent their own version of BTG, with the implications that that will have for its asset value

605
to future purchasers. Then it may be that BTG would have a happier and more assured commercial, entrepreneurial and public future.
Lord Reay: My Lords, in the light of some of the rather harsh words that have been directed at the Government, it may be appropriate if I summarise the safeguards which the Government have already put in place for the privatised BTG and explain the reasons for the two new measures which we announced last week.
As noble Lords will know, the Government have already announced that they will take a special share in the privatised BTG. We have done this in recognition of the need to protect BTG's independence and to continue its traditional technology transfer activities after privatisation. The special share's provisions were set out in the draft articles of association placed in the Library of the House before the Committee stage. The two key provisions are: first, the protection of a 15 per cent. limit on individual shareholdings—I said at an earlier stage that the 15 per cent. is a bench-mark figure and is not rigid and that the Government are prepared to consider higher individual shareholdings should this be necessary to attract the right consortium—and, secondly, a restriction on substantial disposals of assets above a certain level—25 per cent. of net asset value or 25 per cent. of the average income—without the special shareholder's consent. In addition, under the articles there is also provision for one director of the new company to be appointed by the universities (the CVCP) in consultation with the polytechnics.
The Government have not rested on the measures which they proposed to the House at Committee stage on 27th June. We listened carefully to the constructive points which were put forward at Committee stage about BTG's future operations. As a result, we are now proposing two further improvements to the provisions in the articles of association. These improvements are: first, a provision for the 15 per cent. limit on individual shareholdings to continue in the articles after the special share is redeemed at the end of the five-year period; and, secondly, a provision for the appointment of one director of the new company who has had wide experience in the exploitation of public sector science and technology, in addition to the director to be appointed by the CVCP
The continuation of the 15 per cent. limit on individual shareholdings will mean that the consortium structure will continue even after the special share is redeemed. The shareholding limit will remain in the articles of association, which will continue to govern the company beyond the term of the special share. This provision, as with other provisions in the article. of the company, may be changed only by a special resolution of the members, which requires a 75 per cent. vote in its favour at a general meeting.
Regarding our proposal for a director with wide experience of the development of science and technology, the exact definition of the wide experience required follows closely the wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, my noble friend Lady Park of
606
Monmouth and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, in their amendment at Committee stage. We have gone beyond that amendment in one crucial respect. The provision which we have made in Article 79 would apply on an ongoing basis because it will be a requirement in the articles that the company should have a director with wide experience of and capacity in public research. The former amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, would have applied only to the first set of appointments to the board. In that respect I hope that noble Lords will recognise that we have gone beyond what was proposed by the amendment which we discussed at Committee stage.
I believe that the measures of substance taken by the Government which I have described will help BTG establish itself in the private sector and will also help to ensure that its traditional technology transfer activities are continued. The package of measures we have now announced goes as far as we think is necessary to achieve those objectives without prejudicing the sale process and the necessary commercial freedom of the new company.
I turn now to Amendment No. 1. A common thread running through many noble Lords' speeches on the Bill has been the need to reflect the interests of the universities and public research establishments in some way. We had already, after Second Reading, announced provision for the right of universities to appoint a director to the board. I point out that the Government's proposal goes further than what is suggested in the amendment. The amendment refers to an appointment after consultation with the universities, whereas the Government's proposal gives the universities the direct power of appointment to the board.
In addition, as I have just explained, the Government now propose that the board of the new company should include one other person with wide experience of the commercialisation of scientific ideas from public sector research. The revised articles placed in the Library on 17th July make provision for that in Article 79. These measures have been taken in recognition of the vital contributions to BTG made over the years by universities and public sector bodies and in the expectation that those sources will continue to make important contributions to the company after privatisation. However, Amendment No. 1 also requires that the provision in the articles for there to be a universities-appointed director could not be removed or altered by the company without the written consent of the Secretary of State. In our view it would not be appropriate to adopt such a requirement. The articles can be changed by a special resolution of shareholders, requiring a 75 per cent. majority at a shareholders' general meeting. We consider that to be a perfectly adequate protection for a provision of this sort. It is not the intention of the Government to continue government involvement in the running of BTG beyond the limited provisions of the special share.
We believe that our provision for two directors from the academic world—one to be appointed by the CVCP, the other with experience in public sector

