Sitting of 28 February 1992

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

  Safety at Sea
  9.35 am
  Ms. Joan Walley: I have here a petition I wish to present to the House on behalf of Jennifer Vibert and some 14,000 people. When this petition was presented to me, I was told that each and every signatory had read it carefully. The petition is concerned with the safety of seamen and has come about as a result of the great grief felt by the surviving families of the young crew of the Wilhelmina J, which was sunk almost a year ago. The petition has come about also because those bereaved families feel that the lessons of that tragic accident have to be learnt and they wish their concerns to be brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government. It is for that reason that I am presenting it here today.
  The petition reads:
  The Humble Petition of Jennifer Vibert and families of the victims of the—Wilhelmina J", Sheweth that:—(i) unlike the employees of many shore-based companies, merchant seamen and fishermen are not necessarily covered by personal
  1220
  insurance. Yet in an industry with such high risk to its workers, this appears to be a major flaw in the maritime legislation. We therefore propose that Her Majesty's Government introduce legislation which insists that all Shipping Owners are responsible for their employees being covered by adequate insurance in the event of personal injury or death.
  (ii) Her Majesty's Coastguard perform an impeccable service by monitoring shipping movements and organising search and rescue operations, within their prescribed areas. However in many cases this area is uncertain. We therefore propose that each Coastguard station is aware of the area of territorial water under its jurisdiction, that an overlap whereby both stations are required to maintain an interest in the movement of a vessel until the receiving station accepts responsibility, as in the case of Aviation Control.
  (iii) Having identified an infringement of the Maritime Law, Her Majesty's Coastguards are powerless to take any physical action, unlike their French counterparts. By name and definition the Coastguard are the guardians of our coasts. We therefore propose that Her Majesty's Government supply the Coastguard with the necessary equipment, or access to such, to enforce the powers entrusted to them in protecting all vessels at sea and bring to account those who break these laws.
  (iv) The English Channel is said to be the busiest waterway in the world, but without any form of policing to ensure that all laws are adhered to. Because of this many "Masters" comply only when they deem fit to do so, sometimes ramming and sinking smaller vessels, then hiding behind the "International Waters" clauses. We therefore propose that the Merchant Shipping Laws be changed to combine the English Channel shipping lanes with both English and French territorial waters. Thereby placing all traffic under the jurisdiction of the respective coastguard.
  This is a detailed petition, arising out of the great concern of the families of the bereaved. The petition ends:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House protect our seamen and fishermen in our coastal waters from unnecessary dangers, and your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

Members' Interests
9.39 am
Mr. John Browne: I beg to move,

That this House, believing that the concept of natural justice is paramount in trials before courts and all other tribunals, considers that the procedures of the House in relation to the registration of Members' interests, are inadequate; believes that the rules for registration are vague, somewhat confusing and even meaningless both to honourable Members and outside observers; considers that proceedings before the Select Committee on Members' Interests deprive a Member whose conduct is in question of even the most basic human rights to natural justice, to which he or she would be entitled if the matter were being adjudicated in a court of law, including rights of appeal; is dissatisfied with the processes which take place after the Committee has made a Report; is deeply concerned that the House can too easily be confused and be led to a decision based not upon justice but upon party political or personal motives, including the abuse of the party whipping system in what should be a matter for the individual conscience of all Right honourable and honourable Members attending the debate; believes that the case of the honourable Member for Winchester provides a classic illustration of the dangers of abuse inherent in the present procedures, which allowed even outside events to influence judgment; and calls for the appointment of a Select Committee urgently to re-examine all these issues and to make recommendations before similar great and deliberate injustices are done to other Right honourable and honourable Members and to their constituents.
I move today's motion drawing attention to my case in the hope that it will encourage the House to make fundamental changes in its present rules and procedures as they relate to Members' Interests.
On Wednesday 7 March 1990 a very great and quite deliberate injustice took place in this House. It was against me and my constituents. After almost exactly two years to the day, this is my first opportunity to speak in my defence. On that fateful day two years ago, the £480 million Paris scandal was given just 32 minutes of debate in the House but I was subjected to a five-and-a-half-hour internationally televised politcial show trial. At the precise time I was attending the House for the judicial debate, apparently —closely co-ordinated by Conservative central office—moves were being made in my constituency by my constituency chairman, Mrs. Felicity Hindson, to initiate my deselection by means of an ambushed reselection motion which was accepted without my being notified under my constituency rules, namely rule 18(2)(c), and with Mrs. Hindson urging that it would be to my best interests.
On that day I was found guilty of two accidental breaches—SAMA and Chidiac. Those two names are important. I was found guilty of those two accidental breaches—SAMA and Chidiac—of the House rules governing the Register of Members' interests some seven years previously. One of the rules—SAMA—was so vague that I understand that it took the Committee itself many hours to determine the meaning of it. A clarification amendment was then passed by the House immediately after I had been sentenced. I wonder whether that it is natural justice.
My unintentional transgressions resulted in no financial gain to me, had harmed no one, and no Government policy was either changed or even influenced. Despite this, the Select Committee on Members' Interests deemed, on circumstantial evidence, that my errors were serious. However, neither in the Select Committee's report nor in
1222
the debate in the House did any member of the Select Committee, or the Leader of the House, attempt either to justify or to explain what was meant by the vital word "serious". In fact, they seemed to lead the House away from any detailed discusion of the report. I shall quote later where these leads happened by referring to Hansard of 7 March 1990.
I notice that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests is here, and it may be that he will be able to help us later in the debate.
As I shall point out later, I was not allowed to make a speech in the debate which took place on 7 March 1990. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was allowed only to make a statement, which had to be heard in silence, and it had to be totally uncontroversial. Furthermore, I was not allowed to ask any questions or to make any interventions in the debate. I therefore had no chance to raise this issue. In the two years since that trial, this is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on the subject and in my own defence.
Most strangely, the two breaches of the rules—SAMA and Chidiac—concern precisely the same two cases in relation to which I had taken out libel suits against the complainant. Was this merely a very strange coincidenece? The complainant was a personal friend of and had a close working relationship with one of the most active—I may even say aggressive—members of the Select Committee; the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who never declared this interest either to the Committee or to the House, although he intervened in the debate on 7 March 1990. This is referred to in early-day motions—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Do I understand that the hon. Member has given notice to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that he intended to refer to him?
Mr. Browne: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I have said, this is referred to in early-day motions 1210 of the last Session and 115 of this Session. Since my trial, the Select Committee has investigated allegations against several other Members. Remarkably, all were found to be in error. Indeed, one—a Select Committee member himself—was found to have repeatedly and deliberately disobeyed a specific rule. However, none of those Members' cases was recommended for action by the House. All other pending cases, such as those against other Conservative Members, have been dropped. How was it that of all the similar cases the Select Committee considered that mine alone was serious, just on circumstantial evidence, and given a five-and-a-half-hour debate in the House followed by a draconian sentence? I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the answer was not only injustice but grand and deliberate injustice.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has said that he had informed my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that he would name him in the debate. I wonder whether he will reaffirm that. Secondly, he has said that other Conservative Members were also up on "charges", which were dropped. I should like to know their names.
Mr. Browne: On the first point, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. I have written to the hon. Member for Workington. I did so at the beginning of this week.

1223
Secondly, on the subject of the names of Conservative Members, I personally would prefer not to give them. I do not feel bound to give them, but I respect your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if you feel that I must name them, I must. As I have said, I would rather not.
How was it that of all the similar cases that the Select Committee considered mine alone was "serious", just on circumstantial evidence? I was given a five-and-a-half-hour public debate in the House followed by a draconian sentence. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the answer was not only injustice but a grand and deliberate injustice.
The precedent set by my case has never been followed. I was selected as a one-off scapegoat. Here I must place on record my sincere feelings. I did not in any way blame or bear any grudge against the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members who voted in all innocence for my punishment, or who abstained from supporting me. In my view, 99 per cent. of hon. Members were misled—quite deliberately, I believe—and I hope to show the House both how and why that great crime was perpetrated by those in power.
It is vitally important because if that can happen to me, as it did also to the late Lord Boothby before the war, it can happen to any right hon. or hon. Member—or, indeed, to anyone, because ordinary citizens can be called to the Bar of the House. Furthermore, if such a deliberate injustice can happen in the high and sovereign court of Parliament, against which—and contrary to all human rights conventions—there is no appeal, then which citizen of this realm is safe? I believe that the long-term good of the whole is most definitely not best served by the protection of the whole at the expense of the human right to justice of the individual citizen. Surely the long-term good of the whole is best served by the added protection of the rights of the individual to justice. I believe that it is greatly in the interests of the House, of our country and of our civilisation in general that such deliberate political injustice be never allowed to happen again.
I submit that in the present state of affairs no one is safe from an individual purge by Government Ministers for political reasons. Surely such a state of affairs cannot be allowed to remain available as a weapon of government.
I raise this matter in the hope that, despite any official cover-up, the House will look into the issue and so amend its procedures that no similar injustice can happen again to any other hon. Member or to any other citizen who might be called to the Bar of the House.
People will no doubt ask why I have waited some two years until now before raising this matter.
Mr. Skinner: Correct.
Mr. Browne: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says "correct", and I hope to answer him. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I tried hard for over a year to bring this matter to the attention of the House. You will know that I first tried to appeal to the Select Committee. After months of delay, the Chairman replied that there was no avenue of appeal. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have tried to raise this issue in a ten-minute Bill, by means of a private Member's Bill, in a petition under Standing Order No. 132 and in an Adjournment debate. All those avenues, including no fewer than 12 proposed titles for Adjournment debates, were ruled out of order. I was told that my only avenue
1224
was to get lucky and win a balloted motion. On 11 February 1992 I received from the Leader of the House a final negative reply to the appeal that I began a year ago. Twenty four hours later I won a Members' ballot for this debate, in the closing moments of this Parliament.
So here we are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with my first opportunity to speak in my defence. Sadly, this is the story of the deliberate manipulation of justice for party political reasons. It is also the story of a cover-up so powerful that even vast sections of the media appear to have been silenced. Even the boldest men, of great integrity, who have seen and recognised injustice have hesitated. Those whose prime duty it was to speak up have kept their silence.
This is also the story of a long and necessarily complex web of intrigue. It may therefore help the House if I now cite the Official Report references that I intend to use in my speech. I shall refer mainly to quotations from the official Hansard report of the debate on 7 March 1990, and to the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests dated 19 February 1990. I shall also refer to early-day motions 1210 and 1211 of the previous Session and to early-day motions 115, 121 and 585 of this Session. Finally, I shall refer to the High Court judgments of Mr. Justice Wood dated 6 February 1986 and 25 November 1986 and to the Court of Appeal judgment dated 23 November 1988.
Two of the most fundamental of human rights are the right to a fair trial and the right of appeal. Those two fundamental rights are enshrined in clauses 1 to 4 and in clause 5 of the 14th article of the United Nations international convention of 1966, to which the British Government are signatories. That convention applies to both civil and political trials.
Political show trials have a classic structure. First, they are preceded by a secret inquisition or inquiry at which the prosecution case is established. The accused is then paraded in front of the public for a sham trial in which he is not permitted any of the normal rights of defence. The prosecution holds sway, as the jury is fixed. It is typical of almost all show trials that there is no mechanism for appeal. That, in itself, is a breach of one of the most fundamental human rights enshrined in clause 5 of article 14 of the convention. We are accustomed to thinking that political show trials happen only in foreign countries, under regimes such as those in Nazi Germany or communist Russia, but even in our own country they happen occasionally. The late Lord Boothby was subjected to such a trial in 1940–41, and one slipped past the nose of this House on 7 March 1990.
It is important that the House, and our country, know something of what happened. My political show trial followed the classic structure that I have described. It was preceded by a secret inquisition or inquiry at which the prosecution case was established. That was carried out by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which was seen by the media, the public and other hon. Members as being, in effect, the court. The strength with which that was denied in the debate on 7 March 1990, both by the Chairman of the Select Committee and the then leader of the House, shows how true was that widely held concept.
Some 308 Members of the House voted, of whom some 239 voted along the whipped Government line in favour of punishment. However, apart from during the opening and winding-up speeches, not more than 30 Members—10 per cent., at most—attended the debate. As my hon. and

1225
learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), a Queen's Counsel and former Solicitor-General for Scotland, said:
"Here we all are. Some members of the jury are out, and some are in. The jury is being asked to say what the sentence should be, but the jury was not even in court. Most of its members who are in court now have not read the report, and do not conceive of the rights or wrongs of what the Committee found…this partial jury should not exercise the concept of punishment."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 187, c. 957–58.]
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman says that only 30 Members were present to listen to the debate. The truth is, as we all know, that that number is about par for the course. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us how many times he has sat in on debates for the Government —before the Government did the dirty on him. He talks about party political reasons, but the reason why he is not a Tory candidate for the next election has nothing to do with anything that the Labour party has done—it is because his own Tory party in Westminster has ditched him.
When the hon. Gentleman was supporting the Tory party, how many times did he vote for a guillotine motion when he did not even know when and how the guillotine was to be imposed? Most guillotines are supported by Conservative Members who do not sit in on the debate, so the hon. Gentleman should not give us any of this claptrap about not many people having listened to the debate. The truth is that he got caught out by the gentleman's club whose members usually sit on the Tory Benches—he got knifed by his own side.
Mr. Browne: I agree with some of what the hon. Member for Bolsover said, but not all of it. It is true that for normal debates in the House there is a pretty good attendance for the opening speeches and the winding-up speeches made by Members on both sides, but a pretty sparse attendance in the middle. That is because right hon. and hon. Members of the House have great pressures on their time. Some 20 Committees sit at the same time as debates are being held on the Floor of the House. However, in a judicial debate—a debate in which the House is sitting as a court, as a jury when people are to vote on whether an hon. Member is guilty, hon. Members should surely at least listen to the case before voting. Thirty Members attending a debate may be par for the course, but the case to which I refer was certainly not par for the course.
In what other court or even tribunal in this land—or in any other country—would a member of a jury be allowed to be absent while a case was being presented, only to return to deliver a guilty verdict and pass a draconian sentence? I submit that the answer is none. Yet that happened here on 7 March 1990. Is that justice, Mr. Speaker?
The sham trial in the House was, as always, made very public, with five-and-a-half hours of prime television, syndicated world wide. The charges against me were made to appear massive, and even combined with innuendo. The apparent unwillingness of the then Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), to reply to a stream of interventions is recorded in column 893 of the Official Report of the debate.
Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for exactly 20 minutes, and it is clear that—apart from a degree of spontaneity introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—the hon. Gentleman has read every word of his speech so far. I have counted six pages, and seeing the notes that he still has, I fear that he intends to read us another 60 pages, which will take up most of the debate, and it will all be written material. Surely it is not within the proper procedures of the House to allow someone to read an entire speech of that length. I understand the difficulties, and that hon. Members may want to use copious quotations and refer in detail to notes—I am not in any way trying to prevent the hon. Gentleman from putting forward a reasonable case—but surely it is outside the accepted procedures of the House to read what appears to be several hours of written material.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All hon. Members are aware of the hallowed phrase that hon. Members are allowed to refer to "copious notes". We have also traditionally taken the view that Members who speak from either Front Bench or an hon. Member who introduces a debate, as the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) is now doing, have a little more discretion than would otherwise be the case. The hon. Member for Winchester will be in order so long as he continues just to refer to copious notes.
Mr. Browne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try to look up from my notes to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who is leading for the Opposition. However, I will glance down through my spectacles occasionally at this large volume of notes.
The apparent unwillingness of the then Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, is shown in Hansard at column 893. He was most unwilling to reply to a string of interventions by hon. Members seeking confirmation that I had done nothing illegal. I felt that that was quite disgusting, but classic. Also, in common with all political show trials, the jury decision was—as has already been said this morning—fixed by the ruling party. In this case, the fixing was ensured by the operation of the Whips, both payroll and informal.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has now referred to another right hon. Member. If he intends to refer to several right hon. and hon. Members, rather than my interrupting him on every occasion, will he assure me that he has informed those right hon. and hon. Members that he intends to refer to them?
Mr. Browne: The former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)—yes, I have.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: And the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe)?
Mr. Browne: Yes, I have, Sir.
Following the trial, very few people mentioned any of the criticisms of injustice or blatant abuse of human rights. Instead, the public image was created that I had been guilty of a major criminal offence. Indeed, it was interesting to note—
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is making pretty heavy weather of the fact that he was kicked out of this gentleman's club for 20 days. I call it a gentleman's club,

1227
but it is known as the mother of Parliaments, although only about 42 women are allowed in here. The hon. Gentleman is complaining that he got 20 days. His real problem is the fact that he is not the Tory party candidate at the next election—and that has nothing to do with what happened in this place.
I have been kicked out of this place about seven times, but I did not have any chance to explain. No one said to me, "Dennis, will you explain why you said that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was lining his pockets when he picked up that non-executive directorship of British Telecom?" I would have loved to tell everyone all about that, but Mr. Speaker said, "On your bike—early bath," and off I had to go.
When I called the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) a pompous sod, Mr. Speaker said to me, "You had better withdraw that". I said I would withdraw "pompous", but said, Mr. Speaker "That's not the word I'm looking for." There was laughter in the House and everyone thought that I had hit the nail on the head. I thought that that was a real parliamentary triumph, but Mr. Speaker thought differently. He said, "Off you go," and I did not get a chance to reply.
I accused the noble Lord, Lord Pym, when he was a Member of this House, of being the Minister for unemployment because there were nearly 2 million people on the scrap heap—that pile of human misery known as the dole queue. Again, I was not able to make a speech before Mr. Speaker sent me out.
Those were all genuine statements that I had to make. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was kicked out for 20 days because he lined his pockets with about £50,000 and did not put it in the register as he is supposed to do, and now he is whingeing but I reckon he got away with blue murder.
Mr. Browne: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said. I actually have not mentioned 20 days yet, and I totally refute the claim that I lined my pockets with £50,000 and did not report it. That was not true, and it is part of what this whole debate is about.
It was interesting to note that although the Select Committee felt my errors to have been serious, not one member of that Committee, nor the Leader of the House, ever attempted to explain how or why those accidental errors were considered serious. Before I describe the details of what happened in my case, I wish to point to some general points on the subject of the Register of Members' Interests which I hope will be of interest and help to the House.
The Members' interest registry was initiated for very understandable and good reasons, to show Members' interests to the public and to the House. It is a laudable aim, but there are serious problems and anomalies. First, our Parliament consists of two Houses—a Commons House and a House of peers. This is an important but much overlooked point which I will return to later in my speech. The declaration of financial interests applies only to the Commons House and yet the House of peers execute legislation and have great influence over the Government. Why is there no declaration for all of Parliament?
Secondly, the register is of financial interests and yet monetary amounts are not required to be registered. Is that not only farcical, but downright misleading? How does it truly inform either the public or the House?
1228
Thirdly, in the early 1980s the register was treated in a very casual manner indeed. When my case came to this House in 1989 about events in 1982, some of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite admitted to me that they had not even heard of the register—hence, I imagine, the greatly increased size of the registry since I was arraigned.
Fourthly, as it is not a legal requirement, the registry is, as Mr. Enoch Powell maintained, unconstitutional. Worse still, because it is not a legal requirement, anyone brought to account under it is given none of the legal protection normally afforded to anyone standing accused of a crime in law.
Fifthly, the rules of registration are vague—for example, the rules about declaration of foreign earnings. When I went to the registrar in 1982, I was told that the foreign earning of my company, if my company was declared, need not be declared as a client unless it was specifically related to the House. I was accused of not reporting it as an earning to me. Interestingly enough, it took the Committee hours to decide what that rule meant, and it was changed after my sentence: 10 minutes after my sentence, the rule was changed to say that if one owned a certain percentage of one's company, then one had to declare it.
I also looked at the register of interests and the sort of groups of people who were declaring overseas payments, and found virtually none: no farmers, no scriptwriters, no broadcasters, journalists, lawyers or barristers—none of those people. Yet surely one, at least, of all the hundreds in the book must surely have had some foreign-derived earnings.
Mr. Skinner: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?
Mr. Browne: I did not say that I knew, but looking at the registry in 1982, 1983 and even in 1989, the guideline seems to be that if earnings go to a company, the earnings are not declared as foreign payments, and that they should only have been declared as foreign payments if they actually went to the Member concerned. That is only a guideline, but it is something that I went by in those early days, plus consulting the Registrar himself—who, incidentally, was not called to give evidence by the Select Committee and I was not allowed to call him myself.
Also, there are no strict definitions of sibling relationships such as there are in relation to the law on insider trading and securities. In the registry, this is still an area of very considerable doubt and therefore of danger to right hon. and hon. Members.
The rules are somewhat vague and, as I have said, they are therefore dangerous because they can be bent by those in authority to snare almost any hon. Member who has outside interests. This is a danger hanging over many Members, particularly now that this subject is taken far more seriously and, I believe, correctly.
Sadly, there is precedent for abuse of this danger hanging over hon. Members. In the two cases that I shall mention, the abuse was carried out by Government Whips who, although they strenuously deny it, have control at least over the profile of the majority of Select Committee members and can very strongly influence their voting.
The case of the late Lord Boothby was described superbly in the recent excellent book by my hon. Friend

1229
the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James) entitled "Bob Boothby". I quote briefly from that book, from chapter 11, "A Terrible Injustice", on pages 270 to 298:
"A Select Committee is not a court of law and one of its fundamental problems is examining matters of this kind is that it is composed of Back-Bench MPs who are in fact judge and jury. The conclusions of the Committee were heavily and unfairly loaded against Boothby. There was no evidence that Boothby had any expectation of payment. Boothby was allowed to defend himself in his speech in Parliament. His speech influenced the opinion of Parliament"
—I will bring out later the fact that I was not allowed to make such a speech but merely a statement—
"Churchill then intervened and recommended that the House not proceed any further in the matter. The Government gave a clear message to the press that they would oppose any motion to condemn him."
The vague rules on Members' interests are potentially very dangerous for many hon. Members, particularly when we see the precedent for the abuse of power to distort justice.
Briefly, the background to the Select Committee inquiry was this. In the general election campaign of 1987, Mr. David Leigh, a journalist from The Observer, made several serious allegations that I had incorrectly registered my Member's interests some years before. This was seized upon, understandably, by my local media and had a major impact on my support. My share of the vote was seriously eroded and there was a cut in my majority of approximately a half. It provided grounds for subsequent moves against me in my constituency. Suits for libel were issued against Mr. David Leigh and I had every hope of a major settlement. The suits for libel were issued against Mr. Leigh on the subjects of SAMA and Chidiac, in which I and my lawyer thought Mr. Leigh was particularly vulnerable, and so obviously that a court of law might be prepared to rule favourably upon them even though they were to do with the rules of this sovereign House. As I said, I had every hope of a major settlement.
Subsequently, Mr. Leigh made a complaint against me to the Registrar of Members' Interests on those two issues and a number of surrounding issues. I was very confident of my innocence, and even welcomed the hearing before the Select Committee publicly so as to put an end to the sniping articles on the subject in some sections of the press. What I did not know was that Mr. David Leigh was a close friend of and had a close working relationship with a leading member of that Select Committee—the hon. Member for Workington. I was asked to make written submissions to the Select Committee in response to Mr. Leigh's complaints in the spring of 1989.
After some delays, I was finally summoned before the Select Committee in the early summer of 1989. I sat before some 10 or 11 Members over some three sessions to answer just under 1,000 rapid-fire questions concerning some 20 companies over a time span of some 12 years. It was a mind-boggling exercise in research and in memory. I understand that the Committee and, indeed, the Conservative Whips experienced great difficulty in obtaining agreement to the report from the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton). However, after some seven further months of so-called deliberation during which there was a constant flow of leaks to my local press, the Committee issued its report on 19 February 1990.
The Select Committee was widely seen as a court and its report was greeted with headlines normally reserved only for mass murderers and rapists. However, the court or
1230
Select Committee proceedings were criticised repeatedly in the debate by right hon. and hon. and learned Members with considerable legal experience for not having adopted procedures of natural justice towards me as the accused. Particularly noteworthy are the criticisms levelled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), an experienced barrister and junior judge. He criticised the Select Committee as
"Whether intentionally or not, it was the worst type of kangaroo court but the press have been noticeably silent about that."
He also pointed, in Hansard column 933, to what he termed "the smell of scapegoat". He also remarked on the smell of witch-hunt and the hypocrisy of the House. Most interestingly, he pointed to a catalogue of manifest injustices perpetrated against me. He said that
"it would be a great injustice for us to use"—
"me" in brackets—
"as a scapegoat to exorcise…embarrassment about…the criticism that our rules on Members' interests are inadequate."
What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton was referring to was the following catalogue of injustice. The Select Committee hearings, first of all, were all held in secret. None of the evidence was taken on oath. Secondly, contrary to Standing Orders of the House, I was not allowed to hear and thereby challenge directly in cross-examination the evidence of any witness whatsoever. Only rough typescript proofs were provided retrospectively. They were difficult to read and very difficult to handle because of their bulk and the bad copying. This was to the distinct disadvantage of me as the accused operating alone, unlike the Committee with its vast secretariat. From his similar experience, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said in the debate:
"Everything that the hon. and learned Member for Burton has just said about taking evidence was absolutely true. One writes to the Committee, its members write back, and there is no cross-examination or proper Hansard. At the end, the Committee makes a pronouncement and the word goes out to grovel.
If hon. Members grovel and apologise, they will be let off with a caution and it will all be over in two or three weeks." —[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 935–41.]
In addition to this, I, unlike certain members of the press, was not informed when the Committee called witnesses until some weeks later—after the fact. Is that justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Thirdly, I was specifically denied the right to call any witness in person for cross-examination. Here the assertion to the contrary by the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), in Hansard columns 906 and 907, seems to me to be quite extraordinary and was in direct conflict with the statement of his Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Streatham, who in column 918 clearly stated to the House that there was no verbal cross-examination except by the Committee. In the fact, I was specifically forewarned by the Registrar that only the Committee was empowered to call witnesses and that I would have to be content with asking for written statements.
The lack of equality in the calling of witnesses was crucial. The Select Committee was able to recommend that the written evidence of vital defence witnesses such as that of Mr. Chattington in the report, page 28, paragraph 54, and of Mr. Denton-Thompson, page 147, be ignored by the House. Neither defence witness was called by the

1231
Committee to explain or to support their written statements which the Committee criticised or ignored out of hand. Is that justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Fourthly, there was no representation. This case was vastly complex. I was arraigned not to explain or to testify about some political issue but was on trial for my political and personal life. Despite that, I was denied the effective counsel or assistance of a lawyer, except over the physical handling of the vast documentation. Indeed, the hon. Member for Workington even protested in question 282 when I referred to my solicitor to gain a more informed answer as to a legal question.
Why was it that in 1940 I understand the late Lord Boothby was allowed to have his legal representation? Why was it that after my case, on 13 January this year even the Maxwell brothers were allowed legal representation before a Select Committee and addressed the Select Committee through them? Why was I, uniquely as an accused, denied that important protection and most important assistance? Is that justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Fifthly, no right of discovery. The documentation produced by the complainant, Mr. Leigh, was vast, comprising some 100 documents, some over 30 pages long. To my knowledge there were no originals. The copies were very poor and badly collated. The documents were largely stolen from my personal and company files. They were produced very selectively and out of context. This was greatly to the disadvantage of the accused, as there was no means by which I could put crucial documents into context, particularly in the relationship between me and each of the Chidiac brothers and with regard to the missing SAMA report and its relationship to the supplementary Prime Minister's question that I asked.
Even the Committee found it difficult to obtain certain documents, but, remarkably, paragraph 60 of the report then criticised me who, acting without the Committee's powers of discovery, was unable to trace or recover certain stolen documents such as the SAMA report.
The point about the SAMA report is most interesting. First, I wonder how Mr. Leigh could have written his detailed articles on SAMA in 1987 without referring to it. I believe it was stolen from my company's files along with other evidence produced by Mr. Leigh, which was widely acknowledged as stolen property, most probably by my ex-wife. If the SAMA report was stolen, how could I produce it? Even more interestingly, in the report questions 310 to 317, it is clear how heavily the hon. Member for Workington, a close friend of Mr. Leigh and working with him on this project, criticised me for not finding the SAMA report. But why did Mr. Leigh not produce it? I ask, could it have been that it would have proved conclusively that it had no relationship with the supplementary question that I put to the Prime Minister? Is that justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
No. 6—no statute of limitations. The Committee accepted to investigate all the charges made against me, even the most trivial, including minor errors that I had already admitted. This made the case vastly more complex in its ramifications. The case, as I said, covered some 20 companies over a span of some 12 years. [Interruption.] I wonder what the Leader of the House was looking at. The questioning of one man alone by 11 prosecutors putting rapid-fire questions at random is awesome. Given the complexity and in the circumstances of this case, it was a grave injustice.
1232
Great sympathy was shown by the hon. Member for Workington over this issue to one of his prosecution witnesses, Mr. Brian Deutsch, whose memory was very hazy about only one company in which he had worked almost full time. On the contrary, I was criticised severely in the report for not remembering precise details of events that had taken place many years before regarding companies in which I had been involved on a very part-time basis, such as in the report, paragraph 59. The hon. Member for Streatham, a member of the Committee, made a special point of this when he said:
"To have something dredged up after eight years is absurd."
No. 7—time pressures. Time pressures were exerted upon me as the accused. Despite the fact that the Committee took some nine months in its deliberations, decisions at which I was permitted to be present, which were merely three when I was being examined, were all pressured for time. Examples of this exercise of time pressure against the accused are in the report at question 523—I am sorry I must return to that. These were not time pressures exercised against the accused, but time pressures that resulted in pressure against the accused. I do not accuse my right hon. Friend of deliberately doing this at all, it is just that the time pressure did act against the accused.
Examples are the time pressure in questions 523, 593, and 763, and also, contrary to normal Select Committee procedure, I as the accused was not given the time to complete an opening statement, and this was referred to in the report, questions 269 to 296. I must emphasise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this was my only chance in that whole proceeding of nine—almost 11—months, to speak in my own defence. Was that justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
The eighth point is that there was no prosecution case. Mr. Leigh presented allegations. He did this outside my presence and I was unable to challenge or cross-examine him verbally on a contemporary basis. There was no single line of argument that could be followed from one prosecutor, as there is in a case in a normal court. I was therefore given no structure and no knowledge as to what points the Select Committee considered important among a vast array of often unsupported allegations and so-called but unsworn evidence. This, combined with the time pressures, I submit, acted seriously against me as the accused. There was also no defence. While I was allowed to make written submissions, they in no way equated to the contemporary challenges of verbal evidence that take place in a normal court. Furthermore, as there was no prosecution case I as the accused had no knowledge of which of the myriad subjects the Committee would consider important.
Nine—the onus of proof. A reading of the report will show clearly that the onus of the proof was placed, contrary to basic tenets of English law, squarely upon the accused. This was clearly pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, and examples include SAMA and Chidiac.
Tenth, no motive was either alleged or established. Indeed, the complainant made note of the fact that he felt that my alleged breaches were not necessarily intentional. Any transgressions were accidental. Yet the Select Committee deemed these technical errors to be serious although, as I have said before, none of the members of the Select Committee when speaking in the debate sought to

1233
describe to the House what they meant by serious. Indeed, the hon. Member for Wealden, the Chairman of the Committee, said:
"I do not wish to go into the reasons why we came to our conclusions and what we did."
Is that justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
The eleventh point is that questions of publicity ranged far outside the scope of the Register of Members' Interests. The hon. Member for Workington was allowed by the Chairman, the hon. Member for Wealden, to introduce sub-judice law suits and have monetary amounts disclosed to the public—all contrary to the declaration of rules which specifically exclude monetary amounts. The latter point was used in the SAMA case greatly to my disadvantage as the accused by encouraging jealousy, and thus expressed outrage both in the media and by fellow Members who were later to sit in judgment.
The twelfth point was the charade of unamimity. While the Select Committee report was approved unanimously by its members, only one of them, the Chairman, the hon. Member for Wealden, attended more than 84 per cent. of the sessions. Unlike the King's Cross Bill, of which I have an example here which I quote from and which every Member of this Committee was asked to sign—I was one of those Members—which states:
"I the undersigned, having been selected by the Committee of Selection to serve as a Member of the Committee on the King's Cross Bill, hereby declare that my constituents have no local interest and that I have no personal interest in the said Bill, and that I will never vote on any question which may arise without having duly heard and attended to the evidence relating thereto."
I think that that is very correct, but no such demand was made on members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, who were voting on a vitally important judical matter affecting the whole future life of one of their colleagues, although they had not even been present for the evidence. Again, in a matter of this importance the mere assumption that Members had read the vast and unclear transcripts surely was not good enough. Is that justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Finally, there was no right of appeal. The most obvious denial of basic human rights to natural justice was the complete absence of appeal, and this was in direct violation of clause 5 of article 14 of the United Nations international convention on civil and political rights. Again, I ask, is that human rights to basic justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
I would now like to turn to the question of political bias on a Committee. It is obvious to anyone studying the reports of Select Committees that strong political bias normally exists. I submit that the Select Committee on Members' Interests was no exception. Again, the repeated protests in the debate of 7 March 1990 by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wealden, show how conscious the Committee must have been about this matter. In the debate the hon. Member for Wealden said, referring to the hon. Member for Workington:
"I can speak with my hand on my heart when I say that the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer),…were hon. members of that Committee, were totally bi-partisan. No sign of political passion crept into the Committee to prejudice the case against my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Winchester."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 900–37.]
1234
These statements were particularly interesting in the light of the vote of the House on 7 March 1990, which was very strictly along party lines. It was also most interesting with regard to the crucial defence evidence in this respect of Mr. Merrick Denton-Thompson, which was written on page 147 of the report. I quote from the letter written to me by Mr. Denton-Thompson on 8 June 1989, submitted in evidence to the Select Committee and in the report, page 147, but discarded by the Committee out of hand. The last paragraph states:
"I am, however, extremely concerned that two Labour Members of the Committee made it quite clear to Mr. Valters that they believed that you would be found in breach of the code of practice and they were both actively seeking evidence against you in a way that could not be described as impartial, indeed they were said to be 'after your blood', 'We will do him'. I have been uncertain as to whether I should alert you to their biased and partial activities, because clearly you are in a very invidious position. Under normal circumstances I would take little notice of statements from the press. However I know this reporter well and indeed he is both totally trustworthy and reliable. As I have no involvement with politics he would have gained nothing by making his comments to me. Please do not hesitate to use this letter at your discretion."
I submitted the letter to the Select Committee. This crucial evidence of alleged political bias was discarded out of hand by the Select Committee, who made no attempt to call Mr. Denton-Thompson to the Committee to be cross-examined. I was not allowed to call him to give evidence verbally to the Committee. Was that denial of the basic right to call a witness justice? The political motivation risked being bust wide open and the evidence was disregarded out of hand.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the bias of friendship. Unlike any court, quasi-court, tribunal or even judical Select Committee, such as sat on the King's Cross Bill, the members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests who were effectively trying a colleague for his political and family life were not asked to make any declaration whatever on whether they had any personal friendship or business relationship with any of the witnesses appearing before them. Such a crucial relationship existed with perhaps the key member of the Select Committee, who intervened repeatedly in the House debate—the hon. Member for Workington. Early-day motion 1210 refers to that.
The findings of the Select Committee are contained in its report to the House of 19 February 1990. It is a vast document and was obviously read by very few hon. Members. However, the Chairman, the hon. Member for Wealden, tried to persuade the House otherwise. He said:
"Many hon. Members have studied the matter closely and read the report, and it is they who will pronounce at the end of the day."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 900.]
There was no mention of the party Whips in that. The statement was followed by the submission of a socialist, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I have not warned him about this, but I will merely quote from what he said in Hansard. Is that in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should give notice to an hon. Member if he wishes to refer to him or, indeed, quote him. The hon. Gentleman would be wise to leave that out.
Mr. Browne: I will leave this out on your recommendation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

1235
I was found guilty of the accidental, technical breach of two rules: one so vague that it had to be corrected 10 minutes after I was sentenced. In the SAMA case—
Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has dealt with some of the technicalities in his long speech. As I understand it from reading the report, the issue on SAMA is relatively simple. The hon. Gentleman's company, Falcon, received $88,000 from the Saudi Arabian Government. I will concede to the hon. Gentleman that the wording of the lists of interests is vague in some respects, but once it was drawn to his attention that there was some concern about the $88,000 that he received through his company from the Saudi Arabian Government, why did he not then declare it?
Mr. Browne: When the hon. Gentleman says "attention", does he mean by the Select Committee or in newspaper articles?
Mr. Fraser: By Mr. Leigh.
Mr. Browne: As I said to the Select Committee, the reason was because I thought that I was right. I had asked the then Registrar on this particular issue whether I had to declare the payment and his answer had been that ii the payment was made to my company which was declared in the normal course of business, it was not a payment to me and need not be declared. He even cited the hypothetical case that if an hon. Member were a director of ICI and all the foreign payments to ICI were printed in the Register of Members' Interests, the computer book would be hugely thick every day just on payments to ICI. That was the justification. Yet, when the Select Committee looked at the matter some eight or nine years later, it read through that and said, "Ah, the hon. Gentleman should have declared that because he owned 50 per cent. of the stock of the company". As I understand it, and the Member for Wealden will verify this, the Committee took several hours to discuss what the foreign payments rule meant. Then, 10 minutes after I had been sentenced by the House, the rule was changed to say clearly that if a Member owns more than 33 per cent. of his company—the Chairman will correct me if I am wrong—he must declare all foreign payments to it, although it itself is declared. That was not part of the rule in 1982 or before 7 March 1990.
In the SAMA case, I had asked the Registrar whether a foreign payment to my company should be declared. In 1983 he told me, as he told other hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), that if the company to which the payment was made was itself declared, as mine was, there was no need to declare the payment if it was made in the course of business. Despite that, the Select Committee apparently made no attempt to call the registrar to give oral evidence. Nor did it call any of the other hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, to whom the same advice had been given. I was specifically prevented from calling the registrar or any of the hon. Members to give verbal evidence. Is that justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
The Committee said that the payment should have been declared because I owned 50 per cent. of the common stock of the company. That ownership rule was not part of the Members' interests rule and was added retrospectively by the House immediately after my sentence on 7 March 1990. It appears that the Select Committee was somewhat desperate to obtain a conviction on this issue. What is
1236
strange is that nothing has been done with regard to the other Conservative Members who were vulnerable on precisely the same point. Stranger still is that all similar potential cases have been dropped.
Mr. Skinner: Name them.
Mr. Browne: It is worth noting that the SAMA case was the subject of one of the two potentially massive libel suits that I had out against Mr. David Leigh, the chief complainant.
In the Chidiac case the sibling relationship between the two Chidiac brothers appears to have been crucial. Although Arab people are not always strict about such matters as the use of writing paper, the Committee made much of the fact that Mr. Charles Chidiac had used the stationery of the London office of his brother's company. That, combined with the sibling relationship, led the Committee to say that I should have been aware that that relationship made my relationship with each of them declarable. The rules made no mention of sibling relationships. Again, there appears to have been considerable bending of the letter of the rules to obtain a prosecution.
Furthermore, although the Select Committee admitted on page 32, paragraph 99 that they
"have not been able entirely to get to the bottom of this matter"
and that "the information we have"—most of it stolen —"is incomplete", it discarded out of hand evidence from me and Mr. Chidiac without calling any of the other parties concerned to give evidence. It appears that, despite the onus of proof that was placed clearly on me as the accused, the Select Committee was thirsty for a conviction on this issue.
The big and burning question remains: why those two particular issues? In neither case had any person been harmed. There was no financial gain to me and no Government policy was either changed or influenced as a result of the relationship that the Committee feels that I should have declared.
Despite the above, the Committee found my technical breaches to have been serious and called for prompt action by the House. However, as I have said consistently, no Committee member attempted to explain why the breaches were deemed serious or what exactly was meant by the word "serious". I was present at the debate, but I was silenced: I was told that to be allowed to stay in the Chamber for the debate I had to give a verbal undertaking that I would not ask any questions, that I would not make any interventions and that I would not challenge anything that was said by another hon. Member after I had sat down, when I was allowed to make not a speech, but a statement which had to be uncontroversial and would be heard in silence.
Furthermore, there was little or no precedent of a similar case, other than that of the infamous trial of the late Lord Boothby. The precedent of some 400 similar declarations made by other hon. Members in which overseas earnings could have been expected as normal, but in which none were declared, are shown clearly on page 67 in question 644 of the report. That was completely ignored by the Select Committee.
The Select Committee's findings should be contrasted with the findings of the same Select Committee in the subsequent cases of the hon. Members for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls), for East Hampshire (Mr.

1237
Mates), and for Workington. All were found to have transgressed, but no action was recommended by the House. In the latter case, the hon. Member for Workington was found repeatedly and deliberately to have disobeyed a specific rule on Members' interests. However, he was a member of the Select Committee to whom the Chairman had referred in the debate on 7 March as being
"so useful to us on the Committee"—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 901.]
In Hansard at column 897, the Leader of the House urges the House constantly to heed precedent in dealing with such cases. The precedent in my case has never been followed, even in the case of deliberate transgression. Does that even sound like justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
I now turn to some coincidences—some very strange coincidences. The first was the strange matching findings of the Committee report with my libel case. As has been said, the journalist Mr. David Leigh had written some highly damaging articles about me during the general election of 1987. I and my solicitors felt that they were highly libellous. Writs were issued and Mr. Leigh has been successfully sued for libel by other Conservative Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), and by Sir Stephen Hastings, Military Cross. We felt that he had made another mistake—this time a big one—on which very substantial damages were due.
During the Committee hearings, it amazed me that the hon. Member for Workington was allowed by the Chairman, the hon. Member for Wealden, to ask questions about this sub judice libel case—report pages 42 and 43, questions 301 to 317. I understand that mention of a sub judice case is not normally allowed by Mr. Speaker. The intensity with which the hon. Member for Workington pressed his questions was also of considerable concern, as was his strong objection—report question 282 —to my consulting with my lawyer. He asked me repeatedly not about the substance of the cases but, most strangely—as if it were of great importance—whether or not I intended to pursue these libel cases. This appeared to be of paramount interest, although it did not relate in any way to the rules on the declaration of Members' interests.
I must stress that these two cases—SAMA and Chidiac —on which the Select Committee found me to have committed serious errors were the very same two cases on which I had current, potentially massive libel suits against Mr. Leigh, the complainant. As a result of the Select Committee hearings, these two libel cases were rendered untenable. This very strange coincidence is even more alarming when one reads early-day motion 1210 and when one hears this boast from the hon. Member for Workington.
After the report was published, the hon. Member for Workington spoke to me in the House outside Committee Room 13. He was amazingly friendly considering the circumstances. He told me that my case had got out of hand, and that the Committee was really after some much bigger and more serious cases involving some very senior Conservatives. He said that the masses of paper produced by my ex-wife made mine a good case to start with as a trend-setter. He than urged me to apologise in the debate, saying that if I did, he and his friends would not vote against me. He added,
1238
"Where I come from, you don't kick a man when he's down."
In the event, he did vote against me despite my apology. He then added a much more sinister comment which should gravely concern all hon. Members. In response to my observation that of all the complaints, I was amazed to be found in error on the SAMA and Chidiac questions, he replied:
"Look, you had libel suits out on those two complaints and I couldn't allow my friend to hang with a million pound suit. That's why I pressed you hard on that point when we took evidence. You should have dropped it."
In other words, had I yielded to his pressure in the Select Committee hearings—report questions 301 to 317 on pages 42 and 43—my case would not even have been pursued, let alone to a show trial in this Chamber. Does this disturb you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Could it be that an hon. Member on the Select Committee had set out from the beginning to get his friend, the complainant Mr. David Leigh, off the hook of a massive libel settlement, and to do so had perpetrated a massive and deliberate injustice in the form of a frame-up against another hon. Member, albeit of a different political persuasion?
When this evidence was put to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, it refused out of hand to hear the case, giving no reasons whatever. Here I want to quote the return letter I got, having sent the case to the Select Committee.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that he had a writ out against David Leigh of The Observer. He has said many times that it was a massive writ and that he was going to make a lot of money. So it was like game, set and match. He goes before the Select Committee which is dominated by Tory Members, not by Labour Members, and with a Tory Chairman. Let us get things in perspective. The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that a Machiavellian Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), has somehow got all those Tory Members round his little finger. The hon. Gentleman claims that, as a result, he cannot pursue his writ. What happened to that massive writ? If the hon. Gentleman had such a first-class case, what happened to it? How much money did he get? If he did not pursue it, why did he not do so if he had all the cards stacked on his side?
Mr. Browne: First, talking about the massive Conservative majority on the Committee—
Mr. Skinner: Well, there is.
Mr. Browne: Absolutely right—the hon. Gentleman is right. However I am sure that he has heard of the Whips Office. Indeed, his own Whip, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is sitting close to him. It is a point that I have already made in the debate. Regarding the writ, it would be impossible in my lawyers' view once the House had given its ruling. It was tough enough to get any court in the land to rule on an internal matter of the House of Commons concerning House of Commons rules. That was a dangerous thing. It was going to be tough. But when the House of Commons Select Committee on Members' Interests had made the ruling it did, the case was absolutely untenable.
The letter that I got back from the Committee, dated 27 March 1991, said:

1239
"Dear Mr. Browne. In accordance with the procedure laid down by the House on 22 May 1974, I referred your letter of 14 March 1991 containing a complaint against Mr. Campbell-Savours to the Committee.
The Committee have asked me to say that they did not wish to proceed with the matter, and returned your letter to me. Signed A. J. Hastings, Registrar and Clerk of the Committee."
Surely the Select Committee should normally have been expected to express keen interest in investigating a potential wrongdoing by one of its own members of such gravity and moment. Does this disturb you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? This strange matching of Select Committee findings with my libel case is the strangest coincidence of all in this saga of intrigue.
I now turn to the strange precision of the Committee's findings themselves. The precisely convenient drafting of the findings of the House of Commons Select Committee was quite extraordinary. The Select Committee's findings allowed the Conservative Whips to guarantee me one of two totally opposed options: either a take-note motion with no punishment whatever, or a motion to punish me in an extreme manner. Does it raise your eyebrows, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those findings of the Select Committee allowed both options to be put by the Government Whips?
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) got a more severe punishment for what he did with the Mace.
Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman says that another hon. Member got a similar punishment, I think for dropping the Mace.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is talking about having suffered an extreme penalty. The Committee, with its massive Tory majority, decided on a vote that the hon. Gentleman should be expelled for 20 days. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith touched the Mace one night and was kicked out for three months. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was thrown out because he had the guts to say that the Prime Minister of the day was lying. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has just come into the Chamber, was thrown out because he held up proceedings on the Budget for about five minutes.
I ask hon. Members to reflect on the situation. This bloke pocketed £88,000, did not put it in the Register in the proper manner, and is now whingeing. He is still a Member of Parliament and has been picking up his money all the time, as well as massive sums from various companies. Yet he claims to have suffered an extreme penalty. He is in trouble because the Tory heirarchy have put the knife in his back.
Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning at least one point. Perhaps the House does not view a 20-day suspension as an extreme punishment, but outside this House, the concept is viewed as a very extreme punishment, and it does enormous damage.
The Select Committee's findings allowed the Conservative Whips to guarantee me either a take-note motion with no punishment whatever, or a motion to punish me in an extreme manner. I hope that you will forgive those, Mr. Speaker, who see the possibility—I put it no higher at this stage—of collusion. The House investigations may show more, new and additional proof than the recordings that I have on the subject.
1240
A reference in the book on Lord Boothby by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge makes an interesting comparison. Evidently Lord Boothby, when a Member of this House, was fixed by the very same mechanism, in which the Conservative Whips played a most active part in the running of the Select Committee. That active role of the Conservative Whips in important issues concerning Select Committee has recently been evidenced again by the sudden change of heart on the part of the Select Committee on Health in toning down its report of July 1991.
Even to this day the Whips Office appears to be playing a crucial role. When, on the written recommendation of the present Prime Minister, I went to the present Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), to ask for help over my appeal to the House, the door was slammed shut: "It is for the Leader of the House alone—you cannot expect any help from me," he said. Later in the conversation he said, "If you do not stand down at the next election, I will use all the resources at my command against you."
That appears already to have started, for there have been more unannounced ministerial visits to my constituency in the last six months than in the previous 12 years. Now, even the selected candidate—the candidate selected by my local association to run against me—threatens, if press reports are correct, that no fewer than six Ministers, and even the Prime Minister, will come to speak for him in the election campaign if I do not stand down. It sounds almost as though a by-election is to take place in Winchester.
Only two days ago an article appeared in the Daily Express saying that the Whips Office had said that I should have declared an interest called the John Browne foundation. I hereby say that no such foundation existed or exists, now or at any time. So the letter is about a non-existent foundation that I am supposed to have registered. I called the Chief Whip about it, but instead of offering to investigate the matter urgently, he wanted to hear none of it, saying that it was a matter for the pairing Whip rather than for him. Washed hands.
The third extraordinary coincidence to which I must refer is that of timing of the House of Commons debate on 7 March and the timing of a meeting of my executive on the same day. My constituency association, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Felicity Hindson, who was once chairman of the women's advisory committee of the then Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), arranged for a special meeting of the Winchester executive to take place in a village hall, rather than in Winchester, on the very evening of 7 March 1990. The cost of the hall was £29.50—not much to lose if the meeting was cancelled.
That meeting was heavily supervised by Conservative Central Office, in the person of the area agent, Mr. Donald Stringer—the same Mr. Stringer, who, I understand, managed the selection process in Cheltenham and was consulted about the famous letter of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), now Secretary of State for the Environment, when he wrote to his executive. By a quite extraordinary coincidence, the then Leader of the House, a friend of my chairman, arranged for the debate on my interests to be held at precisely the same time, on the afternoon and evening of 7 March 1990. He announced that fact publicly on Thursday 1 March at

1241
business question time. Mrs. Hindson who has subsequently been awarded the MBE—after only two years as constituency chairman—made no attempt to change the timing of the Winchester executive meeting to enable me to attend, or to allow those especially keen members of my executive to watch my trial on television, despite the fact that she had had secret advance warning of an ambush motion to be put by a Brigadier Lanyon at that special executive meeting to recommend the opening of reselection procedures. Mrs. Hindson finally admitted to that prior knowledge over a year later, under heavy questioning from the floor of the Winchester annual general meeting, on 25 April 1991. Furthermore, under the Winchester association rule 18(2) (c), she was obliged to keep me fully informed on matters of parliamentary candidature. In this case, I was kept totally in the dark.
The result of those conflicting meetings—of my constituency executive and in the Chamber—was that I was unable to explain to my executive my objection in principle to the whole idea of reselection. I maintain that it is a socialist phenomenon tending to make Members of Parliament more like delegates of a few senior party officials rather than the representatives of their constituents. In my absence, the meeting in my constituency was persuaded that reselection would be greatly to my advantage, as it would wipe the slate clean of all the problems that I faced in the media.
Mr. Skinner: Did you fall for that?
Mr Browne: I was not even asked to fall for it because I had to be here to make my statement. My point is that I was not even there. So the real question is whether the members attending the meeting fell for it.
Owing to my firmly held beliefs, I did not submit my name for reselection, as a matter of principle. On the other hand, as I did not submit to the unconstitutional pressure brought on me, as mentioned in early-day motion 1211, I did not stand down. The result is now total chaos in my constituency. With a Conservative ex-Whip as the official candidate, there are serious splits and extremely low
1242
morale. My constituency has now been placed in jeopardy with the prospect of two Father Christmases at the next general election.
I come to the subject of unconstitutional pressure.
Mr. Fraser: I am curious. The hon. Gentleman said tht the chairperson of his constituency party got her MBE after being chair for only two years. What is the tariff in the Tory party for an MBE?
Mr. Browne: The tariff that I have seen is that if one is chairman of a constituency association for three years and then president for three years, one has about a one in four chance of getting an MBE. The person in question had been chairman for about a year and a half, and suddenly out of the blue an MBE came winging its way. I tried to find who had recommended it, and on what grounds, but all information was tightly sealed.
I turn to the subject of unconstitutional pressure. According to the Chief Whip, the Select Committee report was leaked to him by a Committee member just over a week before it was published on 9 February 1990. I do not personally believe that it was leaked in that way, but none the less that is what I was told.
From that moment on, senior officers of state clearly sought to pervert the course of justice. Although numbed by the media onslaught, I was put under the greatest pressure to stand down at the next election, in return for a Government guarantee that I would not be punished in any way. I was told that I must stand down—not immediately, thus causing an embarrassing by-election, but at the next general election. The precision of the House Select Committee findings allowed all three of those options.
I was told that if I agreed to stand down I would not be punished in any way, and that sympathetic and even laudatory speeches would be made about me from the Government Front Bench and from some Back Bench supporters. The House would pass a take-note motion, with no punishment. I would then be assured of a very easy time regarding late night votes, and pairing until the next general election and would be positively considered—
It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Fishery Decommissioning Scheme
11 am
Mr. Alex Salmond(by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the fishery decommissioning scheme he announced on 27 February.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I refer the hon. Member to my pursuant reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) yesterday evening. I explained that my fellow Fisheries Ministers and I are proposing a programme of closely linked measures to reduce the over-fishing which is posing serious problems for many stocks vital to the long-term future of our fishing industry. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that I have pointed out on numerous occasions that there is no way in which we can safeguard the future of our present fishermen and of their sons and daughters without serious conservation moves.
The object of the proposed programme will be to reduce fishing effort over the period up to 1996. An essential feature of the programme will be the introduction of direct controls on fishing effort. Initially, we plan to freeze effort in 1993 at its 1991 level, with the permitted level of effort then decreasing in 1994 to 1996. How much we will have to reduce effort will depend, in part, on the outcome of forthcoming European Community discussions about the 1992–96 multi-annual guidance programme and, partly, on the impact of the other measures that we also propose to introduce.
The other proposed measures include a decommissioning scheme to operate over two years with provision for expenditure of up to £25 million. That scheme will be cash-limited and subject to tight controls and will be designed to take out the maximum amount of fishing effort. No decommissioning payments will be committed until measures to control and reduce fishing effort are in place, which we intend to seek to achieve in 1993.
In addition, we are proposing changes in our quota management and licence transfer rules, so as to encourage fish producers' organisations to play a more active part in rationalising the fleet and to increase the pressure to reduce the size of the fleet. Further, we intend to extend restrictive licensing to vessels of 10 m and below in length so as to prevent expansion in this sector of the fleet undermining the effectiveness of our other measures. Finally, we propose to make it possible for fishermen to trade their days at sea entitlements along with fishing licences.
We shall shortly be consulting the European Community Commission and the fishing industry about the details of this important conservation package. When parliamentary time permits, the Government will introduce the primary legislation that will be needed for some elements of the package, such as the arrangements of trading days at sea entitlements.
My right hon. Friends and I are putting this important programme forward now following a series of discussions with industry interests, in which we have made it clear that we would be prepared to introduce a further decommissioning scheme only as part of a package that would have real conservation benefits. The package is a careful combination of payments to industry, encouragement to voluntary action and some compulsory effort reduction.
1244
Reducing fishing effort is crucial to the long-term interests of our fishermen as well as the fish stocks. We look forward to constructive discussions with the industry about our proposals.
Mr. Salmond: That is a useful statement from the Minister, bacause it contrasts sharply with the bullish assessment given by the Scottish Office yesterday evening. Can the Minister tell the House whether the funding proposed for the decommissioning scheme is fully comparable with that which has been available to other European fleets in the past few years, and if not why not? Can he specify exactly what extensions to the tie-up regulations he is proposing? If he is going in for transferable, viable and sellable quotas, how will he avoid the concentration of ownership in a few hands in the fishing industry, to the detriment of the family-run industry in Scotland?
Would the Minister be prepared to join me in appealing to the chairmen of all the major clearing banks to suspend repossessions of fishing boats until it can be worked out whether the scheme will help fishermen in that position to leave the industry with dignity?
Finally, does the Minister have no sense of shame or regret about his obduracy and his role in stopping such a scheme during the past few years and causing so much grief and heartache in our fishing communities?
Mr. Gummer: You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the word "conservation" once during his questions. One of the serious sadnesses of the discussions is that the Scottish nationalists appear to think that the only thing that we need to do is to hand out money to people and not to protect the stocks. Again and again I have asked for the Scottish nationalists' support for conservation. On every occasion they have refused to do anything to seek it, except to demand that taxpayers' money should be paid, without question, for the decommissioning scheme.
First, I am not going to compare this scheme with any other. I would not have given the private notice question the title which the hon. Member suggested. The most important thing about the scheme is that it is intended further to conserve stocks of fish, to conserve the Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish fishing industries for today and tomorrow. I am sad that the Scottish nationalists have not joined me in that.
I have only one sense of shame—shame that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has not taken the opportunity to thank us for this package.
I am also sad that the industry has not introduced the package, but I respect the large number of fishermen who will fully support the package, which is the right balance between asking the industry to make a substantial contribution—which is what I have been asking for for 18 months—both in the new job of the fish producers' organisations, which will be able to play a part in decommissioning, and in the fact that there will be further tie-ups. I have tried to create a situation in which there are only so many days at sea. We shall freeze that effort, as I suggested in 1991, from the beginning of 1993 and we shall reduce the effort, as is necessary to conserve stocks.
I repeat that the intention of the scheme is to conserve stocks. The idea of trading days at sea entitlement is to give some flexibility between fishermen all over the United Kingdom. It is something that fishermen in Scotland will

1245
especially welcome, because it will mean that they will be able to adapt their fishing according to their needs in a way which would not otherwise have been available to them.
Mr. Keith Mans: These measures will be warmly welcomed by my fishermen in Fleetwood, especially as my right hon. Friend has taken on board the need for a decommissioning scheme to be part of an overall protection package. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to introduce that decommissioning scheme, provided that agreement is reached with the rest of the industry on other protection measures?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend say more clearly what he is proposing to do about licensing of boats of less than 10 m? Finally, will the scheme that he has proposed encourage a newer, smaller fleet and encourage some of the older vessels to leave the fleet?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The intention is to conserve stocks for the present and future. It is unlikely that the conservation measures that I have outlined will be agreed by the Commission and be in place in the fishing ports in advance of the dates that I have suggested. However, I shall certainly look at my hon. Friend's proposition. I cannot encourage him, simply because, having realised how complex a matter it is, I think that his aim is unlikely to be achieved.
In all the talks that I have had with representatives of the fishing industry, it has been clear that they have taken an increasingly serious view of the need to restrict efforts. I am pleased that the general tone of the fishing industry has been to welcome the sort of package that we have put together and presaged in a series of debates, both in the House and elsewhere. I shall certainly consider the other points raised by my hon. Friend to see whether there is any further action that we can take.
As for the licensing of smaller boats, the intention is to meet a demand of the fishing industry, members of which have become more and more concerned that the 10m boats and below are increasingly fishing stocks, so that they are unavailable to the more professional fishermen. Some such boats are very professional and keep just below the limit. I do not want that to continue. Such action is particularly prevalent in fishing ports such as my hon. Friend's, where times have been extremely difficult.
I very much respect those who have stuck to their guns and determined to keep fishing. They have felt that their stocks had been purloined by those fishermen not subject to the same restrictions. In future, those fishermen shall be so subject.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree that such a matter would have been more appropriate for an oral statement than for a written answer and the chance of a private notice question?
Approximately what proportion of existing fishing vessels over a certain length are likely to be decommissioned as a result of the scheme? Will the Minister assure the House that he believes that there is an equivalence of surveillance of catchings, as distinct from landings, of fish throughout the EEC? Will he enlighten us as to why, twice yesterday at—column 1118 in answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and at column 1123 in answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan
1246
(Mr. Salmond)—the Leader of the House said that there would not be a statement, despite the accusation that the matter was imminent?
Does not the fact that the subject occurs in columns 612–13 of Hansard, published in the early hours of this morning, and was issued to the press at 5 pm yesterday, mean that the Government are at sixes and sevens with the House and the fishing public on this vital issue?
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The likelihood is that the proposal might reach about 12 per cent. of the fleet. The decommissioning part of the plan is only one part of it, and the earlier part of my statement is perhaps the most important, as it commits the Government and the fishing industry to a significant restriction on effort in order to protect the future, by protecting the stocks. The hon. Gentleman will know that the United Kingdom has the largest proportion of fishing stocks in the European Community. It is perfectly true that, due to that fact, our surveillance is tougher, better and more extensive than any other Community country.
I want to improve the surveillance that other countries have over their boats. Therefore, it was my job when I was Minister of State successfully to press the Commission to set up an inspectorate of inspectors and extend that inspectorate on the second occasion. I hope that we shall improve that further, as there is no doubt that the Commission has complimented the United Kingdom on the quality, extent and integrity of its surveillance. We shall continue to uphold those standards in this country. We hope to spread them to the rest of the Community.
As to the comments of my right hon. Friend, he knew that I would produce a statement as quickly as possible. He did not know that I would be able to do so as quickly as I did. My speed surprised even myself.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: When my right hon. Friend the Minister came to Norfolk last year, he will have heard some of the problems of the Wash shell fishermen who are concerned about conservation, and conserving stocks of shrimps, cockles, whelks and mussels. The Minister will have heard about how the industry plays a crucial part in the local economy. He will also be aware of the concern about the EC shellfish directive and various closure orders in the Wash, and about the threat of larger boats coming into the Wash and fishing for the inshore stock.
To what extent will today's statement affect the inshore Wash shell fishery? Could we include in today's proposals measures to alleviate the problems caused by large boats coming in and taking the stock that local fishermen believe to be theirs?
Mr. Gummer: I very much understand what my hon. Friend has said, not least because I, like him, have a fishing constituency with a proportionately large number of fishermen who are longshoremen and have precisely those problems, although the species are different. I do not believe that we can take measures under the proposals specifically to address my hon. Friend's concerns, but I am looking at ways in which the present system bears upon the smaller fishermen, particularly in relation to shellfish, where there are real worries.
May I correct an answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—[Interruption.] There is no need to worry—I shall state absolutely clearly that it would be more accurate to answer

1247
the question about the effect of decommissioning to say that we think that 10 per cent. of effort will be removed by the decommissioning as it stands.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister recognise that for all of us, from all quarters, who have been pressing long and hard for the Government to concede the principle of decommissioning, the Government's concession—their deathbed conversion—is welcome? But the industry's suspicions are likely to be aroused by the uncharacteristic reluctance of this Minister, of all Ministers, to come to the House to tell us of his departmental activities?
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the statement issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday, when he spoke of the £25 million that was to be put into decommissioning? Is the entire decommissioning scheme to be Government funded, or will it involve an anticipated contribution from the industry? Will he take this opportunity to respond to the anxiety felt on both coastlines in the north of Scotland—that of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and mine —over the repossessions currently taking place? Will he influence the respective chairmen of the clearing banks involved to urge them not to proceed with that policy?
In his announcement, the Minister placed emphasis on the other measures—tie-up days, transferrable licences and so on. When he quite properly speaks of the need for continuing constructive discussions with the industry, will he bear in mind the particular problems that such measures pose for smaller fishing communities? Will he consider the lack of support that those measures have generated within some sectors of the fishing industry?
Mr. Gummer: I acknowledge that, in contradistinction to others, the hon. Gentleman has always made a major point about conservation and has always accepted that it had to be part of any scheme that we proposed. It is perhaps unfair of him to suggest that we had to concede the principle, as I accepted it 18 months ago, but on the condition that there was a substantial contribution by the industry. The Government's contribution is £25 million, most of which will be paid by the British taxpayer. The industry's contribution is a serious one and there will be a heavier weight attached to it due to conservation reasons and tie-up days.
In future we shall provide fish producer organisations with the ability to discover in what spheres they may seek to rationalise their own local problems at their expense. That will not be enforced, but will take the form of voluntary action if they are prepared to do so. The whole industry will be affected by the more general conservation measures that will arise partly due to the extension of the licensing of boats of 10 m and below.
That is the industry contribution and it is the one with which I hoped that it would come forward. All the elements of that contribution have been suggested by those within the industry who are concerned about it. I think that it strikes the right balance. In the past, the hon. Member has suggested that he was not unwilling to see such a balance achieved. The £25 million is the Government contribution and there is no question of taxing or raising money from the industry to contribute to that.
I very much agree with what the hon. Member said about smaller communities. Unless we do something
1248
significant about conservation, it is those communities which will be most obviously affected. The hon. Gentleman will know from his part of the United Kingdom how much antagonism between communities has arisen because of the shortage of fish. It has not been a pretty sight to see the way in which different parts of Scotland, let alone Scotland and England, and different parts of England have argued among themselves because of the extremely limited amount of fish available. I hope that the proposed scheme will help those communities in the long run. I shall consider carefully the way in which the burdens of that scheme fall upon individual small communities. I have such communities in my constituency and I understand their concerns.
The tie-up is difficult, but it is better to have a tie-up under the current proposals than under the unsatisfactory proposals that were previously forced upon us by the Commission—even after we had changed them to an extent. The much more flexible proposals were British initiated and they were hard-fought for by the Parliamentary Secretary and myself. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that they are a great improvement.
I shall talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about specific examples of repossessions. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends wish to inform me of particular cases I would be happy to take them up individually.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this issue is a matter of balance? The answer my right hon. Friend has given strikes the right balance between the short-term interests of the fishermen and the long-term issue of conservation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scottish National party should recognise that unless we preserve the fish stocks, there will not be any fishermen in the future?
Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sad that this is not a matter of universal agreement in the House. The written answer that I gave yesterday seemed to me to be so obviously a balanced one that it could not cause any kind of controversy. The fact that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) seeks to make it controversial shows that, once again, conservation that costs something—all effective conservation does—is not something that the Scottish National party is ever prepared to support.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister has placed you, Mr. Speaker in an invidious position today, whereby you felt that you had to grant a private notice question because this is the first opportunity to ask questions following the statement published this morning in Hansard. I believe that the statement made at the Dispatch Box today is designed to snooker my hon. Friends with responsibilities for fisheries who are unable to be here today because they are busily involved in constituency engagements. What the right hon. Gentleman has done is a breach of parliamentary faith and that is wrong.
What will be the position of the small boats of less than 10 m that will be decommissioned? Will they be destroyed? Will they be burnt, broken up or put to alternative use? Is it possible that some of those boats could be used as part

1249
of Britain's aid programme and sent to overseas countries where they could be put to good use in underprivileged fishing communities?
I give the statement a cautious welcome. I should like to know how it will precisely impact on communities such as my own of Maryport in my constituency. To find the answer I shall have to make contact with some of my fishing colleagues, such as Mr. Madine and Mr. Harold Musgrove, who is a Maryport resident. They will quickly inform me of the value of this particular statement. Therefore, although I give a cautious welcome to the statement, I reserve some judgment on it.
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his cautious welcome, and I should be happy to talk to him about the specific problems of Maryport—an area which faces difficult economic problems in any case. Obviously I hope that my statement will make a contribution, at least in the medium term, to the resources and abilities of his constituents to fish.
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's fishermen will tell him that the announcement is good as far as it goes, but that they wish that the burden of conservation did not have to be borne by them. That is one of our problems. We are asking today's fishermen to take on a considerable burden, because of the over-fishing of the past, to provide for real fishing in the future. I recognise that fishermen find that extremely difficult, and it is for that reason that I believe that the significant sum of taxpayers' money should be part of the deal. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's fishermen will find that satisfactory.
I do not believe that I put you, Mr. Speaker, in any difficult position, but, if I had done so, I would have been the first to apologise. I do not believe that to be the case, because the private notice question technique is a standard part of the House's methods of communication. The hon. Gentleman was able to put his question and I was able to answer it. I, too, had constituency engagements today, but if others had wished to be here, I am sure that they could have been present.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is there not another reason why this statement has been made this morning in answer to a private notice question? It is because the right hon. Gentleman has been locked in mortal combat with the Scottish Office, and other sections of the Tory party, for the past three years.
There is another way of looking at this statement. It is not all sunshine, because the right hon. Gentleman has really said that we shall have fewer fishermen and fewer boats getting fish and that the price of fish will go up. We are a maritime nation, an island in the Common Market, but ever since we went into that tinpot Common Market, our fishermen have been told that they cannot catch as much fish as they did before, because it must be surrendered to the other 11 EC countries. A number of hon. Members have complimented the Minister today. What for? He is being complimented for sacking people, stopping them working and throwing them on the dole. What a carry-on.
Mr. Gummer: The House will have noticed the hon. Member's eloquent support for Labour party policy on the EEC—
Mr. Skinner: I am not surrendering to the Germans.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman appears to be fighting battles long over.
Mr. Skinner: I will win in the end.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gummer: He does so with scant connection with the facts. The problem is not our Community partners, but the fish. I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is far removed from the sea—
Mr. Skinner: We have to buy fish.
Mr. Gummer: The reason that there is a shortage of fish is not the European Community but the fact that we have over-fished in the past. We have the largest amount of European fish and it is our over-fishing, as well as that of others, that has caused the problem.
It would be wrong to suggest that we can blame this problem on others. We have fished too much and we must hold back on our fishing. We will do so to give our next generation the opportunity to fish in what is the largest sector of EC fisheries. Thank goodness we have a common fisheries policy, because that is the only effective safeguard for the conservation of our fish stocks.
The hon. Gentleman is fighting long-lost battles, and the sadness about it is that he misleads the House by suggesting that an alternative policy would reap any better results.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Minister accept that his statement this morning that he will talk to Labour Members or to the Secretary of State for Scotland will not help the immediate repossessions that we are seeing now and that will come about later in the year in the fishing industry? It is not just a problem for Scotland—it exists in Redcar and up the north-east coast, in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends. Will he make a commitment to talk to the clearing banks about the difficulty, because next year, as he and I know, will be too late for many of those fisheries people?
Mr. Gummer: In case others are not aware of this, I should make it clear that, although the specific cases which no doubt the hon. Lady would like to bring to my attention, although she has not done so so far—I do not believe that I have had a letter from her asking for support on this—
Ms. Mowlam: It is not up to the Minister; the clearing banks make the decisions.
Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Lady has a particular case that she wants me to take up, I have always shown myself extremely willing to talk to Members of Parliament about individual cases. The hon. Lady has not so far contacted me, but if she were willing to do so, I could take it up with the clearing bank concerned.
In general, the fishing industry's returns have kept up with inflation, because, although the numbers of fish that have been taken are smaller, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has told us, the price of fish has also risen. Therefore, it is untrue to say that the fishing industry overall is enduring general repossessions. There may be individual cases, and in those cases I am happy to do whatever I can to help. If the hon. Lady has such a case

1251
—it will of course be in England, as her constituency is in England and will therefore be my responsibility—I should be happy to take it up at the moment that she gives me the details.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: To pick up a point made by the Minister, my hon. Friends who normally speak on the fishing industry are in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is 300 miles away, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) is 200 miles away. They are absent not only because of the assurances given by the Leader of the House yesterday but because of the assurances given late yesterday by the private offices of Ministers that a statement on this matter would not be made in the near future. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to apologise for that information, which came directly from his Department.
Is the Minister aware that the Labour party generally welcomes the decommissioning scheme that he has announced? He should not be surprised at that, because Labour colleagues both north and south of the border have been pressing for this action for many years. We recognise that a balance has to be struck between guaranteeing the livelihood of those involved in fishing today and conserving stock for the fishing communities of tomorrow—the whole principle of sustainable development that I wish was introduced in other Departments.
Does the Minister think that the £25 million that he has announced—there seems to be some confusion about the amount of reduction in capacity that that will bring—is adequate to deal with the problem? How does he react to the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which believes the sum to be inadequate?
Does the Minister agree that had this scheme been introduced two years ago, as the Labour party demanded, there would have been greater stability in the fishing industry today and we could have avoided the need for the other and more draconian restrictions that the Minister also announced today? Is it not a fact that this is a cynical deathbed conversion, which has more to do with the date of the election than with the Minister's concern with the fishing industry?
Mr. Gummer: This scheme could not have been introduced two years ago, because the arrangements under which the European Community operated would not have given us the opportunities to take the conservation measures that we now have.—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady has asked a question and I will answer it politely. She will then no doubt be able to intervene if she thinks that I have not answered it adequately.
In the past 18 months, we have spent a great deal of time working in the European Community to get the system that makes possible what I announced yesterday. That is why it could not have been done or announced before. In any case, the reason for the announcement at this time has to do with the agreement that we have to enter with the European Community about our multi-annual guidance programme targets.
We now know that our fleet will overshoot those targets and we have to negotiate with the Commission on the basis of what target we should have, how we will keep our fleet within those targets and the effort within those targets over the period 1992–96. The hon. Lady does not normally
1252
speak on this subject, so she will understand if I say this directly—this is the timing that is inevitable given the European Community's timing.
As to the hon. Lady's colleagues, I have made no further announcement today that was not clearly put in the answer to the written question that I gave last night. I am answering this private notice question today—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady wants an answer and can no doubt return on the matter if she wishes to. Her synthetic anger will be seen by all. There is a private notice question today and I am answering it. Every hon. Member who is present has seen that I have given no further information than that which was already in the hands of the House in the perfectly sensible, public answer to a written question which I made yesterday.
The hon. Lady said that the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations thinks that this amount of money is inadequate. I suspect that, whatever figure had been placed on this, those who are the recipients would have liked more. I believe that this is the right balance and I should like to thank her for her willingness to say that, if there is to be a decommissioning scheme, it must be part of a package. However, the difference is that that is a balance which we have achieved, which she has supported but which, up to now, her hon. Friends have not pressed for. Like so many others, they are keen on emphasising the scheme that puts money into people's pockets without accepting the other half, which is very tough, which the fishermen recognise and with which I concern myself because it is hard for them.
Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your name has been mentioned in relation to embarrassment; I would not know whether that is so and I would not ask. However, is it not clear from the exchanges that we have just had that certain hon. Members, including those on the Opposition Front Bench, have been embarrassed today by the turn of events? You will have just heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) ask for an apology from the Minister. You will know that, yesterday, when he was asked whether a statement was imminent, the Leader of the House—no doubt in good faith, because I know him—said:
"I am not yet in a position to say when conclusions will be reached."—[Official Report, 27 February 1992; Vol. 204, c. 1118.]
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that at that very moment an envelope must have been on the way to give the hon. Gentleman who had asked the written question his answer. Therefore, is it not a fact that there has been a breach of order or of courtesy and that some apology is required? The Minister has not yet given it. Can we ask whether the apology is due from the Leader of the House—I do not think that it is, knowing his general conduct—or from the Minister of Fisheries—I think that it might be—whose conduct we have just witnessed?
Mr. Speaker: This is a private Members' day, and there are other motions on the Order Paper. I was not embarrassed by this matter. I consider private notice questions on their merits, and that is the basis on which I granted the private notice question today.
Mr. Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would not be in my nature to be curmudgeonly.

1253
If any hon. Member feels that he could have been better served by me or my Ministry, I am sorry that he does feel so. I shall try to ensure that he does not feel so in future.
Mr. Speaker: After that handsome apology, I do not think that there is anything more to be said.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether you might comment, Mr. Speaker, on what happened yesterday. The Leader of the House gave—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that I cannot comment. It is not for me to comment on these matters. As I have said, this is a private Members' motions day. The hon. Member knows—he has often been in this position himself—that it would be unfair to take up time with points of order that I cannot answer.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: At the same time that the Leader of the House was telling the House that there would be no answer, a letter was winging its way to an hon. Member including a parliamentary answer that was entirely at variance with an undertaking being given by the Leader of the House. Surely that shows that there was some congestion in Whitehall.
In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you said that you consider whether a private notice question is important enough to be granted. There is an additional factor that you are required to take into account, and that is whether it is the first opportunity to raise the matter. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first opportunity to raise the matter and that only on this day would you be prepared to grant the private notice question? If an hon. Member such as myself had come to you on Monday, you would have said, "The first opportunity was last Friday." Is it not clear, therefore, that there was very little that you could do other than allow the private notice question today, given that the answer was given yesterday and published in Hansard this morning? Is not that the reality?
Mr. Speaker: Of course that is true. The hon. Member correctly states the criteria against which I judge applications for private notice questions.

Members' Interests
Question again proposed.
11.41 am
Mr. John Browne: As I was saying Mr. Speaker, I was told that, if I did agree to stand down at the next general election, I would not be punished in any way. In fact, sympathetic and even laudatory speeches would be made about me from the Government Front Bench and from Government Back Bench supporters. The House would pass a take-note motion, and there would be no punishment. I would then be assured of an easy time here with regard to late nights, pairing and so on, until the next election. I would be positively considered for any Committees or overseas visits for which I applied. On the other hand, if I did not submit, I could rest assured that the House would pass a hostile motion involving severe punishment.
That offer was entirely unconstitutional, in that it denied the rights of my constituents to vote either for or against their sitting Member at the next general election. When I asked, "What about my constituents?", I was told by the party chairman, "Do not worry about your constituents." But I do worry about my constituents and their rights, over those of party officials, to hire and fire hon. Members of the House.
This is a fundamental pillar of democracy. Surely we want hon. Members to be answerable to their constituents, and thereby to serve the interests of their constituents rather than those of party officials. We do not wish Members of the House to be answerable to, and thereby to become the private delegates of, a few party officials. Is that not what our British democracy is all about? Surely that should be a matter of concern to all right hon. and hon. Members of the House.
Worse still, what happened was one of the gravest possible abuses of judicial power. Pressure was put upon me by some of the most powerful people in the land—namely, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East who is not only a Queen's Counsel of the High Court of England, but was then Leader of the House, in charge of the business of the House, and, as Foreign Secretary, had been in charge of MI6; the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who, as Home Secretary, is in charge of MI5; and the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, who was in charge of the Government Whips Office.
With such great power wielded with impunity against the flow of justice, what man or women in our land can consider himself or herself safe from an individual purge for political reasons? Under such circumstances, when the Government call for silence, it is indeed the silence of the lambs. Does that not worry you, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
That illicit pressure was placed on me at a series of well-recorded meetings held in the Chief Whip's Office and the offices of the Leader of the House and of the party chairman. Interestingly, some of those meetings are not even recorded in the official diaries of the Ministers concerned. One meeting was so secret that I was met outside the door of the building not by the Minister's secretary but by the Chief Whip himself, who ushered me in to see the Minister in a back room, without my name being registered as a visitor.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Browne: No, I have already given way a lot, and I have been given the vibes to get a move on.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Browne: No, I shall not—not for the moment, anyway.
That series of meetings confirmed my worst thoughts.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why will the hon. Gentleman not give way?
Mr. Browne: It was apparent to me—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why will the hon. Gentleman not give way? He has made a series of allegations—
Mr. Browne: It was apparent to me that the Labour party—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The wider general public, and those who read Hansard, will know that, over the past hour and a half, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has made a series of outrageous allegations about me. Do you not think it right in the circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is it not the custom of the House—that, when such allegations have been made, the Member on his feet who is making them should give way at least once, so that a single question can he asked?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a matter for the hon. Member who is speaking.
Mr. Browne: The hon. Member for Workington was not present when I said those things—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been in the Chamber ever since we started.
Mr. Browne: I shall refer to the hon. Gentleman again, and I shall gladly give way at that time, but I shall not give way to him at the moment.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this issue?
Mr. Browne: No. I am talking about the Government Whips Office. I have had the vibes to get a move on, and so far I have given way to every demand that I do so. I must get on.
The series of meetings to which I referred confirmed my worst thoughts. It was apparent to me that the Labour party was out for the blood of a Conservative Member on the issue of Members' interests. That was mentioned in Mr. Merrick Denton-Thompson's letter, referred to on page 147 of the Committee report, which I have already read out, and which said that people were after my blood.
It is interesting that that letter was discarded out of hand by the Committee on the word of another journalist. As the hon. Member for Bolsover has said, the question is: why my blood? I shall attempt to answer that key question by referring to some outside factors that were allowed to influence the course of justice.
In 1988–89, the flavour of the season in the media was the subject of Members' interests. That was magnified by consistent pressure brought by some socialist Members. Allegations were made by socialist Members and by the
1256
media against a number of Conservative Ministers, former Ministers and senior Back Benchers. It was an unpleasant and threatening pressure on the Conservative party.
In 1989, the Labour party—especially Members seated below the Gangway—began to interrupt Prime Minister's Questions with persistent choruses of, "Sleaze party," and, "Party of sleaze." Again, that gave cause for considerable concern, which was apparent in the way in which it was received by the then Prime Minister.
At that time, I was involved with the Protection of Privacy Bill, and in an acrimonious divorce, about which there have been many misconceptions. Despite such provocation, I have never spoken ill of my former wife, nor sought to put publicly my side of that great human tragedy. However, I shall now list some undisputed facts.
In 1983 my former wife—now Mrs. Elizabeth Jowitt —left me for my one-time lawyer, Mr. Ernest Jowitt, with whom she had previously committed adultery, and whom she has since married. She sued me for divorce and it was agreed that the divorce should take place on the grounds of my adultery. There may have been reasons, even understandable reasons, with a wife committing adultery, but there can be no excuse for it—and, indeed, I felt much shame.
In the subsequent High Court action concerning financial settlement, Mr. Justice Wood reached some important judgments, most notably those of 6 February 1986 and 25 November 1986. These judgments were subsequently confirmed before the Court of Appeal on 23 November 1988. All of them were public and, indeed, all but the main initial hearings were in public. Despite that, certain sections of the media chose to present a totally different picture of the truth.
According to the Court of Appeal, page 9, columns G and H and page 10, column A:
"there has been a great deal of publicity in the past over this case. There has, it appears, been misleading impressions of the types of applications and the purpose of the applications made by this husband, the suggestion, I believe, that he was a man hoping to live off a rich wife. The facts are very different."
In the media, the breakdown of the marriage was blamed upon my adultery. However, in his judgment of 6 February 1986, Mr. Justice Wood points to the fact that my ex-wife had two prior adulterous relationships—page five, paragraph H, and page six, paragraphs A and F. The media have never made mention of this to my knowledge.
Mr. Justice Wood also said that he was quite satisfied that the tactics of my ex-wife were to pressurise and to try to break me financially—page seven, paragraph F. In describing my ex-wife's character, Mr. Justice Wood said on page 11, paragraph F:
"I judge Mrs. Browne to be highly intelligent and to be manipulative. Where her own interests are concerned she is unscrupulous even to the extent of total lack of frankness."
He went on, on page 13 paragraph D in referring to my ex-wife, to say:
"Unless her evidence is corroborated from independent and reliable sources, it remains suspect and indeed unacceptable."
Finally, on page 8, paragraphs D and F, Mr. Justice Wood refers to my wife's theft of documents from me. It is most interesting to note that no mention was made of the public hearing in which I have pleaded consistently through my counsel not to have my wife sent to prison. Also ignored was the very significant statement made by Mr. Justice Wood in open court which was well attended by journalists on 25 November 1986, when he said:

1257
"It is right that I should make it perfectly clear that Mr. Browne, throughout these proceedings, from beginning to end, has behaved entirely properly, and indeed, I know in correspondence from Mr. Jowitt he earned the comment that he has behaved as a gentleman. With that comment I would agree."
This statement was published by only one small newspaper.
Despite those published findings of a High Court judge who had heard the case presented to him by barristers over some two weeks, a totally distorted picture was accepted and disseminated to the public. It was a sensational story, I agree, but it was largely false and it was repeated, repeated and repeated. No one appeared willing to correct it.
The evidence: in essence, the story blamed the breakdown of the marriage upon my adultery. This was false, as I have said. Secondly, I was accused of trying to put my wife in gaol. That was false. It was a very newsworthy story, I admit, with a parade before the court on a day when there was not even a court hearing. Some of my lawyers felt that she should go to prison, but I did not. I have never thought so, and in fact I fought successfully in public court to prevent it. That is very different from the story that has been put about.
Thirdly, I was accused of applying for maintenance. Again, that was false. I applied for a division of assets of a marriage which was long and to which I had contributed very heavily and rightly so.
Fourthly, the size of the settlement was considered wrong. I cannot comment on a judge's decision, but, as he said, he noted the deliberate run-up of legal expenses amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds. He saw an attempt at financial destruction of a spouse. He also saw assets of the marriage stashed away in an overseas trust and the sole beneficiary of that trust of almost £1 million claiming rights to legal aid. This false mass publicity had understandably a most detrimental effect on my standing in my constituency and upon my standing among colleagues in this House. It provided food for my political enemies.
In 1988, I introduced the Protection of Privacy Bill. I understand that, at the outset, it had the tacit support of the majority of the Cabinet. Subsequently, the Government moved to kill it under the guidance of the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, who, ironically, was later to operate the payroll and informal Whips against me on 7 March 1990.
Apparently, the Government did so largely due to the enormous pressure brought against the Bill by the media. I personally was subjected to very serious and consistent media criticism and character assassination. Allegations were made that I had introduced a Bill to smother charges of my incorrect registration of a Member's interest. Prima facie, this was false. A reading of the Bill will show quite clearly that business, political and all non-family private matters were specifically excluded from protection under the Bill.
I mention this background only because of the quite unprecedented insults and critical coverage given to me by certain sections of the mass media. I submit that it must have been a material fact in the minds of both members of the Select Committee and of the House in reaching their judgment. However, no attempt whatsoever was made by
1258
those Members guiding the judgment, such as the Leader of the House or the Chairman of the Select Committee, to encourage Members to dispel such critical and false assertions from their minds.
Of particular note among others in this respect is the speech of the socialist Member, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in Hansard at column 961, in which he pointed out that the House would not be discussing my case if it had not been for the press references to my matrimonial problems and the fact that I had introduced the privacy Bill. I believe that he was quite right.
In addition, the press coverage of the Select Committee inquiry, its report and the judgment by the House, were also quite unprecedented. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, (Mr. Biffen), a former Leader of the House, was moved to say in the debate, as reported in Hansard:
"One of the least happy aspects of the whole case has been the trial by tabloids …It has been done in a way that has made the Shropshire luminary Judge Jeffreys seem like a lilac social worker."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 945.]
Even before the House sat in judgment upon me, it had viewed major detrimental headlines which I believe affected judgment.
I now turn to the House debate itself on 7 March 1990, the day upon which this political show trial was staged for the world to see. As I said, it was first preceded by a secret inquiry where the prosecution case was made and established.
Most people considered the Select Committee inquiry to be the court and saw the House merely as a court of appeal. This was a grave error, because, as I have said, there was no appeal at any stage. No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House was used by the Government Whips as a public stamp of approval—the show itself.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you and many other people will, when they realise what happened, be aghast. As I said at the beginning of this necessarily long speech, it is often important to remember that Parliament consists of two Houses, not one. They both have a crucial role to play, and no way more so than in judging any Member of Parliament—be they a peer of the realm or from the Commons House of Parliament.
Searching through "Erskine May" on the subject of trying Members, chapter 25 of the 12th edition and chapter 2 of the 14th edition, you will see that the court of Parliament involves both Houses, not just one. This is most important, because it allows a sense of justice to permeate the more immediate pressures of political expediency. It sounds more like justice.
When Parliament tries one of its Members, it is the Commons House which is seen as the natural inquisitor and prosecutor, and it is this House which conducts the inquiry and prosecutes the case, but it does so in front of the Lords, who act as a jury under the watchful and skilled eye of the man entrusted to run the whole judiciary of our land—the Lord Chancellor of England, who acts as the judge.
The Lords are far less susceptible to Government Whips. So why were the late Lord Boothby and I tried against ancient precedent by only the Commons House or the prosecuting body standing alone? Does that sound like justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

1259
The high court is of Parliament, not the high court of the Commons House, and it is before Parliament that right hon. and hon. Members should be judged.
Furthermore, on such matters as contravention of House rules and privileges, surely Mr. Enoch Powell is right when he says that disputes should be tried by the Select Committee on Privileges which, unlike any other Committee, is equipped to take evidence on oath and adjudicate as a tribunal.
Why were the late Lord Boothby and I placed in the hands of a Select Committee which was not only ill-equipped to try hon. Members but itself had a vested interest—the sanctity and upholding of its own rules? Is that justice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Why were even the ancient mechanisms for justice within this Parliament so ruthlessly and cleverly short-circuited? Was it because the short circuit was the insider circuit of the Government Whips and, like all insider circuits, more easily fixed? Does that ring alarm bells, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Even before the show trial started, it was wrongly based, not in the normal law of the land but by the customs of this high and sovereign court of Parliament, against which, and contrary to all major human rights conventions, there is no appeal. I believe that it is precisely because of the awesome power of Parliament and the lack of appeal that these somewhat cumbersome mechanisms were evolved over centuries. They were cumbersome, but they ensured greater justice. They acted against the manipulation of justice by Government.
I now turn to the debate itself. In this show trial, I was paraded before the television cameras from this very seat to the world for some five and a half hours. The judge in the debate was the Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. As I have said, he is a Queen's counsel, so he is well versed in the requirements of natural justice. He is no amateur at persuading a jury or a court. He was also to act as chief prosecutor. However, he protested that he was not the prosecutor, merely the judge. In Hansard, column 966, he said:
"I put the question before the House, not in any sense as a prosecutor—"
At this stage there was a large interruption, which you can see on the video. This interruption was most important, because it indicated the House's feelings that he was indeed acting as chief prosecutor, and it can be clearly seen on the video. The Leader went on:
"I should like to have the attention of the House while I try to focus on exactly what that question is. [Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 966.]
The jury were the Members of the Commons House of Parliament. The jury foremen, were the members of the usual channels, most importantly, the Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East and the Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. The jury were whipped, and voted strictly along party lines, with the only rebellion being among some 50 per cent. of Conservative Members who, disobeying their Whips, voted against my punishment. As an ex-Deputy Chief Whip yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know the power of those Whips.
As judge, the Leader of the House briefed the jury of right hon. and hon. Members extremely carefully and cleverly. In his speech, great importance was attached to the fact that I had apologised. The Leader of the House referred to that apology repeatedly—this is in Hansard in
1260
columns 891, 896, 898, 899, 906, 926, 963 and 964—together with the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wealden, and the hon. Member for Workington. Indeed, the hon. Member for Workington even insisted in column 906 that, because I had conceded some errors, the Select Committee was correct in not allowing me to call any witnesses. In their speeches, they all alleged or insinuated that, as I had apologised, I had obviously agreed with the findings of the Select Committee and the procedures—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the hon. Gentleman for a yes or no answer to a simple question? Has he, since he was elected to the House in 1979, ever recorded with a taping device a conversation with any Member of the House of Commons without their knowledge and approval? Will he give me a straight answer to that question?
Mr. Browne: Yes, I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realised at the very outset, as I said, of this fixing operation that it was very important that I did so, just to make sure that the record was clear.
The insinuation was that, as I had apologised, I had obviously agreed with the findings of the Select Committee and the procedures upon which those findings were based. This was totally untrue and unsupported. Even in my statement, which I emphasise was not a speech in the debate on 7 March 1990, at the risk of being controversial in such a statement, I said that I was not happy with the investigation procedures. I utterly abhorred the methods used by the Select Committee. However, I had to accept their existence and the referee's whistle.
In the debate on 7 March 1990, I was not granted the right to defend myself. I was permitted only to make a personal statement which, according to the rules of the House, could not be controversial. I was specifically prevented from speaking, making interventions and from asking questions in the debate. Nor was I permitted to challenge any of the wrong or misleading statements of others. I was effectively prevented from making any defence whatsoever.
If the House had not been adversely steered by the Leader of the House and whipped by the Government Chief Whip, there is strong reason to believe that the Government motion for my punishment might have been defeated. The eminent past Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), said:
"My conclusion is that the House should accept that apology. In my experience, the House has always been magnanimous to Ministers or hon. Members who recognise their errors and come to the House to apologise. In this instance I believe that that is the right step".—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 926.]
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, as a point of interest, voted against my punishment in the subsequent vote, as did the right hon. Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). As judge, the Leader of the House—I am sorry, I have got it wrong; he voted against my punishment. The right hon. Members for Finchley and Huntingdon abstained, but they were here in person.
As judge, the Leader of the House never even attempted to show the House either why or how my errors were serious. On the other hand, he steered the jury of Members present strongly away from any detailed review of the Committee's findings. In Hansard, columns 894 and 895, he said:

1261
"the House will wish to proceed on the basis of the conclusions recorded by the Select Committee. I do not consider it any part of our function today to review those findings in detail."
I find that statement amazing. He also steered the House away from any feelings of allegiance or sympathy with the accused—column 895. He tried to convince the Committee that there should be no real concern over natural justice, due to my apology—columns 963 and 964. Finally, while he obviously knew that the vote would be whipped, he sought to convey to his fellow right hon. and hon. Members in the jury that the decision would be made by the House—column 966. He said:
"For my part, I stand by the terms of the motion, but I am content to leave the matter to the House."
Does that sound, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like an honest judge?
In short, the Leader of the House acted as both judge and prosecutor in a clever but totally biased and hostile manner. Of course, he was a member of the jury. Worse still, he held that coveted legal title and privilege of assumed integrity of Queen's counsel. From him, there was no sympathy for the accused, even though he knew that the jury had been fixed—no sympathy, in fact the reverse, for the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, in column 895, urges the House away from any temptation of sympathy. I quote what he said:
"We must not, for example, be swayed by some feeling that we are all, as it were, members of the same club and owe some kind of primary allegiance to each other"—[Official Report 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 894–967.]
"Of course we must seek to act justly—"
justly, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
"when dealing with our colleages in such matters".
Again, I find that an amazing statement in view of the fact that he knew that this vote would be fixed.
He went on:
"but as we form our judgment in this case I suggest that we should also be mindful of the advice offered to the House, again in 1977, by Lord Strauss—better known to us in the House as George Strauss, former right hon. Member for Vauxhall and Chairman of the Select Committee which reported on the earlier case. He said:
'This is a national affair and the national aspect of it is that there must remain in the mind of the whole public a high esteem for this body, because it is the emblem of democracy in this country'."
What emblem of democracy is deliberate injustice?
The Leader went on:
"We can all say, 'Hear, hear,' to that. The strength and authority of the House of Commons rests upon the respect of the people. If that respect is endangered, much greater damage may follow. That is the fundamental background against which we must remind ourselves why we are so deeply concerned by the topic of today's debate."
What hypocrisy! Here is a right hon. and learned Member, a Queen's counsel, who knows that the charges were very sketchy, who knows that the motion put down was purely political and that if I had accepted his threat to stand down, he would have changed it for a motion completely different, one involving no punishment. Who knows he knew that the House or jury was fixed? What sort of judge, what sort of colleague, was that?
It is somewhat hard for me to reconcile the leading association of any right hon. and learned Gentleman with the totally unjust and most unconstitutional pressures to force me to stand down at the next general election in return for a take note motion and no punishment with the
1262
words of the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, as Lord President of the Privy Council and a Queen's counsel—in my view, it is amazing that, as an honourable man, he felt able to say, knowing what he did:
"The House has increasingly, and in my judgment rightly, taken the view that the composition of the House, in personal as well as political terms, is not a matter for the House itself, but for the electorate. A Member's election to, and continued membership of, this House is a matter between him and his constituents."
That was said by the Leader of the House who had just asked me to stand down in return for no punishmenmt, who had bargained my place in this House, who had bargained the rights of my constituents either to elect or not elect me at the next election.
The Leader went on for more, this time for blood, my blood. He said in regard to punishment:
"Finally I come to consider what is probably the most difficult question—that of penalty or reproach. Should the House proceed to impose a penalty upon my hon. Friend or require him in some way to be reprimanded or rebuked? If so, in what form or at what level should that be set? Some hon. Members, I know, believe—and will, I dare say, argue today —that talk of penalty is, in such circumstances, inappropriate. I do not share that view; nor do I believe that it accords with precedent."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 895–97.]
What does he mean by precedent? The late Lord Boothby was saved in his trial debate by the Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, and the Government Whips then immediately changed tack and supported him. That was the precedent which my researches have shown. There is no other precedent—the case of Mr. John Cordle is not appropriate in this respect, because he resigned. There was no vote to be fixed.
To what precedent did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East refer? Was it really the precedent of justice, or the precedent of quite deliberate injustice to another hon. Member of the House? You have seen much in your time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will warrant that you have seen nothing like this. I hope that nothing like this ever happens again.
In my show trial, the Leader produced no motion for clemency according to his threat. Unlike the broad spectrum of motions that the Government made available for the last abortion debate, the Government sponsored only one motion in my show trial, and that was guilty as charged, with a call for draconian punishment, a punishment so severe that even a member of the Select Committee itself, the hon. Member for Streatham, was moved to say in the debate:
"I believe the retribution is far greater than the offence."
The hon. Member for Bolsover intervened earlier in the debate to say that he considered that even that retribution was mild and virtually nothing. However, the hon. Member for Streatham said that it was greater than the offence.
The importance of this single Government motion should not be underestimated, because it was obvious that very few Members had read the vast Select Committee report. In all innocence, they relied upon the Leader of the House, who was also a Queen's counsel, to lead them towards a just decision. They believed that the Select Committee report was the hearing and that the Government judged in all honesty that I should be punished. This, together with the Whips, was the decisive influence on the voting of most Members. This motion was the party political deal, which was reflected in it.

1263
On this crucial issue, a past Prime Minister, and ex-Chief Whip, voted against my punishment. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made some most interesting points. He said:
"In my experience, the House has always been magnanimous to Ministers or hon. Members who recognise their errors and come to the House to apologise. In this instance I believe that that is the right step to take.
I am not trying to rebuke my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, but I think that he has tried to produce a solution which would meet disparate views in the House."
This again, I emphasise, was the party political motion. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup went on:
"This is a personal matter for each one of us to decide and I think that it has been settled because the apology has been made; the whole House knows it and my hon. Friend's constituents know it."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 897–926.]
Without any inside knowledge whatsoever, this ex-Prime Minister and ex-Chief Whip had hit upon one of the key elements of this clandestine injustice. He earned my total respect.
As I have said, as the accused in the debate I was permitted to make only a short statement, which according to custom Mr. Speaker announced would be heard in silence and without interruption. That is in Hansard at column 889. The custom of the House is that such statements should he apologetic and not controversial, and I was carefully briefed as to that. I was specifically forbidden to speak, to ask questions or even to intervene in the debate. I was therefore denied any opportunity whatsoever either to defend myself or to challenge the report or the speeches or interventions of any Member of the House who spoke in the debate.
You can now see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that from start to finish—throughout the Committee hearings, when I was not allowed to make any verbal presentations of my case but merely to answer questions—I was given no opportunity of a defence case either to the Select Committee or to the House—or, incidentally, to the media. It appeared that the whole case was cut and dried from the beginning. Surely in such a condition, the right of appeal should be considered fundamental.
It is also of interest that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley, whose Ministers organised and whipped the vote, abstained in person. A fine lawyer and Whip, the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) also abstained. The ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and the ex-Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North voted against the motion, as did many free, non-payroll vote Ministers who were barristers, such as my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Burton and for Perth and Kinross and my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee voted against my punishment, as did a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, the hon. Member for Streatham. That was a great credit to their integrity, and I thank them now formally.
I wish to place it on the record that I attach no blame whatever to the vast bulk of hon. Members who voted for my draconian punishment. I believe that they voted in all
1264
innocence of the injustice of the Select Committee and of the deliberate perversion of justice by some of the most senior officers of state, including a Queen's counsel.
The judicial vote should have been a free vote of the House, but in effect it was along party lines. At 10pm on 7 March 1990, the House voted, but it did so along strictly party lines. The ultimate injustice was that the decision of the House on a judicial vote was done by means of a whipped vote.
Mr. Fraser: It was a free vote on this side of the House. Hon. Members voted in different ways. There were different motions from different Opposition Members. Any idea of it being a party political issue on this side of the House is utter rubbish.
Mr. Browne: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, because he would know much more about that than me. Nevertheless, it is clear from the voting record on the first crucial vote, on the motion that I was guilty and to be punished—I am not talking about the subsequent votes —that, with one exception, the members of his party voted one way.
Two facts stand out clearly even from a cursory observation of the voting list. The first is that the House divided along party lines, perhaps not whipped in the Labour party's case. The same political bias that had been so consistently and heavily denied by the Chairman of the Select Committee in column 937 of Hansard was made clear for all to see. Secondly, Conservative Members were subjected to a payroll Whip. What is not clear, but nevertheless true, is that they were subjected to an informal Whip.
Again it is interesting to note what the Chairman of the Select Committee said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. He said:
"I must ask my hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind that there is no question of our punishing or convicting my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). We did no such thing and it is for the House to decide."
The hon. Member for Wealden knew that the Whips were armed. He continued:
"My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester had every chance to produce any documents he darned well wanted to."
What about the stolen documents that were not returned? They were not mentioned. He continued:
"My hon. and learned Friend will spoil the debate".
I do not know what he meant by that, but as he is present he may tell us in his speech. He continued:
"I can speak with my hand on my heart when I say that the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), whose reputations he tried to traduce a moment ago, and who were honourable members of that Committee, were totally bipartisan. No sign of political passion crept into the Committee to prejudice the case against my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester." —[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 937.]
I should like to have conducted the House through further parts of that debate, but—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Could the hon. Gentleman answer me another question, again: yes or no? He referred previously to divorce proceedings. Has he ever changed, modified or removed from a transcript of any legal proceedings in this country any words? Has he ever used such a transcript in any meeting anywhere in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Browne: Not that I can think of. There was however a document that was produced in my constituency on the advice of a lawyer who said that I should answer questions that had been raised in my constituency executive by not going outside the judgment of the learned High Court judge in my case, Mr. Justice Wood. So I prepared a document and took from his published judgment those items that affected just the answers to the questions that had been raised at my executive.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he quoted selectively? Is he saying that he admits in the House of Commons to quoting selectively from a legal document?
Mr. Browne: No, that is not quite what I am saying at all, and the hon. Gentleman does himself no credit whatever in trying to put those words into my mouth. Various questions were raised by my executive that pertained to my divorce. I merely quoted the judge in order to answer those questions that were raised at my executive meeting. So there was selection, just as there is when any Member quotes from Hansard.
We cannot produce the whole of Hansard for every quote. It is common practice to quote. It is a matter of getting the quotes correct, which I made every attempt to do. There was one typographical error where a secretary missed out a bracket that was not all that vital. I was also criticised severely for putting round brackets instead of square brackets. My typewriter did not have square brackets, and in those days I was unaware of the huge legal significance of the difference between a round bracket and a square bracket. Otherwise, I have nothing further to say in answer to that question.
Immediately after my sentencing by the House, it was asked to vote for a motion clarifying the vague rule on foreign payments, under which I had been sentenced. The goalposts were immediately moved. The result of the vote of the House was portrayed in the media internationally as if there were something very serious and I had got a hugely serious punishment, almost like a criminal. As the hon. Member for Bolsover said, in this House a 20-day suspension is not considered vastly serious, but in the outside world it is. The problem is that judgments by the House are seen by the outside world very differently from the way in which they may be considered by hon. Members.
On the question of precedents, I should like to say that the inquiry report and my subsequent punishment by the House, with the exception of the case of the late Lord Boothby, were virtually unprecedented. The perversion of justice it involved in fixing the House vote was absolutely unprecedented. Following my punishment, all Opposition barracking over the "party of sleaze" stopped immediately. Cases were brought against other hon. Members, but, although they were found guilty, none of them was brought to the House.
Most interestingly, a case was brought against a member of the Select Committee itself—the hon. Member for Workington—and it showed the hon. Member to have deliberately and repeatedly broken a specific rule regarding the declaration of Members' interests. Surprisingly, his case was not referred to the House. Obviously, the precedent set by my punishment was not to be followed.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman aware what the report to which he refers says? I do not receive and have never received moneys from the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the trade union, either for expenses or directly to me. That is accepted by the Committee. Is the hon. Gentleman aware what the report said in its conclusion? It said:
"We recognise that Mr. Campbell-Savours has never sought to conceal his sponsorship by COHSE, and that this sponsorship has always been properly registered in the Register of Members' Interests. As we have noted above, it is by no means clear that the House necessarily expects trade union sponsorship, when there is no direct payment whatever to the Member, to be declared."
That is the case in my case. How can the hon. Gentleman link that case, in which no payments were made to me, to his own case, in which he received $88,000 from the authorities in Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Browne: I have the report on the hon. Member's case in my hand. I do not have time to quote it all. However, the last lines of the recommendation of the Select Committee are:
"Since it is a specific rule that sponsorship should be registered, we believe that Mr. Campbell-Savours is technically in breach of the rule on declaration."
The Committee recommended no action. The point is that it was a technicality. Sure. My contention is that so was my case, as I said before. The payment—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: A payment of $88,000.
Mr. Browne: Right from the very beginning, when he was allegedly out for my blood before the Committee even sat, the hon. Gentleman has been quoting vast figures. These monetary amounts are not required by the Select Committee on Members' Interests in the Register. I think that they should be. I think that it should be total—either no declarations or total declarations. However, because we steer this rather grey area in the middle where, as I said at the beginning of my speech, there is this farcical situation of a financial declaration with no monetary allowance needing to be disclosed, we now have this situation.
It was said that the fee was for one little bit of work, and there has been some downgrading and attempts to make it look like a huge fee for almost nothing—which was totally false. The fact is that the hon. Member for Workington keeps mentioning this figure. Why? Because it creates more jealousy? People say, "How does this man get a huge fee for almost nothing?" Even hon. Members have said to me, "My gosh, that seems an awful lot of money, John." Jealousy was aroused among the jury sitting in this House by statements such as the hon. Gentleman has made.
As I said earlier in my speech, the technicality was that I asked the Registrar whether that payment should be registered, and he said no, because it was a payment to my company which had already been declared. It was because of the manipulation—the bending—of this rule that the Select Committee said, "Oh, but as you own 50 per cent. of the stock, you should have declared it." What did the Committee do immediately I had been sentenced? It changed the rule.
It is now clear for Members' interests that, if one owns over a certain percentage of stock in a company, all payments to those companies, declared or not, have to be declared. Now, I understand it is very clear. It was a technicality. I am not trying to insult the hon. Member for Workington: all I am saying is that he was on a technical

1267
charge as well. Why was the precedent of my case not followed? Why was a member of the Select Committee not brought back to the House, as happened in my case?
Some people have asked me why I have waited until now to raise the matter. The truth is that I have been trying to raise the matter for well over a year. My hope in explaining the case, which involved not just a great injustice but, much more importantly, a deliberate injustice, was that some right hon. Member would not only see the outrage, but be prepared to do something about it or even to speak out. I therefore tried to appeal.
I soon discovered that there was no right of appeal anywhere. This was in direct contravention of article 14 of the United Nations convention on civil and political rights of 1966. One of the most fundamental of all human rights, as I have said, is the right of natural justice to appeal. I have tried for over a year to appeal this on the grounds that I was systematically denied almost every basic human right to natural justice and that the procedures of the Select Committee itself stood in the way of justice. I do not blame the members of the Select Committee. These are the procedures. My aim with the Leader of the House today is, by showing what happened in my case, to get the procedures changed.
If an hon. Member is arraigned before a Select Committee, particularly on a matter of such seriousness affecting his whole career—so that he is virtually sitting in a court on an issue affecting his life—evidence should be taken on oath and the Committee should be equipped to take evidence on oath and to adjudicate. Those are the procedures which I am trying to get at. I am not trying to criticise the members of the Select Committee. They do not decide whether or not certain things can be done. They are part of the system. So I believe that great matters need to be corrected.
To give an example, the Select Committee denied me some of the rights that are given to all murderers and even to thieves, such as the right to call witnesses in one's defence and to have them heard and cross-examined. I do not know whether it was the wish of the Chairman of the Select Committee or whether it is the system, but the fact remains that those rights were not granted, even though they are essential to proving one's case. The defendant should be able to call witnesses and have them cross-examined by himself and by the Committee—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Member refer to those particular points on many occasions. He is now getting very close to tedious repetition.
Mr. Browne: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to drum them home. I will get on.
I have also tried to appeal against the findings of the House on 7 March 1990 on the grounds that the decision was made as a result of a quite deliberate perversion of justice by some of the most senior and powerful officers of the Government. I tried in vain. I realise that there is no established appeal mechanism in the House of Commons, but the Government certainly have the power to bring the matter back before the House.
Surely any Government who are a signatory to the United Nations convention and are made up of men of honour would move decisively to expose wrong and to punish any deliberate abuse of justice in the treatment of an hon. Member. As I said, I believe that the House was
1268
deliberately misled when it debated and voted on the issue on 7 March 1990. Therefore, as I have said before, I do not hold the vast majority of hon. Members to blame in any way whatever.
I have said that the right of appeal is very basic. It is-enshrined in clause 5 of article 15 of the UN convention. It is also enshrined in the European convention. Governments talk much about human rights, and rightly so. Our Government have signed those two conventions, but I understand that they have not signed the protocols that allow individuals to bring cases against the Government under the United Nations convention. Why not? Be that as it may, I have to accept—and I had to accept—that there was no appeal.
I believe that my case is similar to the Dreyfus case in Paris in the 1890s.
Mr. Skinner: Similar to what?
Mr. Browne: Yes, similar to the Dreyfus case. He was a captain in the French army. He was falsely charged, falsely convicted, disgraced and imprisoned for five years on Devil's Island.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Browne: I am anxious to get on.
His case was then covered up by the state, and a state cover-up is very powerful. As Anatole France said in describing the Dreyfus case:
"Some people began to recognise the injustice done, but it was supported and defended by so many open and secret powers that even the boldest hesitated. Those whose duty it was to speak up kept silent."
As no official avenue of appeal was open to me, I approached some of the most powerful Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, with my appeal, listing what the House has now heard. I approached some of the most influential people in the realm. My hope was that honourable people would move to correct this injustice. My hope was that they would certainly move to root out deliberate injustice, for what greater crime can there be than deliberate injustice?
Sadly, the result of my approaches was silence, in all but one case—yes, a constructive suggestion from the right hon. Member for Finchley. In the case of the Government Chief Whip, it even aroused hostility. I was even threatened. Certainly, my constituency has been put into trouble by it and has become almost a laughing stock.
Does that state silence amount to a cover-up—a cover-up so powerful that even parts of the media are silenced? Does deliberate injustice by the Government amount to corruption, and if a little corruption is accepted for the good of the party, where does it stop? Who will be next? Which right hon. or hon. Member of the House would be selected in future? For if Ministers, given charge of secret agencies such as M16 and M15, can take such blatantly discriminatory and unjust action against a loyal colleague, no citizen of this land is safe under the law.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting close to impugning the integrity and honour of other hon. Members of the House. He knows that that is not in order. The only way in which he can do that in order is by putting down a motion. Criticism is in order—even strong criticism—but he must not impugn integrity and honour.
Mr. Browne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that ruling and I have put down early-day motion 585 to that effect.
I fought my case in the knowledge of my innocence and also the knowledge of this great and deliberate injustice and that it could happen to other right hon. or hon. Members who have outside interests. I have fought my case in the hope that the House will urgently examine and change its rules and procedures to prevent the same deliberate injustice from ever happening again.
As Clemenceau said, again in the Dreyfus case:
"The cause of human justice admits no compromise. You must be either for it or against it."
I wonder who will be the first to break the silence—the silence of the lambs.
12.42 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this point.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) covered three main topics affecting the House and those are the only topics on which I may comment.
The first topic is the debate on 7 March 1990, when the House considered the report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). The findings of the Select Committee in that report were fully covered in that debate, when a variety of different views were expressed before the House came to a clear decision on a vote. I have re-read that debate thoroughly. Certainly, a variety of views were expressed. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester that there was no whipping. It was a free vote and my hon. Friend mentioned the difference in the way that some of my hon. Friends voted.
As the House will know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester is aware—he and I have corresponded about this—there is no formal route of appeal following the decision that the House reached in March 1990, after the debate conducted in accordance with the rules of the House. The resolution that the House approved at the end of that debate is the final decision of the House.
Mr. John Browne: I find it hard to accept my right hon. Friend's statement. I know that he is an honourable man —I sincerely mean that—but he said that there was a free vote. Perhaps, on the surface, there was a free vote. Everyone in the House knows how the Whips operate, with the payroll and by applying pressures—what is called the informal vote.
Mr. Skinner: Well, we had a free vote.
Mr. Browne: Maybe, but I am talking about the Conservative side of the House. Even a Cabinet Minister came up to me and told me that he was pressurised. He actually said that he was ashamed of what he had done, but that he was ordered to do it by the Whips. He did not attend the debate, but he came in to vote because he was ordered to do so by the Chief Whip. My right hon. Friend must admit that although it was a free vote on the surface, it was very much a whipped vote, under the table, on this side of the House.
Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend looks at the Division lists, he will see that my hon. Friends voted in a variety of different ways. Therefore, I think that the position is clear.
The second topic raised in my hon. Friend's speech was the procedures followed once the Select Committee has made a report following a complaint against a Member. As my hon. Friend is aware, the rules of the House are clear in relation to reports from the Select Committee. They are set out in the annex to the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) of the 1974–75 Session, and summarised in "Erskine May" at page 389. It is made absolutely clear there that the final decision is for the House to take. The proceedings in respect of Select Committee reports are of long standing and perfectly well understood by the House, and I see no need for them to be re-examined.
The third topic discussed by my hon. Friend for Winchester at great length was the procedures that the House has established for the registering of Members' interests and for the investigation by the Select Committee on Members' Interests of alleged breaches of those rules. The House will recall that on 7 March 1990 the House approved a second motion requesting the Select Committee on Members' Interests to study and report further on the questions raised by its report relating to, first, the definition of outside interests and the enforcement of obligations in relation to declarations of outside interests by hon. Members and, secondly, the procedures whereby complaints may be brought before the Select Committee and whereby the Select Committee investigates such complaints; together with such other questions as might appear to it to arise therefrom.
My hon. Friend spent a considerable part of his speech today examining the procedures in front of the Select Committee and also making various recommendations on the definition of "outside interests" and the "enforcement of obligations". I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden will have noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. At present, those matters are in the hands of the Select Committee, as the House requested. I do not think that it would be right for me to discuss them in detail today before the Select Committee has produced the report as requested by the House.
The matter was fully debated in March 1990 and the points that my hon. Friend raises about future issues affecting the Select Committee are ones which the Committee is currently investigating. I believe that it is right to leave it there.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House ask those following our debate to note how the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has interpreted what happened during the Divisions that evening? Is not it significant that the hon. Gentleman stated that, 10 minutes later, the House took a decision in effect to change the rules, but that was not the decision taken? The House recommended that the Select Committee should consider the rules. There is a great distinction between the way in which the hon. Gentleman presented what happened and the way in which the House made its recommendation. Will the Leader of the House allude to that fact? The speech of the hon. Gentleman, which lasted about three

1271
hours, was littered with examples of slight distortions of the facts that he believes would benefit the presentation of his case.
Mr. John Browne rose—
Mr. MacGregor: I must reply to the hon. Gentleman's point. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has taken a great deal of the time of the House.
It is not right for me to comment on detailed points made today. My position as Leader of the House is to deal with key issues in the motion relating to the way that the Select Committee deals with Members' interests and the procedures thereafter. I have responded to both those matters.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is right about the recommendation—I have re-read all the papers and note that the Select Committee recommended a change but that, on 7 March 1990, the House did not approve that recommendation. Instead, it asked the Select Committee to look at the wider issues to which I referred. I understand that the Select Committee is now doing that. When the Select Committee makes its report to the House, that will be the time for the House to consider the matters to decide whether changes are required.
12.48 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What we have heard today is a catalogue of events from a Member of the Tory party who, in the run-up to the 1987 general election, did what many Tory Members do—made money on the side. Not content with being a Member of Parliament on a salary that was then about £25,000 or £26,000 a year, he wanted to line his pockets from outside. Many people do that—about 250 Tory Members and a small handful of Opposition Members, although the number of Opposition Members who make money outside this place is thank God, decreasing.
In 1974 people in local government were told that they had to sign a register of their interests when they became councillors. We in Parliament said that that was a great idea because it would ensure that councillors discussing and voting on planning decisions had to tabulate in a register their interests and for whom they were speaking.
In our society there has always been a conflict of interests. Can you truly represent your constituents on a local authority or in Parliament and at the same time represent someone else? That is the classic question. Over the years, many people have said that they can do both jobs. They have even gone so far as to say that your need to do another job to keep up some interest. That is like me saying, "Where is the nearest pit?"—miners who come to Parliament cannot work in a pit for half a day a week, but Members who are lawyers can go off to the law courts and pick up £60,000 a year, quite apart from what they get for being in the House—if and when we see them.
The reason why his place starts at half-past two in the afternoon, except on Fridays, is so that people can make money in the City and in the law courts. They could also make money at Lloyd's, but in recent years it seems that they have not been able to open the box and pull out a lot of money all the time. They are now squealing and they want their money back. They put their bets on in that posh
1272
gambling den of Lloyd's and they have nearly always made money, but now that they are not winning they want Parliament and the taxpayer to foot the bill.
In that environment, along came the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). He told his Tory friends that he had interests outside Parliament which were making him a lot of money on the side. When he became a Member of Parliament, I suppose that they told him that he had better declare those interests in the register which Skinner and his friends forced through the House of Commons in the early 1970s. We said that if it was right for people in local government to have a register, there should be one in Parliament, too.
That register was no big deal. We were not asking people to put in how much they made, although they ought to do that. A section of the register should record such facts. For example, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) worked for two months for Maxwell Communication Corporation. He got a £300,000 pay-off when he packed in, £100,000 extra as redundancy pay for working two months, and a Mercedes for a quid. That should all have been in the register.
Along comes the smart Alick hon. Member for Winchester. Given that none of his mates on the Tory side had disclosed their interests, he decided not to do so either. He picked up £88,000 from Saudi Arabia. I have always said that that money should have ended up in the miners' fund. During the strike, the hon. Gentleman accused the miners of getting money from the middle east, while all the time he was picking it up himself.
That 88,000 quid was not disclosed, but in the run-up to the 1987 election some bright-eyed spark at The Observer called David Leigh found out about it. It was a nice juicy little piece. OK—the story could have related to any of the 250 Tory Members, and for the hon. Member for Winchester it was sad that it was him, especially as he had a bit of trouble, to which I shall not refer, with another matter.
The net result was that the voters of Winchester decided that they had someone representing them who was making a lot of money on the side, and the Tory vote slumped. It is pretty obvious that someone in Winchester Tory party would have said, "We had better do something about this." So along comes the Select Committee. Here I am paraphrasing because I am not a member of it—I do not have owt to do with Select Committees.
Mr. John Browne: The hon. Gentleman has paraphrased a lot. It was not that the voters of Winchester thought that here was a chap who was making money on the side—the article by Mr. Leigh suggested that I had done something wrong. My point was that, according to the registrar, whom I asked in 1983, I had done exactly correctly. That was the point, and that is why I issued the suit.
Mr. Skinner: So, along comes the hon. Member for Winchester and he says, "I don't like this article in The Observer, so I'll issue a writ—I'm going to stop it and I'm going to make a lot of money." After all the business of the Select Committee and the writ being issued, the case was never pursued. Like many other writs, it was issued to silence somebody. He has talked about being silenced, but he decided to silence The Observer for a convenient period, and he has never pursued the matter. If David Leigh had said something extravagant and outrageous why is it that,

1273
with all his money, the hon. Gentleman was not capable of pursuing the writ to make sure that he landed The Observer with a big, fat bill? The truth is that he did not follow it through. He blames the Select Committee for having looked into the matter, as he said earlier in his long tirade.
Mr. Browne: That is not the point. How could a suit like that possibly be pursued successfully when the Select Committee came along and said that I was not right in the way that I gave information to the Register of Members' Interests?
Mr. Skinner: When I was at school, that was known in geometry as QED. The hon. Gentleman has proved my case. He is saying that his friends in the Tory party said to him, "I'm afraid we'll have to rap you over the knuckles, John." As a result, the paper realised that it had a first-class chance of sustaining its argument. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that he has made a statement which proves that The Observer had a case because a gang of his friends in the Tory party proceeded to do what The Observer thought they ought to do. The Observer is not supposed to be a Tory paper, although I am not sure about that.
The hon. Gentleman has been whingeing this morning. He got 20 days. Somebody said to me, "What shall we do, Dennis, with this bloke who's up for trial?" Trial—I ask you! The hon. Gentleman has compared himself to Dreyfus. He has a lot of brass. According to the register, he is still making a big, fat packet on the side, as well as picking up his salary of 30,000 quid. A lot of Tories do that, but to come here and say that he has been treated like Dreyfus is worse. He may be a lot of things, but Dreyfus he is not. He got 20 days. Big deal!
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) touched the Mace.
Mr. Frank Haynes: He more than touched it.
Mr. Skinner: He dropped it. He tried to pick it up, but he dropped it and his case turned into a cause célàbre. My hon. Friend got kicked out of Parliament for a longer time than the hon. Member for Winchester, and he has suffered in other respects. Others have been thrown out for other reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) got thrown out because he said that the last Prime Minister was lying. Other people get kicked out and their penalty can add up to well over 20 days, and they have not lined their pockets. They have been kicked out of Parliament because they have said things that they believed in, as a matter of principle.
The truth is that the hon. Member for Winchester has suffered at the hands of his friends. Let us put it on the record once again. The Select Committee has a Tory majority—his friends. One hon. Member who serves on the Committee has been referred to several times—my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The hon. Member for Winchester is trying to make us believe that my hon. Friend has twisted all the other members of the Committee—a majority of whom are Tories—round his little finger like some Machiavelli so as to do down the hon. Member for Winchester. I will believe a lot of things, but I ain't believing that.
1274
The hon. Member for Winchester should understand what really happened. His party decided in 1987, when it saw the Tory vote in Winchester slump, that it had better get rid of him and that he would be the casualty. He may be standing against the Tory candidate at the next election.
Mr. Haynes: He is.
Mr. Skinner: Quite frankly, he should get on with it. If I see Tories falling out, I will do everything that I possibly can to help, although I will not go down and speak for the hon. Gentleman. If they are to fall out and fight one another, that is their business. We all know that the Tories have divided the working class over the years. Divide and rule is their tactic.
The hon. Member for Winchester told us this morning that he is dividing against his right hon. and hon. Friends, and that is why he has found himself in a predicament. The hon. Gentleman talked about the attendance in the Chamber when a certain private Bill was considered. He got his facts wrong. When a private Bill is considered in this place, Members have to attend. He tried to make a comparison between a private Bill involving King's Cross and another private Bill dealing with the Register of Members' Interests. Of course fewer Members turned up here for the Bill on Members' interests. We all know that it was not a private Committee.
As I see it, the hon. Gentleman has produced his manifesto for Winchester when the general election takes place. I will give him some advice. I shall not give him a great deal today, but I will tell him this: that manifesto is too long for the general election. You need a few pictures and a shorter manifesto. If you make the speech that you used this morning when you are at the guildhall at Winchester, you had better complete it much more quickly than you did today. In other words, you should get to the point. You would also be better off not reading it all out.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
Mr. Skinner: I am just giving the hon. Gentleman some advice. You were not here this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman went through it all and we heard it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member keeps saying "you" instead of "the hon. Member".
Mr. Skinner: I get your drift, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was giving him serious advice if he is to stand against the Tory party. If that happens, the Labour candidate could slip through the middle and win the seat. That is one of the principal reasons for my involvement in the debate.
The hon. Member for Winchester should understand that this place is a gentlemen's club as well as a place for enacting legislation. I have been here for 20-odd years and I know that. I do not like the gentlemen's club part of it. I decided when I came here not to be part of it, but I knew it existed. The hon. Gentleman has been done by many of his hon. Friends who are in this club. He was not done by Labour Members. We had a free vote. The hon. Gentleman says that there was a whipped Government vote against him, and he must prove that. As I have said, we were not whipped. We did not get involved in the club. Many of my hon. Friends said, "We will not vote to send somebody out for 20 days." They did not want to vote. A hell of a lot of Members did not vote for that reason.

1275
The hon. Member for Winchester must understand that when he came to the House he came as part of the gentlemen's club. If he wants to be involved in the camaraderie of that club, he might have to accept some of the rules. When Mr. Speaker tells me that I must leave the Chamber, I do not like it. On those occasions, I should like to appeal. I should like to say to Mr. Speaker, "Look, there are good reasons for my saying that someone is lining his pockets." But that is not possible, and I have to leave. When I pass through the doors, there is a bobby waiting waiting for me to escort me from the premises. An hon. Member who finds himself in that position is not allowed to speak in front of a camera in the Norman Shaw building. Yet the hon. Member for Winchester is whingeing because there was no appeal. In fact, he secured one, whereas I have never had one—I have never had a chance to put my case on the occasions when I have been told to have an early bath.
The hon. Gentleman should understand what the game is all about. That is all that I say to him. He has sat among those who want to make money on the side. I think that I know what is getting to his craw. It is that he has been done when many of his hon. Friends are making money. At the beginning of his speech I sat in my place thinking that he would reveal all their names. I thought that he would give us the figures that are absent from the register. I thought, "He might tell us what ex-Cabinet Ministers —who have 59 directorships between them—are getting". I thought for one fleeting moment that the hon. Gentleman would put numbers by the side of all those directorships, but he did not. Instead, he pulled back.
Here is another bit of advice for the hon. Gentleman: if he means to fight the election, he must not pull back. He will get some good copy. Not only the Winchester press but the national press as well, will be interested. Chris Moncrieff will be ringing the hon. Gentleman every morning. Think about it. Name the names—they are all in the register. The hon. Gentleman could make 20 or 30 speeches in Winchester and they could be in —I was going to say The Sun, but I think that The Sun would black them. Anyway, he could be in the Daily Mirror every morning.
I know that there is something wrong with the register. We all know that. Two or three things need doing—and we should be sharp about it. We want to know how much money is being made by all the company directors and the rest. What would be wrong with that? I would go further, but the House would not carry it. Every Member of Parliament should have only one job. I would like to see that in the Labour manifesto—not many of my hon. Friends have outside interests. It would be a good thing, and we should sweep the country. There would be no talk of hung Parliaments and the like. I would like us to say to the millions of voters that the next Labour Government will insist that when someone enters Parliament he must represent his constituents—he should have one job and one job alone. But the hon. Member for Winchester would not support that.
Mr. Browne: Yes, I do.
Mr. Skinner: If the hon. Gentleman supports the idea of one job, and one job alone for a Member of Parliament, why has he still got so many interests in the register?
The hon. Member for Winchester had a choice in the gentlemen's club, and he did not take it. A lot of hon. Members who go before the Select Committee about such
1276
matters give in. I would not do that—I would take it on the chin. If I had stood up and said something in the Chamber or outside, or if I had done something, I should stand by it, but the hon. Member for Winchester wanted to have his cake and eat it as well—he wanted to plead to the Select Committee, but he did not want to take the consequences of what he had done and said. He could have apologised at the beginning, and that probably would have been the end of the matter. But he chose to bluff it through, and the bluff did not work.
The hon. Gentleman should be a man. He should understand what happens when someone enters to the House as a Member, with all this apparatus. It may be true that he is one of many Tory Members of Parliament who are making a lot of money. He feels, "Why should I get done?" He is like the bloke who speeds up the motorway at 100 mph—the Minister of State for Defence Procurement did so twice in a fortnight, and said that he thought that the police were escorting him. One cannot say in court. "Seven other people broke the speed limit as well, Mr. Judge, or Mr. Magistrate, so why have you picked on me?" Such things happen. Some people get picked on occasionally, and they think, "Why me?" The hon. Member for Winchester should understand that he has had his chance, but he wanted everything and it did not work.
I think that the rules are wrong. They want tightening up. We want to ensure that the register is complete, and there is only one method of doing that. It is for all of us to represent our constituents, and there is an end of it. If hon. Members want to help someone they can do so and get nothing out of it. When I get up in the morning and the House does not start sitting until 2.30, I look in the papers to see if there is a strike, and I join in if it is within 20 miles of this building. That is my interest. I do not want to be paid for it. I may have to pay, to help the people who are on strike. But to think that one can make money and get away with it is another matter.
The hon. Member for Winchester has achieved one thing in raising the issue today. He has again raised the question whether the register is satisfactory. The answer is clear: it is not satisfactory. It is time to change it, and I hope that that happens in the next Parliament, after Labour sweeps to power. If the Labour Government cannot introduce the idea that one Member of Parliament should have only one job, who can? My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is very sound on such matters and I ask him to convey to the next Labour Government the fact that the least we can expect is for the register to be brought up to date. Not only that—we should ensure that we know fully how much money people are making on the side in the law courts, in the City and in the board rooms. If this debate has done that, it has served a useful purpose.
1.9 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was courteous enough to give me notice that he intended to refer to me today as I am Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I do not intend to reply in detail to the criticisms of that Committee.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester will be aware, the Select Committee was faced in 1989 with a

1277
disagreeable and complicated task when it was required to investigate complaints made against him. Our inquiry took nine months, which was a long time. The Committee's report, and even more important, the 150 pages of oral and written evidence which were printed with it, must be seen and read as a whole. They are the basis on which the House took its decision in March 1990.
To take any particular political part or passage in isolation can only distort the overall picture. If anyone in the House or outside, having read the report and the evidence in full, were to accept the interpretation of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester of the events in preference to the Committee's findings, I would disagree with him profoundly. I must point out that the findings were unanimous and I stand by the integrity of my colleagues on the Committee in the discharge of their duties.
As I said, I do not want to go into the details. However, there is one very important point which is a matter of justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester said many times today that he was specifically denied the authority to call witnesses. That is certainly not my recollection.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is obviously also not the recollection of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester did not make any request to call witnesses either before or during his evidence. However, very much later, during our inquiry—
Mr. John Browne: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I will finish my sentence first.
Much later, during our inquiry, my hon. Friend asked to call a former business partner. That was the only occasion. Otherwise, in the course of his evidence, that was not the case. I am afraid that I must point that out to him. Although I do not want to go into detail, that is an important point that he has made today.
Mr. Browne: I respect what my hon. Friend has said, but I asked on a number of occasions to call witnesses. I asked the registrar, I think, on at least three occasions whether I could bring three specific people to address the Committee to have them cross-examined—particularly Mr. Chattington, Mr. Merrick Denton-Thompson and the former registrar. I was told, "Certainly not." I was told that the only people who could call witnesses to the Committee were the members of the Committee themselves, and this was verified in the debate. The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) said exactly that —that I was not allowed to call witnesses for cross-examination.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am very sorry, but I must tell my hon. Friend that he was given the chance to call witnesses. I will not go into the details about Mr. Chattington because if we go into that, we will get very involved and we will become involved in a situation in which we found ourselves so often in respect of our hearing evidence from him.
Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend referred to the report of his Select Committee which, of course, I read with the greatest attention before our debate two years ago. I have no doubt that he conducted the proceedings of that Committee with the great probity with which we all associate him in the House. Does he agree that that report did not reach any conclusions about the guilt or innocence of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne)? It rejected a number of allegations against him and focused on two, on which it recommended further investigation. Those were the conclusions of the Select Committee report.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: No, that is not quite the story. In our view, not all the allegations were founded. In the course of our report, we indicated that that was the case, but in two particular instances we believed that there was a breach.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman further qualify his reply to the invervention of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies)? Is not it true to say that we did not recommend further investigation? We recommended that the House should make a decision on the decisions that we took. The words in our report are:
"We therefore uphold the complaint."