607
science—are sensible provisions, which will do much to ensure the continuation of BTG's traditional activities and to retain the confidence of the academic world in the privatised company. No privatised company will take lightly any decision to alter such a provision in a way which could damage its standing and credibility in the eyes of the academic community on whom it will continue to depend for a large proportion of its inventions.
I also think that the noble Lord is demonstrating a certain lack of confidence in the value of the contribution which such directors are likely to make to the running of the privatised company. The Government have given them an opportunity to make a contribution to the company. It is surely up to them now to make a go of it, without any intervention from the Secretary of State.
We believe, therefore, that the normal provisions of company law should apply and not be overridden in the way proposed by the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I am grateful to those all around the House who have given unanimous support, as I understood it, to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, correctly said that there are a number of measures that the Government have proposed which assist the argument that we have put forward: a 15 per cent. share, a 15 per cent. limit, a second director and increased emphasis on the 75 per cent. vote of shareholders in order to change the articles. All those things are perfectly correct and, as I said, I am grateful for the contributions that the Government have made to meet us.
However, it is wrong to say that the Government have gone further than we asked for. They have not gone as far. Those changes are changes in the articles of association. They are not changes to the Bill. Not one is a change to the Bill. My amendment is intended, as other noble Lords who signed it with me know, to produce a minimal change to the Bill itself which will give some indication that the unique characteristics of BTG will continue.
I do not have the heart at this time of the night to press the House to a Division, but, in saying that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I give notice that we may fight very hard on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 2:
Page I, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) The Articles of Association of the successor company shall contain inter alia the provisions set out in Schedule (Articles of Association Qt. the British Technology Group Plc) while the company is wholly owned by the Crown, and thereafter until altered by the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 5.
I regard Amendment No. 5 as consequential on Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 3 stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Amendment No. 2 directly addresses the problem of the articles of
608
association. When replying to the first amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, put his faith in the articles of association of the company. Having listened to the arguments put forward by the Minister, I am not impressed. It is true that, under the Companies Act, once the special share, if that is written into the articles of association, has been redeemed, the articles can be changed by a special resolution. A special resolution requires only 75 per cent. of the vote. Clearly, if someone makes a hid for the company after the appropriate moment, the company will be sold because the shareholders will say that they want to amend the articles of association. I do not want to denigrate the status of ministerial assurances in your Lordships' House or in another place, but I believe that their status is less than the status of something written into the Bill. That is why I am moving the amendment.
My amendment states that the articles of association, in the particular respect referred to in Amendment No. 5, can be changed not only by a special resolution which changes all articles of association under the Companies Act, but by approval of Parliament.
With regard to Amendment No. 5, the schedule that I would like to see in the Bill specifies the conditions of the special share. It says simply that the Government maintain a special share and the special share may be redeemed only by a change in the articles, which must he approved by both Houses of Parliament on affirmative resolution. The amendment further specifies what the special share shall do: 15 per cent. of all votes at a general meeting of the company offends the conditions of the special share; disposal of more than 10 per cent. of the net asset value of the group offends against the conditions of the special share. So the special shareholder can veto any disposal or voluntary winding up—or anybody who polls more than 15 per cent. of votes at a general meeting.
When I moved this amendment in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is aware, it met a rather hostile response from the Government. Nevertheless, I believe that it is wise for noble Lords to reconsider this point. Unless the special share is written into the articles of association and on the face of the Bill, it has no value at all.
I do not believe that the articles of association are sufficient warranty for the company to continue in the way that it is has continued up to now and should continue in the future. It is up to Parliament to make sure that the essential provisions of what BTG will do in the private sector should be subject to a veto from the Secretary of State in respect of certain matters. I do not argue that it should be a veto across the board but that it should be a veto on certain things. Unless the Secretary of State exercises that veto, he will have to come back to Parliament, as is quite proper, and say, "I don't wish any longer to assert my authority. The company is on its way; it is doing commercially very well and does not need my protection. Therefore I propose an order which will amend the articles of association in the way that the shareholders have voted".
To be honest, it does not seem to me to be a very outrageous requirement. I just wish that the Government would accept—and here I come to Amendment No. 3, which is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—that the articles of association are not enough. There must be something on the face of the Bill. Having said that, I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I understand that my amendment is to be taken with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I should have preferred it to be taken separately, but if it is for the convenience of the House, I shall very readily deal with it now. In the event, I should like to apologise to noble Lords for the absence of my noble friend Lord Caldecote whose name is also on the amendment. But for an unexpected change of business late on in the day, M would certainly have been in the Chamber.
First, let me say that neither I nor my noble friend take any pride whatsoever in the drafting of our amendment. I am absolutely confident that someone as able and sensitive as my noble friend on the Front Bench would not even dream of using the argument that the amendment itself was flawed. I should be content—I am very easily pleased—if my noble friend on the Front Bench, on behalf of the Government, would indicate his readiness to accept this amendment in principle. I do not begin to insist upon the terminology as it appears on the Marshalled List.
The second point that I wish to make at the start is that I hope that the Government will not say, because the Treasury wants them to say it, that they are frightened of setting a precedent. That is a bogus doctrine which occasionally is voiced by Ministers who themselves are in the habit of setting precedents which not everybody would think of as being very desiratable. Therefore I have less fear of the amendment, if accepted, being the source of undesirable precedents. Ministers from time to time express the desire to keep their Bills short and tidy. We do not have to go far back in memory today to dig up a measure which no one can possibly describe as short, tidy or easy to understand.
The amendment that I wish to move contains three elements. First, it sets out to establish a special share which the Government in the latest draft of the articles are clearly prepared to accept in principle. I should like to see the principle on the face of the Bill. As I have already said—and I endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—it is one thing to have an intention expressed in articles; it is quite another to have it on the face of the Bill. I do not see any reason why, in a matter of this importance, the provision should not be on the face of the Bill.
It is also the purpose of the amendment that the special share should survive for five years after privatisation. However, the Government have some objection even to putting that in the articles. Nevertheless I hope that they may have second thoughts now that they appreciate that the special share idea has some virtue.
Secondly, the amendment places an obligation on the Government to consult with the company before
610
requiring redemption. The Government have admitted that they see no objection in principle to the notion; they just do not like putting it on the face of the Bill. I find that difficult to accept. A casual look through the Bills which come before your Lordships' House regularly and in quantity does not immediately suggest that the virtues of brevity, tidiness and simplicity always commend themselves to Ministers.
Thirdly, the amendment seeks to put on the face of the Bill that there should be a 15 per cent. limit on any one shareholding. The Government are prepared to accept that. They will allow it to continue after redemption of the special share. If the Government have accepted that provision, I cannot see for the life of me why they should not put that proposal also on the face of the Bill.
I have absolutely no allegiance to or love for the phraseology of the amendment. I shall happily withdraw the amendment if I were to hear the Government say, "We accept this very reasonable amendment in principle and we shall put it in the Bill, but we cannot accept the amendment as proposed". If the Government cannot say that, I shall need to consider the matter and return to it at a later stage.
12 midnight
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I support both the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peyton, in so far as they have this element in common: they want to see "it" on the face of the Bill. There is, however, room for argument as to what "it" should be. On the assumption that they will withdraw their amendments this evening, reserving the right to bring them forward on Third Reading in the autumn, it would benefit the House if they were to get together and could agree on a common form of wording.
One of the difficulties we face is characteristic of government bungling at this late stage in the legislative year. Typical of that was the shambles we had earlier this afternoon over the Child Support Bill, where the usual channels had to retire to have a conference about whether they could continue the debate. There never could have been a Third Reading on Thursday this week. We have to have three sitting days before Report and Third Reading, and we cannot cover Monday to Thursday in three sitting days, and so that was a bit of a bungle.
There was then the matter of the first and second editions of the memorandum and articles of association. I heard that there was a second edition only on Friday, and I had confirmation of it last Saturday. When I tried to obtain the second edition this afternoon, the Printed Paper Office did not have it; the Library had only one copy which it could not let me have; but by some mysterious channel the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has a copy, but where he obtained it I do not know.
All that has a bad effect on morale. I ask your Lordships to believe that NRDC and BTG have always been young men's organisations. They are young men with fire in their bellies and a gleam in their eyes for the future. They are all highly redeployable into the hands of competitors, which, struck by the success that NRDC has been, are beginning to operate

611
on an international scale, where BTG, already operating on an international scale, is to some extent hamstrung by people wanting to know, "Who are you? Who owns you, and what will you be in the future? If we make a joint partnership agreement with you, are we by some mischance making one with our competitors?" People want to know. Delay is to be deplored.
I assume that the noble Lords, Lord William and Lord Peyton, will withdraw their amendments. I hope that they will accept my invitation to get together over a form of words so that we can have "it" on the face of the Bill. I realise that the Government do not like it. They never do, but they must face the syndrome of distrust. In this context, people do not trust the Government. They do not trust the Treasury as the Government's adviser. They remember that the Government are a transitory organisation that will be replaced by another government within a twelvemonth, of the same complexion or a different complexion matters not, because there will be general post among Ministers. No undertakings given now can be valid a year from now, and so on, so we must have it on the face of the Bill. I beseech the Government to bend and yield on this matter because it is critical for the future of the whole enterprise.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 would have the effect of writing the special share provision onto the face of the Bill and thereby ensuring that it could never be changed without the direct approval of Parliament by affirmative resolution. To write the special share provision onto the face of the Bill has not been done before in a privatisation. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and—if I do not not misquote him—on another occasion the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have said that BTG is unique; but so were some of these other companies: the British Airports Authority, British Aerospace, British Gas, British Telecom, Britoil, the National Grid Company, National Grid Holdings, Rolls-Royce, BCL Consortium, Vickers, Cable and Wireless, Jaguar, Enterprise Oil, the water companies, the regional electricity companies, British Steel, Amersham and Sealink. All those companies had special shares and none of them was written into the Bill. In all cases special share provisions were written into the articles of association, as they will be in this case.
We have several objections to the proposal in these amendments.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I and others have said that BTG is unique. The uniqueness to which we are referring is the uniquely long-term nature of its business which stretches sometimes into decades and in any case into many years. In that respect it is unique and it is that feature which calls for the special measures for which we ask.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that people intimately connected with other companies which have been previously privatised would have argued
612
that those companies had unique qualities which should have deserved the special share provisions to be written into the Bill.
We have several objections to the proposal. In the first place, such an amendment would prevent the Government, as the owner of the company up to privatisation, from exercising their discretion to change the articles before privatisation—which, as I have indicated, they may wish to do, for example where the 15 per cent. limit on shareholdings is concerned, in order to accommodate an acceptable consortium.
In the second place, we believe that after the special share has been redeemed the company law provision that a 75 per cent. majority of shareholders is required before the articles of association can be changed provides adequate protection.
Thirdly, it would be unprecedented to interpose Parliament in such a way between a private company and its articles of association. Parliament has no place to be permanently involved in a company's routine affairs. Articles of association are a contract agreed between shareholders. They set out objectives agreed between shareholders. It should be up to shareholders to decide whether those objectives should be changed—subject to safeguards: namely, the requirement for a 75 per cent. majority and the protection of the special share during the first five years.
As regards a 10 per cent. limitation on asset disposal, in our view that would reduce it to far too small a proportion in view of the absolute size of BTG's assets and in the light of BTG's business. It would impose an unacceptable limitation on the normal conduct of the company's business. It would go far beyond what is necessary to meet worries about asset-stripping and would start to impinge on disposals—for example, of patents or equity holdings—which could be a normal part of the company's trading activities. I should add that 25 per cent. has been used in previous privatisations, even in the case of companies with much higher net assets than BIG. Such a limit is designed to prevent a sale of the whole or a substantial part of the business without involving the Government in vetting the privatised company's business affairs. A 10 per cent. limit would depart from that principle.
As regards the requirement for parliamentary approval before the special share could be redeemed, I must repeat the rationale for a special share. It is to enable the company to accomplish its transition to the private sector; it is not to provide a permanent government involvement. That is the situation which privatisation is designed to end.
We wish to privatise BTG for reasons which we went into fully on Second Reading. Among them is the wish to remove the Government's involvement from the company's day-to-day activities. A time-limited special share has a constructive part in that process in allowing for BTG's adjustment to the private sector. However, what is proposed in Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 would frustrate that process. BTG cannot be considered privatised if Parliament retains the power indefinitely to intervene in the company's business. We therefore oppose Amendments Nos. 2 and 5.