That was a decision that we took on the basis of all the evidence before the Committee. It was then for the House to decide whether, in the light of our upholding the complaint, action should be taken.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
There is another aspect into which I do not intend to go in detail. It concerns the procedures which the Committee followed when investigating the case. They were the procedures which had been approved by the House in 1975 when it first instituted the Register of Members' Interests. Essentially, they are the same procedures that any Select Committee uses to establish the facts of a matter and then to come to a conclusion on the basis of those facts. At the end of the debate on my hon. Friend's case, the House gave the Committee a wide-ranging remit to review the rules of registration and declaration and the procedure for investigating complaints.
The Committee has had a lot of other business to tackle in the intervening period, but it has not neglected the remit which the House gave it. I hope that the Committee will be in a position to agree a report on those matters before Parliament is dissolved. In the meantime of course, it would be quite improper for me to anticipate the report.
When the House eventually comes to debate that report, it will be able to take into account the points made in today's debate and in the debate in March 1990. However, it would be wrong to regard that review as in any way reopening the case on which the House reached a decision nearly two years ago. If the House had considered that the alleged deficiencies in our present rules and procedures were sufficiently serious to tilt the balance of judgment in my hon. Friend's case, it could have done so. It did not do so and, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made clear, its decision cannot now be reopened.
1.16 pm
Mr. John Fraser: This has not been a very happy or pleasant occasion. We all know briefly the history of the matter. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) had a well-publicised matrimonial squabble. he was complained about by a journalist who, in the terms of the Select Committee's report, was not wholly without professional interest in the result of those matters.
The hon. Gentleman was suspended by the House for 20 days, which is not a terribly serious punishment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has pointed out. His real complaint is that he was disowned by his party. That is a matter between him, his party and his constituency; it is not a matter for rehearsal in the House today. The hon. Gentleman was lucky in the ballot, and he has chosen a matter of personal interest rather than a subject of interest to his constituents.
We have one very clear and one slightly vague obligation in relation to our interests. When we speak in a debate, we should declare our interest where the speech touches on that subject. That is a much wider responsibility than the responsibility for declarations. I used to have a caravan at one time. I do not think that that is a declarable interest, but, if I was speaking about caravan sites—indeed, I have done so—I should declare an interest, because, although it is not something that needs to go in the Register of Members' Interests, it is clearly relevant to what I am saying.
Equally, if I have a dwelling house that is in the path of a motorway or is subject to the channel tunnel connection, although I do not have to declare my dwelling house, nevertheless if I was talking about legislation about which directly affected my interests, it is something that I should declare. That is a clear, wide and relevant declaration which we all understand.
Except on private Bills, it is fanciful to think that hon. Members actually change their vote as a result of any payment that they receive from outside. I can hardly imagine the circumstances, when it comes to voting, in which the hon. Member for Winchester will go through the Labour Lobby because there is some financial interest. Everybody would soon be on to that.
A good deal of scamming goes on here. People have received money from outside interests as consultants in their capacity of Members of Parliament. They are taking outside interests for more of a ride than they are taking the House of Commons. I cannot think of any circumstances in which hon. Members would have been paid a consultancy and would have changed their vote in the House as a result of any such payment.
Parliament does not award contracts. Parliament does not determine expenditure, except in a general sense. The real thing that matters—it is much more akin to declarations of interest for local authorities—is when one is making representations to Ministers.
It is not the House that has the mega-bucks, although we vote them; the people who can really fix the mega-bucks are Ministers and senior civil servants. That is the really important part, and that brings us to the declaration of interests. It is relevant not so much to what is said in the House or how hon. Members vote here, as to representations made to Ministers who may be placing contracts.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will my hon. Friend go further on this? There is a whole range of interests, and he has rightly mentioned some that should be declared because people should know about them. I am particularly interested in whether or not a person is a member of a masonic order and of particular lodge. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should also be a declarable interest? I am not against people being masons—that is entirely up to them —but we should know. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be added to the register?
Mr. Fraser: I think that I am on the record as saying that that should be declarable, particularly in relation to judges. If one is a member of a masonic lodge, one should not be ashamed of saying so. People can then judge actions in the light of that fact.
I mentioned the declaration of interests first. The second is the Register of Members' Interests. In it, some matters are set out so that people know of an interest. It also saves tedious repetition. I have it in the register that I am a solicitor, so I do not have to say that on every occasion when I rise to speak. It is fairly well known.
I agree with the hon. Member for Winchester slightly, in that the criteria in the register are vague. It uses words that are subjective. One does not know quite what words such as "substantial" mean. It mentions "foreign persons", which is so wide a phrase if one does not consider it in the context of foreign Governments and foreign organisations.
Nevertheless, the real deficiency is that we do not yet have declarations. We have the declarations of the puppets, but not of the people who pull the strings. That is a deficiency. The Select Committee's recommendations for a change of practice in the registration of lobbyists and their clients who seek to influence Ministers are long overdue.
The biggest interests of all, about which most of us know, are represented largely by Tory Members. They are usually the interests of the landlord against the tenant, the brewer against the consumer, the fund manager against the investor, and the employer against the worker. Those are the truly big interests. The judgment will be made about them not here, but at the general election.
In a sense, this has been an unhappy and slightly embarrassing debate. I am afraid that the epitaph of the hon. Member for Winchester will be "public schoolboy, guards officer, banker, Member, whinger".
1.23 pm
Mr. Steve Norris: In a few short moments, I wish to agree with most of those who have spoken. The motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), in so far as it refers to the inadequacy of the present system of registering Members' interests, makes a perfectly fair point. I would go further than that and agree with many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—about the first and last time that I shall probably say that.
Many Conservative Members recognise that the Register of Members' Interests—I have it, made up to 13 January 1992, with me—is an extraordinarily inadequate document. As with so many ill drawn up documents, it conceals more than it reveals, and by doing that we do ourselves no favours. I disagree on one point with the hon. Member for Bolsover. It is a little naive to think that every hon. Member should behave in this place as if it were a

1281
nunnery. I understand the hon. Gentleman's demonic purity of view, for which he is well known, nationally famous, and his hair-shirt philosophy. That is in contrast to the Gucci shirt worn by his hon. Friend the Member for Newham. North-West (Mr. Banks). It is probably not Gucci, because Gucci is probably vastly out of style.
Mr. Tony Banks: It is Balmain.
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman's attractive tie is infinitely more fashionable than mine. Mine is an old tie which does not seem to crease, and it was issued by the IPU.
When I return home late at night after my hard work in this place at perhaps 10.30 or 11 o'clock—
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Or at 1.30 in the morning.
Mr. Norris—or indeed at 1.30 in the morning—by way of diversion I often switch on the television and see none other than the hon. Member for Newham, North-West hosting a programme, accompanied by a good friend—not my hon. Friend at this time but perhaps one day he will be a noble Lord—the putative Lord Archer of Grantchester. Between them they do very well. That role is not contained in the register, which suggests that the employment of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is as parliamentary adviser to the Broadcasting and Entertainment Trades Alliance. I am sure that that is an oversight.
There was an oversight on my part and one that I noticed only today when I saw that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and I both went to address a conference in the south of France in August. I did not put that on the register, largely because I was doing the job in the vacation and got paid for it. Here and now, I have written a note to the registrar putting that on the record.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would like to comment. He is a good friend of mine, and I do not suggest the slightest impropriety. I am merely pointing to the unreality of the view expressed by the hon. Member for Bolsover that we should exist in a little cocoon and have no outside interests or earnings to be justified.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is a substantial grocer, although I understand that he takes no practical part in the family business. None the less, he probably benefits from it to some small degree. My right hon. Friend could do almost any job, but he has chosen to give up much of his free time to work extremely hard as a Member and an excellent Minister. It is utterly unrealistic to suggest that he should do that for the salary that a generous population affords to its Members of Parliament. That is nonsense, and does not wash.
I am perfectly happy with the concept that my good friend the Member for Newham, North-West and the future Lord Archer of Grantchester and others should earn money outside at the same time as doing an excellent job for constituents.
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman started his speech with a fairly amusing point about my clothes. My shirt is by Balmain and the silk tie by courtesy of the Tie Rack, which will perhaps now send me a free one—which, I suppose, I shall have to declare in the Register of Members' Interests.
1282
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, which had not occurred to me. I have three months in which to declare that programme. If the rules were more defined, no one would make a mistake. I had not thought of putting in my television appearances. I think that I will then need my own book, because there are quite a few television appearances.
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman has made my point. I had not bothered to look at his entry until I noticed him sit down next to his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. I then took out the register, which is one of the greatest works of fiction I have even seen, and suddenly wondered where the bit about his television programme was.
I have often thought of asking the hon. Member for Newham, North-West how he got the job, because it seems to be a wonderful way in which to pass an hour in the evening once a week. I have often listened to the quality of the questions bobbing back and forth between the hon. Gentleman and Jeffrey Archer and thought that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I or many other hon. Members might "like a bit of that"—if I may use the vernacular. It is fair to say that I do not have one quarter of the hon. Gentleman's talent, and I am sure that the television companies are intelligent in picking him and not me.
I hope that hon. Members heard me say that, when I read the register, I noticed that the hon. Member for Copeland had mentioned that conference. I had not, and I shall have to do so. It was an error on my part. I want to make the matter clear because, although it is not significant, it is material. It was not long ago that I saw another hon. Member who had been on a tour on which I had been. I had to put that in the register, which I had previously forgotten to do.
Such matters worry me. What is this thing supposed to be? The entries of some hon. Members are so exhaustive that they are meaningless. Some almost say, "Was bought a cup of coffee by a constituent who thought that if he did so, I might vote against the Government and bring down the Commons." It is lunatic stuff. On the other hand, there are significant entries which say, "Nil." I look at those and think, "Nil on all counts? That is hardly realistic."
I list four directorships. All are unremunerated, because they are all charities. I regard the entry as significant because I should say that those are matters in which I am interested. I list a shareholding. I do not draw any money from it, but it is an interest, and hon. Members should know about it. I also list a directorship that pays me.
The solution to all this is straighforward. Without anticipating the Select Committee report, we should be far more specific about what should be in. what should not be in and why. I go along with what the hon. Member for Bolsover said on my second point. It is about time that we put numbers alongside names. The names mean nothing to me. One can open the document at any page and read fascinating names which are utterly meaningless in themselves. Some may pay an hon. Member nothing, whereas others will involve a considerable amount of an hon. Member's time which is given entirely voluntarily. Others may be worth £500 a year and others may be worth £50,000.
Am I doing wrong because, on occasions, I have had lunch with a lobbyist and have not put that in the Register of Members' Interests? He or she bought me lunch. Is that not material? The lobbyist wanted to talk to me and, presumably, to try to influence me. The hon. Member for

1283
Bolsover was right when he said that the idea that that means that I would walk through the Labour Lobby is vaguely naive. I go further. What would I achieve? It is a pointless exercise from that point of view.
Where do we start and stop? We should just say how much. The President of the United States suffers one minor indignity: his tax return is public property. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover that the road of disclosure is the proper road, whether at national or at local level. This country has an enviable reputation for honesty and integrity which I want us always to keep. We must put amounts by entries such as "occasional journalism".
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is putting an interesting case which, I confess, I have opposed on the grounds of privacy. Even so, he puts it powerfully. How does he respond to the proposition that, suffice that hon. Members declare, they are entitled to some privacy? Does he also agree that a volume of money of a certain size might have varying amounts of influence, depending on which hon. Member receives that money?
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I underline that I am a Conservative Member and that I have on occasion had significant income other than my parliamentary salary. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West constantly tells me—he has made me a few offers for it—I carry my mortgage around my wrist so that I may know the time. The hon. Gentleman has been saving up to buy it from me, and I have it on good authority that some of his earnings from the BBC may shortly be corning my way. I do not know whether I shall have to declare that transaction when it takes place. If I believe that it is notifiable, I shall declare it.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) makes a serious intervention, and I assure him that I am deadly serious about what I am saying. On the question of privacy, one quickly realises on becoming a Member of this place that one should not have joined if one cannot take a joke. There are many things about this place that involve personal sacrifices. The media are likely to want to know a lot about one in all sorts of respects and, however uncomfortable that may be, they are entitled to do that. Part of that—because, sadly, there is always the odd rotten apple in the barrel—will have to be the sacrifice of a degree of privacy.
Before making that statement, I had to consider that it might mean my tax return becoming public propery. I hasten to add that it would be unbelievably tedious reading—that is almost the answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention—in the same way as the register is unbelievably tedious. That sacrifice of privacy is an essential prequalification for the right to be a member of this place.
The register does not show the true worth of, for example, the free airports pass that is given to us by the British Airports Authority for our parliamentary duties. For somebody who uses it to the tune of £50-worth a year and who has earnings of say, £150,000 a year, I reckon that BAA will not get much political influence out of that. But for an hon. Member who exists on his basic parliamentary salary of £30,000 a year and who saves £1,000 a year because he uses the pass every weekend, it suddenly becomes material.
So the point about the Register and an open tax return is that it allows one the crucial ability to say that, for one
1284
hon. Member, it is derisory to suggest that his failure to declare some obscure night television programme for which he got £20 is a breach of faith with the House compared with some far greater perfidy that might be perpetrated for other amounts of cash.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I have been listening with fascination to much of what my hon. Friend has said and am wondering whether I must now disagree with him. How would he extend the principles that he has been enunciating to the spouses of hon. Members?
Mr. Norris: I have always thought that a nonsense of the register is the way in which it ignores spouses, and there have been many famous cases where that has been self-evident. I want a Committee of the House to consider closely the practicability of including a spouse's tax return with that of a Member, and also the question of how far one should go. It is illogical simply to confine the debate on additional income to spouses.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): What about children?
Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend—whom it is a pleasure to see joining us today when he has a busy schedule guarding our interests in the Community—asks about children. If one's child were to receive some remuneration, would that not be an obvious way to divert some money?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and have argued endlessly much of the case that he makes about spouses. Can he give a sign of the extent to which, he feels that he has support for his proposition from his hon. Friends?
Mr. Norris: I cannot answer. The answer to that question is no.
When any hon. Member contemplates the scenario that my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and others have suggested to me, one simply has to decide on a cut-off point. That may be a spouse, or perhaps hon, Members will consider that an unnecessary extension. That is fine, but I would like us to debate it when there is the realistic prospect for real changes in the system. Members' interests should be understood before we make crass decisions.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my hon. Friend take the logic of his argument a little further? Would he go beyond spouses and say that the financial interests of the tax returns of Members' co-habitees should be declared? Or, if people are not formally living together but have separate addresses, although they are in a close relationship of one form or another—whether heterosexual or homosexual —should their partners declare their financial interests? Or does he feel that there is something special about the marriage contract and that the obligation should stop there?
Mr. Norris: My mind is reeling from contemplating the basis on which my hon. Friend has asked that question. I had not ascribed to him any of the motives that his question suggests, but I happen to know that his question is purely academic. I do not think that he is in any co-habiting arrangement, other than with his most attractive and excellent wife, on whom I commend him for his good fortune and perspicacity.

1285
Members' interests are an issue that we should be talking about instead of the utter and arrant nonsense—the absence of reality—which this solemn document, the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, represents. The lesson of today's debate is clear. There is absolute all-party interest in the public knowing that Members of Parliament are justified in doing what they do and that they are making proper declarations.
The questions that my short speech has inspired have enthused me to take the matter further, but I must make it clear that it has nothing to do with Labour or Tory, with rich or poor, it is a matter which concerns the integrity of every Member of the House.
1.43 pm
Mr. John Browne: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) wishes to have his debate, so I shall be brief.
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) has just said, especially with regard to matching numbers with names. I also agree with him on the privacy issue. Here I point out that I introduced the Protection of Privacy Bill and I believe that my hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and so I agree with every word that he says.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says, but I shall take up two matters. First, he said that I should have apologised to the Select Committee—
Mr. Skinner: I did not say "should have"—I said that the hon. Gentleman "could have".
Mr. Browne: Oh, "could have"—the hon. Gentleman suggested that it might have been to my advantage to do so. I accept that the hon. Gentleman said "could have" apologised. The reason why I did not do so was that I thought that I was in the right and had nothing for which to apologise. I explained what I had done and that I thought that I was right. The Select Committee said that I was wrong—by sort of bending the rules, I think, but that is a matter of opinion. I apologised to the House in my statement once I had been shown to be wrong by the Select Committee's version of the rules.
The hon. Member for Bolsover said that my case was not like the Dreyfus case. I did not say that I was like Dreyfus, or that I received anywhere near the same punishment as Dreyfus. The point that I was trying to make about the Dreyfus case was that of the deliberate Government-inspired injustice and the Government cover-up that followed—those were the similarities to which I was drawing attention.
I disagree with a number of points made by the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), the Select Committee Chairman, particularly the matter of calling witnesses and the right to call witnesses. I was specifically told by the registrar on about three occasions that I was most definitely not allowed to call witnesses in front of the Committee.
Mr. Cambell-Savours: But not by the Committee.
Mr. Browne: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says from a sedentary position that I was not told by the Select Committee members themselves.
1286
That is perfectly true, but as everyone knows, when dealing with Committees, all of one's advice comes from the Clerks Office and the Clerks to the Committee.
Mr. Haynes: I am listening carefully to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). Does he agree that there should be an extension to the declaration of interests? He is talking about a Select Committee, but does he agree that Members appointed to a Committee dealing with a Bill have a job to do? The party that is in power has the highest number of Members on the Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, once appointed to a Committee considering a Bill, Members should not sit in the Cafeteria studying the Financial Times to see how they or their constituents can line their pockets by noting the state of the City while the rest of us are in Committee working away to oppose or push through a Bill? In addition, I believe that people should apologise when they have got it wrong.
Mr. Browne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. When I was told that I had got it wrong, I apologised to the House.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I think that hon. Members do a good job in Committee. I do not see many hon. Members sitting in the Tea Room reading the Financial Times when they should be in Committee. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that hon. Members should work if appointed to a Committee, and I think that they do. That is not to say that I think that outside interests should be abolished. I believe that outside interests should be allowed as they encourage the system of hon. Members representing their constituents in a more informed manner.
The hon. Member for Workington correctly said that Committee Members had not told me that I could not call witnesses. But Members have to deal with briefings. I was briefed by the Clerk and, in particular, by the registrar, who was calling me up all the time. I had only three brief sessions in front of the Committee, which were action packed and we were pressurised for time. It was the registrar who told me, on three occasions that I can remember, that I was not allowed to call specific people whom I had asked to call. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden to check this vital point with the now ex-registrar who was present at the time.
Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. When certain Bills are being discussed in Committee, one has to be there whether one likes it or not. I am talking about important legislation going through the House. On one occasion when we had a Bill in Committee I saw with my own eyes one of the Conservative members of that Committee sitting in the Cafeteria studying the Financial Times to line his pockets. He should have been working in the Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that hon. Member should have been there working and not sitting in the Cafeteria trying to line his pockets?
Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman mentions a specific case and I have no idea of the details. All I can say is that, in general, I believe that hon. Members do a very good job on Committees. I do not know the specific case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Just so that the record can be absolutely straight, will the hon. Gentleman answer a

1287
simple question? Falcon company, the vehicle that the hon. Gentleman used, received $88,000 for the SAMA document and the hon. Gentleman knew that the Select Committee wanted access to it. He knew from sources within the United Kingdom that he was unable to get a copy of it. In light of the fact that he was repeatedly asked in Committee for a copy, did he approach the Saudi authorities to get a copy so that it could be provided to the Committee? Did he try to do that? I draw his attention to the fact that his reply is being given in the House of Commons.
Mr. Browne: Yes, I did. The hon. Gentleman was not here for that part of my speech when I dealt with that specific issue.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was up in the Gallery behind the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Browne: I did not see the hon. Gentleman behind my back.
It was an interesting situation because the actual document, it is alleged, was stolen from my files. Mr. Leigh wrote some articles. Obviously he had read that document, or he could not have written them. I was then accused of not producing the document. The Committee's judgment seemed incredible to me when it knew that Mr. Leigh must have seen that document. So where was it? Why did not Mr. Leigh produce the document to the Select Committee?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.
Mr. Browne: I did answer—yes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden avoided answering the vitally important question as to why the Select Committee refused to accept for investigation the case that I put to it about the hon. Member for Workington. If my hon. Friend reads the record of the debate, I should like him to give some reasons as to why it was not accepted.
1288
The Leader of the House made an extremely short speech. He said that the final decision was for the House, and of course it was. I believe that it was a heavily whipped vote and that that sort of thing must be wrong in terms of justice. It is quite right and accepted to whip an ordinary vote, but it must surely be very wrong to whip a judicial vote in the House.
Mr. Norris: I am sorry to intervene as I am sure that my hon. Friend wants to bring his remarks to a close and I apologise for extending the debate. However, I want to make one thing clear. As a Conservative Back-Bench Member, not the slightest pressure was brought to bear on me either way as to how I voted. I just want to make that clear. If it was, I missed it. It must have been incredibly subtle and it must have gone right over my head. So far as I am aware, no pressure was brought to bear on any Back-Bench Member of the Conservative party. I wanted to say that for my hon. Friend's reassurance.
Mr. Browne: I do not know whether that is reassuring, but I can only go by what people have said to me in the House. Hon. Members have told me that pressure was put on them through the informal system. If one reads the Division lists, it is pretty clear that the payroll vote was whipped. Ministers have confirmed that to me, but of course my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest was not a Minister.
The purpose of the debate was to raise the issue of Members' interests, which is a complex one. A lot of things need to be done about it in the interests of hon. Members. I wanted to present my case as an example in which many of those issues were raised. I think that that purpose has been achieved. The debate was very disappointing in terms of the reply of the Leader of the House, but I have no wish to pursue it further. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

North-West Region
1.54 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the successful effect that Government policies have had in the North West since 1979; draws attention to problems in the region which need to be addressed; and urges the Government to consider ways of so doing.
Unfortunately, unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for which debates are held in Government time, the only opportunity that the House has to discuss the north-west comes when an hon. Member is successful in the ballot for private Members' motions.
In 1979, the picture of the north-west in the minds of most people was of an area where workers were constantly on strike, where local government was dominated by left-wing extremists, where the old industries that had made the country prosperous were declining and where the industrial scene was full of restrictive practices and overmanning. That was not necessarily an accurate picture of the north-west, but it was the image from which it suffered. I am pleased that my success in the ballot gives me the opportunity to consider—somewhat more briefly than I had expected—the successful effect that Government policies have had in the region since 1979 and the problems that need still to be addressed.
The north-west consists of the counties of Cumbria, Lancashire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Cheshire. The region has a population of 6·9 million 1 per cent. fewer than in 1981. Between 1981 and 1989, there was 15·7 per cent. growth in the number of people aged 75 or over. Some 18·1 per cent. of people are pensioners and 20 per cent. are under 16.
A glance at the football league tables shows Manchester United at the top of division 1, Blackburn Rovers at the top of division 2 and Burnley at the top of division 4. Even I would not claim that Government policies are responsible for that, but it is success in sport, especially by Liverpool and Manchester in football and the Lancashire county team in cricket, for which the region is rightly famous and of which people throughout the country are rightly aware. They are equally aware of the name of Accrington Stanley, whose tie I wear this afternoon, although not necessarily for the same reasons.
It is enormously good news for the north-west that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that the Government are to provide full backing for Manchester's bid for the Olympics in the year 2000. As Sir Arthur Gold, chairman of the British Olympic Association, said, "It is the most heartening announcement that British sport has heard since 1948." The £55 million offered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will pump-prime the essential investment necessary for Manchester to make a successful bid. A successful outcome to that bid would be of enormous importance to the north-west. The gains would be the north-west's largest-ever inward investment, providing 5,000 permanent jobs, and the boost that a successful bid would give to the north-west would carry the region forward for many years. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his announcement on Wednesday and for his assurance that the bid presentation will have Government support from the highest level.
In 1989, for the first time ever, more than £1 billion was spent in the north-west by tourists. Even that amount will
1290
be increased substantially if the Olympic games are held in Manchester. Albert dock in Manchester which, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, is now the second largest tourist attraction in Britain, with 5 million visitors a year, may well become the country's No. I attraction. The pride and confidence that Manchester enjoyed in the 19th century are emerging again today. Manchester's bid gives the north-west a new opportunity to lead the way.
There are equally successful stories to be told about other aspects of life in the north-west, but we seldom get the opportunity to do so and many people in the country—perhaps many in the House—will believe that another north-west success, "Coronation Street", is an accurate reflection of life in the north-west. Although it is my very favourite television programme, I have to say thankfully that life in the north-west has rather more to offer than "Coronation Street" implies.
When I was a child, a large proportion of my immediate family, friends and neighbours were employed in the cotton industry. Recession in the industry, hit everybody in the area hard, as we found to our cost. There were no massive redundancy payments for cotton workers who lost their jobs. Thankfully, the north-west is now more diversified and there is no doubt that Government policies have ensured that the north-west is in better shape to withstand this recession than it was in previous ones.
A recent survey in the North-West Business Insider concluded that the top 10 companies in the north-west were
"a varied and balanced portfolio with a healthy preponderance of technologically advanced companies, belying stock images of the region as the home of sunset industries."
That is a welcome development from the position that was faced in the past. The north-west is second only to the south-east in terms of regional output. Gross domestic product was £44 billion in 1990, accounting for 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. The region takes second place in the United Kingdom in terms of manufacturing, which in 1989 was worth £12 billion, 13 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. That is a tribute to workers and management in the north-west.
In 1989, there were 17,000 manufacturing units in the region, an increase of 23 per cent. on the 1979 figure. The region's business stock grew by 18·6 per cent. between 1979 and 1990. There were 152,100 registered businesses at the end of 1990. In October 1991, the North-West Business Insider stated:
"For the first time in decades the region has a manufacturing sector capable of growth."
In helping that growth to come about, we are fortunate to have the Agency for Investment into North-West England, INWARD, which is supported by the Department of Trade and Industry to the tune of £990,000 this year. INWARD has secured about 4,000 jobs and nearly £200 million of investment in the north-west. Last year, it encouraged 27 companies to locate in the region, compared with 16 in 1990. The last financial year was the best ever for inward investment, with direct investment of £39·71 million creating or safeguarding 1,070 jobs.
In 1990–91, about £450 million was invested in the north-west by overseas companies, creating 3,000 jobs and safeguarding another 8,000. Between 1980 and 1991, inward investment created more than 14,000 jobs. That was a massive vote of confidence in the north-west. It is good that some of the world's top performers—Pirelli,

1291
Siemens, Kellogg and Nabisco, along with German and Japanese banks—are showing their confidence by investing millions in the region.
I do not seek to pretend that there is not an unemployment problem and that there are not business failures. Unfortunately, there are both, and I regret the problems that they cause to those involved. I am trying to show, however, that it is far from all doom and gloom in the north-west. Occasionally, we should concentrate on the region's successes and not its failures. All too often we dwell on the bad news and fail to react to the good news.
The north-west has not escaped the effect of the worldwide recession. That would be impossible. It is pleasing, however, and worthy of note that it has not been affected as severely as other parts of the United Kingdom. Thankfully, unemployment in the region as a whole fell between June 1987 and January 1992. Confidence has remained high. A survey of manufacturing industry's intentions show that 43 per cent. of companies plan to increase capital expenditure this year. It appears that 65 per cent. said that the recession had affected capital expenditure plans only slightly or not at all. That is a far cry from the recessions that I remember when I was young. There can be no doubt that the Government's policies and initiatives have played a large part in bringing about this change.
Sixty three per cent. of the region's work force are in assisted areas. There are two city action teams in Manchester/Salford and Liverpool. There are three DTI task forces and 14 training and enterprise councils, one of the most successful of which is East Lancashire TEC, which covers my constituency. ELTEC had a budget for 1991–92 of £17·5 million and 205 local firms are members of it. There are 3.500 young people on youth training schemes, 1,200 people receiving employment training and 500 on the enterprise allowance scheme.
There are four enterprise zones, which have resulted in an increase in employment of 21,500 since they were designated. The east Lancashire zone has been especially successful despite the lack of enthusiasm of the Labour party in Hyndburn and the scorn that it poured on the idea when the zone was established.
I shall deal briefly with national health service provision in the north-west. There are three regional health authorities—Northern. North Western and Mersey. I welcome the fact that in North Western, which covers my constituency, and Mersey spending increased by 73 per cent. between 1982 and 1990–11 per cent. ahead of inflation. Last year, £1·3 billion was spent in North Western and £753·6 million in Mersey.
It sometimes appears to be forgotten that the health service is for the benefit of patients. As someone who has benefited enormously from it, I welcome the fact that in 1990, 546,818 in-patients were treated in the north-west region. That is a substantial increase over the number of patients treated 10 years earlier. There was a similar large increase in the Mersey region, where 280,000 in-patients were treated. Day cases have increased dramatically in both regions—in the north-west region they are up by a staggering 73 per cent., to 139,987.
Those may seem merely cold figures, but they represent people relieved of pain and suffering. They are living proof that we have a fine health service, despite the Labour party's continued attempts to denigrate it. Such attempts do nothing for morale in the national health service and are unacceptable, coming from a party which when in
1292
government underpaid nurses and stopped capital spending on hospitals. Fortunately, we have reversed that trend, and in the north-west region 62 building schemes, each costing more than £1 million, have been completed since 1979. Capital spending for 1991–92 was £108·4 million.
Shortage of time prevents me from speaking about the maternity unit at Accrington Victoria hospital and housing problems in Hyndburn. However, I wish to draw attention to two further problems.
The first is the proposed reorganisation of local government—a matter on which different areas within the north-west region will no doubt have different views, some irreconcilable. That is not so in north-east Lancashire, where views on what we would like to emerge from the reorganisation proposals are almost unanimous. Local authorities there are working together to press the local government commission for unitary authorities based on the existing districts.
I support that proposal, safe in the knowledge that it is what my constituents want. The borough council carried out a survey of the electors, asking them what they wanted from local government, and the result was overwhelming suport for a unitary authority based on Hyndburn. The council also consulted all the companies in Hyndburn with more than 20 employees. Of those, 84 per cent. wanted a unitary authority based on the district rather than on the county.
I welcome the response of the people of Hyndburn and the responsible attitude exhibted by all the Lancashire local authorities to local government reorganisation proposals. When those proposals were announced, I was convinced that history would repeat itself and that I would find myself fighting off a bid for Hyndburn to be taken over by Blackburn, just as I did when I was chairman of Oswaldwhistle urban district council in 1969–70, and led a campaign against being taken over by Blackburn. We did not want that then and we do not want it now. I am thankful that the leader of Blackburn council does not want it, either, but the commission may seek to impose it, and I wish to warn against that.
As a lifelong resident of east Lancashire, I know how strong are the ties that bind local communities together. We are fiercely proud of our history and civic traditions, and of our contribution to the well-being of the north-west, and of the nation. That contribution was made first through the cotton industry, which I have mentioned, and more recently through the multitude of small businesses that have grown up since the demise of cotton.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities stresses that the Local Government Bill aims to ensure that the new structure of local government in the north-west and elsewhere reflects the identities and interests of local communities. Only local people can be aware of what those identities and interests are. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said in the Committee on the Local Government Bill, Members of Parliament should be careful about telling areas of the country that they do not represent and do not know well what form of local government is good for them. The commission needs to be warned, therefore, that any proposals to merge Hyndburn with any of our neighbours by drawing circles on the map will be greeted with outrage.
Local government has the potential either dramatically to improve or fatally to hinder the development of local

1293
spirit and pride. We must take the right decisions on reorganisation, and one of those must be to listen to and to accept the views of local people.
Finally, I want to refer to the problem that arises most frequently in my surgeries and in correspondence—concessionary television licences for pensioners. It is hardly surprising that that problem arises so frequently, given the percentage of old people in the north-west.
For many old people, television is their major form of entertainment. As old age comes, it is more difficult for people to get out and about and television becomes an important link with the world outside. It helps pensioners to feel less lonely and less cut off and isolated in their own homes. Television and radio—and especially television—are a vital part of a pensioner's life.
People of pensionable age, perhaps more than any other group, understand that there is no such thing as something for nothing and that previous attempts to provide a free television licence to pensioners would have meant a large rise in the licence fee for all non-pensioner households. I do not believe that they wanted that to happen. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of unhappiness about the present concessionary system.
The concessionary scheme has existed for 20 years. It was intended to benefit pensioners and disabled people living in residential homes and comparable sheltered housing by local authorities and housing associations. However, changes were made in the regulations in 1988 following the Kirklees judgment. The new regulations more clearly define the type of sheltered accommodation that would qualify in future.
The regulations came into force on 19 May 1988 and under them the qualifying accommodation had to form a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary to be served by a full-time or resident warden so that the accommodation could be seen to form a cohesive self-contained unit with staff at hand, just like a residential home.
The anomalies that arise from the concessionary system cause difficulties, confusion and even ill feeling. I accept that when the scheme had to be changed as a result of the Kirklees judgment the Government could have withdrawn the benefits of the scheme from those who ceased to qualify under the new regulations. They felt that that would be unfair and included provision in the 1988 regulations that preserved the right to existing beneficiaries for their lifetimes, provided that they continue to live in accommodation that qualifies under the old regulations.
Consequently, in some schemes, residents continue to enjoy the benefit of a concessionary licence even though the scheme no longer qualifies, while people who move into such schemes cannot now obtain concessions unless they have reserved rights. Therefore, neighbours in the same non-qualifying scheme may sometimes be treated differently, with existing beneficiaries enjoying a concession which newcomers cannot enjoy, even if they are older and poorer.
The whole situation is confusing for pensioners, who had great difficulty understanding the fairness of the original scheme, let alone the present situation. The present situation is unfair and it cannot be defended any longer. We should seriously consider introducing a concessionary scheme that gives equal benefit to all
1294
pensioners and is easily understood and seen to be fair. The present situation is not understood and it is not fair: £5 for some pensioners and £78 for the people next door. In Lancashire terms, that is plain daft.
The situation could be made more fair by allowing all pensioner households to pay a £5 licence or at least have a rebate of 50 per cent. on the cost of the present television licence. The loss of revenue to the BBC could be compensated for by allowing advertising on Radio 1, Radio 2 and, if necessary at some hours of the day, on BBC1.
Advertisements leap out at us when we watch sports programmes on television. Players wear shirts on which there are company names. The names of products and firms are thrust at us on advertising hoardings at sports grounds. We may as well go the whole way and allow advertising during certain periods and use the proceeds to get rid of the present anomalies in the concessionary scheme once and for all. I welcome the view of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Government should set up an inquiry into the future of the BBC after the general election. I hope that the concessionary licence scheme will form part of that inquiry.
The past 12 years have been important, not just for the north-west. People in very different societies have had to accept that the nation's fortunes are made from their own individual efforts. In the north-west we have responded: there is more self-employment and more small businesses, and that reflects a new awareness of the need to compete. The emphasis of Government policy has been on the role of individuals to try harder to compete more effectively. There is now a different attitude in the north-west, even in areas which, in the past, gave the region a bad name. There is an attitude of partnership between local business, local authorities, educationists and Government who are working together better than ever before. That is vital if we are to solve our present unemployment problems and the ones that will follow from the peace dividend in an area in which the defence industry has played such an important role.
I am optimistic about the future of the north-west and the quality of life that we enjoy—provided that we return a Conservative Government at the general election. I was born in the north-west, and I have lived all my life there. I know the people. They are the kindest and most caring people in the country. During my time in the House, I have always tried to put their interests first, even at the expense of sometimes voting against my own party. So much do I care for the people whom I represent that if my party, during a recession, introduced a minimum wage, higher taxes and higher national insurance contributions, I would refuse to stand for election at the coming general election. The Labour party's policies will decimate jobs and do untold damage in the north-west. They will hit hardest the very people whom it wants to help. During a recession, such policies are nonsense, and the people of the north-west will say so in no uncertain terms at the general election.
2.15 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) said about the new attitude in the north-west toward competitiveness and the idea that the market for products in our part of the

1295
country exists beyond these shores. I commend my hon. Friend for all that he has done for industries in the north-west—knowing, as he does, so much about them.
It is striking that, in the past few years, although we have had an unfortunate recession in this country, there is no doubt that it has been less pronounced in the north-west because people in my region are rather more cautious. As a result, there is a lower incidence of debt even in respect of mortgages and business lending. That will do much for the region when the recovery comes. We can use a much stronger equity base in order to take advantage of increased demands for products made in my region.
There are undoubted problems, however. My hon. Friend mentioned the defence industries. It is useful to point out that, although we have a peace dividend, we still need to keep our defences strong. The Labour party and Liberal Democrats have failed time and again to make that point. We need a strong aviation industry based on civilian and military products. We in the north-east are dependent on military products. The Government's policy of maintaining a strong defence, rather than the huge cuts proposed by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, will result in a larger aviation industry in the north-west, as opposed to what would happen under a Labour Government, whether or not supported by the Liberal Democrats.
The other industry on which the north-west depends heavily is nuclear power. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats want to phase out nuclear power, but 120,000 jobs in the north-west depend on nuclear power. Without that industry, jobs would be devastated, and there would be a spill-over effect on smaller contractors, retailers and people who depend on that inflow of funds into our region.
The Government's balanced policy on nuclear power and other forms of energy generation shows that we support the north-west. The Opposition would damage the north-west not only by the minimum wage but by their attitude to the two most important industries in our region —aviation and nuclear power. They want to damage the region's opportunities to move forward and take advantage of European and world markets for our products.
2.19 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish: I fully understand the anxieties of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) as he looks forward to the next six weeks because if, as seems likely, the election is held on 9 April, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have to defend an economic record in the north-west which, I am afraid, bears no relation to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Let us examine 13 years of Conservative government in the north-west and some key indicators that most parties would agree measure the competence and performance of any Government. First, between June 1979 and December 1991 unemployment in the north-west increased by 153,200. Outwith the south-east and Greater London, that is the biggest increase in unemployment of any region.
The other side of the coin is the change in employment. Outwith the west midlands, the north-west has lost 199,000 jobs. That is a staggering figure and directly confronts talk about the success of the Government economic policies during three periods of office. The disastrous trade figures announced yesterday show the
1296
change in manufacturing employment. In looking optimistically to the future, we look to the west midlands, the south-west, Scotland and the north-west, which we hope will play a major role in the regeneration of the British economy.
Sadly, between June 1979 and December 1991 the north-west lost 361,000 manufacturing jobs. That is not a small but a substantial haemorrhage of jobs at a time when not only the hon. Member for Hyndburn but Ministers have been making extravagant claims about the Government's employment record. If there is one statistic that reinforces the current crisis in manufacturing it is the one that relates to skills. Between March 1981 and March 1990 the north-west lost 11,300 apprentices. There has been a slump in jobs, a dramatic slump in manufacturing jobs, and the back of the apprenticeship programme in the north-west has been broken. That did not happen in the early part of the 1980s during the first or second Tory recession, but in the dip that we are now experiencing.
A job loss document that we produced this week shows that in the north-west 6,400 jobs have been lost in the first five weeks of 1992, the year of the single market and of major challenges throughout the world. We face threats from the Japanese and the strength of the Germans despite what the Primne Minister says, and Pacific rim countries are investing in skills and becoming commanding economies.
The statistic on which I shall finish is a statement on the Government's appalling record United Kingdom-wide, and certainly in the north-west. In January 1979, 62,300 18 to 24-year-olds were unemployed in the north-west. In January 1992, the figure was 103,253—an increase of 66 per cent. in the number of young people who are unemployed, after two recessions and a supposedly economic miracle. The sad state of affairs is shown graphically in yesterday's trade figures.
I cannot help the hon. Member for Hyndburn in his efforts to be re-elected in a few weeks' time. I sincerely hope that when the electors in the north-west go to the polls they will look at the claims being made by candidates and Ministers and will measure the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of 12 dismal and depressing years of Government economic policy. We hope that on 10 April in the north-west, and in the United Kingdom, we shall have a chance to start rebuilding the British economy.
2.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans) for the eloquent way in which they have dealt with how the north-west economy is progressing satisfactorily under this Government. For the sake of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), I will put the debate in context.
In both employment and output terms, the north-west is second only to the south-east in size, having a gross domestic product of £47 billion—equivalent to 10·1 per cent. of GDP. Some 2·4 million people are employed in the region, representing 10·9 per cent. of the national total, and of those nearly 661,000 are employed in manufacturing. The latter figure is significant. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, the region's manufacturing provides 27 per cent. of employment, compared with a national

1297
figure of 23 per cent. That share and its long history are why the north-west feels particularly strongly about manufacturing industry, and I understand the reasons for that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn recognised, there have been problems in the decline of the traditional industries, such as textiles, coal and steel, and to a lesser extent the ports. That decline is part of the natural life cycle of industries and sectors within industries. Governments cannot interfere with the natural order of such things.
I recognise that it is extremely painful for those involved in declining industries, and I know that the decline has cost many jobs. Between 1965—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note that date—and 1989, around 400,000 jobs or 55 per cent. had gone from the manufacturing industries in the region. That is part of the steady decline that we have seen in the north-west, as throughout Europe. The once dominant textile industry, for example, which will be close to my hon. Friend's heart, is a typical example of what has happened in the north-west. Textiles now face low-cost competition from areas abroad, so we have had the multi-fibre arrangement, which is part of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, to ease the process.
We have also seen diversification of the north-west economy. With such diversification there is strength. The sectors represented range from engineering, the food industry, chemicals, the defence industries, and motor vehicles to the traditional industries to which I have referred.
The services sector provides the region with the largest body of service industry employment of any region outside the south-east. Important banking, finance, insurance and business services are provided in the region, which combine to make Manchester and Liverpool major centres of commerce, transport and education.
Despite its past decline, Liverpool remains an important port. Its performance since the abolition of the national dock labour scheme has been most encouraging. Manchester has more than 60 domestic, merchant and international banks represented there, as well as the northern stock exchange—a different picture from that presented by the hon. Gentleman. Elsewhere in the region there are important ancillary activities, including the Barclaycard centre in Liverpool and, in Chester, the headquarters of North West Securities and St. Michael Financial Services. That diversity now helps the region to ride the business cycle much better than it would have done with an over-dependence on larger, old-established industries.
1298
It is no good the hon. Gentleman coming to the House today with the usual speech that we have heard many times from the Opposition Front Bench. The Opposition never give their answer. There was not a word in the hon. Gentleman's speech about their agenda, their plans or their policies—just the usual slogans, platitudes and criticisms. That is not surprising; the debate on manufacturing that we have had so often in the past few months has become wholly predictable.
The House need look only at the speeches of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to see that. I have done an analysis of his speeches. In June he made a speech on manufacturing. It amounted to 57 paragraphs in Hansard. How many of those, do my hon. Friends think, describe his policies? Was it 20? Was it 25? [HON. MEMBERS: "1\10."] WaS it 30? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Any advance on 30? [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] It was less than 30. To be precise it was just one.
What about the hon. Gentleman's next speech on manufacturing which was in October? Surely he could do better. Surely his own personal policy relevation growth rate would be—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is all very entertaining, but it seems to be of little relevance to the motion before the House.
Mr. Leigh: This is very relevant to the north-west, which is what the debate is about. We want to know what the Opposition policy means for manufacturing in the north-west. Of 51 paragraphs in Hansard, only one lonely paragraph was about Labour's policy. It was about Labour's small business scheme.
What a shame it is that the Labour party, time and again, failed to explain its policies. When Labour recently called a great conference on industry, it was going to explain its policies. Labour invited no fewer than 1,000 industralists to that conference—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should read the motion. He may then realise that his remarks are not very relevant.
Mr. Leigh: They are very relevant. Those industralists want to know what Labour's policies would mean to manufacturing in the north-west. Some 1,000 were invited and only 12 accepted the invitation. Manufacturers in the north-west, as in other regions, know that Labour's policies would be disastrous for manufacturing in the north-west. Let us consider Labour's minimum wage policy, its high tax policy—
It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day
  Private Members' Bills

    PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Not printed. Second Reading what day? No day named.

    REFERENDUM BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [21 February].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    SHOPS (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

    CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [31 January].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Who objected to the Bill? We are all trying to do our best for the disabled. The hon. Member concerned should he ashamed of himself.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is sufficient that I and the whole House distinctly heard an hon. Member object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

    COLD WEATHER CREDITS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

    RIGHT TO INFORMATION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

    TIMESHARE CONTRACTS (TIME FOR RECONSIDERATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not printed. Second Reading what day?
    Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

    HOUSING (FITNESS STANDARD) (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

    ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION (COSMETICS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

    NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPPLY OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

    SEA FISHERIES (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION) BILL
    Order for consideration (not amended in the Standing Committee), read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered upon Friday next.

    YOUNG PERSONS' RIGHTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    IBNGO BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Fry.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker regularly deprecates the practice of having a Committee of the whole House without adequate notice.
    Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    HARE COURSING BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish the record to show that the objector to my Bill was the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). I want his constituents to know that.
    Mr. Steve Norris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to inform you that the excellent Bill, the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Bill, introduced by—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. That is not a point of order for me.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

    ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Order for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Cardiff Bay Barrage (re-committed) Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, be discharged and that the Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, be re-committed to a Standing Committee.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

    TAXATION OF CHARGEABLE GAINS BILL [LORDS]
    Ordered,
    That, in respect of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

    ESTIMATES
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Thursday 5th March, Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply as if the words 'for the coming financial year' in lines 5 and 21 were omitted.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Child Abuse Victims
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
2.35 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important subject of Home Office guidelines on the preparation of child abuse victims for court. I am particularly pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department, has made it through the traffic and, at the end of a busy week, is in his place to reply to the debate. I say that not only because he is the Minister who has gone out of his way to keep his store open for his Back-Bench colleagues, but because of the particualar interest that he has taken in the subject, including being the driving force behind the one important improvement that has taken place in the area recently.
Child abuse is today close to epidemic proportions. In the last year, the number of children joining the child protection register in Kent was equivalent to 4 per cent. of the birth rate, yet all the caring agencies assure me that that almost certainly understates the scope of the problem. The statistics cover a range of what I can only describe as the most hideous tortures. Examples range from a little boy who had his arm broken in two places while his step-father forced him to have oral sex, to many cases of the gang rape of individual children as a result of a number of vice rings, and we now even have incidents of child prostitution.
My right hon. Friend has marked out for himself criminal prevention as a key area of interest, looking at ways to prevent the very young from becoming criminals. I put it to him that there is no better way of tackling that problem than by tackling the problem of child abuse. Indeed, my contacts in the teaching profession assure me that most of the difficult and rowdy children, inside and outside classrooms, either have been or are being severely abused.
There have been important advances in the wider areas, and I particularly welcome the White Paper, "Working Together". In Canterbury, partly as a result of that, the caring agencies, the police and social services, are working closely together. But in the matter with which we are concerned today—criminal prosecution for child abuse —we must face the reality that of all cases of children taken away from home where the burden of evidence suggests very serious child abuse, only a small fraction ever come to court, and in only a small fraction of those are convictions obtained.
One advance that will come into force in the autumn, as a result of the Criminal Justice Act 1991—the Pigot proposal on the admission of child video evidence—will help. The way in which children are treated in court and the lack of adequate preparation for that treatment has resulted in two unhappy circumstances. First, it is almost impossible in many cases to obtain convictions and, secondly, the treatment is so traumatic that the police are frequently unwilling to bring charges because they are not willing to submit the child to still further trauma. Either way, the villains go back into the community to continue.
The House will forgive me for reading two examples from an eye witness. The first is the case of Regina v. Etheridge et al. Allegations revolved around 10 children, who had been called into a room, one at a time, and subjected to various forms of sexual abuse by numerous

1303
adults. Often, children were forced to watch helplessly while younger brothers and sisters were sexually assaulted. It was 14 months from the date that that came to light until the court appearance. During that time, concern was expressed that the children, who were so badly damaged by the experience, needed therapy. However, as criminal proceedings were pending, it was believed that therapy might taint any evidence that the children might give. There are no guidelines on the subject, but in the past the defence has managed to have a case dismissed because children had received therapy.
The delay in getting the children to court did nothing to assist them to give credible evidence. The defence counsel successfully made an application to have indictments against the defendants severed, which meant that the children were forced to give evidence a number of times at separate trials, each with a different jury. One gave evidence at four separate trials.
Even after that time lapse, none of the children were allowed to refresh their memories from statements. Again, there are no guidelines on that, but past experience suggests that in some courts that could be counted as coaching.
One child of 12, having bravely given his evidence in chief, was cross-examined by seven defence counsels for a period of hours, for a number of days. The defence ploys used varied from wearing the witness down—like dripping water on a stone—to overt haranguing. It comes as no surprise that after a time the child was prepared to say anything to appease his inquisitors and to escape the ordeal, which can only be described as secondary abuse. He left the witness box tired, confused and feeling guilty that he had dared to speak up. The cross-examinations left him with a deep-rooted hatred of women, resulting from his treatment by one woman barrister, who implied that he had invited the abuse that he had suffered.
We should ask ourselves whether we should be so obsessed with providing justice for the accused that we are willing to submit a child victim, who had been raped by seven men, to be flayed by seven lawyers. The fact that such cross-examination was not expected by any of the children made its impact even more devastating. Yet again, any preparation for it could have resulted in the case being dismissed because of coaching.
Frequently, during cross-examination barristers use complicated language such as "Is it not true that?", which caused the young witnesses considerable confusion.
One witness had travelled from Essex to Maidstone. He was tired when he arrived and, having been mentally prepared, he was left outside the courtroom for the whole day while legal arguments were conducted. Those included whether witnesses should be allowed to give evidence on a television link. Eventually, decisions were made and the witnesses were wheeled in to give their evidence. That acted as a form of psychological pressure and made the child witnesses nervous. It left the police virtually no time to prepare the witnesses for what to expect, whether for a television appearance—in which case they would have had to explain to small children that they were not going out in the middle of "Neighbours", but on a separate video link—or for the courtroom. As a result, the children were not able to give credible evidence and several cases were dismissed. Fortunately, some children managed to go the distance, and four of the accused received substantial
1304
terms of imprisonment, but the majority went free, straight back into the community, where they are believed to be abusing children still.
I shall call the second case Regina v. X. It involves the buggery of an eight-year-old boy, who gave his evidence at best his tender years would permit. Spectators have said that initially he did very well, and was able to repeat the exact nature of the allegations against him, in spite of the imposing and formal surroundings of the court. Despite his brave performance, the case took a turn for the worse. A clever manipulation in cross-examination elicited a retraction from him. The judge then asked him if what he had said was really true, to which the boy replied, "No." The judge immediately dismissed the case without making it clear to the boy to which part of his evidence the question had referred. In fact, the little boy meant that the earlier part of his testimony, when the defence barrister had confused him, was untrue and not his main evidence.
I wish to make two points from those cases. First, even police officers tell me that being hauled over the coals by a lawyer is like being flayed alive. One can imagine what it does to a child. Of course, children must be cross-examined in the interests of justice, but I believe that it could be done better.
The second and central point which concerns me is that, throughout their preparation of children for the ordeal, the police are walking on eggshells. We are fortunate to have in the Gallery two representatives from Canterbury's excellent victim support scheme—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to people outside the Chamber.
Mr. Brazier: The police are treading on eggshells when they prepare children. Therefore, the first of my four recommendations is that I firmly believe that the Home Office should follow up its successful measures contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 with firm guidelines setting out to the police what they can and cannot do with child witnesses beforehand. Can they say to children, "You must tell the truth" or "You must stick to the truth even if a barrister is nasty to you"? Can they tell a child "A barrister may make false allegations against you"? Can they say, "This is your original statement", as they would say to an adult witness? The guidelines will be of value only if they have been agreed by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Lord Chief Justice and, as a result, have been promulgated to judges.
Secondly, central to the issue is a measure which can come only from the Lord Chancellor's Department. The timing and physical arrangement of the trials are crucial, not only in terms of avoiding undue delay. If children are to be prepared properly, any changes of plan—such as whether to use a video link—should be settled well in advance. Barristers should not be allowed cynically to use points of order to delay proceedings and grind children down by making them nervous as they wait to start.
Thirdly, the balkanisation of trials must end. If a group of children produce allegations against an adult or adults, they should all be heard by the same jury so that they can assess the full weight of the evidence. We shall not obtain convictions if each one is stacked up individually, one to one, against the accused. More importantly, where a

1305
number of adults are accused of offending against the same child, surely one barrister could cross-examine the child and not one for each defendant.
Fourthly, in a helpful letter that I received yesterday and which dealt with a wide range of issues which stray beyond today's debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State discusses appointing an intermediary in court cases to cross-examine on a neutral basis for both parties. He rightly said that the matter was discussed on the appropriate amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, but I should like his assurance that we are considering carefully the other countries that have experimented with that method. In the select committee in Congress, questions are put to various people by intermediaries, and I believe that there are some countries where intermediaries are also used in court.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is, like me, a father and his concern goes back a long way. Day after day, people walk free, unconvicted, from courts, having committed the most appalling offences. That is partly because the police do not have clear guidelines on how to prepare children for the ordeal of court cases.
An important and worthwhile element of the wider programme of crime prevention among the very young would be the promulgation of clear guidelines, agreed with the judiciary, for the preparation of child witnesses for court. I very much look forward to my right hon. Friend's reply.
Mr. Andrew Rowe rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Member have the consent of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and the Minister? Yes.
2.48 pm
Mr. Rowe: I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for raising this important issue, which he did with his customary clarity and considerable imagination.
It is important to emphasise two matters. First, all the evidence suggests that young children cannot be expected to recall reliably events of any kind, particularly traumatic ones, after the passage of many months. Therefore, it is essential that whatever the guidelines for court cases, when young children are involved they should be given the utmost priority within the legal system so that justice can be delivered rapidly.
Secondly, I hope that in the next decade of Conservative government my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will give serious consideration to whether the current adversarial system is necessarily the best way to achieve justice when young children are involved. There is considerable evidence to suggest that a less adversarial and conflict-dominated system would be much fairer.
It is absolutely unreasonable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has said, for young children to be expected to stand up not merely to one adult, but perhaps to seven who, for the past 30 years, have earned their living in many cases by tricking people into making admissions that they might not otherwise have made. The present system not only leads to injustice, but causes severe trauma to the children involved.
2.50 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on his excellent and, in parts, very moving speech, which was forceful throughout.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent that when it comes to child witnesses or, indeed, anyone else, we need to keep our criminal justice system in good fighting form. That is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set up the Royal Commission on criminal justice under the chairmanship of Viscount Runciman. That commission will report in June 1993.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has submitted evidence to the royal commission and if my hon. Friend for Mid-Kent has any further thoughts along the lines that he outlined, necessarily briefly in this short debate, he should write to the noble Lord and the royal commission to make those points absolutely clear. I know that they will be glad to hear from him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has raised an issue of the greatest importance. We must be grateful to him for bringing such tragic cases to our attention and giving us the opportunity to consider procedures in child abuse cases. When my hon. Friend entered the House, the issue of child abuse was just being brought into the daylight. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent entered the House, I do not believe that the incidence of child abuse was so noted. The scale of child abuse caught all of us by surprise in the latter part of the 1980s and the early 1990s. Before that, it was a hidden problem, and it is a good thing that it has been brought out into the open.
I have tried to address some of the issues, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury referred, in successive criminal justice legislation that has gone through the House—most notably the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which comes into full force in October.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is a great campaigner for justice in child abuse cases. As I said, he has made a special submission to the royal commission on that subject. He had the courtesy to send me that submission, which is a fascinating and thought-provoking study. I recommend that any hon. Member who is interested in this subject should ask my hon. Friend for a copy. I understand that he will make one available free of charge to anyone who wants to see it.
The Government share my hon. Friend's strong personal commitment to effective action on this issue. We must all deplore the atrocious crimes perpetrated against children. Like my hon. Friend, I have a young child and I agree that we must do all that we can to ensure that such young victims can be heard by the courts so that their vile abusers may be brought to justice. However, in the interests of justice, we must make absolutely certain that the rights of the accused are not trampled on. Not everyone who is accused and brought to court is necessarily guilty or rightly accused of such crimes. I am glad that my hon. Friend, with his characteristic fairness, made that point.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, in the past, the criminal justice system has underestimated the sheer terror that a court appearance can cause to a child. The stress of criminal proceedings for children has been such that many cases were lost or were not even started because children

1307
were too frightened to face the witness box. That is why we took an important step forward in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by permitting children to give evidence by means of a live television link from outside the court room. That was thought to be a daring innovation and many members of the Standing Committee considering the Bill raised their eyebrows. It is now thought simply to be part and parcel of what we should be doing.
How quickly things move on in that respect, as they have done in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which carries on the programme of reform, and through implementation of the recommendations of the advisory committee on video evidence set up by the Government under the excellent chairmanship of his honour Judge Thomas Pigot, sometime Common Serjeant of the City of London. As I hinted in my opening remarks, we plan to implement this part of the Act this October, together with a number of other important supporting measures. That should mean that many of the problems facing children should, from October, no longer be there.
Perhaps the most eye-catching of the several changes in procedure that we made in the 1991 Act is the use of pre-recorded video evidence in cases of violent and sexual abuse involving child witnesses. A video of an earlier interview with a child—normally, but not always, carried out by a police officer or a social worker trained to work with children—will, in future, be allowed to stand in place of the child's main evidence. That is of fundamental and far-reaching importance.
However, it is no good having a video of a child's testimony if that testimony is to be ruled out of court as incompetent just because it has come from a child. That would be absurd and that is why his honour Judge Pigot recommended, and we adopted in the Criminal Justice Act, a change in the rules about the competence of child witnesses. We did a great international survey to find out whether children were more or less likely to lie than adults and it found that children were neither more nor less likely to lie. In effect, the 1991 Act says that courts should not presume that a child is an incompetent witness just because of his or her age. They must treat children's evidence, just like the adults' evidence, on its merits. This is an important change and should result in many more children being able to give evidence to our courts, and quite right too.
The video recording should also reduce the need for the child to recount his or her experience directly to court and this is obviously a good thing. The child should not have to relive events by telling the story many months later, and my hon. Friend rightly pointed out the delay in bringing some cases to trial. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is giving his attention to this procedure, which can have a distressing effect on the child. The existence of such a video may facilitate earlier therapy for the child and serve to encourage guilty pleas.
I hope that the video will have that latter effect. I understand that, in America, it has been found that the effect on the accused of showing such a video so that he, or much more rarely she, can prepare his defence to the allegations made by the victims has led to many cases collapsing at an early stage. Often, when the accused has seen the child retelling his or her story on the video, this has had such an impact on him that he has pleaded guilty. We should not always think that what happens in America will happen here, but that is one of the net effects of similar provisions in some states there, and one can only hope that it will happen in Kent as much as in Winconsin.
1308
The child's account will still need to be tested by cross-examination, but that can take place from outside the court room by means of a live television link. Seeing the video before he or she gave evidence would be a most useful way of refreshing the child's memory. The Act also bans the accused from cross-examining the child in person. I have always been convinced that we should do that.
Finally, with an eye to reducing the unacceptable delays rightly castigated by my hon. Friend, the 1991 Act gives a special power to allow magistrates courts committal proceedings to be bypassed altogether and get the case into the Crown court straight away. It also places on the courts a statutory duty to avoid delay in these cases. I understand that the Department of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is considering how best to translate that duty into practical guidance.
These reforms are pretty major changes in the law and I think that they will have an extraordinary impact after October 1992. I believe that they herald a new deal for child witnesses and much brighter prospects for getting justice in these cases.
My hon. Friend mentioned some possible reforms that were not made by the 1991 Act. He was kind enough to acknowledge what the Government have done thus far in the past four of five years, but he wishes to press us to introduce further reforms. In particular, he favours the use of specialists to mediate questions to the child in court. A similar proposal was made when we considered the 1991 measure in Committee and I considered the proposal carefully at that stage.
I do not have a closed mind, but the counter-argument is that cross-examination works best as a dialogue between two people and that the point of cross-examination could be lost if that spontaneity were lost. It is rather like asking someone to act as an intermediary for one of the interjections of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). That could not be done by someone standing in between.
In addition, there is the real risk that a third party might inadvertently ask questions in a way that was prejudicial to the case, or might simply misunderstand precisely what was required. It would seem that there are three pretty good chances of something going wrong through the use of mediators. We shall continue, of course, to examine international practice. We shall not hesitate to change the law if our monitoring of the 1991 reforms shows that that is needed. The reforms will not take effect until October, and we shall have to let them run for at least a year. We shall be conducting research and close monitoring throughout to see how they are working. I would be the first to tell the House that I am sure that in due course we shall need to make changes. We are introducing new territory in terms of court practice.
As I have said, the changes in evidential procedure that we have made should make it much easier to get the child's account into court and reduce the number of times that the child is compelled to go over the whole thing again.
My hon. Friend is concerned about advocates' questions during cross-examination. Lawyers came in for some pretty tough strictures during his speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent. They often do in the Chamber, though not by the lawyers who so populate some of the spaces on these green Benches. I believe that it is increasingly recognised that a good rapport with the child is vital to the successful conduct of the case. Under the new way of doing things, I do not

1309
believe that advocates will think that there is anything to be said for trying to trap the child, which they have undoubtedly tried to do in the past.
We cannot remove the right of one of a group of accused persons to defend himself separately, not least because his part in the offence might be different from that of the others. The judge has power to intervene, however, to curtail unnecessary cross-examination. I think that allowing the video in as evidence-in-chief should help, as should allowing cross-examination to take place from outside the court room by live television link.
We are drawing up guidance for practitioners, exactly as my hon. Friend wishes, on the making of new video recordings. It is aimed at those who will be involved in the investigation of child abuse. We have revised the draft code four times. It is now being double checked by some child protection teams around the country, one of which I visited, to ensure that it contains the best possible practice. It builds on the guidance previously issued to police and social workers by the Home Office.
Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
Mr. Patten: Yes, of course. We have about two minutes.
Mr. Brazier: Will it be possible for Canterbury to have an opportunity to make an input?
Mr. Patten: Of course—I shall be delighted if my hon. Friend sends in any representations from Canterbury, where invaluable work is being done, as quickly as possible. Speed is of the essence. As I have said, guidance is being promulgated.
The second element of the package, in parallel with reviews that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is carrying out, is a special joint project that my Department has set up with voluntary child care agencies, designed to provide better information and leaflets which are better targeted at child witnesses and those who care for them. Others involved in the project include the Crown prosecution service, of course. The leaflets may demystify the legal process and thereby reduce the child's anxiety and help the child in the interests of justice.
The overriding aim is to facilitate the testimony of children while keeping an individual child's needs at the centre of attention. A lot is being done—and rightly so —and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury for bringing these important issues before the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Three o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Students (Concessionary Fares)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will re-introduce travel grants for students;

  (2) if, when he next meets the chairman of London Underground, he will raise the issue of concessionary fares for students.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations, students who are disabled, who are attending a place away from their main college as part of a medical, dental or nursing course or who are attending an institution outside the United Kingdom as part of their course may have their travel costs reimbursed. The first part of any expenditure is disregarded in deciding claims. We have no plans to change these arrangements nor would we wish to raise the issue of concessionary fares for students with the chairman of London Underground.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish his Department's expenditure in relation to projects aimed at regeneration and redevelopment in London docklands in each year from 1980–81 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure related to projects aimed at regeneration and redevelopment in London docklands is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment. This Department pays grant in respect of capital expenditure at voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools. Records of such expenditure cannot easily be disaggregated to show spending only in the docklands area of the local education authorities concerned.

  Pupil Statistics
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils in each local education authority are educated in special schools outside their own local education authority area.

  Mr. Fallon
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]:The table shows the numbers of pupils belonging to the area of each authority who in January 1991 were attending maintained special schools outside that authority's area.

  Pupils1 belonging to the area of each local education authority who in January 1991 were attending maintained special schools outside that authority's area.

  Number

  City of London

  3

  Camden

  109

  Greenwich

  110

  Hackney

  172

  620

  Number

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  89

  Islington

  123

  Kensington and Chelsea

  178

  Lambeth

  222

  Lewisham

  171

  Southwark

  200

  Tower Hamlets

  101

  Wandsworth

  144

  Westminster

  129

  Barking

  27

  Barnet

  78

  Bexley

  78

  Brent

  72

  Bromley

  20

  Croydon

  51

  Ealing

  60

  Enfield

  101

  Haringey

  91

  Harrow

  36

  Havering

  52

  Hillingdon

  40

  Hounslow

  25

  Kingston

  18

  Merton

  57

  Newham

  62

  Redbridge

  55

  Richmond

  30

  Sutton

  45

  Waltham Forest

  19

  Birmingham

  28

  Coventry

  17

  Dudley

  69

  Sandwell

  63

  Solihull

  20

  Walsall

  19

  Wolverhampton

  21

  Knowsley

  10

  Liverpool

  22

  St. Helens

  38

  Sefton

  21

  Wirral

  21

  Bolton

  56

  Bury

  51

  Manchester

  43

  Oldham

  22

  Rochdale

  47

  Salford

  19

  Stockport

  39

  Tameside

  82

  Trafford

  27

  Wigan

  23

  Barnsley

  19

  Doncaster

  14

  Rotherham

  33

  Sheffield

  6

  Bradford

  13

  Calderdale

  13

  Kirklees

  29

  Leeds

  12

  Wakefield

  49

  Gateshead

  19

  Newcastle

  10

  North Tyneside

  10

  South Tyneside

  17

  Sunderland

  5

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  9

  Bedfordshire

  15

  Berkshire

  36

  Buckinghamshire

  73

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  Cheshire

  72

  Cleveland

  7

  Cornwall

  29

  Cumbria

  6

  Derbyshire

  53

  Devon

  5

  Dorset

  11

  621

  Number

  Durham

  73

  East Sussex

  32

  Essex

  113

  Gloucestershire

  11

  Hampshire

  64

  Hereford and Worcester

  26

  Hertfordshire

  56

  Humberside

  27

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Kent

  67

  Lancashire

  84

  Leicestershire

  19

  Lincolnshire

  28

  Norfolk

  12

  North Yorkshire

  51

  Northamptonshire

  27

  Northumberland

  28

  Nottinghamshire

  18

  Oxfordshire

  12

  Shropshire

  22

  Somerset

  10

  Staffordshire

  48

  Suffolk

  26

  Surrey

  78

  Warwickshire

  53

  West Sussex

  27

  Wiltshire

  43

  1 Pupils aged 5 and over (as at 31 August 1990).

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils in each local education authority area in local education authority maintained special schools live in other local education authority areas.

  Mr. Fallon
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]:The table shows the numbers of pupils attending maintained special schools in each authority in January 1991 who belonged to the area of other LEAs.

  Pupils1 attending maintained special schools in each local education authority who in January 1991 who belonged to the area of other authorities

  Number

  City of London

  0

  Camden

  219

  Greenwich

  185

  Hackney

  180

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  265

  Islington

  100

  Kensington and Chelsea

  86

  Lambeth

  305

  Lewisham

  95

  Southwark

  147

  Tower Hamlets

  42

  Wandsworth

  349

  Westminster

  90

  Barking

  14

  Barnet

  49

  Bexley

  4

  Brent

  40

  Bromley

  36

  Croydon

  20

  Ealing

  14

  Enfield

  37

  Haringey

  55

  Harrow

  12

  Havering

  3

  Hillingdon

  2

  Hounslow

  18

  Kingston

  37

  Merton

  10

  Newham

  16

  Redbridge

  27

  Richmond

  18

  622

  Number

  Sutton

  28

  Waltham Forest

  312

  Birmingham

  137

  Coventry

  30

  Dudley

  3

  Sandwell

  21

  Solihull

  6

  Walsall

  18

  Wolverhampton

  33

  Knowsley

  39

  Liverpool

  53

  St. Helens

  17

  Sefton

  14

  Wirral

  3

  Bolton

  36

  Bury

  32

  Manchester

  159

  Oldham

  92

  Rochdale

  12

  Salford

  62

  Stockport

  8

  Tameside

  6

  Trafford

  15

  Wigan

  57

  Barnsley

  19

  Doncaster

  7

  Rotherham

  8

  Sheffield

  83

  Bradford

  40

  Calderdale

  1

  Kirklees

  6

  Leeds

  52

  Wakefield

  9

  Gateshead

  15

  Newcastle

  56

  North Tyneside

  9

  South Tyneside

  1

  Sunderland

  37

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  34

  Bedfordshire

  6

  Berkshire

  38

  Buckinghamshire

  13

  Cambridgeshire

  18

  Cheshire

  40

  Cleveland

  40

  Cornwall

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  Derbyshire

  22

  Devon

  26

  Dorset

  14

  Durham

  10

  East Sussex

  33

  Essex

  31

  Gloucestershire

  12

  Hampshire

  66

  Hereford and Worcester

  35

  Hertfordshire

  103

  Humberside

  12

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Kent

  41

  Lancashire

  25

  Leicestershire

  4

  Lincolnshire

  19

  Norfolk

  10

  North Yorkshire

  25

  Northamptonshire

  6

  Northumberland

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  34

  Oxfordshire

  35

  Shropshire

  11

  Somerset

  5

  Staffordshire

  26

  Suffolk

  19

  Surrey

  132

  Warwickshire

  144

  West Sussex

  28

  Wiltshire

  3

  623

  1 Pupils aged five and over (as at 31 August 1990).

TRANSPORT

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to his Department's non-voted cash limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Freeman
  With the agreement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary, the cash limit DTp/LACAP—Department of Transport/local authorities capital—covering credit approvals issued by my Department will be increased from £269,081,000 to £272,081,000. This increase will be matched by a reduction in the cash limit on class VII, vote 2 from £237,614,000 to £234,614,000.

  Midland Metro
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on line one of the Midland metro.

  Mr. Freeman
  I strongly support the concept of the Midland metro line one. On present information, the scheme appears to meet the criteria for grant under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968. A decision on whether the project will be eligible for grant must await firm figures for capital costs based on tenders. I understand that the West Midlands passenger transport executive will be seeking tenders later this year. Provided the scheme meets the grant criteria in the light of these figures and provided sufficient resources are available, I can see no present reason why a grant for the construction of the project should not be made available at the appropriate time. The Government have already provided resources of £1·5 million for development work on the project. I am today authorising a further £3 million for development and preparatory work in the forthcoming financial year.

  Blackwall Tunnel
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now keep, or request the Metropolitan police to maintain, a log of significant interruptions to free flow traffic conditions in and around the area of the Blackwall tunnel, and publish periodically the record of delays and their respective causes, together with any subsequent preventative action or investigation that is taken.

  Mr. Freeman
  Police controllers at the Blackwall tunnel keep a record of incidents. The Department's agents for the Blackwall tunnel also maintain an incident log. This ensures that information is readily available for those operating the system. Preventative action and investigation based on these logs and other information takes place as and when needed.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the respective duties, responsibilities and functions, including those for capital and other expenditures, of his Department, the London borough of Greenwich and the Metropolitan police for the Blackwall tunnel and its immediate approaches, together with a statement of the regular system of consultation and co-ordination between those officials most immediately concerned with its efficient management and maintenance.
  624
  Mr. Freeman
  The Secretary of State for Transport is the highway authority for trunk roads in England, including the Blackwall tunnels. The London borough of Greenwich is the Department's agent for the tunnels and the southern approach roads. The London borough of Tower Hamlets is the Department's agent for the northern approach roads. The traffic control systems unit is the Department's agent for installing and maintaining electrical and communication equipment. The Metropolitan police are responsible for managing the traffic flows, reporting offences and attending incidents. There is efficient co-operation and co-ordination between these parties who regularly discuss all the issues associated with day-to-day management of this section of the trunk road network.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out schedules of expenditure relating to the annual maintenance and improvement, respectively, of the Blackwall tunnel and its immediate approaches which show the costs of recent and planned capital improvements, the annual costs of structural and highway maintenance, respectively, the estimated cost of police surveillance and contracts relating to the removal of vehicles, distinguishing between the liabilities of each public body concerned, and stating the actual or notional interest charges arising from major improvments, including that of the recently installed traffic control system.

  Mr. Freeman
  Through its agents the London borough of Greenwich and the traffic control systems unit, the Department has spent £5·5 million over the past three years on maintenance and capital improvements for the Blackwall tunnels. In addition £21 million is being spent over five years on refurbishing the northbound tunnel. The east London traffic control system was equipped by the Department at a cost of £3·4 million. I will write to the hon. member shortly with the more detailed information he has requested.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the function of the new central traffic control system for the Blackwall tunnel and its surrounding area, together with the functions it is capable of performing additional to those of the system that it replaces, and the future functions that it could perform without significant further capital expenditure.

  Mr. Freeman
  The new east London traffic control system provides for the operation of tidal flow in the Blackwall tunnels, emergency tunnel closures, and the operation of signals on the tunnel approaches. It is easier to operate, maintain and repair than the old system, and provides additionally for the detection of incidents, queues or slow moving traffic. The system is capable of controlling traffic management on all major roads and tunnels in the east London area with additional expenditure only on roadside equipment.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish(a)total expenditure on the docklands light railway, (b)total expenditure on all other new rail and bus transport projects directly related to docklands regeneration, (c)total expenditure on all road developments and improvements and (d)any other

  625
  expenditure by his Department to assist in London docklands regeneration showing revenue and capital separately for each year from 1981–82 to 1991–92 (estimated) and plans for 1992–93 to 1994–95.

  Mr. Freeman
  Expenditure on the docklands light railway is:

  £ million

  Investment

  Revenue

  1984–85

  33·1

  0

  1985–86

  33·0

  0

  1986–87

  16·2

  0

  1987–88

  60·6

  3·5

  1988–89

  51·4

  4·6

  1989–90

  93·1

  7·7

  1990–91

  139·0

  10·4

  1991–92

  1162·8

  115·0

  1992–93 to 1994–95 3 year total £115 million1

  1 Forecast.

  It is not possible to distinguish expenditure on docklands by London Buses Ltd. and London Underground Limited's core business from their expenditure on other parts of London. The table gives investment on the Jubilee line extension:

  £ million

  1990–91

  40

  1991–92

  1101

  1992–93

  1393

  1993–94

  1614

  1994–95

  1454

  1 Forecast

  British Rail plans to spend £20 million refurbishing Stratford by 1996 when the docklands light railway and Jubilee line extensions are expected to be open.

  The following schemes in the national road programme which serve the London docklands area have been completed or are expected to be under construction by 1994–95.

  A2 Rochester Way Relief Road

  A13 Improvements Tower Hamlets/Newham

  A13 Heathway to M25 Improvements

  A12 Hackney to M11 Link

  East London River Crossing

  A406 South Woodford-Barking Relief Road

  East London Traffic Control System

  Expenditure on those schemes is:

  £ million

  21987–88

  119

  1988–89

  11

  1989–90

  10

  1990–91

  15

  1991–92

  114

  1992–93

  150

  1993–94

  1170

  1994–95

  1310

  1 Forecast

  2 Up to

  The Department is also responsible for maintenance and minor improvements to trunk roads in this area, and for the operation of the Woolwich ferry. Expenditure is as follows. Detailed figures for years prior to 1987–88 are not readily available.
  626

  £ million

  1987–88

  3

  1988–89

  6

  1989–90

  11

  1990–91

  110

  1991–92

  19

  1992–93

  110

  1993–94

  110

  1994–95

  110

  1 Forecast.

  In addition, there is expenditure on refurbishment of the Blackwell tunnel as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92

  110

  1992–93

  17

  1993–94

  15

  1 Forecast.

  The Thames RiverBus service received a £500,000 grant in 1989–90 to promote and improve the service in recognition of its road decongestion and docklands regeneration benefits.

  Supplementary credit approvals totalling £200,000 were given in February to the London borough of Newham in respect of bus priority schemes. Further resources are being held for possible allocation to Tower Hamlets when details are provided of their firm proposals.

  Subsidies
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the total of revenue subsidy given to(a)London Underground, (b)London Buses, (c)Network SouthEast and (d)British Rail in each year from 1980–81 to 1994–95 (estimated), showing the financing sources for such subsidy in each year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Government grant is not paid separately to London Underground and London Buses. London Transport makes a claim for block grant each year on the basis of the external financing limit announced in the previous year's autumn statement. It is not possible, in advance of the claim, to apportion the grant for future years between revenue and capital. Over the next three years, Government grant to LT will be about £3·7 billion.

  Subsidy is paid by the Government to the British Railways Board in the form of the public service obligation grant under EC regulation 1191/69 and section 3 of the Railways Act 1974, which compensates BR for maintaining loss-making passenger services. Grant is paid as a total to the board and the Government do not formally allocate it between sectors or geographical areas. However, estimates on the split for future grant allocations are now produced by the Department of Transport. Previous figures for NSE have been produced by BR in its document "Network Factfile 1991". The table shows BR's and NSE's PSO grant and LT revenue grant.

  1990–91 prices (£000m)

  PSO grant

  PSO (NSE) grant

  LT revenue grant

  1980

  1,039

  n.a.

  4166

  1981

  1,231

  n.a.

  4135

  1982

  1,249

  1471

  4286

  1983

  1,250

  1359

  4257

  1984–85

  1,487

  1326

  208

  627

  PSO grant

  PSO (NSE) grant

  LT revenue grant

  1985–86

  1,085

  165

  166

  1986–87

  883

  1184

  85

  1987–88

  925

  1214

  56

  1988–89

  606

  1141

  44

  1989–90

  541

  192

  51

  1990–91

  600

  1153

  84

  31991–92

  850

  325

  5114

  31992–9 3

  900

  350

  —

  31993–94

  700

  275

  —

  31994–95

  500

  75

  —

  1 Source:NSE document "Network Factfile 1991".

  2 1984–85 was a 15-month period. The figure quoted is the 12-month equivalent.

  3 Estimates—source: Department of Transport Report 1992.

  4 LT was the responsibility of GLC in these years.

  5 Forecast outturn.

  Liverpool-London Air Service
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport is he will ensure that the landing slots made available in London through the withdrawal of British Midland Airways of its Liverpool-London service are allocated only to an airline providing a similar service.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. An airline is free to decide how to use the take-off and landing slots that it holds. It is a matter for British Midland's commercial judgment whether to use the slots on another route, or to return them to the airport co-ordinator for re-allocation.

  Coaches
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet representatives of London local authorities to raise the issue of improving coach parking facilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have already chaired a working group considering initiatives to improve tourist coach parking facilities for the 1992 season. Representatives from London boroughs have been members of this group. I am also chairing meetings with London Transport and some of the central London boroughs most affected by coach traffic to discuss coach terminal and off-street parking facilities. I hope that an announcement can be made shortly about measures to improve coach parking facilities in central London.

  Thames River Bus
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conditions for public funding for the Thames Riverbus service were set with respect to requirements for information to be available to help visitors at landing stages.

  Mr. Freeman
  None; but at the piers at which their vessels call, Riverbus provides a real-time passenger information system giving the expected time of arrival of the next service which is updated at minute intervals based on the position of vessels. Leaflets, posters and timetables are also provided.

PRIME MINISTER

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he raised at the meeting with Mr. De Klerk on 1 February, the proposition of giving the white electorate a veto on any agreement reached at the Conference for Democratic South Africa or otherwise over the negotiating process.

  The Prime Minister
  For President de Klerk to continue with his reforms, he has to have the support of the whole electorate. I discussed these reforms with President de Klerk on 1 February. I believe that the path of reform on which South Africa has embarked under President de Klerk's leadership is the only course which will allow her reintegration into the international community and enable her to attract the investment she needs for economic growth. That economic growth is in the interest of all South Africans.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parole
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a prisoner's continued denial of his or her guilt is a factor taken into account in deciding whether or not to accept a recommendation by the Parole Board to grant parole.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  When my right hon. Friend considers Parole Board recommendations to release prisoners, his principal concern is the risk involved. Denial of guilt per se does not dictate the outcome of the decision.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recommendations of the Parole Board in each year since 1986 were(a)accepted, and (b)rejected in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Recommendations1 for the release of prisoners on parole or licence by the Parole Board: by the outcome of recommendation 1986–90

  Accepted

  Rejected

  1986

  3,651

  29

  1987

  3,636

  35

  1988

  3,811

  29

  1989

  4,688

  45

  1990

  3,282

  77

  1 Excluding release on licence of prisoners detained for a period other than life under section 53(2) Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parole decisions were referred by the Parole Board to him in each year since 1986 in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is given in the table. Under the provisions of section 60(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 only recommendations for release on parole are referred to the Secretary of State by the Parole Board.
  629

  Recommendations for the release of determinate sentence prisoners on parole by the Parole Board: 1986–1990

  Recommended for parole by the Parole Board

  1986

  3,560

  1987

  3,524

  1988

  3,749

  1989

  4,614

  1990

  3,221

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police

  Metropolitan Police District (including City of London)

  12 months ending

  Total

  Violent crime

  Burglary

  Homicide1

  September 1981

  625,646

  29,256

  142,682

  173

  September 1982

  675,501

  31,436

  154,206

  184

  September 1983

  677,548

  33,187

  154,100

  161

  September 1984

  703,686

  34,640

  166,212

  181

  September 1985

  738,574

  38,003

  158,238

  170

  September 1986

  774,898

  41,432

  158,173

  186

  September 1987

  746,658

  42,780

  150,664

  210

  September 1988

  739,437

  48,658

  147,596

  164

  September 1989

  745,354

  53,042

  145,143

  172

  September 1990

  812,285

  57,421

  166,863

  182

  September 1991

  916,648

  64,644

  188,999

  181

  England and Wales

  September 1981

  2,895,403

  138,228

  700,714

  606

  September 1982

  3,174,843

  147,088

  774,109

  614

  September 1983

  3,252,585

  153,250

  810,582

  553

  September 1984

  3,418,609

  156,554

  868,561

  623

  September 1985

  3,587,206

  166,856

  874,380

  615

  September 1986

  3,793,368

  177,691

  915,582

  637

  September 1987

  3,891,364

  192,451

  914,078

  682

  September 1988

  3,788,107

  212,267

  841,127

  651

  September 1989

  3,778,544

  236,411

  804,402

  654

  September 1990

  4,326,357

  245,582

  944,996

  643

  September 1991

  5,135,595

  261,409

  1,169,713

  690

  1 Includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide.

  Mandatory Life Imprisonment
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment have served(a)more than 10 years, (b)15 years or more, (c)20 years or more and (d)25 years or more, in each year since 1987 in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The readily available information is published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (Table 8.3 of the latest volume, for 1990, Cm. 1800), copies of which are in the Library.

  Applications1 2 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality: January to December 1991 and January 1992

  January 1991

  February 1991

  March 1991

  April 1991

  May 1991

  June 1991

  July 1991

  Europe and Americas

  Bulgaria

  15

  45

  40

  40

  55

  45

  30

  Colombia

  20

  15

  15

  10

  15

  —

  5

  Romania

  25

  65

  80

  50

  35

  25

  40

  Turkey

  370

  205

  180

  205

  145

  160

  205

  USSR

  10

  35

  10

  25

  25

  10

  10

  Others

  *

  5

  15

  15

  10

  25

  10

  TOTAL

  440

  370

  340

  350

  285

  260

  295

  Africa

  Angola

  420

  370

  600

  940

  530

  440

  520

  Congo

  30

  15

  30

  40

  —

  20

  20

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish figures for(a)total recorded offences, (b)all violent crimes, (c) burglaries and (d)murders in (i) England and Wales and (ii) the Metropolitan police area, including the City of London, for each year from 1980–81 to 1991–92.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is given in the table:

  Aylum
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish a table showing the number of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom by country of origin of the applicants in 1991;

  (2) how many applications for asylum in the United Kingdom were received in each month in 1991; and how many were received in January 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table.
  631

  January 1991

  February 1991

  March 1991

  April 1991

  May 1991

  June 1991

  July 1991

  Ethiopia

  245

  150

  130

  195

  195

  120

  165

  Ghana

  195

  225

  245

  330

  370

  230

  230

  Somalia

  240

  190

  170

  260

  190

  180

  160

  Sudan

  70

  40

  35

  40

  40

  35

  135

  Togo/Ivory Coast

  65

  50

  80

  200

  175

  50

  190

  Uganda

  305

  225

  275

  200

  80

  25

  55

  Zaire

  435

  375

  615

  1,150

  550

  520

  625

  Others

  20

  25

  155

  355

  270

  180

  360

  TOTAL

  2,020

  1,665

  2,330

  3,715

  2,395

  1,805

  2,460

  Middle East

  Iran

  65

  55

  35

  65

  35

  35

  35

  Iraq

  125

  75

  110

  70

  55

  25

  45

  Lebanon

  295

  145

  65

  40

  25

  15

  15

  Others

  —

  —

  25

  45

  30

  20

  40

  TOTAL

  485

  275

  235

  225

  145

  95

  135

  Asia

  China

  20

  50

  45

  60

  55

  40

  55

  India

  230

  185

  160

  165

  170

  175

  165

  Pakistan

  350

  255

  305

  320

  305

  290

  245

  Sri Lanka

  585

  450

  385

  355

  360

  275

  255

  Others

  —

  —

  85

  85

  90

  55

  115

  TOTAL

  1,185

  940

  980

  990

  975

  835

  830

  Other nationalities3

  240

  195

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GRAND TOTAL

  4,370

  3,445

  3,885

  5,275

  3,805

  3,000

  3,725

  August 1991

  September 1991

  October 1991

  November 1991

  December 1991

  1991 Total

  January 1992

  Europe and Americas

  Bulgaria

  20

  30

  15

  20

  15

  375

  25

  Colombia

  10

  20

  5

  15

  15

  140

  30

  Romania

  65

  60

  30

  45

  35

  555

  35

  Turkey

  155

  145

  125

  125

  95

  2,110

  205

  USSR

  20

  25

  25

  20

  25

  245

  20

  Others

  25

  50

  70

  110

  110

  450

  130

  TOTAL

  295

  335

  275

  335

  300

  3,875

  440

  Africa

  Angola

  360

  360

  600

  465

  170

  5,780

  40

  Congo

  25

  70

  50

  65

  15

  370

  10

  Ethiopia

  110

  150

  115

  65

  45

  1,685

  65

  Ghana

  145

  145

  115

  105

  70

  2,405

  140

  Somalia

  140

  145

  135

  110

  80

  1,995

  125

  Sudan

  160

  155

  175

  150

  120

  1,150

  100

  Togo/Ivory Coast

  185

  185

  360

  315

  45

  1,910

  35

  Uganda

  15

  55

  65

  50

  90

  1,440

  15

  Zaire

  420

  555

  725

  625

  410

  7,010

  105

  Others

  345

  500

  745

  625

  155

  3,740

  95

  TOTAL

  1,900

  2,320

  3,090

  2,580

  1,205

  27,490

  730

  Middle East

  Iran

  35

  50

  35

  50

  35

  530

  50

  Iraq

  75

  55

  70

  110

  85

  915

  125

  Lebanon

  35

  20

  35

  30

  35

  755

  35

  Others

  30

  35

  50

  35

  30

  340

  40

  TOTAL

  175

  170

  190

  225

  180

  2,540

  250

  Asia

  China

  25

  50

  50

  35

  45

  525

  35

  India

  155

  160

  190

  135

  165

  2,045

  245

  Pakistan

  240

  235

  290

  210

  150

  3,195

  160

  Sri Lanka

  285

  205

  225

  235

  135

  3,750

  255

  Others

  265

  50

  65

  40

  35

  890

  55

  TOTAL

  970

  700

  815

  655

  530

  10,405

  745

  632 633

  August 1991

  September 1991

  October 1991

  November 1991

  December 1991

  1991 Total

  January 1992

  Other nationalities3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  435

  —

  GRAND TOTAL

  3,340

  3,525

  4,375

  3,790

  2,210

  44,745

  2,165

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five, with * = less than three.

  3 Includes applications in January and February 1991 from nationalities not specifically identified above. From March 1991 these are included in the "other" category for the relevant geographical area.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce regulations to require magistrates to use the power to remit the community charge in full or in part for those people who cannot pay as determined by the means inquiry at committal stage.

  Mr. John Patten
  No.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been made under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Criminal statistics are compiled annually. None are yet available in respect of prosecutions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which came into force on 12 August last year.

  Immigration
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he proposes to make to entry qualifications for settlement from Pakistan after April; whether he will still accept applications for settlement on the basis of marriage from that date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no plans to make any changes in the immigration rules relating to the admission of Pakistani nationals.

  Election Expenses
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to publish and bring into force an order on the variation of limits of candidates' election expenses.

  Revenue Expenditure1

  £ million

  Region

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  21990–91

  31991–92

  Greater London

  3,854

  4,111

  4,677

  5,000

  4,676

  5,128

  5,408

  5,553

  5,969

  6,467

  6,987

  South East (excluding GL)

  3,284

  3,541

  3,691

  3,768

  3,933

  4,201

  4,582

  5,162

  5,395

  6,245

  6,934

  South West

  1,425

  1,549

  1,595

  1,613

  1,683

  1,879

  2,047

  2,211

  2,397

  2,735

  3,008

  East Anglia

  593

  659

  675

  693

  720

  776

  839

  941

  1,034

  1,179

  1,306

  West Midlands

  1,894

  2,015

  2,126

  2,146

  2,243

  2,377

  2,675

  2,907

  3,112

  3,617

  3,974

  East Midlands

  1,303

  1,478

  1,523

  1,528

  1,577

  1,754

  1,943

  2,118

  2,203

  2,550

  2,802

  North West

  2,644

  2,836

  2,921

  2,954

  3,085

  3,427

  3,719

  3,984

  4,261

  4,695

  5,085

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,902

  2,146

  2,165

  2,181

  2,271

  2,561

  2,689

  2,897

  3,048

  3,411

  3,727

  North

  1,271

  1,402

  1,438

  1,429

  1,472

  1,657

  1,784

  1,895

  1,986

  2,243

  2,435

  Total

  18,171

  19,737

  20,809

  21,312

  21,661

  23,760

  25,686

  27,667

  29,404

  33,142

  36,256

  634
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The draft Representation of the People (Variation of limits of Candidates' Elections Expenses) Order 1992 was laid before Parliament on Friday 21 February, and will come into force following approval by both Houses. It will increase the permitted levels of candidates' expenses at parliamentary elections throughout the United Kingdom, and at local elections in Great Britain.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory provisions relating to the levying by local authorities of a poll tax non-payment surcharge; and what is the total national cost of the non-payment surcharges levied by local authorities in England and Wales for 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  To comply with section 32 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, an authority must make adequate allowance for estimated non-collection when setting its charges.

  Before the £140 general reduction, local authorities had made provision for £600 million for non-collection in 1991–92 when setting their charges.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total of local government(a)revenue and (b)capital expenditure by local government within each region, showing Greater London separately, for each year from 1978–79 to 1991–92 (estimated).

  Mr. Key
  The available information is as follows:
  635

  Capital expenditure4

  £ million

  Region

  1985–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  51990–91

  61991–92

  Greater London

  1,362

  1,433

  1,592

  2,593

  1,431

  1,369

  South East (excluding Greater London)

  1,147

  1,265

  1,648

  2,103

  1,450

  1,457

  South West

  429

  448

  543

  744

  578

  608

  East Anglia

  196

  205

  263

  364

  263

  275

  West Midlands

  585

  603

  705

  964

  703

  693

  East Midlands

  401

  415

  456

  586

  448

  491

  North West

  801

  846

  856

  1,098

  893

  910

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  514

  591

  695

  872

  644

  677

  North

  411

  417

  447

  497

  379

  410

  Total

  5,846

  6,224

  7,206

  9,822

  6,788

  6,891

  1 Total expenditure figures are given for 1981–82 to 1989–90. Net revenue expenditure both are net of specific and supplementary grants, direct comparisons cannot be made as they derive from two different systems.

  2 Revised estimate.

  3 Budget.

  4 1986–87 includes amounts charged direct to revenue or of her funds and not capitalised, and 1991–92 are not strictly comparable to earlier years owing to the introduction of Polytechnics were transferred out of local government from 1 April 1989.

  5 Provisional outturn.

  6 Local authority forecast.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was paid to local authorities to cover the cost of the £140 reduction for poll tax bills.

  Mr. Portillo
  The sum of £4·374 billion of grant is being paid in 1991–92 under the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991. The sum of £4·346 billion of this had already been paid in respect of charge income forgone, and represents 90 per cent. of the amount due, based on local authorities' own initial estimates of charge income to be collected for the year. Further payments are to be made, with effect from 1992–93, to bring the total amount paid into line with the total income forgone on charges actually collected for the year. In addition, I estimate the £28 million will have been paid by the end of the financial year to reimburse authorities for rebilling and other administrative costs directly resulting from the Act.

  Council House Building
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Emvironment how many local authority permanent dwellings were started in Great Britain in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest information for 1980 and 1990 is published in table 6.1 of "Housing and Construction Statistics: Great Britain: 1980–1990". Figures for 1979 appear in the 1979–1989 edition of the same publication. Provisional figures for 1991 were released in a departmental information bulletin (No. 87) on 5 February 1992—local authorities account for virtually all the starts by local authorities, new towns and Government Departments in 1991. Copies are in the Library.

  Recycling
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance he has provided for the development of paper, plastics and glass recycling plants in the United Kingdom; and if he has any plans to develop additional recycling plants.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our preferred approach is for industry to come up with recycling initiatives that will stand the test of 636
  time in a free market. The Government's role is to provide the appropriate legal and economic framework to encourage recycling.

  The legal framework is set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, certain provisions of which are designed to make recycling more attractive. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment have also commissioned a study of economic instruments having the potential to encourage higher recycling rates.