613
As regards Amendment No. 3 in the name of my noble friend, the point contained in paragraph (c) of that amendment—namely, a 15 per cent. limit on individual shareholdings—is a point which we have met fully. Indeed we have gone further. In the new draft articles of association placed in the Library of the House last week, Article 42 has been altered so that the 15 per cent. shareholding limit will continue even after the redemption of the special share. It will require a 75 per cent. majority vote of shareholders in a general meeting to change this article.
With regard to the requirement that certain provisions in the articles—namely, the special share provisions—should not be changed between vesting day and the day of sale, I assume that my noble friends are motivated by a fear that the Government may not put in to the final articles of association what they have told Parliament they will put into them. I can give a further assurance that the basic principles of the articles of association as they now stand, and in particular those underlying the special share provision s, will not be altered by the Government between vesting day and the day of sale. I hope such an assurance will allay somewhat the anxieties of my noble friends on that point.
I would add that I believe this assurance meets the request from BTG, in its open letter of 19th July for a commitment from the Government,
"implementing the draft Memorandum and Articles incorporating the key provisions safeguarding BTG's independence, integrity, impartiality and critical mass".
I would also ask my noble friends to note that in its letter BTG said that if that was done,
"there would be no need to have these provisions on the face of the Bill".
The proposal in the amendment to have a fixed five-year special share without the possibility for earlier redemption was a matter to which we gave careful thought. However, the Government decided on balance that, in order that they should be able to react to any unforeseen circumstances which might arise, it was preferable not to fetter irrevocably their discretion to redeem the special share before the five-year period is up. I can assure the House that it is not tie current intention of the Government to redeem the special share before the full five years are up. It is our expectation that the BTG special share will continue for the full five years.
There comes a point where it is not possible to impose further restrictions on a privatised company without being inconsistent with the whole purpose of privatisation, which is to free a body from government control. Noble Lords present will have seen the views of BTG on this subject in the letter from which I have already quoted. BTG's view is that,
"provided the current draft M&A were adopted as the Final Memorandum and Articles of the privatised BTG, then our concerns about the protection of BTG's independence and critical mass have been properly balanced against the need for BTG to behave commercially and be exposed to the rigours of the private sector."
With specific reference to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I would point out BTG's view that,
"Any amendment which meant that future changes to the M&A could only take place by reference to Parliament, would
614
be commercially undesirable and unhelpful, because it would place constraints on BTG which its competitors would not have to suffer"
On that basis and in the light of the further step we have now taken to continue the 15 per cent. shareholding limit after the special share has been redeemed, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend will not press the amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will elucidate a constitutional point arising out of something that he said; namely, that the Government could not accept responsibility for intervening in the affairs of BTG for an indefinite period. Surely the Queen in Parliament has the authority to intervene in absolutely anything until the end of time.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I said that it was inconsistent with the principle and purposes of privatisation that the Government should continue to be able to interfere with the running of BTG.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, scored a valid point. If Parliament decides with Royal Assent that that is what Parliament wants, then that is what Parliament gets until a future Parliament repeals that.
With regard to the unique nature of this privatisation, the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, properly answered the point. It has nothing to do with British Gas or anything else; it is a unique and unprecedented form of privatisation. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has not quite understood, as other noble Lords have, the difference between this privatisation and others.
As regards the question whether the articles of association should be on the face of the Bill, that we should rely on ministerial assurances that they will not change the articles before vesting, or that the articles will obtain this or that, I still hold to the view, which is a very simplistic one (I think the noble Lord, Lord Peyton also holds the view) that if it is right that Parliament wants certain things to be in the articles and it decides that there should be a continuing process of discussion between the Secretary of State and the company on how the future of the company evolves, then Parliament has the right to do that. To say that we should rely on assurances, whatever concessions the noble Lord has made in the articles of association, does not advance the argument very far.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, invited me and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to get together to agree some form of wording for an amendment which might be introduced at Third Reading. I must tell the noble Earl that, having listened to the Minister, I do not believe that the Government are prepared to accept any wording that can be written on the face of the Bill at Third Reading or at any other stage. The noble Lord is nodding as I say that. The Government are simply not prepared to accept this measure. Although I have the most cordial relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and he with me, I do not see us getting together and producing any wording however brilliant he and I may be. I do not see us producing

615
any wording that the Government will accept. They do not accept the principle of having the commitment to articles of association on the face of the Bill.
As regards the BTG management letter—I stress that it is a letter from the management and not from the staff—the staff disagree with the management on the matter. I do not necessarily believe that the management and the council of BTG are wholly correct in their view. Leaving that aside, I now return to my Amendments Nos. 2 and 5. I regard Amendment No. 5 as consequential to Amendment No. 2. I have spoken to Amendment No. 3, as has the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Nevertheless I believe that at Third Reading we may well get to a point where the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and other noble Lords, might join with me in drafting something which we would accept, but I do not believe that the Government would accept it. That is why I believe that if we pursue this matter at Third Reading it would be a futile exercise. Therefore I wish to take the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 2.
12.18 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 23.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Beloff, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Butterfield, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Rochester, L.

Flowers, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Halsbury, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ashbourne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Waddington, L.

Hooper, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Howe, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.24 a.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) The Articles of Association of the successor company shall at all times from vesting until the Secretary of State has disposed of the securities allotted to him under section 3 contain a provision to the effect that—

(a) a special rights redeemable preference share ("Special Share") shall be issued to the Secretary of State or a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State ("Special Shareholder"), which Special Share shall not be redeemable until 5 years after privatisation;

616

(b) after the five year period referred to in paragraph (a) the Special Shareholder may require the Special Share to be redeemed after consultation with the Board of the successor company;

(c) no person other than a Permitted Person may directly or indirectly own or control the right to cast on a poll 15 per cent. or more of the votes at general meetings of the successor company.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have no desire to detain your Lordships for any length of time. Suffice it to say that I regret that my noble friend was unable in any way to share the dislike which has been expressed on all sides of the House for legislating by means of articles of association. I do not believe that articles of association, which are destined for the guidance of a future company, are proper material for governments to deal with.
I very much welcome what my noble friend was kind enough to say about the Government not changing the present draft of the articles. That at least gives us some comfort that we know where we now are. I do not intend to move the amendment today. However, I shall look with care and interest at what my noble friend said. I consider myself completely at liberty to put down a similar amendment and return to this important issue at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Initial Government holding in the successor company]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Provisions Supplementary to s.1]:
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]

School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No.2) Bill
12.28 a.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 5 [Interpretation, orders and application of provisions of Education Act 1944]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 34, after ("Act") insert ("and subject to subsection (3A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I must preface my remarks on the amendment by saying that this has not been the happiest of days in your Lordships' House. For those of us who seek to defend the House as a serious revising chamber, the experience of the past eight to nine hours will take a good deal of explaining away. I for one regard it as absurd that I should be moving an amendment to an important Bill at this time of night. It is all very well for the Government to refer to a Citizen's Charter when something so significant for our citizens—namely, education—cannot be debated properly in your Lordships' House. I make those remarks for the record.
An important matter which has occupied us at some length throughout the proceedings on the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill has been local flexibility. There seems to have been a certain amount of confusion throughout the proceedings on