  Industry can seek funding for research and development through the environmental technology innovation scheme—ETIS—operated jointly by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, and the DEMOS —the Department of Trade and Industry's environmental management option scheme—and Euroenviron schemes, administered by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Recent ETIS grants include £100,500 to British Glass and £835,100 to Anaplast Ltd. to support research into new methods of recycling waste glass and plastic respectively; under the DEMOS scheme, a grant of £283,000 was awarded to Drinkwater Saby Ltd. as part of a collaborative project involving the collection of recyclable household waste and its sorting into marketable fractions; and a grant of £700,000 under the Euroenviron scheme was given to a collaborative project, including a United Kingdom firm, Rosehill Polymers, which aims to research ways in which waste tyres and plastic bottles can be recycled into marketable higher grade products.

  Unified Business Rate
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the entitlement to hardship relief for the unified business rate; and in what ways its availability is made known to businesses.

  Mr. Key
  Section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 gives a charging authority discretion to reduce or remit the payment of non-domestic rates. But an authority may not give relief unless it is satisfied that the ratepayer would otherwise sustain hardship and it is reasonable to do so having regard to the interests of its community charge payers. Guidance has been issued to all authorities
  637
  but it is for them to consider the merits of each case and how the availability of relief should be made known to businesses. Seventy-five per cent. of the cost of any relief granted will be borne centrally by the non-domestic rates pool with the remainder being met locally by charge payers.

  Redmire to Redcar Rail Link
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had about the environmental impact of the possible closure of the Redmire to Redcar rail link; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which the transfer of traffic from rail to road is in accordance with his Department's environmental objectives.

  Mr. Yeo
  None. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport said in answer to the hon. Member today, British Steel has agreed to continue transporting limestone on the Redmire line until the end of September, and officials from his Department are to host discussions to explore the scope for keeping the limestone traffic on the line in the longer term.

  Planning Authorities (Development Policy)
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage local planning authorities to make known a clear presumption against development in areas unsuitable for development, in order to deter repeated applications.

  Mr. Yeo
  Guidance on the preparation of development plans in PPG12, published on 10 February 1992, emphasises that such plans provide the framework for sound and effective development control. While they must make adequate provision for development, full account must also be taken of the need to protect the built and natural environments. Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An applicant who proposes development which is clearly in conflict with the development plan would need to produce convincing reasons to demonstrate why the plan should not prevail.

  Development plans will therefore give much greater certainty about what development will and will not be acceptable in particular locations. Coupled with local planning authorities' power, under section 17 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, to turn away certain categories of repetitive planning applications, the new development plan system should reduce considerably the incidence of repeated applications.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish(a)the total grant paid to the London Docklands development corporation (b)expenditure by his Department outside the LDDC area but directly related to docklands redevelopment in east London and (c) other expenditure by his Department on regeneration within the LDDC area showing revenue and capital separately for each year from 1981–82 to 1991–92 (estimated) and plans for 1992–93 to 1994–95.
  638
  Mr. Portillo
  (a) Total grant paid to the London Docklands development corporation (LDDC) from 1981–82 to 1991–92 is:

  Revenue £ million

  Capital £ (rounded)

  1981–82

  2

  28

  1982–83

  8

  33

  1983–84

  9

  54

  1984–85

  11

  48

  1985–86

  11

  43

  1986–87

  12

  53

  1987–88

  12

  71

  1988–89

  18

  98

  1989–90

  20

  236

  1990–91

  22

  311

  11991–92

  22

  227

  1 Estimated.

  The provisional allocation for 1992–93 is £21 million (revenue) and £81 million (capital).

  Levels of grant for 1993–94 and 1994–95 have not be determined.

  (b) My Department's inner-city programmes support various regeneration activities. Although it is not possible to quantify the value of schemes relating directly to docklands redevelopment, inner-city expenditure (capital and revenue) in the boroughs of Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets, is:

  £ million (rounded)

  1981–82

  2

  1982–83

  1

  1983–84

  3

  1984–85

  5

  1985–86

  4

  1986–87

  7

  1987–88

  8

  1988–89

  8

  1989–90

  9

  1990–91

  9

  11991–92

  13

  1 Estimated.

  The allocation for 1992–93 has not yet been finalised, and grant levels for 1993–94 and 1994–95 have not been determined.

  (c) I will write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Shelters, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of new provision of shelters and other accommodation for the roofless in Greater London in 1990, 1991, 1992, including the numbers of places made available at each location.

  Mr. Yeo
  Between 1990 and 1992 my Department has provided 489 places in 19 hostels and 779 places in winter shelters in Greater London under the rough sleepers initiative. We have also provided bedspaces in permanent independent accommodation for rough sleepers to move on to. A list of the places made available in 1990, 1991 and so far in 1992 states:
  639

  List of hostel places

  Managing Agency

  Hostel Name

  Beds

  Opening date

  St. Mungo Association

  Nevern Square, SW5

  20

  December 1990

  St. Mungo Association

  Bassett Road, W10

  22

  December 1990

  Providence Row

  Crispin Street, E1

  8

  January 1991

  Look Ahead HA

  Princess Beatrice House, SW10

  4

  February 1991

  St. Mungo Association

  City Road, EC1

  45

  February 1991

  English Churches Housing Group

  Station Hotel, N1

  33

  April 1991

  English Churches Housing Group

  King George Hostel, SW1

  100

  April 1991

  Centrepoint Soho

  Vauxhall Hostel, SW8

  60

  May 1991

  St. Mungo Association

  Vartry Road, N15

  19

  May 1991

  Providence Row

  Crispin Street, E1

  16

  June 1991

  English Churches Housing Group

  Chevening Road, NW6

  6

  June 1991

  English Churches Housing Group

  St. Mark's Rectory, NW1

  13

  July 1991

  De Paul Trust

  Moorhouse Road, W2

  16

  July 1991

  Shaftesbury Society

  Sir John Kirk Centre, SE5

  22

  July 1991

  Shaftesbury Society

  Lansdowne Centre, SE1

  22

  August 1991

  YMCA National Council

  10–12 West Cromwell Road, SW5

  34

  September 1991

  United Kingdom Housing Trust

  Arlington House, NW1

  7

  September 1991

  Shaftesbury Society

  Aldershot Road, NW6

  6

  October 1991

  De Paul Trust

  Lord Clyde, SE11

  36

  October 1991

  List of places in winter shelters

  Managing Agency

  Hostel Name

  Beds

  Opening date

  London Borough of Hammersmith

  Bulwer Street, W12

  30

  February 1991

  (closed September 1991)

  Salvation Army

  Blackfriars Road, SE1

  80

  February 1991

  (closed March 1991)

  London Borough of Lambeth

  Coronation Hall, SE1

  16

  February 1991

  (closed March 1991)

  Croydon YMCA

  Causton Hall, Croydon

  25

  February 1991

  (closed April 1991)

  Centrepoint Soho

  Soho Square, W1

  40

  February 1991

  (closed May 1991)

  St. Mungo's Association

  Paddington Green, W2

  75

  February 1991

  City of Westminster

  Bruce House, Kemble Street, WC2

  60

  February 1991

  The Passage

  Westminster Cathedral Night Shelter, SW1

  40

  February 1991

  Crisis

  Tooley Street, SE1

  60

  December 1991

  English Churches Housing Group

  Rame House, Tooting Bee, SW17

  25

  December 1991

  Croydon YMCA

  Causton Hall, Croydon

  25

  December 1991

  South London Family Housing Association

  Lawrie Park Road, SE26

  50

  December 1991

  St. Christopher's Fellowship

  Ealing Hospital, W5

  25

  December 1991

  London Borough of Camden

  Heysham House, NW3

  30

  December 1991

  Salvation Army

  St. Ann's Street, SW1

  20

  December 1991

  London Borough of Lambeth

  Cynthia Molsey House, SE11

  25

  January 1992

  London Borough of Camden

  Grays Inn Road, WC1

  35

  January 1992

  London Borough of Camden

  Parker Street, WC1

  18

  January 1992

  Centrepoint Soho

  Soho Square, W1

  45

  January 1992

  Single Homeless Project

  Abbey Centre, Marsham Street, SW1

  35

  February 1992

  Salvation Army

  Atlantic House, EC2

  20

  February 1992

  In addition, we have provided 522 places in flats and houses leased from the private sector.

  Homeless Statistics
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total numbers of homeless individuals in(a) England, (b) Greater London, (c) outer London and (d) inner London in each year from 1980–81 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Yeo
  The available information is on the numbers of households for whom local authorities accepted responsibility for securing permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing 640
  (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1985. Estimates of the total number of persons in these households are not available centrally.

  Year

  England

  Greater London

  Inner London1

  Outer London

  1980

  60,400

  17,100

  9,820

  7,280

  1981

  66,990

  18,010

  10,080

  7,930

  1982

  71,620

  20,630

  11,880

  8,750

  1983

  75,470

  23,620

  12,590

  11,030

  1984

  80,500

  24,740

  15,330

  9,410

  1985

  91,010

  27,070

  16,600

  10,470

  1986

  100,490

  29,380

  18,160

  11,220

  1987

  109,170

  29,220

  18,390

  10,380

  1988

  113,770

  28,880

  16,680

  12,200

  1989

  122,180

  33,020

  20,290

  12,730

  1990

  140,350

  36,480

  21,890

  14,590

  21991

  110,740

  29,310

  17,920

  11,390

  641

  1 Inner London comprises City of London, Camden, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth and Westminster.

  2 First 3 quarters only

  A new reporting system was introduced for the non-metropolitan districts from the fourth quarter 1980 and for London and other metropolitan authorities from the third quarter 1982 and figures for 1980 to 1982 are not strictly comparable with those for later periods. From the second quarter 1991 the definition of acceptance was altered to exclude intentionally homeless and all earlier figures have been adjusted to the new basis.

  Gravel
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what forecasts for gravel demand have been made by his Department for the next five, 10 and 20 years; and what steps are being taken to seek substitutes which would have less environmental impact than gravel extraction.

  Sir George Young
  Independent forecasts of the long-term national demand for primary aggregates, which include gravel, were published for consultation by the Department in May 1991. These covered the 20-year period to 2011 and showed projected annual demand in England and Wales could reach between 421 metric tonnes and 490 metric tonnes by that time. The Government have a comprehensive programme of research projects examining alternative sources of supply of aggregates. This includes marine dredged aggregates and coastal superquarries. The Government are also committed to increasing the use of waste and recycled materials. Research into the scope for using these as aggregates was published by the Department in July 1991. The research suggested various ways to stimulate increased usage. These are being progressed at present.

  Leigh Barton
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at the present level of four general craftsmen involved in repair work, when he expects the historic monument of Leigh Barton to be open to the general public; how much has been spent on restoration and renovation work since the monument was taken into public ownership in 1986; whether the funds are available to complete the necessary work; and if he will make a statement as to his policy on restoring historic monuments so that they can be safely open to the public.

  Mr. Yeo
  Since its acquisition in 1974, work to Leigh Barton has cost about £300,000. English Heritage expects to have to spend another £250,000 before the programme of work can be completed. It has not been possible for it to give the work the priority that it would wish because of other demands on its financial resources. The work is now expected to recommence in 1994–95 and continue into 1995–96, when English Heritage will review the future opening arrangements.

  English Heritage is committed to putting its estate into good repair, maintaining it and managing it efficiently for the benefit of the nation. The properties in care cover a wide variety of England's historic buildings and monuments. In some instances it is appropriate for English Heritage to consider an alternative use for its properties,
  642
  rather than maintain them solely for public access with a custodial presence. In the case of Leigh Barton, English Heritage is looking at a possible alternative use for the farmhouse which could generate an income and be compatible with some future public access.

  RENAVAL
  Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the statement on 17 February,Official Report, column 27, and the answer by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on 24 February, Official Report, column 380, when he will issue the necessary instructions to enable the RENAVAL programme in Plymouth to commence.

  Sir George Young
  The RENAVAL programme for the travel-to-work area of Plymouth was approved by the European Commission on 20 December 1900. The inaugural meeting of the programme co-ordinating committee was held on 21 March 1991. Some European regional development fund payments have already been authorised in respect of the programme.

  UN Environment Programme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte report on the efficiency of the United Nations environment programme with regard to the United Kingdom's donations to UNEP.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department already has a copy of this report.

  EC Funding
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether those local authorities in areas eligible to receive European regional development fund assistance will enjoy an increase in their captial allocations to enable utilisation of European regional development fund allocations without a reduction in the proportion of supplementary credit allocation not available to match European regional development fund grant, but used to support housing, education, personal and social services and transport schemes.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made in the House on 17 February by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in which he indicated that future public expenditure plans would show forecast ERDF receipts separately and this would demonstrate that public expenditure cover would be clearly available for such receipts. The detailed arrangements for this are still the subject of dicussion amongst the relevant Government Departments.

  Rose Theatre
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give further consideration to including the site of the Rose theatre remains in Southwark in his schedule of ancient monuments.

  Mr. Yeo
  I am pleased to announce that, following a joint request by CMD Property Developments Ltd. and BriTel Fund Trustees Ltd. and consultation with English Heritage, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has
  643
  today included the site of the Rose theatre remains in his schedule of ancient monuments. Development of the Rose Court building which includes the provision of sufficient headroom over the remains to allow for their possible future display, is complete. Scheduling at this time will ensure that any proposals for works to the monument, including works in connection with its long term preservation and possible display, would be fully considered through the statutory scheduled monument consent procedures.

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has completed the consultation on the policy of banning or discouraging all uses of asbestos as set out in the Government's White Paper, "This Common Inheritance—The First Year Report"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  In September 1991 it was announced in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance—The First Year Report" that the Government were consulting on"a policy of banning or discouraging all uses of asbestos, expect for a number of existing uses were detailed risk assessment has shown that suitable substitutes are either not available or do not offer a materially better option in safety or other terms".
  Subsequently, the European Commission announced that it would propose a draft directive, to ban remaining types of asbestos, with exemptions for some uses of chrysotile (white asbestos).

  Consultations on the proposed policy and the expected directive have involved the Department of Trade and Industry, the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of the Environment's advisory committee on hazardous substances, the Confederation of British Industry and the asbestos industry. The consultation is now complete.

  In negotiating the expected draft directive, the Government's policy will be that remaining uses of asbestos should be limited to essential cases where less hazardous substitutes are not yet available, based on assessment of risks and costs during production, use and disposal. The Government's aim is to see this policy introduced Community-wide, as part of their strategy to assess, and where possible reduce, the potential health and environmental impacts of hazardous substances.

  The existing legislation, which prohibits the most dangerous types and uses of asbestos and controls work activities involving asbestos and disposal of asbestos, will remain. There will be no requirement to remove and dispose of asbestos materials already in place, such as in buildings (for example as insulation), in cars (for example, as brake pads) or in industrial situations (for example, as seals or gaskets). The Government advise that asbestos materials in poor condition should be removed, but that materials in good condition should remain in place. Further detailed advice is available in the Department of the Environment's booklet "Asbestos Materials in Buildings" which is available from HMSO.

  Fuel and Power Industry Processes
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, when the remainder of the process guidance notes for the fuel and power industry processes prescribed under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 February 1992, c. 137]: I am very pleased to report that we have today issued 26 more guidance notes covering almost all the remaining processes which are to be prescribed for local authority air pollution control under the Act from 1 April. These notes have been drawn up after consultation with relevant industries, local authorities and other interested bodies. They will provide a sound framework within which local authorities will be able to exercise their new air pollution control functions.

  A set of notes will be placed in the Library of the House. The notes are also being sent to district and borough councils and to port health authorities.

  These notes substantially complete the guidance for the processes prescribed for local authority control under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. All the published notes will, however, be reviewed regularly, and additional or amended notes will be issued if and when the need arises.

  Renewable Energy Sources
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to publish a policy planning guidance note for the development of renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Yeo
  A consultation paper inviting comments on a draft planning policy guidance note (PPG) on this topic was issued by my Department on 5 December. Separate but parallel consultation is being carried out by the Welsh Office. My right hon. Friends intend to publish this PPG later this year.

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a progress report on the design of the new parliamentary building; and what arrangements are being made to show the proposals to hon. Members.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have kept in close touch with the development of the design of the new building, including making a number of visits to the offices of the architect Michael Hopkins and Partners to see the work at first hand. The design is making good progress, has received a favourable response from the Royal Fine Art Commission, and the informal consultations with Westminster city council and English Heritage are progressing well prior to making a submission for planning consent under DOE circular 18/84. The work is on target for completion of the final sketch design stage by Easter 1992 and I am confident that the design will develop to provide a building which, as the Services Committee said:"should come to be regarded world wide as an example of the very finest late twentieth century British architecture".

  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has announced that there will be a debate on the design

  645
  proposals on Monday 9 March. I understand that, to enable right hon. and hon. Members to form their own view on the proposals, the Accommodation and Works Committee has arranged for the model of the building together with plans, perspectives and elevations to be exhibited in Westminster Hall for two weeks from 2 March. A brochure describing the scheme is also being sent to all right hon. and hon. Members.

EMPLOYMENT

  Social Fund (Vocational Training)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether unemployed claimants who are receiving unemployment benefit who participate in European social fund vocational training courses provided either by(a) voluntary organisations or local authorities, or (b) training and enterprise councils or local enterprise companies, are required to be available for and actively seeking employment.

  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.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a list of those who responded to the Green Paper, "Industrial Relations in the 1990s".

  Mr. Forth
  As with all previous Green Papers on this subject, the responses to "Industrial Relations in the 1990s" have been treated as confidential unless the organisations concerned have made their views public. This applies both to the content of particular representations and to the identification of their source. At the request of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, my Department has written to all those who responded to the latest Green Paper to ask if they would he willing to be identified.

  Wages Council
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the current wages councils and the numbers of(a) workers and (b) establishments covered by each council.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest information available is given in the table:

  Numbers of Establishments covered by wages councils in January 1990 and estimated numbers of workers covered in 1988

  Wages Councils

  Establishments

  Workers

  Aerated Waters

  264

  5,500

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  2,970

  5,000

  Button Manufacturing

  49

  1,000

  Clothing Manufacturing

  6,513

  147,000

  Coffin Furniture and Cerement Making

  21

  200

  Cotton Waste Reclamation

  25

  300

  Flax and Hemp

  10

  500

  Fur

  187

  1,500

  General Waste Materials Reclamation

  1,443

  13,000

  646

  Wages Councils

  Establishments

  Workers

  Hairdressing

  33,941

  64,000

  Hat, Cap and Millinery

  124

  4,000

  Lace Finishing

  62

  900

  Laundry

  1,067

  26,000

  Licensed non-Residential Establishments

  67,734

  492,000

  Licensed Residential Establishments and Licensed Restaurants

  34,758

  379,000

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods and Linen Piece Goods

  138

  2,500

  Made-Up Textiles

  289

  3,000

  Ostrich and Fancy Feather and Artificial Flower

  36

  500

  Perambulator and Invalid Carriage

  30

  2,000

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring

  481

  4,000

  Retail Food and Allied Trades

  111,029

  465,000

  Retail Trades (Non-Food)

  114,741

  745,000

  Rope Twine and Net

  91

  2,500

  Sack and Bag

  63

  1,000

  Toy Manufacturing

  218

  11,000

  Unlicensed Place of Refreshment

  18,897

  96,000

  Total

  395,181

  2,472,400

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the total number of employees in employment within(a) the south-east region, (b) Greater London, (c) outer London, (d) inner London and (e) each London borough in each year from 1980 to 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information for areas smaller than the standard economic regions is only available from the censuses of employment for 1981, 1984, 1987 and 1989. The available information can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the total number of registered unemployed people there were in(a) the south-east region, (b) Greater London, (c) outer London, (d) inner London and (e) each London borough in each year from 1980 to 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  The numbers of people claiming unemployment related benefits can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently in work in(a) the east midlands and (b) Derbyshire; and how many people were in work in these areas in 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  Estimates for areas within standard regions are available only from the census of employment. The earliest and most recent estimates for the county on a comparable basis are for 1981 and 1989. These are given in the table together with estimates for the region in 1979, 1991 and the two census dates.
  647

  Employees in employment

  (Thousandds)

  September of each year

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  1979

  1,565·4

  —

  1981

  1,466·5

  334·9

  1989

  1,573·6

  353·3

  1991

  1,520·7

  —

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians' conduct of its affairs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has received no such representations. However, deficiencies in the register of members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians have been widely reported. These include the listing of people who are not union members. The Government intend to introduce legislation to strengthen the rights of union members against electoral fraud arising from such deficiencies in trade union registers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 457, what representations he has received about the conduct of the elections for (a) officials and (b) other bodies of the former National Union of Seamen in 1984, 1985 and 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has received no representations about any of the elections mentioned. Statutory requirements covering elections for members of trade unions' principal executive committees first came into effect in October 1985. The current requirements, together with the additional proposals in the Green Paper "Industrial Relations in the 1990s" (Cm. 1602), are intended to ensure that the basic right of union members to free and fair elections is effectively protected.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received calling for legislation to help alleviate the problems caused to small businesses by the slow payment of bills; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I have both received representations for legislation from individual small business owners and managers, trade and other associations and from hon. Members. Although I understand the frustrations felt by small businesses because of delayed payments I remain to be convinced that legislation would be effective. The majority of organisations representing small firms share the Government's view that the effect of a legislative approach would be, at best, minimal and could even be damaging to the small firms sector. I have made it known, however, that I would be interested to receive views on how an effective legislative framework might operate.
  648
  My Department will continue to address late payment through a strategy of persuasion and education and, in addition to a number of measures already in place. I am keeping the issue under close review.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Homelessness
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the provision of hostels for the homeless to match the reduction of resettlement units; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The management of the Ressettlement Agency and day-to-day negotiations with local authorities and voluntary bodies are matters for Mr. Tony Ward, the chief executive, although no unit is closed unless Ministers are satisfied with replacement proposals. He will write to my hon. Friend and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Claimants, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will show for each year from 1987 to 1991 the number of people in the Leeds metropolitan district who claimed(a) family credit, (b) income support and (c) community charge benefit both (i) in total and (ii) by benefit office.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Leeds metropolitan district(a) applied for social fund, (i) community care grants, (ii) budgeting loans and (iii) crisis loans and (b) received community care grants, budgeting loans and crisis loans, shown (1) numerically and (2) in real cash terms every year from 1987 to 1991, shown both in totals and by benefit office.

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

  Income Support
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will obtain for his departmental library, a copy of the research undertaken by Sean Stitt of Newcastle polytechnic into the viability of income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department received a copy of this last year. We are always interested in research which might bear upon the effectiveness of income support, although we would not accept the assumptions made in this report.

  Pensions Uprating
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would have been the cost in each year to public funds at 1992 prices to have maintained since November 1980 the system by which statutory up-rating of pensions was required to increase by whichever was the higher of prices or earnings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The annual cost to the national insurance fund (at 1991–92 prices at £ millions) of uprating basic retirement pensions each year by prices or earnings whichever was higher in each year starting in November 1980 for each financial year is given in the table:

  Financial Year

  Cost £ millions

  1980–81

  127

  1981–82

  552

  1982–83

  747

  1983–84

  833

  1984–85

  1,509

  1985–86

  1,679

  1986–87

  2,581

  1987–88

  3,769

  1988–89

  4,571

  1989–90

  5,430

  1990–91

  5,884

  1991–92

  6,271

  There would be some offsetting savings in expenditure on income-related benefits.

  The cost to the national insurance fund of these extra costs in 1991–92 would mean an increase of £8.70 per week in the combined national insurance contributions of a man on average earnings and his employer.

  Expenditure
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what change there has been in social security spending since 1978–79; and what change is expected for the future.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Total expenditure on social security increased by 52 per cent. or £23 billion in real terms between 1978–79 and 1991–92. Between 1991–92 and 1994–95, expenditure is expected to grow by £6.4 billion at 1991–92 prices. Of the overall increase, 32 per cent. relates to expenditure on benefits for elderly people, 39 per cent. on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people, and 13 per cent. on benefits for lone parent families. The figures given above for past growth, and for the division on future growth between client groups correct those given in the DSS departmental report (Cm. 1914).

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1970 the number of males and females paying national insurance contributions and the amount collected in contributions as a percentage of gross domestic product to one place of decimals together with(a) the number earning more than the upper earnings limit, the amount earned by such males and females, and their aggregate incomes as a percentage of the amount by those paying national insurance and (b) the amount earned above the upper earnings limit as a proportion of the amount earned below it.
  650
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: The information requested is in the tables:

  Numbers of people1 paying contributions (thousands)

  Amount collected in contributions as a percentage of GDP2

  Males

  Females

  1970–71

  —

  —

  4·6

  1971–72

  —

  —

  4·6

  1972–73

  —

  —

  4·7

  1973–74

  —

  —

  5·0

  1974–75

  —

  —

  5·3

  1975–76

  15,829

  9,265

  5·7

  1976–77

  15,722

  9,189

  6·2

  1977–78

  15,714

  9,273

  6·0

  1978–79

  15,654

  9,279

  5·5

  1979–80

  15,775

  9,533

  5·6

  1980–81

  15,256

  9,148

  6·2

  1981–82

  14,478

  8,793

  6·4

  1982–83

  14,166

  8,664

  6·8

  1983–84

  14,315

  8,692

  7·0

  1984–85

  14,243

  8,860

  6·7

  1985–86

  14,364

  9,170

  6·7

  1986–87

  14,369

  9,308

  6·5

  1987–88

  14,465

  9,633

  6·4

  1988–89

  14,670

  10,096

  6·5

  1 Source: 1 per cent. sample from Contributors and Contributions Statistics. Although some people pay a mixture of different types of contributions, each person is counted only once in the table. No figures are readily available for years prior to 1975 and are not yet available from 1989–90.

  2 All GDP data used are consistent with the Regional Accounts article published in Economic Trends November 1991. The contributions figures used in the calculations are the gross receipts for the NI fund which are set out in the NI fund accounts for each year.

  (a) It is estimated that in 1991–92 on average 2·6 million men and 0·4 million women earn more than the upper earnings limit. Their earnings are estimated to be:

  £ billion

  Men

  Women

  Total

  80

  10

  90

  Their total earnings are expected to be about 34 per cent. of the earnings of all those who pay national insurance.

  (b) It is estimated that the amount of all earnings above the upper earnings limit is about 11·5 per cent. of all the earnings below that limit.

  Information for earlier years is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Domestic Rates
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what will be the level of relief for domestic rates in Northern Ireland in consequence of the application of the poll tax in Great Britain in the current year: and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The statutory rule which will give effect to the 1992–93 regional rate for Northern Ireland and to the reduction for domestic ratepayers will be laid before Parliament in early March, in accordance with the normal timetable.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  On 30 November 1991 there were 29,860 people in the non-industrial grades of the Northern Ireland civil service and 213 members of the home civil service working in the Northern Ireland Office.

  There were 1,284 staff in the Northern Ireland Civil Service (4·3 per cent. of the service) who self-reported a disability. Of these, 431 (1·4 per cent. of the service) were, or had been, registered as disabled. In addition, 35 registered disabled people were working in the Northern Ireland civil service under the sheltered placement scheme. There were no registered disabled staff in the Northern Ireland Office.

  The Race Relations Act 1976 does not apply to Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland civil service does not, therefore, monitor the ethnic origin of staff. The 109 London-based staff of the Northern Ireland Office have, however, been invited to take part in an ethnic monitoring survey and, of those who responded, 14 described themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mortgage Possession Orders
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, columns 321–22, for what reason the number of mortgage possession orders made in Coventry court in 1991 exceeded the number of actions entered.

  The Attorney-General
  A greater number of orders made over actions entered is not necessarily an indication of error, since some of the orders will relate to actions entered during the previous year. However, the figures given in my answer to the hon. Member on 21 February were provisional and stated to be so. On checking the figures again, it has been established that the data given for orders made erroneously included rent actions. The figures have now been revised and the total number of actions entered and orders made, whilst still provisional, should now read 1,256 and 1,202 respectively.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women (x) in his Department and (y) in the Lord Chancellor's Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  (X) Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  (a) Men

  (b) Women

  Grade 1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  4

  2

  —

  5

  3

  —

  652

  (a) Men

  (b) Women

  6

  2

  1

  7

  —

  1

  SEO

  —

  —

  HEO

  1

  —

  Administration trainee

  —

  —

  EO

  2

  —

  AO

  1

  1

  AA

  —

  1

  (X) Treasury Solicitor's Department

  (a) Men

  (b) Women

  Grade 1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  3

  9

  —

  4

  2

  —

  5

  35

  7

  6

  50

  11

  7

  59

  29

  SEO

  8

  3

  HEO

  22

  9

  Administration trainee

  —

  —

  EO

  27

  40

  AO

  26

  41

  AA

  4

  4

  (X) Crown Prosecution Service

  Grade

  (a) Men

  (b) Women

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  3

  5

  —

  4

  9

  —

  5

  55

  2

  6

  165

  23

  7

  27

  5

  SEO

  84

  32

  HEO

  127

  174

  Administration trainee

  —

  —

  EO

  362

  809

  AO

  334

  954

  AA

  124

  312

  (X) Serious Fraud Office

  Grade

  (a) Men

  (b) Women

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  3

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  5

  7

  1

  6

  7

  4

  7

  7

  1

  SEO

  7

  1

  HEO

  14

  5

  Administration trainee

  —

  —

  EO

  7

  11

  AO

  9

  13

  AA

  —

  —

  (Y) Lord Chancellor's Department

  Grade

  (a) Men

  (b) Women

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  3

  11

  —

  4

  5

  —

  5

  27

  2

  6

  55·5

  19·5

  7

  123

  42·5

  SEO

  225

  85

  HEO

  522

  417·5

  653

  Grade

  (a) Men

  (b) Women

  AT/HEOD

  5

  4

  EO

  556·5

  1,185·5

  AO

  9,655

  2.949

  AA

  195

  511·5

  (A) The figures are based on full-time equivalents, ie part-time staff count as ·5.

  (B) Figures for grades 6 and 7 include figures for grade equivalents.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the total number of employees in(a) the Lord Chancellor's Department and (b) his Department; and how many are (i) black and (ii) disabled.

  The Attorney-General
  The total number of staff in(a) the Lord Chancellor's Department is 11,923. The total numbers of staff in my Departments (b) are:

  Department

  Numbers

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  23

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  474

  Crown Prosecution Service

  5,758

  Serious Fraud Office

  129

  In the Lord Chancellor's Department 8,674 staff responded to an ethnic origin survey, and of these 622 were black or belonged to other ethnic minorities. As at 1 June 1991 the Lord Chacellor's Department had 171 staff who are registered as disabled.

  In the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers there are no black or registered disabled staff. In the Treasury Solicitor's Department there are 80 staff who are black or belong to other ethnic minorities. The Treasury Solicitor's Department had four members of staff who are registered as disabled.

  In the Crown prosecution service, 4,012 staff responded to an ethnic origin survey, and of these 248 were black or belonged to other ethnic minorities. As at 31 August 1991 the Crown prosecution service had 40 staff who are registered as disabled.

  The Serious Fraud Office has 17 staff who are black or belong to other ethnic minorities, but no employees who are registered as disabled.

  Stefan Kiszko
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General why the results of the sperm test on Stefan Kiszko carried out by Dr. Edward Tierney were not disclosed to the defence at the time of his trial.

  The Attorney-General
  The sample of semen obtained by Dr. Tierney from Stefan Kiszko was submitted to the forensic science laboratory for examination. The Director of Public Prosecutions was provided with a witness statement made by the scientist concerned with the test and that statement was served as part of the committal document. The statement concluded withh an assertion that the maker had"found nothing else of evidential value"
  and the Director of Public Prosecutions relied upon that assertion. So far as can be ascertained from the DPP's case file, no information was received by his staff to put them on notice that further material evidence was in fact available. The conduct of the original inquiry is currently under investigation by the Lancashire police.

SCOTLAND

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for the Scottish Ambulance Service, Greater Glasgow area, the success rate in percentage terms of achieving its ORCON standards for(a) reaction to a 999 call and (b) reaching the site.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The current rates of achievement for the Greater Glasgow area are:

  Emergency calls

  Percentage of calls

  Activation time

  83 per cent. of calls within three minutes

  Reaching scene

  81 per cent. of calls within 14 minutes

  The target for such calls is 95 per cent. and I have asked the general manager of the Scottish Ambulance Service to review the situation. In addition I am making an extra £250,000 available to the ambulance service in Glasgow specifically to help improve the success rate in response times.

  European Community Food Surpluses
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the procedures for distributing EC food surpluses to voluntary organisations in Scotland; and what action is being taken to ensure that such voluntary organisations are made fully aware of the availability of EC surplus food and are encouraged to assist in its distribution to those most in need.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 26 February,Official Report, column 507–8, the arrangements for operating the European Community surplus food scheme in the United Kingdom in 1992. Agriculture departments will shortly be inviting charitable and other non-profit making organisations wishing to take part to apply by 10 April for designation to distribute food. The details were set out in a joint agriculture departments press release. In addition to that publicity, the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department will be writing to all bodies participating in the 1991 scheme or which have expressed an interest in the 1992 scheme.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of resources have been allocated for speech therapy for children in Scotland with a formal statement of needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 February 1992]: General responsibility for the speech therapy needs of children in Scotland rests with health boards. Financial provision is made within the overall moneys made available to support their programmes, but the element devoted to speech therapy provision is not separately identified.

  Additionally, education authorities have a responsibility to provide for speech therapy which is identified as a special educational need in a record of needs. Under new arrangements, which will begin on 1 April 1992, education authorities will contract directly with health boards for the

  655
  provision of this service. The sum of £2 million has been included in the 1992–93 local government settlement to take account of the additional expenditure authorities will incur.

WALES

  Home Ownership Schemes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many properties have been removed from the public sector via shared ownership schemes by each local authority in Wales in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Since 1988, one dwelling has been sold to the private sector under section 143 of the Housing Act 1985. This occurred in Alyn and Deeside in 1990.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the proportion of local authority revenue expenditure in Wales financed by(a) Government grant, (b) non-domestic rates and (c) local domestic taxation in each year from 1978–79 to 1990–91 and estimates for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information available is given in the table. Prior to 1981–82 there was no separate rate support grant system for Wales and so figures are not available.

  Financing of local authority revenue expenditure1

  per cent.

  Government grants2

  Non-domestic rates3

  Domestic rates/community charges4

  1981–82

  71

  19

  12

  1982–83

  71

  18

  13

  1983–84

  71

  17

  11

  1984–85

  71

  17

  11

  1985–86

  70

  18

  12

  1986–87

  69

  19

  13

  1987–88

  69

  19

  13

  1988–89

  67

  19

  14

  1989–90

  65

  19

  15

  1990–915

  62

  20

  17

  1991–925

  72

  21

  6

  1992–936

  72

  21

  7

  1 The percentages do not add to 100 per cent. for technical reasons; these include rounding and authorities' use of balances. Local authority revenue expenditure is defined here (i) prior to 1990–91 as "relevant" expenditure plus expenditure on certain non-relevant items such as net expenditure on mandatory student awards (ii) for 1990–91 onwards as revenue expenditure "on a Total Standard Spending basis".

  2 Prior to 1990–91 comprises rate support grant, specific and supplementary grants within aggregate Exchequer grant, domestic

  Building for sale

  Building under licence

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19901

  1991

  Alyn and Deeside

  —

  —

  —

  22

  —

  —

  South Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  —

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Source: Welsh Office housing returns.

  1 Data for the last two quarters.

  656

  2 rate relief grant and rate rebate grants. For 1990–91 onwards comprises revenue support grant, specific and supplementary grants within aggregate external finance, community charge benefit grant, transitional relief/community/charge reduction scheme grants and community charge grant (1991–92).

  3 Prior to 1990–91 rate income, net of rebates. For 1990–91 onwards the distributable amount.

  4 Prior to 1990–91 rate income, net of domestic rate relief grant and rate rebates. For 1990–91 onwards net of community charge benefit grant, transitional relief/community charge reduction scheme grants and community charge grant (1991–92).

  5 Provisional.

  6 1992–93 settlement.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the total of local government(a) revenue and (b) capital expenditure by local government within Wales for each year from 1978–79 to 1991–92 (estimated).

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information available is given in the table. Revenue expenditure figures are not available on a comparable basis prior to 1981–82.

  £ million

  Revenue expenditure1

  Capital expenditure2

  1978–79

  n/a

  201·7

  1979–80

  n/a

  241·8

  1980–81

  n/a

  271·4

  1981–82

  1,117·1

  244·4

  1982–83

  1,2072

  344·9

  1983–84

  1,267·3

  413·9

  1984–85

  1,304·0

  358·4

  1985–86

  1,352·8

  3432

  1986–87

  1,463·1

  413·7

  1987–88

  1,567·0

  499·1

  1988–89

  1,711·6

  510·4

  1989–90

  1,847·4

  644·9

  1990–913

  2,086·1

  584·3

  1991–923

  2,324·1

  648·6

  1 Prior to 1990–91 total expenditure for block grant purposes; for 1990–91 onwards new net revenue expenditure including community council expenditure. Whilst these two definitions are similar (for example, both are net of specific and supplementary grants) they are not directly comparable.

  2 Capital expenditure charged to the capital account

  3 Provisional.

  Building Schemes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many properties have been developed under(a) building for sale schemes and (b) building under licence schemes in each local authority area in Wales in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on dwellings built by local authorities for sale is collected at the time of sale. Numbers of dwellings built under licence relate to those intended to be built at the time of disposal of land to the private developer and have been collected centrally only since the third quarter of 1990. Recorded activity since 1988 is given in the table:

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of people employed by the NHS in Wales on a full-time and part-time basis.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The latest available data, as at 30 September 1990 for medical and dental staff and 31 January 1992 for non-medical and dental staff, show that there were 72,146 staff employed by the NHS in Wales—including the Welsh Health Commons Services Authority but excluding staff in Gwent and South Glamorgan family health services authorities which are not on the payroll system for which this information is derived—this amounted to 117 staff as at 31 December 1991—the full and part time split is not held centrally. Of these 44,547 were full time and 27,599 were part time.

  Welsh Language Teachers
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh language teachers there were in each county in the Welsh education system in the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Due to the organisation of the curriculum in primary schools, teachers of the Welsh language cannot be separately identified. The number of Welsh language teachers in secondary schools is available only from the 1989 secondary school staffing survey and relates to that year. The information is given in the table.

  Number of teachers teaching the Welsh language in secondary schools in 19891

  Welsh language teachers

  Clwyd

  134

  Dyfed

  178

  Gwent

  16

  Gwynedd

  199

  Mid Glamorgan

  153

  Powys

  54

  South Glamorgan

  76

  West Glamorgan

  105

  Wales

  915

  1 Source: Secondary school staffing survey, March 1989.

HEALTH

  Dentists
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement explaining the circumstances in which dentists have been advised that their payments are to be reduced by 13 per cent.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to vary the national health service fees paid to general dental practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The proposed increase in target net income of 8·5 per cent. which was recommended by the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body was accepted by the Government. To ensure that the level at which fees are pitched in the coming year will deliver this proposed increase in dentists' net income, the health departments 658
  consulted the British Dental Association (BDA). Because of evidence of overpayments resulting from this year's level of fees, which suggest that on average dentists would be paid far more than the intended target gross income, the Government suggested an interim fee reduction from 1 April. Following discussions with the BDA and the health departments agreement was reached to suspend the reduction in fees proposed for 1 April. The health departments and the BDA will also hold a joint enquiry to review the level of payments to dentists in 1991–92; simultaneously, they will begin a more fundamental review of the structure of dentists' remuneration.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of people employed by the NHS in England on a full-time and part-time basis.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 30 September 1990, the latest date for which figures are held centrally, there were 585,300 full-time employees and 358,700 part-time employees.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the increase of staff in district health authorities since April 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Figures at April 1989 are not available. The increase between September 1989 and September 1990, the latest date for which figures are held centrally, was 900 whole-time equivalents (0·1 per cent.). Over the same period there was an overall decrease of 200 whole-time equivalents in the NHS.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the campaign to recruit nurses in each of the last five years; and whether a similar campaign to recruit social service staff will be run.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cost of the nurse recruitment campaigns in England in each of the last five years was:

  £

  1986–87

  1,126,770

  1987–88

  832,494

  1988–89

  2,338,093

  1989–90

  4,183,780

  1990–91

  3,367,420

  We have no plans for a campaign by the Department to recruit social service staff. It is for local authorities, as employers in the personal social services field, to take the lead in securing the provision of an adequate work force. We did however hold a seminar in March 1991 with the Association of Directors of Social Services and the local government management board on manpower planning and work force analysis issues. The Department is also funding a major programme of research on social services work force issues at the National Institute for Social Work.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of cases notified to him for 1991 in each health region for(a) food poisoning in general, (b) salmonella, (c) salmonella enteritidis, (d) salmonella enteritidis phage 4, (e) salmonella typhimurium, (f) campylobacter and (g) listeriosis.
  659
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The data show notifications of food poisoning to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and laboratory reports of specific organisms to the Public Health Laboratory Service's communicable disease surveillance centre.

  Drug Addiction
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his most recent estimate of totals of people in Great Britain who are addicted to drugs as a result of(a) the use of illegal drugs and (b) the use of medicinal products.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Home Office maintains an addicts index which indicates the number of people notified by doctors as dependent on a range of drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The number of new and existing drug addicts in Great Britain notified to the addicts index was 17,716 in 1990, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Regional health authorities in England and health authorities in Wales and Scotland are now implementing a drug misuse database which will provide data on drug users starting a new episode of treatment at services in any six-month period. This will provide anonymised data on a wider range of drugs than the Home Office addicts index and will include information on the use of some medicinal products, such as benzodiazepines. Some regions now have this information available and it is hoped that information for Great Britain will be available next year.

  York Health District

  11979

  11980

  21990–91

  Percentage change 1979 to 1990–91

  Percentage change 1980 to 1990–91

  In-patients

  27,296

  28,085

  39,530

  29·6

  26·0

  Day cases

  4,444

  4,658

  5,425

  22·1

  16·5

  Out-patients

  157,451

  162,638

  172,133

  9·3

  5·8

  1 In-patients: discharges and deaths.

  2 in-patients: finished consultant episodes.

  Percentage change in in-patient figures 1979 to 1990–91 and 1980 to 1990–91 on comparative basis.

  1990–91 figures provisional.

  Private Health Insurance
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state for each year since 1978 the percentage of the population covered by private health insurance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The information is given in the table.

  Year

  Persons Insured/millionss

  UK Population/millions

  Percentage insured

  1978

  2·4

  56·2

  4·3

  1979

  2·7

  56·2

  4·8

  1980

  3·6

  56·3

  6·4

  1981

  4·1

  56·4

  7·3

  1982

  4·2

  56·3

  7·5

  1983

  4·3

  56·3

  7·6

  11984

  4·4

  56·5

  7·8

  1985

  5·0

  56·6

  8·8

  1986

  5·3

  56·8

  9·3

  Hospital Cleaning Services
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what national guidelines have been issued to district health authorities about quality of service expected from private contractors for cleaning services in hospitals; and when these guidelines were last reviewed.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The responsibility for specifying service requirements and quality standards for cleaning services in the NHS rests with the relevant local health authority. They are also responsible for monitoring performance to ensure the required quality standards are met.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the expenditure and achievements of his Department in North Yorkshire during 1991; and what was the comparable position between June 1979 and May 1980.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: For the financial year 1979–80, the annual accounts of the North Yorkshire area health authority show total revenue expenditure of £60·4 million (cash) and capital expenditure attributable to the authority amounted to £2·8 million (cash).

  In 1990·91, the annual accounts of the four successor district health authorities show total revenue expenditure of £165·8 million (cash), with capital expenditure totalling £16·7 million (cash).

  These figures represent real-terms increases (measured at 1991–92 prices) of 26·3 per cent. for revenue expenditure and 173·3 per cent. for capital expenditure.

  Between 1979 and 1990–91 in York health authority the number of patients treated is shown in the table:

  Year

  Persons Insured/millionss

  UK Population/millions

  Percentage insured

  1987

  5·3

  56·9

  9·3

  21988

  6·8

  57·1

  11·9

  1989

  7·2

  57·2

  12·6

  1990

  7·6

  57·4

  13·2

  1 The basis of collection was changed from 1984. Figures to 1984 are for the three main provident insurers. Figures from 1985 onward include all companies.

  2 In 1988, 900,000 people covered by the Post Office and Civil Service Sanatorium Society, were included for the first time.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of employees in his Ministry; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Curry
  Figures taken from a survey covering 92·2 per cent. of our 10,048 non-industrial work force, with part-timers counting as one, show 416 staff to be of ethnic minority origin. The Department employs 141½ staff who are registered as disabled. This figure covers both non-industrial and industrial grades but does not include staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register and counts part-time staff as half units.

  EC Grant Aid
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total amount of EC grant aid that has been given to the salmon industry in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the remainder of the EC since 1973.

  Mr. Curry
  EC grant aid to the salmon industry in the United Kingdom since 1973 has totalled over £13·6 million. Figures for Community aid granted specifically to the salmon industry in the rest of the EC are not available.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total level of present and planned spending on each of the schemes available to farmers in the less-favoured areas for capital, environmental and other grant aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The forecast outturn of expenditure by the Ministry in 1991–92 on payments to farmers in the less-favoured areas (LFAs) in England on capital, environmental and other grant schemes is set out in the following table. The table also sets out estimates of the sums likely to be spent under those schemes in the LFAs in the years 1992–93 to 1994–95. Except in the case of environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) these estimates have been arrived at by applying the latest information on spend in the LFAs to the planning totals for future years. The planning totals do not hypothecate expenditure between particular parts of the country, nor in the case of capital grant, between particular types of investment. As regards ESAs, as the hon. Member will be aware, an expansion of the scheme is in train. It is not possible therefore to apply historic data to planning totals to produce estimates of future spend in the LFAs. For forward years, therefore, figures for planned expenditure on the scheme as a whole are given.