617
the Bill. I do not believe that there is any confusion of logic or intention. I believe that the Government have no desire to bring to the centre what ought to be left locally and flexible. On our side we have no desire to see that happen. The real question is whether the Bill achieves what is sensible; namely, that only such matters are dealt with centrally as need to be for the purposes of the Bill.
In considering local flexibility, we come to that marvellous but not fictitious document, the Burgundy Book. It is essentially a volume which is almost the embodiment of local flexibility. Our concern throughout has been whether the Bill as it stands really produces as much flexibility as already exists. I find it hard to believe that the Government would wish to have less flexibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said on Report:
"the majority of matters covered by the Burgundy Book clearly do not relate to duties or working time and therefore automatically fall outside the scope of the Bill".
He went on to say:
"It is only those areas where there may be some doubt about the employers' right to include supplementary provisions in contracts which need to be dealt with by an order under Clause 5(3)".—[Official Report, 15/7/91; col.50.]
We have tabled these amendments because even though the noble Lord made his point, some of us were rather puzzled as to whether, nonetheless, the conditions to which he referred were actually met.
In particular, we are concerned about certain obvious matters in the Burgundy Book. I shall refer to only two of them. First, there is the leave for jury service and other public service which is dealt with in paragraph 9.4, and, secondly, the maternity leave under the teachers' maternity scheme which is dealt with in paragraph 9.2 of the document. We want to be clear that these matters are still left for local flexibility.
The second point of concern is one which was raised '1y the noble Baroness (at col. 48 of Hansard) on the same date. It was also mentioned by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. The noble Baroness asked:
"although there is an assurance as regards conditions that exist at present, what will happen to changes in the future in relation to the Burgundy Book?".
The purpose of these amendments is straightforward. It is to write on the face of the Bill two provisions: first, to make it absolutely clear that nothing except what has to be centralised will be centralised; and, secondly, to ensure that conditions of service. in so far as they are agreed at the local level and are, so to speak, Burgundy Book material, do not run foul of the Bill when it becomes enacted and therefore do not constrain the local flexibility which, in my view, the Government would want to see in any event. That is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should first like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the time at which this important Bill is receiving its Third Reading. He explained the purpose of the amendment. Therefore, at this time of night there is no need for me to do more than say that I support it.
618
Since we last discussed the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, has sent a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of which he was kind enough to send me a copy. In that letter the noble Lord gave certain assurances that matters which could be held to be non-statutory conditions of employment would continue to be left to employers and employees to determine. I understood that to be the burden of the letter. I should have liked to see that further assurance included in the Bill. Failing that, I am glad that discussion of the amendment provides the opportunity for the contents of the noble Lord's letter to be recorded in the Official Report.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, makes a serious point. I hope that my comments will bring our thinking closer together. As the noble Lord explained, the Burgundy Book sets out various collective agreements concluded between the local authority employers and representatives of the five teacher associations. He wishes to be sure that the employers of teachers—which include not only local education authorities but the governors of aided schools and a growing number of governing bodies of grant-maintained schools—will still be able to conclude binding agreements with their teachers in the areas which at present comprise the contents of the Burgundy Book, and import these agreements into teachers' contracts of employment.
However, I believe that to use an order-making power as sweepingly as this amendment requires is to go too far. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to make an order which would specify all the present collective agreements relating to professional duties and working time set out in the Burgundy Book as all being conditions of employment that would fall within, and only within, the discretion of LEAs to decide whether they should be part of teachers' contracts of employment.
There are two problems with these amendments. The first is that they will not work. The most recent edition of the Burgundy Book appeared in 1985. Since then it has effectively been frozen. Six years and several Education Acts later, some of its contents are plainly out of date. I am sure that the employers and the teachers' associations themselves recognise that the Burgundy Book needs considerable revision. Paragraph 11, for example, covers the area of the teachers' day, duties and holiday entitlement, and states that:
"there are no existing national collective agreements on these matters beyond that affecting the school midday break".
To import that particular paragraph into the contracts of teachers—which could be the ultimate effect of this amendment—would clearly lead to a very odd result. Time has moved on and we are no longer in that situation.
The second difficulty is that the Burgundy Book has been overtaken by recent legislation and needs thorough revision for that reason too. Parts of the Burgundy Book are simply inconsistent with provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. For example, the powers which governing bodies now have under the Education Reform Act to take

619
decisions about the appointment and dismissal of staff, and their duty to draw up disciplinary and grievance procedures for their staff, could well be at odds with collective agreements in these areas. Nor is it a sufficient answer to say that the second part of the second amendment provides for the revision of existing collective agreements. That would require the Secretary of State, in effect, to sign a blank cheque on behalf of governing bodies. These amendments could lead to serious conflict over powers and duties explicitly transferred to the local managers of schools, and therefore would be undoing what is already provided for in the Education Reform Act passed fewer than four years ago.
I have been critical but I understand the purpose underlying the amendment. The noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Rochester, have made it clear. I do not believe that the reasons which the noble Lords have given are entirely misplaced. Much of the Burgundy Book is concerned with matters which are plainly neither professional duties nor in working time. If they could be judged to relate to duties in working time, they do so only marginally. I believe that they would therefore automatically remain matters for employers—that is to say, in most cases the local education authorities—and employees, their teachers, to decide.
The Government also accept that there may be matters which might be interpreted as statutory conditions of employment and would therefore no longer be matters which could be dealt with through national agreements. But if that is what the employers and employees want, they should continue to be dealt with in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston asked me a point blank question about jury service and maternity leave. On this side of the House, the Government would be minded to leave precisely those two areas within the Burgundy Book via a Clause 5(3) order.
It is because of this line of thought which I am developing that my noble friend Lord Cavendish said, when we were debating this at previous stages of the Bill, that under Clause 5(3) the Secretary of State would be prepared in principle to make an order providing for some matters to be Burgundy Book matters for LEAs and teachers to decide. They would not therefore come within the scope of the review body.
However, I believe it would need careful thought and not, if I may be forgiven for saying so, the rather sweeping requirements which these amendments, which we are taking at Third Reading, would put on the face of the Bill if we were to agree with them. I hope that assurance shows the Government recognise that there are many aspects of the employer-employee relationship which can be determined by the kind of process which brought the Burgunday Book into existence. As they stand, the amendments would be difficult to accept and I hope I have said enough to assure the noble Lords that they could safely be withdrawn.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his reply. I reiterate my point that
620
I hope that there is nothing between us on the outcome we should like to see. I am well aware of the deficiencies of the amendment. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, it is difficult within the context of the Bill to find a suitable amendment that would preserve the degree of local flexibility that one wants. I am willing to accept the Government's assurances, and all I can say is that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
One's concern, as I said and as I will repeat when we come to the next stage of our proceedings, is that whatever we think about the Bill, the teachers' pay procedures must work. That is vital from now on. However, we do not want all this to get in the way of matters that should not concern the review body and that should be left to local initiatives and local flexibilities.
Before I withdraw the amendment, I repeat that we shall have to wait and see. I do not quite understand how, if matters do not work out, the Government will get themselves out of the rather centralised position in which they are. Having made those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
12.45 a.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
At this late hour, I briefly thank noble Lords for the debates that we have had on the Bill. Although we have not made changes to it, we have quarried out a certain amount of useful detail.
On the previous amendment, in the light of the noble Lord's concluding remarks, it might be useful to give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I think the Department of Education and Science will certainly want to talk to employers about what Clause 5(3) orders will cover and what are going to remain in the Burgundy Book. The noble Lord asked how we were going to see the way forward. I hope there will be some consultation about this. I felt I should like to say that because the noble Lord has been eminently reasonable in moving the amendment.
It is fair to say it has been quite a long haul since the Burnham arrangements came to an end. Finding the right permanent pay machinery which balances the legitimate interests of teachers, employers and the Government has not been easy. I like to think that the search has at last had a considerable amount of success.
The response to the offer of having a review body has been very heartening. Five out of six teacher unions have said that they support the principles enshrined in the Bill that we have been considering. The reaction of individual teachers has been positive, and although some will want to reserve judgment, they will do so because they want to see the recommendations that the review body will produce and the reaction which the Government are going to give. But it is clear that the great majority of teachers have welcomed in principle the Government's offer of professional recognition through review body status

621
in return for acceptance and recognition of their professional responsibilities as the teachers of the nation's children. So we must look to the future.
I should just like to say a word of tribute to the Interim Advisory Committee, of which my noble friend Lady Denton was a distinguished member. Their achievements over the past four years in developing a more progressive and flexible salary structure, with the emphasis on rewarding achievement and responsibility, provide an excellent base on which I hope the review body will build.
We have had a great deal of debate on the powers and duties of the review body. The essential point is that the arrangements proposed will put the body on all-fours with existing review bodies: the same absence of prior constraints; the same freedom to make recommendations; the same commitment by the Government with respect to implementation. But at the end of the day I hope we see eye to eye—I think we do—that the government of the day must take decisions and have the right to have the final word. What is important in this context is whether the basic framework for the operation of the review body is sound. I like to think that in all essentials, by following the established and successful model of the existing review bodies, the arrangements in this Bill are in the right direction.
Before I sit down, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for the part they have played in considering the Bill. If I may say so, both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are very knowledgeable and formidable opponents, and I am genuinely grateful to them for what they have done on this Bill. I should also like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Ritchie of Dundee, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, bringing particular knowledge not only of education but also of training matters, which always enhances our study of these education Bills The noble Lord had the benefit of interventions from his noble friend Baroness Seear and from the Benches opposite of the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, the noble Lord, Lord. Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, all of whom have specialised knowledge of education, and I recognise that. We also had intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, from the other Benches.
Finally, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cavendish for doing a great deal to pilot this Bill through, and my noble friends Lord Renton, Lady Cumberlege, Lord Pearson, Lady Denton and indeed Lady Young for the much needed support which they have given me and my noble friend Lord Cavendish.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belsiead).
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is my pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his kind remarks.
This was not a very long Bill but we have worked hard at it. We moved several amendments which we took very seriously and which we think would have improved the Bill. I shall not bore your Lordships by rehearsing all of them, but we considered the amendment requiring there to be clear and compelling
622
reasons if the review body's recommendations were to be rejected to be extremely important. We believed that switching to the affirmative procedure would have been useful. We considered other amendments which I shall not go into important. The apparent anomaly concerning the sixth form colleges may lead the Government to reflect that they ought to have accepted an amendment in the form we proposed or to have put one forward themselves. I should also have liked more on the face of the Bill on the question of guidance. To introduce an area of controversy, my views on grant-maintained schools remain unchanged.
Having said that, I remarked at Report stage that from now on it is of overwhelming importance that teachers should have confidence in what the review body does, not for the sake of the teachers but because it is education which matters. If teachers feel that they receive a raw deal from this body, our children will then receive a raw deal. Even though we favour a review body we are not keen on this one. We should have preferred a slightly different one. That is now a bygone. What now matters is that the review body must be made to work. I hope that it will work.
It is my pleasure to join with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in thanking noble Lords. In congratulating them I may say that this is one occasion on which I cannot remember a single speech which did not make a genuine contribution to our deliberations. I cannot recall shuddering at any point during the course of our debates.
I must thank my colleagues, my noble friend Lady Blackstone, who to my deep regret is not with us, and my noble friend Lady David. The noble Lords, Lord Ritchie and Lord Rochester, made important contributions. I shall not embarrass everybody, but I was very pleased by the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Denton and Lady Cumberlege. I look forward to their being persuaded to take further part in such deliberations. Lastly, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for the courteous and helpful way in which he has endeavoured to deal with our worries and, similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. We have dealt with the Bill as best we can and I wish very much to associate myself with the supportive remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, on these Benches our attitude to the Bill as it leaves this House is much the same as when it first came to us. At both Committee and Report stages I moved or supported a number of amendments. It is therefore all the more important that I should reiterate that we fully support the principle underlying the Bill, namely, that the pay and other statutory employment conditions of school teachers in England and Wales should in future be determined by an independent review body.
As I said at Second Reading, the main reason for our support is that the last thing that is now needed is further delay and confusion. By passing the Bill now we can help to restore the morale of school teachers by correcting the way in which they feel they have been treated in recent years.
Having said that, we retain some reservations about the composition and powers of the proposed review body and other matters. On a number of points

623
we have sought unsuccessfully to persuade the Government that assurances given by Ministers in another place and here should find expression on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has mentioned some of them. At this time of night I shall not weary the House by mentioning others. He mentioned particularly the question of how sixth form college teachers should be treated. For our part, we consider that, if the pay and other employment conditions of teachers in primary, secondary and grant-maintained schools are to be determined by a statutory review body, sixth form college teachers should be dealt with in the same way.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will recall that on Second Reading I suggested that the same principle should be extended to teachers in higher and further education. I was unable to pursue that point in subsequent debates because those teachers do not come within the ambit of the Bill.
At this point I am obliged to observe the convention of the House that Third Reading should not be used as an occasion to lament lost opportunities. All I can do is to say to the Government as sincerely and objectively as I can that, if they persist in the view that an independent review body is appropriate for school teachers but not for teachers in other sectors of education, they may in the long term come to regret it.
There are one or two other matters that continue to concern us, but I shall not detail them further now. Despite the continuing reservations to which I have referred, I should reiterate that we nonetheless support the Bill's underlying principle.
In conclusion, I should like to associate my noble friends with what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said about the excellent work that has been done during the past few years by the Interim Advisory Committee. In that connection I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, in her place. I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Cavendish, for the unfailing courtesy, patience and good humour that they have shown in piloting the Bill through your Lordships' House. From these Benches, perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in particular for the contributions that they have made during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill passed.

Dentists Act 1984 (Dental Auxiliaries) Amendment Order 1991
12.57 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Section 45 of the Dentists Act 1984 provides that the General Dental Council may make regulations establishing
624
classes of dental auxiliary, prescribing the dental work that they may undertake and the conditions under which they may undertake that work. The relevant regulations are the Dental Auxiliaries Regulations 1986, which establish a class of dental hygienists and apply both to dental hygienists providing national health services in the community and in hospital dental services and to dental hygienists working in general or private dental practice.
All dental hygienists receive similar training, and the role of dental hygienists maintained by the General Dental Council does not distinguish between them. Those working in the national health services have been permitted to carry out certain kinds of dental work under the direction of a registered dentist who has examined the patient and who has indicated to the dental hygienist what treatment should be provided, without the need for direct personal supervision by the dentist. Dental hygienists employed in general dental practice or in private dental practice, however, have not been allowed to undertake any dental work unless they are personally supervised by a dentist.
The General Dental Council takes the view that that situation should be rectified. Apart from removing an obvious anomaly, there is a growing need for dental hygienists to undertake domiciliary visits, particularly to elderly people. Removing the direct personal supervision requirement for dental hygienists in general or private dental practice, where in fact 77 per cent. of them are employed, would allow them to provide an improved service to their patients. It is therefore intended to amend the regulations to remove the anomaly. To do that it is necessary to repeal Section 46(3) of the Dentists Act 1984 and to delete the words:
"in the course of the provision of national health services",
in Section 46(2). The draft order makes those two amendments and requires the approval of your Lordships. The draft order prepared by the General Dental Council has been approved by the Privy Council. On their behalf, I commend it to noble Lords.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in his absence, my noble friend Lord Ennals has authorised me to say that he has no objection to this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 1991
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved, [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The draft regulations before us introduce four changes. They will allow dental hygienists in the National Health Service, in general dental practice and in private dental practice to provide dental work