  £ million

  Scheme

  1991·921

  1992·932

  1993·942

  1994·952

  F and CGS

  5·3

  5·4

  5·8

  6·1

  FDGS3

  1·6

  1·5

  1·2

  1·2

  Set Aside

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  FWS/FWPS

  0·03

  0·04

  0·06

  0·09

  ESAs

  2·8

  21·5

  37·4

  44·9

  Notes:

  1 Estimated Outturn.

  2 Estimated expenditure based on planning totals.

  662

  3 Statistics for the farm diversification grant scheme figures do not distinguish between LFA and non-LFA. The figures given are for total expenditure in MAFF Divisions covering LFA areas.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much assistance has been given to farmers in the less-favoured areas in Northumberland in 1979, 1987 and the latest year for which figures are available, under each of the hill livestock compensatory allowance, suckler cow and other schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Information for the area requested is available only for the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme:

  £ million

  1979

  2·288

  1987

  4·669

  1991

  6·008

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current level of hill livestock compensatory allowance and suckler cow premium payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on 11 February 1992,Official Report, column 496–98.

ENERGY

  Electricity Cables
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the cost of placing electricity cables underground compared with pylons; and what measures he is taking to encourage more electricity cables to be laid below ground.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The cost of placing electricity cables underground compared with overhead lines is a matter for the National Grid Company and the regional electricity companies, but for high voltage lines is approximately between nine and 10 times more expensive. All new overhead lines require a consent under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 and, in considering applications, the Secretary of State must have regard to the preservation of amenity.

  Environmental Assessments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his policy on making environmental assessments for proposed energy policies, programmes and projects.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My ministerial colleagues and I give full weight to environmental factors when considering such proposals. In preparing their advice on proposals my officials take account, where appropriate, of the guidance set out in the Department of the Environment's guide on "Policy Appraisal and the Environment". The Department's report on the Government's expenditure plans within the energy sector 1992–93 to 1994–95 included
  663
  an account of the environmental aspects of the Department's activities. The departmental objectives as set out in that report have recently been extended to make clear our intention of seeking to ensure that environmental aspects are properly recognised in all areas of the Department's work.

  THORP
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen),Official Report, 24 February, column 674, on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, he will set out (a) the proportion of the 30 tonnes of plutonium estimated to be recovered from reprocessing at THORP by the year 2000 that will arise from imported foreign spent fuel, (b) what safeguards will apply to the recovered plutonium and who will pay for the safeguards and (c) what arrangements exist for the return of the plutonium to the country of origin in terms of technical capability and treaty agreements.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) estimates that, by the year 2000, some 80 per cent. of the plutonium recovered during reprocessing in THORP will arise from spent fuel owned by overseas customers. This plutonium will be subject to Eurotom safeguards and to the terms of the appropriate safeguards agreements signed by the United Kingdom and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The recovery of BNFL's costs arising from safeguards on its facilities is a commercial matter for the company. Costs of inspection and related activities are met by Eurotom and the IAEA.

  Plutonium arising from reprocessing in THORP is transferred overseas only subject to the application of safeguards and on receipt of assurances covering peaceful use, physical protection and controls on re-transfer.

  IAEA
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals to strengthen international nuclear safeguards have been submitted by the United Kingdom's ambassador to the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the agency's high level review of safeguards which began on 24 February.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom is a party to the proposals by the twelve EC member states for strengthening IAEA safeguards. These proposals were included in a statement made by the Netherlands on behalf of the EC and its member states to the general conference of the IAEA in September 1991: a copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House. The proposals are being fully explored in the board of governors of the IAEA.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the reason Her Majesty's Government has not paid in full the Kingdom's 1992 contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In accordance with normal Government practice, the United Kingdom's 1992 contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency will be paid at the beginning of the United Kingdom's next financial year.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No reviews into the pay and grading of staff in my Department have been carried out in the past 12 months.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nagorno Karabakh
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Armenian and Azerbaijani Governments about the situation in Nagorno Karabakh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The British Government are playing a full part in encouraging the international community to promote a peaceful settlement. We will continue to urge all involved in the dispute to settle this matter in accordance with international law and with full respect for human rights and conference on security and co-operation in Europe—CSCE—principles. However, the roots of the dispute in Nagorno Karabakh are deep and a lasting peace will not be achieved easily.

  We have raised with our European Community, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and CSCE partners our concern at the deteriorating situation. The Portuguese ambassador in Moscow, acting on behalf of the Twelve European Community Governments, made a demarche on 20 January to the representatives in Moscow of Armenia and Azerbaijan and to the Russian Foreign Ministry calling on all concerned to work towards a peaceful settlement of this dispute.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs reiterated this point in a recent telephone conversation with the Armenian Foreign Minister, Mr. Hovanissian, and in Moscow last month he used the opportunity of his meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister to encourage the Russians to do what they could to help find a solution to the dispute.

  In response to a British proposal, the CSCE Council of Ministers agreed on 31 January to send a mission to Armenia and Azerbaijan, including Nagorno Karabakh, to report on the situation. The team, which included a British representative, visited the region from 12 to 18 February. Its report and recommendations are being considered by the CSCE's committee of senior officials in Prague. CSCE countries will then consider how to carry the process forward using CSCE mechanisms.

  We welcome the agreement to call for a ceasefire and to set up working groups which was announced after the trilateral meeting with representatives of Armenia and Azerbaijan convened by the Russian Foreign Minister on 20 February. However, since then there have been further reports of casualties in clashes in Nagorno Karabakh. There is a clear risk of a further deterioration in the situation. It is therefore important that the agreement reached in Moscow be backed up by immediate concrete action to prevent further tragic deaths.

  Embassy Cars
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list British embassies that previously qualified for a Rolls-Royce ambassadorial car, but now no longer do so; and if he will list the replacement vehicles.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The table lists posts which, in 1984, qualified for a Rolls-Royce ambassadorial car and which no longer do so.

  Replacement Car

  Post

  To be decided (Rolls-Royce provided in 1990)

  Canberra

  Range Rover

  Moscow

  Lincoln Town Car

  New York (UN)

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate the type, cost and specification of the next official car for Her Majesty's ambassador to the United Nations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A standard specification Lincoln town car to be leased at an annual cost of US $5,900—about £3,410 at the current exchange rate—including maintenance and insurance.

  Eastern Europe
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the new organisational structure within his Department for dealing with Eastern Europe and the area covered by the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Relations with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Croatia, Slovenia and Albania are handled by the central European department. Relations with the States formerly in the Soviet Union are handled by the eastern department. Both departments have been reinforced to take account of changes within these areas. The joint assistance unit was created in 1989 to administer the know-how fund, and has been increased over the past year to deal with important additional work in the former Soviet Union.

  Hong Kong (Ivory)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current number of possession licences issued to holders of ivory stocks in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As at 26 February 1992, there were 963 possession licences held by commercial stockholders in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of items from endangered species seized by the Hong Kong authorities in 1991 and the prosecution arising from such seizures.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1991, the Hong Kong authorities seized a variety of specimens of endangered species from which 109 prosecutions arose.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any exports of ivory from Hong Kong have been authorised since 17 October 1990.
  666
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No commercial exports of ivory have been authorised by the Hong Kong authorities between 17 October 1990 and 25 February 1992 except for two pre-convention specimens of worked ivory of 0·1 kg each.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of ivory exported from Hong Kong during 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No commercial exports of ivory have been authorised by the Hong Kong authorities in 1991 except for one pre-convention specimen of 0·1 kg.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current quantity of all ivory known to be held in Hong Kong; and on what date it was last assessed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The total commercial ivory stock held in Hong Kong on 17 July 1990 was 463 tonnes to the nearest tonne. No commercial exports of ivory have been authorised between then and 25 February 1992 except for two pre-convention specimens of worked ivory of 0·1 kg each.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many spot checks were made by the Hong Kong authorities of ivory-holding premises(a) since 19 October 1990 and (b) during 1991; and if any irregularities were discovered.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Hong Kong authorities have made 354 spot checks on ivory holding premises between 17 October 1990 and 25 February 1992 of which 220 were conducted during 1991. No irregularities were discovered.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of ivory exported from Hong Kong since 25 March 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No commercial exports of ivory have been authorised by the Hong Kong authorities in 1991 except for one pre-convention specimen of 0·1 kg.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of any ivory confiscated by the Hong Kong authorities since(a) 17 October 1990 and (b) 31 January 1991; and if any prosecutions for illegal export have been entered since each of those dates.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Between 17 October 1990 and 25 February 1992, the Hong Kong authorities confiscated 181·36 kg of ivory. Between 31 January 1991 and 25 February 1992 they confiscated 162·30 kg of ivory. During the first period, two prosecutions for illegal export were entered and during the second period, one such prosecution was entered.

  Nuclear Waste, Russia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he intends to make to the Russian Federation on the dumping of nuclear waste, from the Soviet fleet berthed at Murmansk, off the island of Novaya Zemlya.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government are concerned about environmental issues related to nuclear waste, and
  667
  the operation and safety of nuclear plant in Russia. We have had discussions with the Russian Government already on these matters; and will ensure that our concerns about these recent reports are made clear to the Russian authorities.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 2 March. The Council may review the European economic area agreement in the light of the Commission's request to the European Court of Justice for a second opinion on the compatibility of the revised draft agreement with the the treaty of Rome. The Council will consider relations with the former Soviet Union and will discuss the progress of negotiations in the GATT—general agreement on tariffs and trade—Uruguay round. The new Mediterranean policy will also be discussed by the Council which will prepare the Community position for the fifth meeting of the EC-Tunisia Co-operation Council to be held later that day. The Council will consider the Commission's future financing proposals for 1993 to 1997. Ministers will discuss a number of European political co-operation topics during lunch, including probably Yugoslavia, the Commonwealth of Independent States, Zaire and aspects of the arrangements for a Common foreign and security policy.

  The Agriculture Council will also meet on 2 and 3 and, possibly, 4 March. Ministers will discuss reform of the common agricultural policy and agricultural aspects of the GATT Uruguay round. They may also discuss inward processing of milk products and olive oil control agencies.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 16 March. Following the agreement reached on European Investment Bank lending at the July ECOFIN the Council will now consider the detailed terms and conditions under which lending will take place. The Council may also consider the Court of Auditors' report on the implementation of the 1990 Community budget, and communicate an opinion to the European Parliament. The Commission's proposals for the future financing of the Community may also be considered. The Council may also discuss the investment services directive, the large exposure directive and the capital adequacy directive. The Council will also discuss the draft seventh VAT directive on the sale of second-hand goods, works of art, antiques and collectors' items, and the draft directives for the harmonisation of excise duty structures on tobacco and mineral oil products.

  The Environment Council will meet on 23 March. It may agree to the proposed Council regulation on the supervision and control of waste shipments, and a directive on the sulphur content of gasoil. Ministers are also likely to discuss directives on air pollution caused by ground level ozone, minimum standards for keeping animals in zoos, the reduction and elimination of pollution caused by waste from the titanium oxide industry, and the United Nations conference on environmental development. If it is published in time, Ministers may also discuss the fifth environmental action programme.

  The Transport Council will meet on 26 and 27 March. Ministers' discussion will concentrate on liberalization
  668
  issues including: road haulage cabotage, passenger transport cabotage, maritime cabotage and the third aviation package. They may also discuss the general framework for external relations and inland transport market observation.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 30 and 31 March. Ministers will discuss agricultural price fixing, wild game meat, fruit plants and vegetable plants. They may also discuss common agricultural policy reform, agricultural aspects of the GATT Uruguay round, and milk products.

  The Internal Market Council will meet on 31 March. It is likely to discuss rational use of medicines, pharmaceutical advertising and vehicle type approval. It may also consider frontier controls, trans-European networks, drug precursors and scientific co-operation on foodstuffs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the major investment projects attracted from overseas to the northern region since(a) 1979, (b) 1983 and (c) 1987, together with the capital costs of each project and the amount of grant offered.

  Mr. Leigh
  Details of major investments known to have located in the northern region since 1979 are listed. All these projects are known to have capital costs in excess of £5 million and all were assisted by grants of regional selective assistance. Comparable information on other forms of assistance is not readily available. The information is set out in the required chronological order and is based on when regional selective assistance was offered.

  Major Inward Investment in the Northern Region

  Company

  Project Cost (£'000)

  RSA Grant (£'000)

  1 January 1979 to 31 December 1982

  Eimco (GB) Ltd.

  5,426

  666

  Kimberly-Clark Ltd.

  26,787

  1,350

  3M UK Holdings Plc

  8,414

  650

  Black and Decker

  6,418

  950

  Coles Cranes Ltd.

  12,445

  1,582

  Formica Ltd.

  7,759

  500

  Rohm and Haas (UK) Ltd.

  7,219

  575

  Union Camp Corp. (USA)

  6,318

  300

  Fisher Price Toys

  12,816

  2,385

  DJB Eng. Ltd.

  9,131

  1,450

  Yates Circuit Foil Ltd.

  10,616

  250

  Albright and Wilson Ltd.

  5,550

  750

  1 January 1983 to 31 December 1986

  Kodak Ltd.

  61,044

  2,000

  Transfer-All Purpose Foils Ltd.

  5,344

  819

  Forbo-Mayfair Ltd.

  6,500

  700

  Black and Decker

  9,910

  2,000

  THC Fabricators (UK) Ltd.

  6,151

  575

  Philips Components Ltd.

  9,909

  900

  Black and Decker

  22,000

  2,450

  Komatsu Ltd.

  16,449

  1,200

  NSK Bearings Europe Ltd.

  32,000

  1,600

  TC Industries of Europe Ltd.

  5,970

  1,295

  Tolaram Polymers Ltd.

  14,377

  350

  Nissan UK Ltd.

  349,900

  35,000

  NSK Bearings Europe Ltd.

  15,093

  450

  Black and Decker

  9,760

  1,000

  1 January 1987 to 31 Janaury 1992

  British Alcan Aluminimum Plc

  7,000

  2,000

  669

  Company

  Project Cost (£'000)

  RSA Grant (£'000)

  Sterling-Winthorp Group Ltd.

  15,115

  3,382

  Key-Tech (Europe) Ltd.

  11,288

  1,200

  Swaddlers Ltd.

  8,780

  950

  Newcastle Chronicle and Journal Ltd.

  5,372

  700

  Fujitsu Microelectronics Ltd.

  400,000

  30,000

  Swilynn (UK) Ltd.

  14,145

  2,950

  Nissan UK Manufacturing Ltd.

  216,000

  14,400

  Cookson Fukuda Ltd.

  24,318

  650

  Hashimoto Ltd.

  9,850

  1,500

  3M UK Ltd.

  11,882

  1,700

  TRW Thompson

  30,300

  4,500

  Marley Kansei Ltd.

  7,694

  846

  Schurpack UK Ltd.

  6,235

  850

  MAS Electronics Ltd.

  8,615

  1,700

  Note:

  1. Major inward investment projects have been defined as those first time investments, or expansions of existing investments, by foreign owned companies which involve project costs in excess of £5 million.

  2. Details of grant are for offers of regional selective assistance (RSA) accepted by foreign owned companies since 1 January 1979.

  3. The Northern region is the north-east region plus Cumbria.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Leigh
  The information requested is in the table.

  Headcount of staff in the Department of Trade and Industry by grade level and gender at 1 April 1991.

  Men

  Women

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  Grade 2

  12

  0

  Grade 3

  49

  4

  Grade 4

  11

  2

  Grade 5

  217

  31

  Grade 6

  176

  19

  Grade 7

  1,031

  141

  SEC,

  851

  130

  HEO

  1,335

  513

  Administrative Trainee (AT)

  6

  4

  EO (excluding AT)

  1,300

  959

  AO

  1,152

  1,990

  AA

  856

  2,038

  These figures include 84 men and 890 women who are part-time.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department employs 13,056 staff, including industrial staff, of whom:

  (a) 1,111 are known to be black. 81 per cent. of the Department's employees have declared their ethnic origin.

  (b) 184 are known to be disabled. This figure includes both registered and unregistered disabled officers.

  These figures are based on staff employed at 1 April 1991.

  Staffing and Budgets
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give full details of the numbers of staff and budget for each of the last 13 years allocated to the fairs and promotions branch.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The table shows the average number of staff in post in fairs and promotions branch from 1986–87 to 1990–91 together with the branch running and programme costs for those years based on current prices.

  Figures for prior years are not available.

  Financial year

  Average staff in post

  Branch running costs £ million

  Net programme spend £ million

  1986–87

  160

  2·7

  14·0

  1987–88

  162

  2·9

  14·0

  1988–89

  159

  3·2

  17·4

  1989–90

  160

  3·5

  19·6

  1990–91

  160

  3·8

  19·6

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Internal Market Council held in Brussels on 25 February.

  Mr. Leigh
  I attended the Internal Market Council on 25 February.

  The Council quickly reached agreement on a decision to set up a programme of research in the important area of security of information held in electronic form, ie on computers.

  Following delivery of the European Parliament's opinion, the Council also agreed a common position on the third non-life insurance directive. This directive allows insurers access to European Community markets on the basis of a home state authorisation, and opens up opportunities for the United Kingdom insurance industry.

  There was a lengthy discussion of the Commission proposals to control trade in cultural goods. Greece, Spain and Italy argued that the proposals should be widened in scope, and are clearly concerned that the removal of border controls will make it easier to transfer nationally important works of art out of their countries of origin. Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark all argued to the contrary, that the scope of the proposals should be more narrowly focused to avoid undue interference in the healthy and legitimate international art market.

  The Commission introduced a discussion on border controls within the Community. In discussion, all member states agreed on the need for further work to enable controls on goods to be removed. The Council also discussed the effect that the removal of border controls will have on firms of independent customs agents, but reached no conclusion.

  Finally, the Commission gave a short presentation on trans-European networks, which cover energy, transport and communications. There was no discussion of this item.

  Vehicles (Recycling)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to discuss progress made in promoting the recyclability of motor vehicles.
  671
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: My right hon. Friend is due to meet shortly with representatives of the motor industry and others to discuss vehicle recycling issues.

DEFENCE

  Underground Nuclear Explosions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the paper on seismic monitoring by Professor Alan Douglas of his Department's verification centre at Blacknest, given to the seminar on the detection and recognition of underground nuclear explosions held at the Geological Society, London, on 14 February.

  Mr Archie Hamilton
  I have arranged for a pre-publication copy of the paper given by Professor Alan Douglas at the Geological Society on 14 February to be placed in the Library. This copy consists of the illustrations presented together with an explanatory commentary. A more comprehensive version of the paper is to be published, by the Royal Astronomical Society, in the symposium proceedings which will be available later in the year. When the published proceedings are available a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide the statistical results of the monitoring of low flying by(a) covert deployments of RAF police and (b) Skyguard radars by year, for the last five years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Covert deployments of RAF police, including those using the Skyguard radar system, have shown the consistent respect of aircrew for the low-flying regulations. It is not our practice to comment on the detailed findings of these surveys.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of the 22 January,Official Report, columns 236–37, if he can yet give the figures for the month of December 1991 in respect of listing the numbers of low-flying sorties by aircraft type.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The number of low-flying sorties by aircraft type carried out in the United Kingdom for December 1991 is:

  Low-flying sorties by aircraft type

  Aircraft type

  December 1991

  Buccaneer

  59

  F-4

  33

  Harrier

  383

  Hawk

  819

  Jaguar

  251

  Jet Provost

  213

  Tornado

  1,170

  Tucano

  181

  A-10

  300

  F-111

  375

  Other aircraft (including helicopters)

  2,624

  Total sorties

  6,408

  672
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the instances of breaches of low-flying regulations since 1988 which led to formal disciplinary action or courts martial under the terms of the Army Act 1955, Air Force Act 1955 or Naval Discipline Act 1957; and if he will list, for each case, the date, location and circumstances of the offence, the type of aircraft involved, the nature of the charge and the outcome of the proceedings.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Breaches of low-flying regulations that lead to proceedingss under the services disciplinary Acts are not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the baseline year from which the expected reduction of 30 per cent. in jet low-flying over the United Kingdom, announced last October, was calculated.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  1988.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the maintenance of a fixed list of simulated targets for toss-and-dive attack in the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A review of the usefulness of the simulated toss and dive attack target list concluded that although of limited value, the list continues to meet certain needs of a number of flying training units. It has therefore been retained, but will remain under review as part of the continuing monitoring of the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  DESO Office, Jakarta
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the main responsibilities of the Defence Export Services Organisation office in Jakarta; how many staff it employs; and what is the cost of running the office since it was established.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The DESO office in Jakarta is responsible for providing local assistance and advice to United Kingdom defence companies seeking to market and sell equipment and services to the Indonesian armed forces. The office has three staff. Its estimated running cost is £73,200 per annum.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to encourage a new pool of recruits for the Territorial Army; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of the restructuring of the Territorial Army, arrangements are being made to establish a recruits pool by 1 April 1995 with the aim of permitting greater flexibility in the future management of TA manpower. At the same time, we will continue to mount publicity and recruiting campaigns to attract the volunteers needed to ensure that the TA in the future is fully manned.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the operational strengths of the Royal Navy and of other former South-East Asia Treaty Organisation countries.
  673
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Navy currently has three aircraft carriers, an escort fleet which is reducing to around 40 destroyers and frigates, two assault ships and other specialist amphibious shipping, and a substantial flotilla of smaller warships including mine countermeasures vessels and offshore patrol vessels. In addition to the four Polaris boats, we currently have fifteen nuclear-powered submarines and six diesel electric submarines. It is not our policy to comment on the strengths of other countries' armed forces.

  Services Properties
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many properties for service men are at present unoccupied; and how many have been unoccupied for more than one year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, 9,817 service married quarters were vacant and 2,161 of these, representing 3 per cent. of our total stock, had been vacant for more than one year. Many of these 9,817 vacant properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly and others were being considered for disposal. In addition, 1,560 dwellings were in the process of being sold.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The following full-time equivalent numbers of men and women in grade level equivalents grade 1 to AA were employed in the Ministry of Defence on 1 April 1991:

  Grade

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Grade 1

  4·0

  —

  4·0

  Grade 2

  11·0

  —

  11·0

  Grade 3

  63·0

  1·0

  64·0

  Grade 4

  31·0

  —

  31·0

  Grade 5

  370·0

  12·0

  382·0

  Grade 6

  832·0

  13·0

  845·0

  Grade 7

  3,079·0

  131·0

  3,210·0

  SEO

  6,290·5

  365·5

  6,656·0

  HEO

  12,008·5

  2,052·0

  14,060·5

  EO (Note 1)

  18,050·0

  4,153·5

  22,203·5

  AO (Note 2)

  10,416·5

  13,566·5

  23,983·0

  AA (Note 2)

  2,587·0

  10,352·5

  12,939·5

  Totals

  53,742·5

  30,647·0

  84,389·5

  Note 1. Five male administration trainees are included in the EO grade level equivalent figures.

  Note 2. Formerly titled CO and CA respectively.

  Rates of military salary Percentage increase in pay

  Financial year to financial year

  1975–76 to 1979–80

  1979–80 to 1985–86

  1985–86 to 1991–92

  Military salary: all ranks

  74·2

  68·4

  59·3

  Senior officers (Major General and above)

  40·6

  91·2

  63·3

  674
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(b) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information as at 1 January 1992, based on voluntary surveys, is:

  Staff

  Number

  Total staff (industrial and non-industrial)

  133,158

  Total Respondents to ethnic minority survey

  111,118

  Self-identified ethnic minority staff

  2,041

  Registered Disabled staff

  1,164

  Civilian Employees
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the number of civilian employees at RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Kinloss, RAF Leuchars, RN Bases Coulport, Faslane and Rosyth, and Royal Marine Base Condor.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not our policy to divulge the number of employees at individual MOD establishments.

  Disarmament Proposals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what issues will be discussed at the next planning meeting of the group of scientific experts on technical test—G SETT-2—of the United Nations committee on disarmament in Geneva in March; and what proposals United Kingdom representatives will make to the meeting.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The next meeting of the UN conference on disarmament ad hoc group of scientific experts' is to be held in Geneva between 2 and 13 March. The main subject for discussion at the meeting will be the preparation of the final report on the results of the group of scientific experts (GSE) technical test 2 for submission to the conference on disarmament. The United Kingdom will participate in the discussions aimed at achieving a consensus report. In addition, a technical working paper summarising local seismic information and aimed at improving the definition of United Kingdom seismic sources will be tabled. It is hoped this will stimulate other GSE participants to publish similar information for application to small seismic sources which occur within their national boundaries.

  Armed Services (Salary Increases)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will tabulate the salary increases applicable to all ranks in the armed services from 1974 to 1979, from 1980 to 1985 and from 1985 to the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The salary increases applicable to all ranks of the armed services as requested by my hon. Friend are:
  675

  Financial year to financial year

  1975–76 to 1979–80

  1979–80 to 1985–86

  1985–86 to 1991–92

  Officers (up to Brigadier)

  63·3

  84·5

  62·1

  Other ranks (Sergeant and above)

  76·0

  70·6

  59·2

  Other ranks (up to Corporal)

  77·1

  61·3

  58·1

  Rank details in Army terms2

  Field Marshall (when in full·time military employment)

  41·6

  119·0

  68·9

  General

  41·7

  102·4

  61·5

  Lieutenant General

  44·7

  91·0

  54·2

  Major General

  38·9

  87·7

  67·0

  Brigadier

  52·5

  92·8

  70·1

  Colonel after 4 years in the rank

  57·0

  90·4

  66·9

  Lieutenant Colonel after 4 years in the rank

  62·0

  92·8

  66·2

  Major after 4 years in the rank

  65·2

  83·5

  61·5

  Captain after 3 years in the rank

  63·0

  82·1

  62·1

  Lieutenant after 2 years in the rank

  62·2

  79·5

  60·6

  Second Lieutenant

  62·7

  72·1

  57·0

  Warrant Officer I band 6, scale C; after 18 years1

  71·8

  77·0

  58·8

  Warrant Officer II band 6, scale C; after 18 years1

  72·1

  74·6

  59·3

  Staff Sergeant band 5, scale C; after 18 years1

  70·9

  70·4

  58·8

  Sergeant band 5, scale C; after 12 years1

  72·8

  68·5

  59·4

  Corporal class 1, band 2, scale C

  76·7

  64·1

  60·0

  Lance Corporal class 2, band 1, scale C

  76·6

  59·1

  58·5

  Private class 2, band 1, scale C

  73·5

  56·2

  56·1

  1 Includes long service increment payments

  Rates are based on gross pay, taking account of delayed and staged implementation of pay awards.

  2 These rates apply also to personnel of equivalent rank and pay bands in the other services.

  Details of 1974·75 are not available in the required format to enable use as the base year.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 119, to the hon. Member for Rhondda, (Mr. Rogers), over what time period the 25,000 redundancies occurred; whether the jobs lost were directly or indirectly dependent on defence expenditure; whether the jobs lost were dependent on equipment expenditure, non-equipment expenditure or exports; in which regions these job losses have occurred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The source of the figure quoted was public announcements by major defence companies since 1990. Employment levels are a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned, and my Department does not hold the further information that the hon. Gentleman requests.

  Polaris and Trident
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make it his policy to answer questions about the repair and maintenance programme of the(a) Polaris and (b) Trident fleets.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  All such questions will be, and have been, given answers subject only to commercial confidentiality and security constraints.

  Long-term Costings
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the financial implications that result from his policy regarding the release of information on long-term costings.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 7 February 1992.
  676
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for the British defence industry of his policy regarding the release of information on long-term costings.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No such assessment has been made, nor would be appropriate, as "Long Term Costing" is an internal planning document. The implications of our expenditure plans are discussed regularly with industry.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for "Options for Change" of the deployment of British service personnel with a United Nations peacekeeping force in Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are still discussing with the United Nations what form a United Kingdom contribution to the peacekeeping operation in Yugoslavia might take. In selecting what British assets might be offered to the United Nations for this operation, the Government have taken account of its policy "Britain's Defence for the 90s".

  Environmental Manual
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many copies of the departmental environmental manual have been(a) printed and (b) distributed to staff; and how many copies of the proposed booklet on public access to the defence estate will be published for issue to the public.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Of an initial print run of 10,000 copies of the Ministry of Defence environmental manual some 8,400 copies have already been distributed. An additional 10,000 copies have been printed for further distribution and stock purposes. There will be an initial
  677
  print of 2,000 copies of the leaflet "Walks on Ministry of Defence land" to coincide with its planned launch in early March. Current plans envisage a final run print of up to 100,000 copies of the leaflet for distribution to the public.

  Defence Budget
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 329, on the defence budget, on how many occasions in each of the last six months he has made available information on plans for, and progress of, individual projects.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department makes available information on the plans and progress of projects in a wide variety of ways. These include parliamentary statements, debates and questions; the Statement of the Defence Estimates; press releases and briefings; and discussions with industry and trades union which range from the major conferences held by the Procurement Executive controllers to contacts in the normal course of business. It would not be feasible to list the information made available through these means in the last six months.

  Financial Planning and Management Group
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 330, when the Financial Planning and Management Group was established; and what work it has carried out since its establishment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Financial Management Group was established at the end of 1977. Its role is to oversee the Ministry of Defence's financial and management process and to make recommendations as necessary to the Secretary of State.

  Budget Holders
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, columns 329–30, if he will publish the estimated future expenditure for higher level budget holders in each year for the next 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is derived from the long-term costing. As explained by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement in his answer of 2 May last year,Official Report, column 294, it is not our practice to provide such details.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of all the higher level budget holders.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The answer is:

  Commander, Training and Reserve Forces Royal Marines

  Major General Royal Marines, Headquarters Commando Forces

  Assistant Under-Secretary of State (Naval Personnel)

  Director General of Naval Personal Services

  Naval Secretary

  Medical Director General (Navy)

  Director General of Naval Manpower and Training

  Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff

  Director General Aircraft (Navy)

  Director General Ship Refitting

  Director General of Supplies and Transport (Naval)

  678

  Director General Fleet Support Policy and Services

  Hydrographer of the Navy

  Assistant Under-Secretary of State (Fleet Support)

  Flag Officer Portsmouth

  Flag Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland

  Flag Officer Plymouth

  Naval Base Commander Portland

  Naval Base Commander Clyde

  Captain, Training Naval Home Command

  Chief Staff Officer Reserves

  Flag Officer Naval Aviation

  Chief of Staff, Headquarters Commander in Chief Fleet

  Flag Officer Surface Fleet

  Flag Officer Submarines

  Commodore Minor War Vessels

  Commander United Kingdom Field Army

  Inspector General Doctrine and Training

  Assistant Chief of Staff, General Staff Division 1, Headquarters British Army of the Rhine

  Deputy Chief of Staff, Headquarters British Army of the Rhine, General Staff Division 3

  Assistant Chief of Staff, General Staff Division 4, Headquarters British Army of the Rhine

  Director General Army Manning and Recruiting

  Director General of Personal Services (Army)

  Director General Logistic Policy (Army)

  Director General of Transport and Movements

  Director General of Ordnance Services

  Director General of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering

  General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland

  Director General Territorial Army and Organisation

  Director General Military Survey

  Director General Command, Control, Communication and Information Systems (Army)

  Director General of Support Management

  Director General of Support Services

  Director General (Policy and Planning)—National Air Traffic Services

  Air Secretary

  Air Officer Commanding 1 Group

  Air Officer Commanding 11 Group

  Air Officer Commanding 18 Group

  Air Officer Administration, Headquarters Royal Air Force Strike Command

  Air Officer Training, Headquarters Royal Air Force Support Command

  Air Officer Maintenance, Headquarters Royal Air Force Support Command

  Air Officer Administration, Headquarters Royal Air Force Support Command

  Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Programmes and Personnel)

  Deputy Under-Secretary of State (Policy)

  Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Systems)

  Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Commitments)

  Deputy Under-Secretary of State (Civilian Management)

  Deputy Under-Secretary of State (Finance)

  Deputy Under-Secretary of State (Personnel and Logistics)

  Deputy Under-Secretary of State (Resources and Programmes)

  Assistant Chief Scientific Adviser (Capabilities)

  Assistant Chief Scientific Adviser (Research)

  Assistant Chief Scientific Adviser (Projects)

  Assistant Chief Scientific Adviser (Nuclear)

  Director of Strategic Defence Initiative Participation Office

  Director General Intelligence (Eurasia)

  Director General Management and Support of Intelligence

  Director General of Strategic and Technical Intelligence

  Director General Intelligence (Rest of the World)

  Director Operations Meteorological Office

  Director Commercial Services Meteorological Office

  Director Finance and Administration Meteorological Office

  Director Research Meteorological Office

  679

  Controller of the Navy

  Master General of the Ordnance

  Controller Aircraft

  Deputy Under-Secretary of State (Defence Procurement)

  Head of Defence Export Services

  Managing Director Military and Aerospace Divisions Defence Research Agency

  Managing Director Electronics Division Defence Research Agency

  Managing Director Maritime Division Defence Research Agency

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on his reasons for proposing the transfer of the ownership and management of the married quarters estate to a new organisation;
  680
  (2) if he will describe the size and structure of the new organisation that is due to take over the ownership and management of the married quarters estate; who will staff it; when it will be established; what type of performance monitoring it will employ; how it will be financed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the note placed in the Library of the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 24 February at column 395. The recommendation of the housing task force that a new, non-profit making organisation should take over from the MOD the ownership and management of the married quarters estate for all three services is being considered in detail by my Department. Announcements on the decision on the recommendation will be made in due course.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lich field.

Health Authorities: Responsibilities
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is the case that there is no general duty on a health authority to provide in-patient medical or nursing care to every person who needs it.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, Section 3 of the National Health Service Act 1977 lays on the Secretary of State a duty to provide, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, hospital accommodation and such other services as are required for the diagnosis and treatment of illness. In general, the Secretary of State discharges his duties by delegating the responsibility for provision of service at local level to NHS authorities.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that there is deep anxiety among a wide variety of people about the obligations of the health service to provide care for people with long-term illnesses? Without a community care programme—and if the comment of the National Health Service chief executive that there is no duty on health authorities to provide such care is correct —who is responsible for caring for people with long-term illnesses?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, under this Government NHS spending has risen by 55 per cent. in real terms. There is a concern for people of all ages in intensive, emergency and long-term situations.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr. Duncan Nichol, chief executive of the health service, has said that if in a doctor's professional judgment a patient needs NHS care there is a duty upon the health service to provide that? If a patient is discharged from hospital into a private nursing home, which now happens a great deal, who is responsible for providing the continuing medical care?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, one of the prime areas of the new National Health Service reforms is that GPs keep contact with their patients throughout their illness. They have a responsibility.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that nowadays fewer people are being treated as in-patients and, therefore, that there are changing patterns in medical treatment?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we have heard in this House on many occasions how medicine has changed so that there is much less in-patient care. More people are at home and able to be with their families because of the developments in medical techniques.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am a little confused by the Minister's answers. She stated correctly that the 1977 Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to provide comprehensive health care. However, that duty does not extend to health authorities. The Minister has now said that GPs should be responsible. If the duty does not extend to health authorities how do GPs have such a responsibility?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I apologise. The National Health Service works with both the health authorities and with the family health services.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister answer this question? If an elderly person who is extremely ill and immobile needs nursing care but cannot afford to pay for that privately, whose responsibility is it to ensure that that person receives the necessary proper nursing care?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the health care services will ensure that such a person receives the care necessary.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Minister said that patients are discharged and are able to be at home with their families and the whole House will agree that that situation is desirable. However, in a sense it is going back 100 years or more to the time when families looked after sick relatives, in particular parents who were becoming old. Today, great difficulties are suffered by families, particularly when people are out at work. Will the Minister ask her right honourable friend to look again most carefully at the matter?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, of course I shall draw attention to the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. However, I must point out that health authorities can enter into contractual arrangements with independent sector nursing homes whereby the patient remains the responsibility of the NHS. We are extremely conscious of the load that illness puts on the carer.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that no patient in this country who needs medical care is ever denied it? Therefore, there is not a problem and the questions asked by Members on the other side of the House are merely confusing the issue.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that people's needs within the health service are met increasingly well.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for all those replies, although she will not be surprised to learn that we on this side

487
of the House find them a little disappointing and perhaps confusing. Will she, for example, define what she means by "the health authorities" in each case?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, rather than give a cold definition, I will say that the various stages within the health service will look after the concerns of the patient. If a patient is discharged from a home he will, like any other citizen, be entitled to look to the NHS for help through his general practitioner. If he has need of a home the district health authority will arrange that the home in which he is looked after is to its high standard.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a procedure, certainly where I live, whereby doctors have sent letters to all patients on the register asking them to let them know whether they would like it to be recorded that they have asked a doctor to visit? That is to help the people concerned. It seems to me therefore that doctors are carrying out their duties within the National Health Service.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that remark. It illustrates that the best way of looking after people is at local level, where needs are recognised. My noble friend pays tribute to the great work which is being done in our health service.
Baroness Faithful!: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that when people are discharged from hospital, that fact is reported to social workers by the social services department within the hospital? It is then possible to provide the service within the community, at the patient's home, through the various services which the social services departments run in conjunction and in partnership with the health service.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend identifies the situation as it is, as she so often does. The responsibilities are clearly reaffirmed in the booklet Caring for People.

Health Authorities: Finance
11.12 a.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many health authorities are in financial deficit and how many are in surplus.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, at the end of the third quarter the National Health Service remained on course to achieve a financial balance for the year. Details of the number of authorities in deficit and surplus are collected during the year only as unaudited management information.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that a survey of health service managers in November showed that 65 per cent. were expecting to close beds or to cut services in order to break even by 1st April? Is she further aware that that shows that the main feature of the National Health Service reforms—the concept that the money should follow the patient—is not working.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has great experience in this sphere. He knows that there are situations this year, as the reforms have been set up, where everything was not thrown into the pot. Matters developed in a systematic and slow manner. That applies to the Question asked by the noble Lord. As we have discussed in your Lordships' House on several occasions, the issue of beds is not what is important. It is the patient who is important.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is now evidence forthcoming that those health authorities and hospitals which have put their affairs into good financial order are giving good service to patients and satisfaction to their staff?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. He pays tribute to the staff who are devoted to the care of people. I sometimes find it very strange that we are defensive of the best health service in the world.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, if the Minister cannot give the audited figure, will she give us the unaudited figure? I am sure that the department will be monitoring what is happening at the present time.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that the standard of monitoring what is happening in the health service has improved enormously over the past two years. The proper way to report publicly on the financial position of the service and its component parts will be at the end of the financial year in the 1991–92 annual accounts. I reassure the noble Lord that not only do we monitor but in each region there are reserve funds —in the private sector, they would be called contingency funds—which enable support to be given to those people whose management may not be totally of the best.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, in order to put this matter in its true perspective, is the Minister aware that for 14 years I was chairman of a hospital management committee? We never had enough money to do all the things we wanted to do. That was years ago. The truth is that the National Health Service is the kind of body which takes in every possible amount of money that can be thrown at it. This is quite nonsensical. The real question is what we are putting in now compared with what was put in 10 years ago.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as ever, the noble Lord addresses the relevant facts of the matter. This year the planned spending on the hospital and community health services in England amounted to £20 billion. Next year that will increase to £21.9 billion—a 9.5 per cent. cash increase. As the noble Lord rightly points out, the health service could absorb every penny that was ever directed towards it. We must have some sympathy with the experts and committed people who have to make difficult decisions about priorities.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it was a Socialist Government in 1976 which brought cash limits into the hospital service? Those responsible must be glad to know that we are breaking even. Does she also agree that it is refreshing not to have so many unscrupulous politicians hanging around Guy's Hospital wishing for it to fall? Does she further agree that the good news is that we are breaking even and will have broken even on 1st April?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend's memory, experience and specific knowledge of Guy's Hospital greatly outweigh my own. The message that he always brings to your Lordships' House is that matters are improving and that money is being well used —again I stress—to the benefit of the patient.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not clear that the assumption of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the reforms are not working is not borne out by the facts? On the contrary, is it not clear that with the pressures now being generated by the reforms, particularly by the purchaser/provider provision, the money following the patient and the management changes made by the introduction of the trusts, a standard, policy and speed of service have been brought to the health service that will redound enormously to the advantage of patients? Is it not a tragedy that the party opposite has committed itself to reversing so many of those valuable reforms?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can only say to my noble friend that I could not have said it better.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Bloomsbury in south west Hertfordshire, the Bromsgrove and Guy's at South Manchester and Withington Hospital, Manchester—to name but a few —have all forecast problems? Yes, the health authorities will break even. They will do that by closing beds and cutting services. In her answer to my supplementary question, the noble Baroness said that it is the throughput of patients that matters rather than beds. Therefore why, in south Manchester, has the health authority and the chief executive said that 100 beds have been closed to reduce the number of patients treated, as it is running above the level contracted for?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, there are many individual cases for discussion, and there are also leaked documents which your Lordships' House would not wish to discuss. I stress that the closing of beds bears a relationship to the new developments in medicine. Regional authorities have the opportunity to help individual situations. There is not, this year, a cash problem in the health service overall.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the Minister have the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord McColl? Why would anyone want to hang around a hospital if they do not have to do so? I have just spent a little time in three hospitals and would quite cheerfully avoid them, being a politician.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, that is the second time this week that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has brought common sense to a debate in which I have been involved.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, can I make my noble friend aware of another individual example; that is, the purchasing authority of Ealing? It will be in balance at the end of this year. I hesitate to say in surplus because we still have another month to go, but that is our hope. We have not achieved that through cuts, scrimping and saving. Within the budget allocated to us we have opened a new psychiatric hospital and will also have reduced a two-year waiting list from 500 to zero by the end of the financial year. I hope that that serves as an example that it has been possible both to improve our services and to remain within budget.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lady Eccles spends an enormous amount of time with her health authority. However, I hope that she will forgive me if I say that she is just one of many such chairmen who have accepted the challenge our reforms presented and have dealt with them to the benefit of all.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that noble Lords and honourable Members of another place who ask questions about the National Health Service act in all sincerity and are not unscrupulous politicians?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend may be rather on her own this morning. However, I hope that she will take encouragement from the fact that she has the warm support of those behind her, and that she will take the opportunity to contrast some of the questions she has faced from those opposite with that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, who is aware of the facts.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friends for their support.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, on the question of unscrupulous politicians, does my noble friend not agree that what is unscrupulous about them is their stating that 10 per cent. of the beds have been closed in the past 10 years? It is not 10 per cent.; it is 13 per cent. Does my noble friend not agree also that it was 13 per cent. in the previous 10 years? Every year since 1965 7,000 beds have been closed in the NHS irrespective of which government were in power.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend states the facts. It is unfortunate, given the many thousands of people who work in our health service and acknowledging its good record of patient care, that it should be used as a political football.
Lord Morris: My Lords, can my noble friend help me? I know how to make a bed; I can unmake a bed; I can even remove a bed. Can she tell me how one closes a bed?
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last time the noble Lord, Lord McColl, intervened

491
on the question of bed closures, I had the Audit Commissioner's report with me? We showed him then that he was wrong.