625
under the same conditions. They will make it a requirement that dental hygienists can only provide dental work which has been prescribed in writing by a dentist who has first examined the patient. They will allow dental hygienists to scale teeth under a local infiltration analgesia administered by them or under any local or regional block analgesia administered by a dentist, and they will increase from £3 to £6 the fee payable each year by dental hygienists to have their names retained on the roll kept by the General Dental Council.
These regulations, again, have been prepared by the General Dental Council and approved by the Privy Council in accordance with the requirements of Section 45(9) of the Dentists Act 1984. Once more, the approval of noble Lords is required. These regulations introduce some sensible changes in relation to the dental work which can be undertaken by dental hygienists and will permit a necessary increase in the retention fees payable by dental auxiliaries. I therefore commend these regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the Howe on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Join, Committee].—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ennals has again asked me to say that he has no objection to this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fair Employment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
1 a.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this order which relates to an issue that your Lordships have addressed before. Fair employment is important to the political, economic and social well-being of Northern Ireland. There have been advances in the provision of equality of opportunity for both communities since the passage of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. However, the recent fair employment Act which I have just mentioned was found to have a weakness in the discrete but important area of individual cases of alleged discrimination.
Noble Lords may recall that up to 1989 the determination of such cases rested with the former Fair Employment Agency. After 1989 the determination passed to a new Fair Employment Tribunal and such cases were handled in similar manner to sex discrimination cases in Northern Ireland and Great Britain and race discrimination cases in Great Britain.
In October 1990, in the case of Pryce v. University of Ulster, it was found that the confidentiality provisions relating to information from which community affiliation could be determined were too widely drawn. The confidentiality of such information is important in Northern Ireland, where an individual's religious affiliation is perhaps a matter of greater sensitivity than in the rest of the United
626
Kingdom. So it was both important and appropriate that the 1989 Act should have protected the confidentiality of such information.
But the legislation of 1989 was unbalanced in that the effect of Section 30 of that Act was that no information on community affiliation could be divulged either to individual complainants wishing to pursue a case or to employers who might wish to use such information in answering a case. In effect the defect in Section 30 stopped the processing of all individual cases before the Fair Employment Tribunal. Some 330 cases are now logjammed. The primary purpose of this amending order is to enable those cases to flow again—and to flow as quickly as possible—to and through the new Fair Employment Tribunal.
When government addressed the problem of Section 30, and consulted widely upon it, the views divided upon the most appropriate form of remedial action. Some favoured total repeal of Section 30, effectively removing confidentiality altogether. Others, while accepting the need for some amendment of Section 30, wished to retain very tight prohibitions on the disclosure of monitoring information. So it was necessary to find a means of balancing the need for disclosure with the concern that the confidentiality of such information should be respected and protected.
It is important to mention that the monitoring of a large number of smaller employers—those with 10-plus employees—is due to commence in January 1992. So the retention of some confidentiality will become even more important for a wider number of people. At the same time, the tighter and more stringent the prohibition on disclosure, the greater is the legal risk of inordinate delay, legal complexity and dispute.
Accordingly, the Government have decided upon an approach, which we are laying before your Lordships today, which we consider a reasonable compromise between the competing requirements of confidentiality on the one hand and disclosure on the other.
Briefly, the draft order has the following features. It will repeal Section 30. It will add a new provision to Section 28 of the 1989 Act to enable monitoring regulations to provide for the confidentiality of monitoring information. It will enable new regulations to be made which will define the information to be protected and to set out exceptions. Those are set out in Article 3.
However, the amending order does not require disclosure of monitoring information. Nor in fact do the regulations which are to be made under the new provisions of Section 28. So an employer as at present will not be required to disclose information unless ordered to do so by the Fair Employment Tribunal. The amending order and regulations are premissive. The regulations will allow but not compel employers to disclose otherwise confidential information in certain specified circumstances.
The order has three main features. First, it protects information about religious affiliation obtained from the three principal methods of monitoring. Secondly, it protects information on the determination by an

627
employer of the community to which an employee or applicant is treated as belonging for monitoring purposes. Thirdly, it provides exceptions in regulations and in the order to allow, but not to compel, disclosure of otherwise confidential information.
This draft order has been debated both in the Northern Ireland Committee and in another place. The debates have reflected different views on the way forward; but they have also reflected a unanimous recognition that it is important in the interests of equity and of justice that the Fair Employment Tribunal begins to address individual cases as quickly as possible. That is important not only to the individual seeking justice before the tribunal but also to the overall effectiveness and general impact of the Government's fair employment legislation. One of the best ways to facilitate the success of that legislation is to encourage inward investment and job creation. Fair employment and equality of opportunity are both best promoted in healthy and robust economies where there are expanding job opportunities. That is why campaigns, ostensibly for fair employment, but which in practice discourage investment and job creation are both damaging and misguided. People who do that cut off those essential new job opportunities that can do so much to sustain and increase the momentum of best fair employment practice.
Accordingly, in commending this draft order to your Lordships, I also call upon your Lordships, as in the past, to express your support for the complementary objectives of fair employment and job creation. If your Lordships think that is right, it will transmit a positive message of hope to all those genuinely concerned with equality of opportunity and economic prosperity in Northern Ireland.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the significance of the order so clearly and convincingly. We on these Benches fully support the order and the reasoning upon which it is based. It was appreciated two years ago when we were discussing the provisions of the Bill that we are amending, that they would have to be read alongside the provisions of the Fair Employment Act 1976. However, it is now clear that we did not examine carefully enough the impact of Section 30 on individual complaints of discrimination under the Fair Employment Act 1976. In the result, it was left to a respondent, in the position of the University of Ulster in proceedings brought against it under the Fair Employment Act 1976 by Mr. Stephen Thomas Pryce, to highlight the difficulty. The Minister has referred to those proceedings.
It should be recalled that Mr. Pryce sought an order that the university o should disclose the perceived religious affiliation of candidates for a particular post at the university. It was the university in reply which claimed that it would be unlawful for it to supply that confidential information because of the operation of Section 30 of the 1989 Act, which makes it a criminal
628
offence to disclose such information, except under the limited circumstance allowed by that section, which the Minister has explained.
The president of the Fair Employment Tribunal refused to make the order that had been sought because he thought that it would be clearly wrong for the tribunal to make an order which carried the risk that it might involve the commission of a criminal offence. The implications of that decision and certain other points raised by the president had relevance in other fields, such as sex discrimination and labour relations. The Minister has told the House that the hearing of over 300 cases of alleged unlawful discrimination are being held up pending this piece of amending legislation.
The president of the tribunal delivered his judgment on 9th October last, and it must be said that the Government have proceeded with commendable speed to redress the position. On 14th November they issued a consultative document, suggesting two main ways of resolving the difficultes, and they have eventually come up with a third option, published in February, which is basically enshrined in the order. It is fair to say that others have flirted with other possible solutions. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the order, as it now stands, meets with the approval of the Fair Employment Commission, the Labour Relations Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission.
I note that the effect of the order will be retrospective. As far as I can see, that point was not raised in the consultative document. Ordinarily we are rightly critical of retrospective legislation because it can make for unfairness. However, in the circumstances of this case, there would, in the absence of retrospectivity, be much unfairness and many disputes and difficulties, particularly in cases which have been filed between January 1990 and the coming into force of the order.
The consultative document made it clear that the amending legislation would take the form of an order in council because of the need for urgent action. I note that that position has been the subject of some criticism but, in my view, that criticism does not on this occasion hold its usual merit.
I have made it clear that we welcome the order. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, it is in the interests of Northern Ireland that the fair employment legislation should be working smoothly in order to overcome discrimination where it exists, so that, in spite of differences, communities proceed steadfastly towards the objective of a fairer society in Northern Ireland. As I see it, that is part of the healing process. On that, the Minister has offered encouraging and positive words.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his reception of the order at this late hour. The noble Lord is always assiduous in being present for Northern Ireland business and I am most grateful to him.
I say that in particular because, as the noble Lord pointed out so clearly in his closing remarks, this is a

629
very important order. As he made clear in opening, the whole idea of the 1989 legislation was in danger of becoming a dead letter because the Pryce v. University of Ulster case fell to the ground due to the unworkability of Section 30 of the 1989 Act. I believe that the noble Lord and I are both relieved that that is now to be unblocked. This House will now give effect to the order, another place having looked at it.
The noble Lord asked me whether the three organisations which the noble Lord mentioned—the Fair Employment Commission, the Labour Relations Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission—are content with the order. I understand that they are, although it is fair to say that their first preference would have been the complete repeal of Section 30. As I sought to explain in moving the order, the Government felt it necessary to try to find a compromise between the different views on this matter. I hope that the noble Lord believes that we have reached a reasonably good compromise.
Finally, the merit of the order is that we can now get natters going again. It is very important that the matters before the tribunal can now be heard and that we can get the fair employment legislation working again. That is important not only to meet individual needs but for the wider reason that fair employment and t good economy go hand in hand. Once again, I thank the noble Lord for his contribution to the debate. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Forth Ports Authority (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991
1.20 a.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the two draft orders laid before your Lordships' House on 27th June 1991 for approval prescribe rateable values for 1991–92 for the operational lands and heritages of the Forth Ports Authority and Caledonian MacBrayne Limited. The rateable values for other statutory dock and harbour authorities in Scotland are also calculated by formula as prescribed by the Secretary of State in an order approved in 1990. In their case the annual revisions are made by the regional assessor in the area in which the undertaking is located.
FPA and Cal-Mac are treated separately because in each case the lands concerned span more than one valuation area. Consequently, it would be awkward to have their valuations carried out by different regional assessors acting independently. We have therefore arranged for the valuations of those two undertakings to be calculated by officials following the same method as is applied to the other statutory port authorities, then to be apportioned among the local authorities concerned and for the resulting rateable values to be prescribed by order.
Statutory docks and harbour undertakings have been assessed for rating by formula valuation
630
prescribed by the Secretary of State for many years. Nevertheless, we are reviewing the need for this approach to the valuation of the various statutory and other utility undertakings with the aim of implementing any advisable changes in 1995, the year of the next revaluation. The method of valuation used to assess the rateable value shown in the draft orders before your Lordships is to assess rateable value at 9 per cent. of the relevant income of the undertaking. Relevant income is the total income for the year less that for certain defined activities which are not related to the occupation of property or are connected with properties separately assessed.
In order to ensure harmony of treatment between Scotland, England and Wales, the method and percentage used for assessing other statutory ports are the same throughout Great Britain. The apportionment of the rateable value of each undertaking among the relevant local authorities is made on the basis of its relevant income in each area. The FPA and Cal-Mac, again in common with the other statutory port authorities, are subject to the annual transitional limits on increases and decreases in rateable values resulting from the revaluation in 1990. Where those limits are still relevant for 1991 and 1992 they have been applied to give the rateable values shown in the schedules to the orders.
The assessments and provisions contained in the orders have been the subject of consultations with the two undertakings concerned; that is, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and also with the Scottish Assessors' Association. All are content with the draft orders and I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his full explanation. I read the Standing Committee report in another place and was glad to note that the noble Earl emphasised again that there were certain difficulties in the method of applying valuation principles to a network that crosses several valuation area boundaries. The Minister in another place, Mr. Allan Stewart, pointed out, as did the noble Earl, that the next revaluation in 1995, which would be the earliest date at which a change could be made, will help the assessors to collect essential information about each undertaking.
I understand that CoSLA and the Scottish Assessors' Association are content with the orders, and with the formula upon which they are based. Therefore, having read the report and heard the full explanations given by Mr. Allan Stewart in another place, supplemented by those of the noble Earl this evening, I am happy to agree to the orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991
1.23 a.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 4) Order 1991
1.25 a.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 8th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, last month I sought your Lordships' approval for two emergency orders to ban fishing for bivalve molluscs in areas off the north-east coast of England and the west coast of Scotland. This was due to a build up of the naturally occurring toxin of paralytic shellfish poison, or PSP for short. These two orders, Nos. 4 and 5, before the House today are similar. They ban fishing for bivalve molluscs, which includes mussels, cockles, scallops, queens, razor shells and oysters in defined areas off the west coast of Scotland. The decisions to make these orders were based on test results from our PSP monitoring regime, which were over the 400 unit limit, the internationally agreed action level. Our aim in making the ban is to ensure effective protection for the public from PSP toxin with the minimum disruption of the shellfish market.
I should like to assure your Lordships that the orders will remain in force only for as long as it is necessary and no longer. They will be revoked as soon as the results of continued sampling indicate that the toxin has subsided to a safe level.
Order No. 4 extends the closure in the area of water known as the Inner Sound, near Skye. The lower half of this area has been closed for fishing for bivalves since 29th May. That ban was introduced by the No. 2 order which received approval last month. Test results of mussel samples from Loch Torridon in the north part of the Inner Sound were 2,140 units on 4th July compared with 825 units the previous week. In such situations levels of toxin can continue to rise very swiftly and so Order No. 4 was made on 5th July which banned fishing for bivalve molluscs in the top part of the Inner Sound.
The following week, levels of PSP toxin of 3,066 units were found in samples of queen scallops taken from Loch Eishort on the south of Skye. Order No. 5 was therefore made on 12th July which prevents
632
fishing for bivalve molluscs in Loch Eishort, neighbouring Loch Slapin and the entrances to both lochs. All these order will be revoked when we are satisfied on scientific and medical advice that it is safe to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 8th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister again for explaining these orders. Since we followed very closely the earlier orders, I have no hesitation in approving them.
I am grateful to the Minister for having provided on this occasion maps of the area affected as well as a description. Although the description is perhaps more important, to many people who are not too familiar with the area the maps are a great help in showing exactly the total area involved. I thank the Minister for that.
Like him, we would like the orders rescinded as soon as possible but we agree that that cannot be done until there is complete confidence, following advice from medical and other sources, that there is no danger at all to the public.
The way in which the department has gone about putting the orders through and the careful monitoring it has been carrying out shows that we can all have confidence that it will not hasten to rescind the orders until there is complete confidence that there is no danger to the public. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for the fact that the shellfish and the area concerned have been so clearly defined that the public will be in no danger until the area is clear. We shall give any help we can to implementing the orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 5) Order 1991
1.28 a.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 15th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill
1.30 a.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
I should like to remind your Lordships, even at this late hour, that this is a thoroughly useful Bill based on a very full report prepared by the Scottish Law

633
Commission. The main function of the Bill, as indicated at an earlier stage, is to update and clarify the rules governing the ability of young people to enter into legal transactions. It replaces a system which over the years has become increasingly complex and difficult to understand, and which has on occasions worked against the interests of the young person.
I also wish to thank the Scottish Law Commission for the characteristically helpful and detailed report on which the Bill is based. I am sure that if the Bill receives its Third Reading tonight, the very passing of the Bill will encourage the staff of the law commission. It is difficult for the law commission staff who produce many reports but not much legislation results.
I should also like to thank noble Lords who spoke during the Second Reading debate and ensured that some of the matters affected by the Bill could be scrutinised by your Lordships' House. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the Lord Advocate, for his helpful assistance during the passage of the Bill.
It was unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, was unable to be present during the Committee stage of the Bill to move the amendment which he had tabled relating to a child's right to consent to medical, surgical and dental treatment, and the relationships between that right to consent and parental rights. Had the amendment been moved, I should have sought to persuade your Lordships that it was unnecessary and technically deficient. The noble Lord is unable to be here tonight, but I understand the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, will be making a contribution on his behalf.
The question of consent for surgical, medical and dental treatment has, to my knowledge, evoked a response of seven letters - five from doctors, one from the Church and one from a lay person. The general view is that the Bill does not alter the present situation; indeed, it clarifies it. I have studied the latest professional advice to medical practitioners issued by the General Medical Council which requires doctors in treating young people under the age of 16 to seek to persuade them to involve their parents and obtain parental consent wherever possible. As I understand it, that advice applies in Scotland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom and will no doubt continue to be valid after the enactment of the provisions of the Bill. It is important to record that advice in the Official Report. I quote from the council's booklet, Professional Conduct and Discipline; Fitness to Practice, dated February 1991. Paragraph 81 states:
"If the doctor is satisfied of the child's maturity and ability to understand, he must nonetheless"—
note the word "nonetheless", my Lords—
"seek to persuade the child to involve a parent, or another person in loco parentis"—
which goes beyond what Lord Robertson's amendment would have covered—
"in the consultation. If the child nevertheless refuses to allow a parent or such other person to be told, the doctor must decide, in the patient's best medical interests, whether or not to offer advice or treatment. He should, however, respect the rules of professional confidentiality".
The issues in the Bill have tended to become—if I may use the phrase—bogged-down on the question of contraceptives, abortions and so on.
634
I should also say that the British Medical Association expressed a view on 11th May on the report of the Scottish Law Commission on which the Bill is based, although the letter seems to be in error because it speaks of the legal capacity of young people under the age of 18. The letter states that:
"This matter was considered by Scottish Council of the Association at its meeting on 11th May. Scottish Council considered the recommendation on consent to medical treatment only, since members did not feel qualified to comment on the wider aspects of the recommendations.
Scottish Council supported the Commission's recommendation in respect of consent to surgical, medical or dental procedures or treatment and considered that it was flexible enough to take account of the age and understanding of the particular patient, the complexity of the treatment and the seriousness of the risks involved".
I hope that with these views expressed by the medical profession, some of the fears that have been expressed will to some extent be allayed. I understand from my talks with the Scottish Law Commission that, in the course of the present review on parental rights, it will monitor, in so far as it is possible, cases of consent by young persons under 16. I hope that I have satisfied any doubts about the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, it is late and so I shall not detain your Lordships for long. However, I would be failing in my duty if I did not apologise to the House on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who cannot be here as he went on holiday at the weekend, a holiday that had been organised many months ago, and also on behalf of myself for failing to move the amendments that we put down in the normal way at the Committee stage.
Without wishing to make any excuses for us or to shift any blame, I should like briefly to explain to the House exactly what happened in the hope that it may evince just a tiny amount of comfort to us. We had been following the progress of the previous business very carefully. We had discussed how we should be on our toes to get into the Chamber quickly because we realised that the business would move with great velocity. Noble Lords may think that it was particularly stupid of us not to make it having alerted ourselves to the problem. In the discussion of the previous Bill, Amendment No. 10 was on the screen for about 25 minutes. After that there were four more amendments—two groupings of two—which went down rather like skittles in a skittle alley. I imagine that they were all "not moved". By the time I looked again at the screen—I was only in the Peers' Lobby—it showed the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I plunged in to find that, unhappily, the noble Lord was not in his place and certainly was not speaking. By that time the noble Lord in the Chair had reached Clause 6 or 7—he was going through the Bill, clause by clause. I was ahead both of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who was representing the Government.
I am not making excuses for the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and myself. We accept responsibility for what happened. We are big boys now and should have reached the Chamber in time. Nevertheless, noble

635
Lords will judge for themselves. I suspect that many noble Lords will take the view that the most useful function of your Lordships' House is the refining and revising of legislation. In our case we had tabled carefully thought-out amendments which we believed were reasonable and ones which could easily have been considered in a constructive way. If our procedure does not permit that to happen, is that really in the best interests of the House? I put that thought to the Government's business managers. However, I do not wish to make any excuses. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, would not wish me to make excuses on his behalf.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, for what he said. It certainly gave me some comfort. Our primary concern is that parental responsibility seems to have become sidetracked. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said:
"It is of course true that the Bill leaves untouched the question of whether any treatment given with the effective consent of a child infringes on parental rights".—[Official Report, 1/7/91; col. 869.]
A few minutes later the noble Lord said:
"I am afraid that we have to face up to the realities of life and say that if the child consents and is capable of understanding the consequences, it is up to the doctor to consider what should be done". [Official Report, 1/7/91; col. 880.]
It appears to us that the doctor is taking the place of the parent. That is not reasonable because the doctor is not accountable in the same way as the parent is and never can be so. In addition, the doctor does not have that ongoing relationship which the parent clearly does have.
Finally, I should like to conclude by asking the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, to confirm that, under the Bill, the procedure will be for the doctor to consult the parents and that only in exceptional cases—by "exceptional cases" I mean something relatively minor like a cut leg; or, possibly, a case where the parents cannot be contacted or are not available for one reason or another—would consent be sought from a child. If the noble Earl could reassure the House on that point, I am sure that we would all be very much in his debt.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, on behalf of the Government I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, for bringing this Bill before us and for his skill in guiding us through the complexities of the Bill's provisions. I should also like to thank my honourable friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir Nicholas Fairbairn) for his endeavours in steering the Bill through the other place. I can only express regret about what happened to the noble Lords, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Robertson of Oakridge. However, I have to point out that your Lordships' House has rules which must be
636
obeyed. Unfortunately, the kind of incident he described has happened before and will no doubt happen again.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, asked for an assurance that when the Scottish Office Home and Health Department issues guidance to doctors, such guidance should continue to stress the importance of seeking to persuade a child—even where it understands the nature of the treatment or procedure being prescribed—to involve its parents and to obtain parental consent to the treatment wherever possible. On behalf of the Government, I am happy to give your Lordships such an assurance.
The Government support the Motion that the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill be read a third time.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, for his constructive contribution to the debate. Perhaps I may reassure him that it was not a plot on the part of this side of the House to exclude him and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, from the Chamber. It was regrettable. I believe that we could have had an interesting debate, as the noble Lord indicated by the observations he made, without being disrespectful, while trying to argue the case for an amendment on Third Reading.
The parental responsibility in Scotland is not changed. I think that we have to look at the realities of life. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, would have placed an absolute duty on the doctor to consult the parent. Perhaps I may give one example. What would happen if a young child under the age of 16 years who has been rendered pregnant either by an outsider, or by her father in the course of an incestuous act, went to the doctor to consult him on the matter? The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, would force the doctor to go to the very man who not only is responsible for the child's condition but has also committed a criminal offence.
Those are the kind of issues which might have been decided in the course of any discussion on the amendment. However, I am grateful for the observations which the noble Lord made, for the support which the Bill has received from the Government and for the undertakings given by the noble Earl.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I do not wish to add anything to what has already been said.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
On Question, Bill passed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before two o'clock.

  IRAQ: SHIA REFUGEES
  IRAQ: SHIA REFUGEES
  "A BUS STRATEGY FOR LONDON": RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
  "A BUS STRATEGY FOR LONDON": RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
  PUBLIC UNDERTAKERS: REGULATORS' POWERS
  PUBLIC UNDERTAKERS: REGULATORS' POWERS
  NASEBY BATTLEFIELD: A.1-M.1 LINK ROAD
  NASEBY BATTLEFIELD: A.1-M.1 LINK ROAD
  ABORTION STATISTICS 1990
  ABORTION STATISTICS 1990
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE: STAFFING
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE: STAFFING
  WAR CRIMES ACT: PROSECUTIONS
  WAR CRIMES ACT: PROSECUTIONS
  THE GULF WAR: EFFECTS OF ALLIED BOMBING
  THE GULF WAR: EFFECTS OF ALLIED BOMBING
  SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD INVESTIGATION STAFF
  SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD INVESTIGATION STAFF
  INVERMECTIN: USE IN FARMED SALMON
  INVERMECTIN: USE IN FARMED SALMON
  FISH FARMS: PLANNING CONTROL
  FISH FARMS: PLANNING CONTROL