Students: Personal Finances
11.20 a.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will initiate an immediate review of student poverty.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, no. Following the introduction of student loans, students now have substantial additional resources. In the academic year 1991–92 the full-year grant and loan is more than 30 per cent. higher than the grant for 1989–90. In addition, access funds are available for those in particular financial need. We have no plans to conduct a review.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, does she not agree that it is deeply disturbing that real hardship is being encountered, not least when the parental contribution is not forthcoming? Too many students are running into debt, living in squalor, suffering ill health and having to seek employment, if they can find it, beyond what is acceptable if they are to take their studies seriously. Apart from humanitarian concerns, does that not run counter to the whole purpose of expanding higher education? Are the Government going to finance expansion on the backs of students who are suffering hardship? What are they doing to provide adequate funds and resources for the expansion of higher education?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I have close links with the London School of Economics. I understand his anxiety and closeness to the issue. First, the Government's policy is that higher education places should be available for all those qualified and motivated to take them. Secondly, the noble Lord quotes the possibility of hardship to students. Perhaps I may point out that last year loans were taken up by only 28 per cent. and the evidence obtained from monitoring indicates that this year less than 50 per cent. of students will take up loans.
We believe that education in the higher sector is a responsibility to be shared among the taxpayer, the student and the student's family. I also ask the noble Lord whether or not he recalls that most of us at university also worked during that period.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is the Minister aware that an unemployed youth will obtain more from income supplement and housing benefit than a student receives either inside or outside London? Are the Government happy that they are encouraging students to leave education and become unemployed? Is she also aware that the value of the grant is 25 per cent. less in real terms since 1978–79 than it is today?
492
Is the Minister happy that the level of debt among students is running at £1,400 in London and at £600 outside London?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is right to respond to a considerable number of questions with a question. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Desai: is he also aware that the privilege of higher education is of benefit to a person for the whole of his or her lifetime and that it certainly gives that person an edge in obtaining employment? I also stress what I said in my original Answer. In looking at the support for students it is essential that the grants and loans are looked at together, which are 30 per cent. higher this year.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, as one of the handful of Members of your Lordships' House who is not associated with the London School of Economics, will the Minister consider that there should be encouragement for more students to live at home when they are taking their courses? Does the Minister agree that that would not only alleviate the problems referred to by my noble friend Lord Judd, but also release hundreds of thousands of rented units of accommodation which could be used for homeless and deprived families?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, brings his strong streak of realism to this question. He raises an interesting point despite his disadvantage of not having an association with the London School of Economics. This is a matter for the students themselves. Some consider moving away from home as part of their growth; others welcome the comfort which staying at home brings. Sometimes the courses of study they follow mean that they have to stay away from home. It is a matter of personal choice. I repeat, the noble Lord makes a very good point.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not misleading the House and students for the noble Lord, Lord Judd, somehow to imply that if parents do not pay their contribution the party which he supports is somehow going to make it up? Has there ever been any suggestion that the party opposite will in fact abolish the parental contribution or what it will do if there are parents who are reluctant to pay? Does my noble friend agree that that is part of the mischief-making of this pre-election period?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I say that I am not responsible for the views of the party opposite. In replying to my noble friend, I point out that in giving evidence to the Select Committee neither the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux nor the NUS could produce solid evidence of real hardship or of students abandoning their courses.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for the care which she has taken in replying to the questions, I ask her again: does it really make sense to expand higher education in the context of considerable anxiety and insecurity among the student population? Is that a sound investment in the future of

493
the nation? As regards parental contributions, will the Minister give some indication of the Government's willingness to look at how we can ensure that parental contributions are paid? Does she not agree that that is the issue because too many parents are not paying them?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the concern that I express in my answers is because the future of this country depends on the growth and experience of young people. There is no solid, reliable evidence to show that students are under the great pressures that he talks about. Local education authorities' awards officers say that student drop-out rates are no higher now than in previous years. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the heads of the polytechnics appear to be coming to the same conclusion.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1992
11.34 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Prevention of Terrorism Act is an exceptional measure, justified only by the wholly exceptional threat which this country faces from terrorism. Today I would like to invite your Lordships again to approve the continuation of the Act in force. It remains an essential part of our defences against terrorism. These defences cannot be lowered while the terrorist threat remains high. And the House will know that there was no let-up in the terrorist campaign last year nor indeed this year.
In Northern Ireland in 1991, 94 people died and over 900 were injured as a result of republican and loyalist terrorism. On the mainland of Great Britain in 1991 there were more terrorist incidents than at any time since 1975. There were more incidents in 1991 even than there were the year before. So the threat continues and remains high. In 1991, attacks were aimed at a variety of targets—military, political and economic—and a variety of means were used. Three people died and 39 were injured.
Your Lordships may recall a few of them: the explosion at Victoria station last February in which one man died and a number of children were injured; the mortar bomb attack on Downing Street in the same month; and the large number of incendiary devices which were planted in shops and on trains. More recently, a bomb was planted in a telephone kiosk in Parliament Street which mercifully, and by the professional competence of the police, was successfully defused before it did any damage.
This morning I have been to London Bridge where a device exploded at 8.20 a.m. The details have yet to be confirmed, but I understand that it has all the hallmarks of the IRA. A telephone call was made to Ulster Television with a registered, recognised code
494
word to say that a device had been planted in London stations. No indication was given as to which station it was or whether it was a British Rail station or an Underground station. The result was that a device exploded in a gentlemen's lavatory on a platform at London Bridge station. There was far too short a time in which to clear the station and prevent injury.
I understand that there was very little panic, but that some 22 people were injured and taken to Guy's Hospital. Fortunately, no one was killed. I congratulate the police and the emergency services which, as usual, arrived on the scene very quickly and conducted the work which they do with the efficiency, professionalism and calm one associates with them. It would be the expression of the views of the whole House and indeed of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to pass our sympathy and condolences to those people who have been affected by such wicked behaviour.
It is ironic that yet another device should be set off in London on the day when your Lordships are debating the continuation of the measures for the prevention of terrorism. There can be no greater reason why your Lordships should pass this order today. Such incidents heighten even further the contempt which everyone has for organisations of this nature with these objectives, which use such inhuman methods against innocent people going about their daily work and having every right to live in peace and quiet. No words can be sufficient to condemn these people and organisations. But the robustness of the British people is well known.
We should be under no doubt today about what it is that we face. It is a ruthless campaign of murder and destruction both in Northern Ireland and here on the mainland. It is a campaign which is conducted regardless of the risk to innocent people. It is a campaign which is conducted by terrorists who are committed fanatically to causes in which there is neither rectitude nor justice. The Prevention of Terrorism Act provides powers which are essential to counter this terrorist campaign. Without the powers the police would be severely hampered in their work of fighting terrorism.
In urging your Lordships to continue the Act for another year I am glad to say that we have the backing of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross who carried out the independent review of the operation of the Act during 1991. I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude, and that of the House as a whole, to my noble friend for his report and for the time and effort which he expended in compiling the information which formed the basis of it.
I should like to explain what the Act's powers are and why we need them. The first is the power to proscribe in Great Britain organisations which are concerned in, or which are promoting or encouraging, terrorism which is connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
At the moment the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army are proscribed. Without the Act those organisations would be free to meet openly in this country, to recruit new members and to raise

495
funds as openly as any other political party. That would be a quite unacceptable situation, as I am sure your Lordships agree.
Then there is the power of exclusion. The Act permits a person to be excluded from all, or part, of the United Kingdom. The purpose of that is to limit the areas where terrorists may carry out their activities. Ideally, it would be possible to charge such people and to bring them before the courts. In practice, though, this cannot always be done as our information comes from sources which we cannot disclose without risking people's lives. The power of exclusion is, therefore, a valuable one in limiting the sphere of operation of the terrorists, and by so doing these exclusion orders help to protect the public.
It may be helpful if I give an example of the use of the exclusion power. The House will recall the recent incident in Coalisland in which four men, including Kevin O'Donnell, died. O'Donnell had been stopped in north London with firearms in the boot of the car he was driving. He was acquitted of possession of firearms with intent to endanger life but the Home Secretary was satisfied that he had been involved in terrorism and therefore excluded him from the mainland of Great Britain. Following his recent death the IRA boasted that O'Donnell had been a member of its terrorist organisation since 1988 and had been active in operations throughout the United Kingdom. Without the powers of the Act the Home Secretary would have been unable to exclude O'Donnell.
Decisions to exclude are not made lightly, and the person who is excluded has the right to make representations to an independent adviser. My noble friend Lord Colville, in his review of the Act, said that he cannot find anything to criticise in the way in which decisions were reached. He also stated that the exercise of the power has been modest in 1991 and that the balance, which had been imparted by the advisers, has shown its worth.
There are then the powers of arrest, examination and detention. The police may examine people at ports and airports in order to determine whether they are involved in terrorism. They may arrest and detain people on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism and they may detain people without charge for an initial period of 48 hours, and for a further period of a maximum of five days on the authority of the Secretary of State. Those powers would not exist but for this Act, and they are essential for the investigation and the prosecution of terrorist crime.
It is pertinent to remind your Lordships that careful consideration is given to all applications for extensions of detention. My noble friend Lord Colville acknowledged that in his review. He also noted that the lengths of further detention were, in his words, "astutely fitted" to the stage at which the police had reached in their investigations. I can, therefore, assure your Lordships that not only are these powers necessary but that they are used with all due care and attention to the rights of those who are detained.
I must now refer to the provisions for dealing with financial assistance for terrorism. These measures have given the police an additional and invaluable
496
investigative power which has enabled them to obtain information, not only on the funds themselves but also on the movements and the activities of the terrorists.
I know that my noble friend Lord Colville has repeated in this year's review his criticisms of those financial provisions. We have examined the provisions of the 1989 Act, as we undertook to do, and we have identified some improvements. We hope to introduce them as soon as we have a suitable legislative opportunity.
The Government are determined to continue the fight against terrorism. If this Act were not renewed a vital part of the means for that fight would be removed. In view of the events which have happened today I do not think that any of your Lordships can underestimate the need for the continuation of these powers. There must be no reduction in the powers by which we can resist and overcome terrorism. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may start by echoing the words of the noble Earl in relation to the incident at London Bridge this morning. Noble Lords on this side of the House will wish to be associated with his expressions of sympathy and outrage. I also agree with him that words are not enough. The litany of our language has almost run out in expressing condemnation of the IRA. On behalf of these Benches I merely associate myself with his expressions of sympathy and outrage, which we all share.
This Act is debated and renewed each year and, in a way, there is a sense of déjà vu about the debate today. Many of the issues to which the noble Earl referred have been aired in the continuation debate each year and if the Government are returned I suspect they will be aired in the continuation debate next year. Therefore, it is important that we put the Act against the context and background of what seems to be happening.
This consideration takes place against a background of escalating terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and here on the mainland. Recent terrorist outrages have plunged the Province into new depths of gratuitous violence, which we all condemn and deplore. In the aftermath of these events the Prime Minister has taken the unprecedented step of calling a meeting of representatives from all the main democratic parties in Northern Ireland. Such meetings are of course welcome. Indeed, I understand that one is taking place this very day. However, it is abundantly clear that putting an end to the cycle of violence in Northern Ireland and promoting dialogue between the two communities will require great effort and imagination on the part of the British Government. It is against that background that we have to consider the renewal of the Act.
I make no apology for saying at the outset that in our view the reform of the Prevention of Terrorism Act can play a vital and necessary role in the process of negotiation and discussion. What are the principal aspects of the Act? The noble Earl outlined them in detail and perhaps I may follow him. First, it bans

497
organisations such as the IRA and the INLA, which are involved in the promotion of terrorism, from operating in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Secondly, it takes steps against the funding of terrorism and provides for the seizure of such funds. The noble Earl reiterated today what the Home Secretary said in another place; that if the Conservatives win the election they will introduce further amendments to the Act dealing with money laundering and with drug trafficking.
Thirdly, the Act permits the exclusion of a person from all or part of the United Kingdom. Fourthly, with respect to powers of arrest, examination and detention, the Act permits the police to examine people at ports and airports to determine whether they may be involved in terrorism. It also allows the police to arrest and detain on reasonable suspicion of such involvement, and to detain without charge for an initial period of 48 hours with the option of an additional five days in custody on the authority of the Secretary of State.
What are the main points raised in favour of renewal of the Act in its present form? First, as the noble Earl said again today, terrorism continues to take a heavy toll of human life in Northern Ireland where, in 1991, 94 people were killed and 900 injured in terrorist incidents. The Home Secretary noted the increase in terrorist attacks on the mainland. The argument that he put up in another place was that put up by the noble Earl today. He said that the defences allegedly provided by the Act,
"cannot be lowered while the terrorist threat remains high". —[0fficial Report, Commons, 24/2/92; col. 689.]
I repeat at the outset, if it needs repeating, the Labour Party's abhorrence of terrorism. We share the Government's views in that regard. However, we believe that reform of some of the aspects of the Act would help and not hinder the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The Home Secretary told the House of Commons that the Government are committed to providing sufficient resources in terms of manpower and equipment to help combat terrorism. He also informed the House that,
"the central co-ordination of anti-terrorist activity across the country, on the whole, has been achieved".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/92; col. 690.]
I ask this question not in any combative spirit. Is that really so? If the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, could address himself to that question, I should be grateful.
We believe that cross-party agreement is crucial to fighting and defeating terrorism but this cannot be achieved by the Government, in effect, staking out a position and expecting the Opposition to go along with them. A Labour government will be willing to work with other parties to help rebuild consensus with respect to defeating terrorism. I echo the tributes paid to the work of the police and security forces in dealing with terrorism and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for carrying out his independent report on the operation of the Act during 1991. A Labour government will implement a wide-ranging review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and this
498
process will involve cross-party support where it can be achieved. We shall work positively and hard towards the restoration of consensus.
With reference to the banning of terrorism organisations, I emphasise yet again that no one likes proscribing political organisations but in the present difficult political climate in Northern Ireland it is necessary and we support it. I say again, if it needs repetition, that we also support action to prohibit the raising of funds to finance terrorism. Parts I and III of the Act should remain, but tougher powers and harsher penalties must be imposed on those who raise funds for terrorism. I also repeat the call made last year for the Home Secretary to consider extending to England and Wales the special powers available under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.
Part IV of the Act relates to the powers of arrest and detention. One of the main problems encountered in the fight against terrorism, and one which has been highlighted by, among others, the Bar Council, the Law Society and indeed the police, is that of obtaining convictions in terrorist trials. It should be emphasised that those bodies all emphasise that Part IV of the Act does not improve the judicial process. Indeed it is clearly not designed to. This, and civil liberties arguments relating to the operation of certain sections of Part IV, all highlight the need to look again at this section as part of a wider review of the operation of the Act.
We accept the principle that a period of extended detention even before charge might be necessary but we question how extensions are to be approved and we question what treatment the suspect is to receive during the period of his detention. That is significant when we remember that the suspect is arrested on reasonable suspicion alone; and it is even more important when it is considered that last year 153 people were detained but only four were charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
We are also concerned about the issue of extended detentions of up to seven days being made by ministerial, as opposed to judicial or quasi-judicial, authority. Against this background we supported the demands of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made last year, for a "bold new initiative" to set up a new tribunal,
"drawing on Scottish and Channel Island methodology".
That is, an independent and quasi-judicial authority to oversee these powers. This, as my right honourable friend Mr. Hattersley said, is,
"why the Scots, unlike the English, have not been arraigned before the European Court for the way in which they extend detention from 48 hours to seven days. It is why the Scots, unlike the English, are not in breach of article 5 of the convention on human rights".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/92; col. 699.]
We believe that the judiciary should approve extended detentions, and that the proposed tribunal should be judicial. Ideally it should be a judge sitting in chambers so that he can approve the detention without any risk of leakage of security information.
With respect to suspects detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, or subject to an extended detention, we do not accept that the Police

499
and Criminal Evidence Act will protect those detained, as the Government claim. I am fortified in that view by the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, who has emphasised that the safeguards governing rules of evidence that are common in this country do not apply to detention under the Act. We have therefore called upon the Government to take steps to remedy the situation. A Labour government would introduce as many police and criminal evidence safeguards as are reasonably practicable and possible, including the taping of interviews, which is crucial both in principle and in practice if convictions are to be obtained. I am disappointed that this has not yet been introduced. That was echoed, if I remember rightly, in the annual report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.
I turn now to exclusion orders. Both the noble Earl and I pray in aid the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on exclusion orders. The noble Earl seemed to find approval in it. I find in it somewhat gloomy resignation to the renewal of that part of the Act. The Labour Party believes that these orders are wrong in principle and counter-productive in practice. They stigmatise Northern Ireland as a dumping ground for terrorists and alienate its law-abiding citizens. Furthermore there is the danger that exclusion orders, by returning excluded suspects to their colleagues, merely serve to transfer the danger from one part of the United Kingdom to another. What should happen is that these people should be convicted. That can be effectively achieved only if the Prevention of Terrorism Act is changed in such a way that the courts will respond to it. The noble Earl referred to the case of Mr. O'Donnell. By excluding him from one part of the United Kingdom—the mainland of Great Britain—the problem was transferred to Northern Ireland. It did not cure Mr. O'Donnell's terrorist activities. It moved the problem from one part of the United Kingdom—the mainland —over to Northern Ireland. I question whether that in itself is necessarily desirable or effective or whether it aids the general fight against terrorism itself.
From looking at the arguments on both sides, I do not believe there is a vast amount between us but what there is is important. We have offered on a number of occasions a cross-party approach to try to achieve a consensus on this most difficult issue but, regrettably, that has been spurned yet again. I now wish to say something to which I hope the Government will listen and of which I hope they will take account. They really must not be allowed to elevate legitimate criticism of a measure which quite rightly has to be approved annually into some kind of litmus test of patriotism or political will, even in this run-up to a general election. Our criticisms are detailed. They are based upon a belief that the Act as it stands does not contribute as fully as it should to the fight against terrorism. As such, we cannot, I regret, support its continuance in its present form.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Richard, perhaps I may say that we are vividly reminded this morning by the tragic incident at London Bridge of the significance of the
500
order whose renewal we are discussing. From these Benches I should certainly like to associate ourselves with the noble Earl's understated but nonetheless extremely eloquent expression of sympathy to the individuals concerned. We are now clearly confronted with people whose motives can no longer be described as idealism gone sour; we are confronted with people whose sadistic disregard for normal civilised life has gone beyond the pale. I think that the lack of adequate warning which the noble Earl described is an indication of the attitude of the kind of people with whom we are dealing. I shall return presently to the detailed security implications involved.
At this point, I had intended to ask the Government a slightly critical question about the management of these incidents in terms of London stations and London traffic. However, what I had intended to say is, I believe, slightly misplaced in the light of the circumstances that the noble Earl described. If the warning given was simply that the bomb was at "a station", one can understand why the police felt obliged to close all stations. But let us try to generalise our experience of these impudent incursions in the mainland by the IRA over the past year or so. I invite the noble Earl to consider whether there is a way in which we can try to minimise the impact on London.
Quite obviously, the instincts of the police and of the counter-terrorist squad will be to do everything they can to ensure that no life is lost which does not need to be lost. They will tend to be as secure as they possibly can. I am too young—except, that is, as a small boy—to remember the war. However, there will be noble Lords who remember that during the war one of the important things was not to give the enemy the satisfaction of spreading confusion. It certainly gives that kind of satisfaction if London as a whole is repeatedly brought to a standstill.
There is a balance to be struck. It is not an easy balance. But we would be giving the terrorists a kind of prize if they felt that they could easily bring London to a standstill, create enormous traffic dislocation and close down every station so that the acute tragedy of those who have actually been injured and died is mirrored by traffic problems, traffic incidents and mainline junctions being completely jammed for half a day. I take it no further than that. When he responds, I invite the Minister to say whether he thinks that there is a balance that can be struck between total security and, at the same time, showing the IRA that it cannot bring the city to a total standstill.
I have a second point to make about the incident. I believe that it proves the desperate need for the Government to maintain the twin-track policy of political progress and tight security. It can be no coincidence that the incidence of terrorism in Northern Ireland and the incursions into the mainland have risen very sharply since the Brooke talks came to a halt and failed. There must be some connection between the hopelessness of the political vacuum and the terrorists' intensified activity. I should like to return to detailed questions of security in a moment. But if there is a connection between the absence of any

501
hopeful political dialogue and terrorism, then we must ensure all the more that the political process is maintained.
There will he universal support in the House for the very hopeful meeting between the Prime Minister and the new Taoiseach. One senses that the shutters are being opened and there is willingness on the part of the Taoiseach and of the Irish political parties to consider the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. That would be a very major prize for the Protestant community in Northern Ireland. But, by the same token, if talks are now to resume —and I gather that there is promising information on that score—then it is for the Unionist leaders also to consider what they can surrender, what they can give up and what they can bring to the party; in other words, what they can do to help promote the peace process and thereby advance it further.
When the noble Earl replies—and I realise that these are sensitive matters—perhaps, in view of the Downing Street meeting, he can give us a sense of the likelihood of the all-party talks between the constitutional parties and the British and Irish Governments being resumed. It would be most interesting to hear more about that aspect. I have only taken the time of the House to talk about that matter this morning because I do not believe that we can consider a prevention of terrorism order in isolation from questions of political progress.
Perhaps I may return directly to the question of security. Given the dramatic escalation in terrorist activity and the signs that the Protestant paramilitaries are growing in strength and intensity of activity, I do not believe that there can be any confusion about the renewal of the order. I want to say quite unambiguously from these Benches that we believe that the order is a necessity. Of course, it is a regrettable necessity; but, nonetheless, it is a necessity. We support its renewal. There can be no two positions on it. Everyone should know where the parties stand. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that there is not much between us. But, on this issue, there can be nothing between us. We must have absolute clarity. Any confusion damages the consensus bi-partisan approach which is our strongest weapon in standing up to these people.
Both noble Lords who spoke before me expressed the appreciation of the House for the work of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I really think that he deserves our thanks. He is one of the unsung heroes of this whole process with the conscientious and thoughtful reports that he produces for Parliament on the operation of security. There is one aspect of his report that I should like to raise with the Minister. I refer to the question of the allegations of assault during detention. As policemen are not angels, quite obviously there will be occasional lapses and occasional assaults. There will also probably be quite a few cases in which people will complain of assault in order to cause trouble. Therefore, we have to deal with both real assaults—a few, I trust—as well as complaints and allegations of assault which are made precisely to cause trouble and to take up time.
502
I wonder whether it is wise—perhaps the Minister will comment on this—that so many of those claims appear to be settled out of court. That point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. He believes that there is good documentary evidence on which such mendacious claims of assault could be rebutted. If that is so, surely it would be far better that such cases should be fought and that documentary evidence is produced to prove the contrary. Everyone knows that there are very few real cases. A settlement out of court does have the slightly murky implication that if you are prepared to pay something in order to settle the matter then there is something in it. That does no good to the reputation of the police in such cases.
By the same token, perhaps I may extend the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, during the previous year; namely, the videotaping of interviews. I know that the Government are most reluctant to move on that issue. However, if they did, I think that they would do a great deal to reassure public opinion throughout the world and certainly in Northern Ireland that there is nothing to be hidden. The noble Viscount recommended that course. I am surprised that the Government have not in this instance taken up his recommendation.
The last point that I should like to raise in connection with the noble Viscount's report is that of cash for terrorists. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned the point. The noble Viscount is mildly critical in that respect. What more do the Government propose to do to ensure that the life-blood of the supply of weapons, ammunition and of explosive materials is cut off from the terrorists? They are surely right to have identified that the cash line has to be cut off; but it looks as though we are still not totally effective in doing so.
From these Benches last year, my noble friend Lord Harris referred to the idea, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Richard, introduced, of a national agency to deal with terrorism—a sort of British FBI. At that time, my noble friend welcomed the better co-ordination of intelligence and crisis action. But he expressed misgivings about the concept of an operational, national agency. Since then we have read rather detailed reports in the press that the security chiefs at MI5 are asking—perhaps they are impelled to ask this because of the end of the cold war and the necessity to find an enlarged role—that they should take over some or all of the police responsibilities for counter-terrorism. I know that the Minister will say that he cannot comment on intelligence matters. I understand that that is the tradition. However, if he cannot comment, perhaps I can—and in this way. I believe that any movement of those responsibilities from accountable policemen, who are the servants of the community, to the intelligence fraternity, who are the all-too-unaccountable servants of the state, would be a matter for Parliament. Whatever the merits of that, it should be a matter for Parliament. It should not be resolved privately and administratively.
Before I sit down, in supporting the renewal of the order, perhaps I may urge the Government not to let the very natural reaction of fury and frustration at these continuing acts of terrorism find expression in a

503
renewal of internment. Voices are raised and, each time such an incident occurs, people say, "Let's bring back internment." However, we must remind ourselves not only that internment is a direct affront to civil rights and civil liberties and is in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights but also that in 1974 it demonstrably did not work. It created martyrs where before there were villains. It increased the number of terrorist incidents manyfold. When they are thinking about security, may I please ask the Government to reassure us on that question of internment?
12.12 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I want to speak in this debate because a few years ago I was invited by the then Home Secretary to carry out a study of anti-terrorist legislation. My particular reason for wishing to speak is to make it clear that, despite some of the things that were said in another House, the Labour Party is wholly committed to the battle against terrorism. I am grateful that the Minister did not throw anything at the Labour Party on this matter. He gave us a balanced speech. I agreed also with most of what my noble friend Lord Richard said, although I am sceptical about the desirability of a judge in chambers replacing the present arrangement under which the Minister is directly responsible for appeals and reviews of both detention and exclusion orders. That is rightly an executive action and it should be seen as such.
I hope that the Government will give further consideration to the recommendation by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in favour of a different kind of tribunal. I am against having any form of judicial tribunal at this stage. I do not think that that would be right and I believe that the Government are right to resist it.
A number of suggestions have been made and it is worth the Government looking at them. However, I want to make it clear that, as my noble friend Lord Mason said recently, I too am utterly opposed to terrorism. I think that it is a pity—and I will say so —that the Opposition in another place voted against the order. There are, however, grounds for complaint, for criticism and for inter-party talks. I make a plea to the Minister that he should not reject such talks out of hand. He should urge his colleagues to give further consideration to the possibility of some inter-party co-operation in this area. If ever there was a subject on which there should be agreement and action between the parties to win this battle, this is it.
I do not propose to say any more, but I am interested in some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, which I hope will also be given further consideration. I am very nervous about interfering in intelligence matters, having been in the intelligence field myself. It is not an easy area for Parliament to intervene in, but perhaps a little more thought could usefully be given to the matter.
The other area of concern is the accusation of torture. At the end of the report by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is a report from the United
504
Nations containing a deplorable series of accusations. It will not be possible to provide satisfaction on this but, having had to deal with this sort of thing when I was the Minister in charge of Aden, perhaps I may say that I never knew whether there was improper treatment, if not torture, of people in detention. Forms of behaviour less severe than torture can involve a degree of pressure. I know that sensory deprivation has now long gone, but I hope that we shall continue to do our utmost to make it clear that our hands in Northern Ireland—in Castlereagh—are clean. I do not think that the Minister should shrink from holding further inquiries involving outside people. This is a matter of the British reputation. It should always be made clear that we do not indulge in such things. That should be fully demonstrated. Other than that, I support the order and hope that it will be agreed to without any serious disagreement in this House.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in the first two months of this year Northern Ireland has seen some of the most brutal atrocities since the beginning of the troubles in 1968. The Minister referred to incidents and deaths that have occurred here on the "mainland". Some people in Northern Ireland do not like that term. However, by far the greatest tragedies of the opening months of this year have occurred in Northern Ireland when almost totally innocent people have been brutally murdered. I refer, for example, to the Teebann murders, when eight innocent workmen were blown to their deaths by a purely sectarian terrorist organisation. Its members killed those workmen because they were employed in building security positions in Northern Ireland. Then we had the answer to that—the brutal murder of innocent Catholics in the bookmaker's shop in Belfast. Northern Ireland lives with the reality of terrorism. Whatever incidents may have occurred here in Britain, the people of Northern Ireland have to live with that fear every day, every hour and almost every minute.
I totally agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Richard. We must bear in mind what the Home Secretary said in another place about exclusion orders. People in both the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland find what has been said in justification of the exclusion orders to be highly offensive. I should like to quote what the Home Secretary said at col. 693 of Commons Hansard. When justifying exclusion orders, he said:
"The purpose is to limit the areas where terrorists may carry out their activities."
That sounds all very well from the Dispatch Box of this Parliament, but the area to which those activities are being limited is Northern Ireland. It is possible that some of those who were killed, such as O'Donnell, may have been involved geographically in mounting the attack in that area that killed those eight innocent Protestant workmen. That is how the people of Northern Ireland see it. The Home Secretary continued:

505
"The power of exclusion is a valuable one in limiting the terrorists' spheres of operation. To remove it would be to remove an important part of our ability to protect the public". —[0fficial Report, Commons, 24/2/92; col. 693.]
It is up to the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom to protect the public in every area of the United Kingdom—not to restrict his protection to the major part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland has suffered grievously in the past few years.
I sometimes wonder whether the British people or the police in this country have ever tried to discern the mind of the terrorist. Recently, whenever it has been trailed that the four leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties were going to meet, the IRA has immediately set out to draw attention to its case. When the Prime Minister called the four leaders of the Northern Ireland parties to Downing Street a fortnight ago, anyone with any experience of the terrorist mentality in Northern Ireland could have told him that the IRA would mount what they called a "spectacular" to divert attention from the meeting and to establish its interest. What happened? On the day that the four leaders were to meet in Downing Street and Vice-President Quayle was to meet the Prime Minister, the IRA deliberately got into Downing Street to set off the bombs.
What was even more dangerous, within 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour of the bomb in the telephone box being defused, in an exercise which must have been organised, many IRA supporters marched past Nelson's Column into Whitehall shouting, "IRA all the way". Those people obviously did not gather there by accident. They were IRA supporters in London —the capital of the United Kingdom—who knew that the bomb was going off. That bomb could have brought with it untold tragedy, and yet those people were prepared to gather in the Strand and march down Whitehall. So far as I am aware, none was arrested.
The four Northern Ireland constitutional party leaders are meeting today in London—that meeting has been trailed as a great hope for Northern Ireland —and we again have this morning's tragedy at London Bridge station. Every time there is an attempt by the constitutional parties to get together—I believe that some of the meetings may have been for the benefit of their own supporters or the press, with not a great deal behind them—it can be predicted that some attempt will be made by the IRA to draw attention to its own case, as happened this morning. I do not, however, suggest for one second that the police or the security forces could have predicted or prevented what happened at London Bridge station this morning, because all other stations would also have had to be protected.
On proscription, I remember that for many years in another place I took the view that if the organisation was a terrorist organisation it was entitled to be proscribed. I never objected to the proscription of the IRA or the Ulster Volunteer Force, but if there are to be proscriptions then the Loyalist organisation which is now carrying out murders in Northern Ireland (the UFF—the murderous wing of the legally constituted UDA) should be proscribed. We cannot proscribe a selected few of the terrorist organisations. The net
506
must be cast widely. Many people within the Catholic and Protestant communities have for many years been asking why the UFF (that part of the UDA which carries out the murders) has not been proscribed.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, said that terrorist activity in Northern Ireland might be brought to an end, lessened or prevented if the political parties had some success. I hope so, but I have reservations. My reservations are born of an intimate knowledge of the political differences which exist in Northern Ireland. I listened to Radio 4 yesterday morning. I heard that the newly elected Taoiseach was to meet the Prime Minister to discuss ways ahead in Northern Ireland. For the first time for many years I heard that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was also to be on the table. That has never been mentioned throughout the 20 years of murderous activity in Northern Ireland. That is understandable. On the face of it, if Articles 2 and 3 are to be discussed, the Government of Ireland Act should also be discussed. However we often talk in this House about perceptions. Once I had heard that broadcast I telephoned friends in Northern Ireland. I said, "Rather than being helpful, that will create more difficulties because Articles 2 and 3 and the Government of Ireland Act 1920 are not comparable". First, Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution represent a territorial demand. They say that the six north-eastern counties of Ireland belong to Ireland and should be under its jurisdiction and are excluded only temporarily.
Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act makes no claim to the territory of the Republic, but there are certain sections of the Act that I have queried over many years. For example, Section 5 clearly states that there should be no discrimination in Northern Ireland. That patently has not worked since the creation of the state. Another section (Section 6 or 7) talks about discrimination, but says that the masonic lodges in Northern Ireland should not be encompassed in the legislation. That was clearly discrimination in favour of the masonic lodges in Northern Ireland. There are other matters which could be looked at.
The Unionist majority in Northern Ireland will see the inclusion in the talks of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as a further erosion of their position. It was that Act, which created partition and divided the island of Ireland, which gave Unionists their little part of the world—the six counties of Northern Ireland. It gave them what they would call their cultural and religious identity in that part of the United Kingdom. They see the consideration of Articles 2 and 3 as an attempt to water down Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, which states clearly that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate that the Government of Ireland Act has been put on the table for those discussions, because the perception of the Unionists is that it is another attack on their way of life in Northern Ireland.
In the press statement the newly elected Taoiseach said that we could perhaps look at European models with a pooling of sovereignty. That, again, is seen by the majority in Northern Ireland as an attack on the way they are governed. They are being asked to accept

507
some nebulous European model. I have yet to find out what it is. The suggestion is a pooling of sovereignty. At the moment the Unionists in Northern Ireland think that they have quite enough pooled sovereignty, with the Government of the Republic, through the agency of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the British Government both trying to control them in what is almost a joint authority.
So long as the territorial demands and divisions as to who will own the land of the six counties exist, it is far easier for the IRA and other terrorist organisations to continue their murderous campaign. The IRA will say, "We want to abort the border. We want to include Northern Ireland in the Republic". The other murderers, the UVF, UDA and other murderous Loyalist gangs say, "You're not going get us, we're engaged in this campaign to prevent that ever happening". A great responsibility lies on the elected politicians in Northern Ireland to do nothing, to say nothing which would in any way give justification to those terrorist organisations.
I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton and by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is unfortunate that there has not been unanimity of purpose between the Government and the Opposition in another place in relation to the order. It is sad that in our attempts to curtail the activities of the terrorists, party matters appear to be raising their head. I am glad that the atmosphere here this morning is rather more controlled than in another place. We must not forget that a Labour Government were in power between 1974 and 1979 when the Labour Party was forced to put the Act on the statute book because of the terrible, murderous bombings in Birmingham. In those years from 1974—and I was a Member of the other place, right up until 1983—there was unanimity of purpose and concern between the Government and the Opposition.
The terrorist situation in Northern Ireland is so serious that we cannot afford party political divisions in Parliament. I would not feel in any way justified in uttering a single word in opposition to the re-enactment of the order. I believe that it is necessary. My only hope is that I live long enough to see the day when it can be taken off the statute book because peace has returned to Ireland.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, if it had not been for the kindness of the honourable Member for Newham North West in another place, Mr. Tony Banks, I doubt whether it would have been possible for me to be present today. As the noble Earl said, London Underground stations are closed and there are tremendous bus queues. Tony Banks stopped at one of the queues to pick up passengers. He then spotted me and was kind enough to say, "Come on, Arthur, join me on the trip to Westminster". During the journey we saw car after car driven by owners, with no passengers. Is it not possible on occasions like this for the Government to give wider publicity asking owner drivers to pick up passengers? Perhaps the BBC and ITV in their radio and television broadcasts of the sad
508
incidents, such as the one this morning, could make a special plea for passengers, who are queuing up for buses, to be picked up. I ask the noble Earl to consider the suggestion.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I compliment the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers and my noble friend Lord Richard on the constructive and reasoned way in which they have approached the debate on the order today. Other noble Lords who have spoken have used measured tones and it is to be noted that the debate took place in this House in those terms.
The order and the legislation present us with complex problems of law and order, security, individual freedoms and human and civil rights. These are measured and valued against a background of rising crime, violence, terrorism and other serious offences, as well as the provisions to prevent such crimes.
Not only are these matters and the provisions of the order difficult for the public and also, as it appears, the media to comprehend, but much of the political wrangling over the issues has led to confusion. That in turn has given rise to great public anxiety and anger in some cases about personal safety, the safety of family life and property and, I may add, the future of parliamentary democracy. The reasons for terrorism are directed at that.
Briefly, I support the view that there is an urgent need for an official parliamentary review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I suggest that such a review should include the obvious matters which have already been mentioned: the inclusion orders and the report of the noble Viscount Lord Colville. In addition, I suggest that it should include the memorandum of the three police federations which was submitted last week by the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. There is also a need for special training and co-ordination of officers and officials who carry out the provisions of the PTA.
Much has rightly been made of the Irish affair and its effects on the situation in Northern and Southern Ireland. I firmly believe that there ought to be an awareness of what will be required in terms of internal controls with the opening up of the ports and air0ports when the single European market arrives. This will considerably add to the burden, and therefore a great increase in appropriate measures is required for co-ordination and for the effective training of personnel at these sites to enable them to cope with the situation. I cannot leave this House without saying that I support the proposed measures.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the manner in which your Lordships have dealt with the order. It is a sensitive issue and there is no doubt in anyone's mind—I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, emphasised this—that every party is keen on the prevention of terrorism. Whatever side of the House we sit on, we all dislike it. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that for his part he supported the order. Obviously, there are differences of approach. I accept that, even though I find it hard to agree with some of the proposals put forward.

509
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that there was not much between us. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that there should not be anything between us on being against terrorism. There is nothing between us. I should like to think that there was nothing between us concerning the order. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he found that he could not support the order.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, rightly said that he hoped he would live to see the day when the order was not necessary. I sympathise with the view and concur with it. None of us wants the order. It is an offence to the dignity of the life which we have in the United Kingdom that such orders are necessary. However, without question they are necessary when we are subjected to the kind of terrorism which we have suffered over the past few years. Of course, we shall consider all that your Lordships have said about the order. Various aspects do not have the agreement of all noble Lords. But we must be clear about one thing. And this is where I differ slightly from the noble Lord, Lord Richard. While there is the possibility of terrorism and of that terrorism having the effect which it has had in the United Kingdom, then it is the Government's duty to do all they can to protect the people from terrorism.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, were concerned about the exclusion orders. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that that was using Northern Ireland as a dumping ground. The Northern Ireland dimension is a United Kingdom problem but it is primarily a problem of Northern Ireland. If people wish to conduct their lives as some do in Northern Ireland and decide to escalate the problem and to project their views and aims into the mainland of the United Kingdom, then it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to say that we do not wish to see those people escalate their own actions against the interests of those on the mainland. Therefore it is appropriate to return them from whence they came. If people deliberately leave Northern Ireland in order to perpetrate their crimes here it is not unreasonable to protect the people on the mainland by returning those people from whence they came.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, raised the question of judicial supervision. If we were to establish a tribunal or any form of judicial supervision of applications for the extension of detention, its conclusions would often be based on strong intelligence that the person concerned was involved in terrorism. It is very difficult for such intelligence to be given as factual evidence. People would be required to give their evidence and would be reluctant to do so. The sensitivity of the information would often be such that if a case went to a tribunal or was considered by a judge or a group of judges neither the detained person nor his legal advisers could be given any details of the case. There would be no proper means of representation. The judge or chairman of the tribunal would be obliged to do what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary does at present.
510
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was concerned about the co-ordination of anti-terrorist investigations. The Government recognise the importance of an effectively co-ordinated national effort against terrorism. That is why the commander of the Metropolitan Police's anti-terrorist branch was appointed national co-ordinator of investigations into the activities of the Provisional IRA on the mainland. The anti-terrorist branch has specialist skills and the experience and resources upon which provincial police forces may draw in their fight against terrorism.
The noble Lord said that he was worried by the fact that there was a different system in Scotland for extending detention. I can tell him that all extension of detention applications are dealt with in the same way throughout the United Kingdom. They are all considered by Ministers. In Scotland the applications are dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland and in England and Wales by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
The noble Lord was also anxious about the financial provisions. He suggested that the Government should extend to Great Britain the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act which are concerned with the proceeds of paramilitary racketeering. Those provisions are addressed to a problem which is specific to Northern Ireland and cannot readily be altered to apply to Great Britain. However, as I said in my opening remarks, we have some improvements to the financial provisions in mind and we shall introduce them when we have an opportunity for legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham—to whom I am grateful for the measured way in which he reacted to the order—asked about the talks. The position is that the Government are now talking with the political parties in Northern Ireland on the basis of giving information to the parties about the machinery of government. At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, the Northern Ireland parties are meeting together without the British Government being present. The two national governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are involved and the Downing Street meeting provided a welcome and valuable opportunity for discussion.
The noble Lord also referred to video recordings. The position is that whatever arrangements were to be made to facilitate and safeguard the video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects, we believe that its introduction would seriously jeopardise the process of the investigation of crime. The position remains as set out in the report of the Bennett committee of inquiry into interrogation procedures in Northern Ireland which recommended that closed circuit television should be installed in the holding centres but that video recordings should not be introduced. Suspects would be less prepared to offer information to the police, which might be necessary to save lives and prevent crime, if they knew that a permanent record was being made of their co-operation with the police.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, can he say whether that also applies to sound recordings?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it refers to video recordings. Sound recordings are a synopsis of the investigation which takes place. That synopsis of the investigation is given to the person being questioned to find out whether he agrees with the result. In other words, it is not the full verbatim recording, for the very same reason. It would be as undesirable from the point of view of the person being interviewed as a video recording.
With regard to assaults in custody, I was interested by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Colville. His report has, of course, only just been received and we shall study it with care.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to warnings and asked what could be done to prevent London being upset and thrown into a state of relative chaos. He said that if the IRA achieved that, it would have made some inroads into achieving its target. There is a difficult balance which has to be maintained. The security forces, police and emergency services have to take care of people in London. One cannot prevent people from planting bombs. All one can do is take as much preventive action as is necessary to ensure that that risk is as small as possible. Where such information is received police have to take action and that will inevitably cause some form of disruption.
The noble Lord also referred to the working group on intelligence responsibilities. We seek continually to ensure that arrangements for countering the terrorist threat are as effective as possible. That is what the Government have always done and it is what we shall continue to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, wondered whether reform of the Prevention of Terrorism Act could be part of the dialogue. Discussion between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland over matters of terrorism is bound to take place and it is right that it should. If the noble Lord was referring to dialogue between the political parties, then by all means let the noble Lord and his party explain to us what his party wishes. However, I am bound to tell him that we do not at present see how one can possibly lower the guard against terrorism. That means that one has to have the provisions that are sought in this measure. They are hard provisions. They are provisions which no government would ever request of Parliament were it not for the fact that they are necessary. I do not believe that people would wish to see those preventive measures reduced. Nor do I believe that people would expect any government—in particular after an incident such as we have had this morning—to lower their guard against terrorism and their reaction to it.
If the noble Lord or his party wish to offer some suggestions, by all means let him do so. However, I am bound to say that we would find it difficult to lower the principle that it is the Government's responsibility to protect the people against terrorism which comes about in a totally selfish and inhuman way.
Having said that, I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, together with most other members of his party, would be wholly against terrorism. That is something that we must be united about. I can only return to what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said at the beginning: there should be nothing between us. I
512
hope that that will be so. Despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, found it difficult to accept that the order was necessary, I hope that he will nevertheless realise that it is prudent and proper that the order should be passed. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
12.52 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th December 1991 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to consolidate and modernise existing trade union law in Northern Ireland and to enact new provisions to bring the law broadly in line with that applied in Great Britain by the Trade Union Act 1984 and the Employment Acts of 1988 and 1989.
As your Lordships will appreciate, the legal and administrative framework for industrial relations in Northern Ireland is separate from that in Great Britain but the legislation has generally followed that in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
Thus the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982 have already been replicated by the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Orders of 1982 and 1987. Currently therefore trade union law in Northern Ireland is substantially the same as that which applied in Great Britain prior to the Trade Union Act 1984 but it is based on more ancient Acts extending in some cases back to 1871. This old legislation was modernised in Great Britain in the 1970s. The proposed order would effect a similar modernisation and would also reflect the industrial relations provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984 and the Employment Acts of 1988 and 1989.
The reforms in Great Britain are equally relevant to Northern Ireland where the days lost in the 1970s due to industrial action were comparable to those in the remainder of the United Kingdom. As with the rest of the 'United Kingdom I am glad to say that the 1980s' figures show substantial improvement—in the last five years of the 1980s the days lost due to industrial action were a quarter of those lost in the last five years of the 1970s. The figures for 1990 and 1991 have shown further improvement and demonstrate that the reforms already introduced have proved their worth.
The order is designed to provide an open, democratic and balanced framework of law within which responsible trade unions should operate. It places limits on unacceptable behaviour but no union going about its business in a reasonable manner has anything to fear from its provisions. Indeed the acceptance of the role of law in industrial relations by trade union members and the general public has been one of the most significant developments of the 1980s.
At the heart of the order are the provisions for pre-industrial action ballots and secret ballots for elections to the principal executive committees of unions. Those democratic provisions will help to ensure openness in trade union activities, prevent the

513
misuse of industrial power and give Northern Ireland trade union members the right to have a say in the conduct of their union's affairs.
Very importantly for the Northern Ireland economy, the reforms will also help to reassure employers and inward investors that a fair framework of law is in place in Northern Ireland.
The proposal for the order was published on 24th September 1990 and a wide range of interested parties was invited to comment. During the consultation period discussions were also held with both sides of industry. On the one hand, the trade union movement objected to further trade union law while employers' organisations urged parity with Great Britain. Having considered the various representations made, the Government came to the conclusion that there is no compelling reason why Northern Ireland's trade union law should not be broadly in line with that in the remainder of the United Kingdom. The draft order has that effect.
The order contains 108 articles and six schedules. New provisions account for approximately half of the order and the remainder consists of a re-enactment and modernisation of existing legislation.
The key new provisions deal with the rights of trade union members in Articles 29 to 38; industrial action ballots in Articles 44 to 46; trade union elections and membership registers in Articles 47 to 56; the appointment of a Certification Officer and a Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members in Articles 69 to 73; the removal of the statutory trade union recognition role of the Labour Relations Agency in Articles 82 to 90; and the removal of statutory support for the closed shop in Article 101.
All of those provisions already apply in the rest of the United Kingdom and it is worth noting that some 80 per cent. of trade union members in Northern Ireland belong to unions based in Great Britain. Because of local considerations, two significant differences from Great Britain law have been retained in the order. The first is the "contracting in" arrangement by which trade union members in Northern Ireland may not be required to contribute to their union's political fund unless they have given written notice of their willingness to do so. This arrangement has worked satisfactorily in Northern Ireland since it was introduced in 1927. The second difference is the absence of an Employment Appeal Tribunal in Northern Ireland. The present caseload of appeals would not justify the establishment of a specialist appeals body and appeals will continue to be dealt with by the courts.
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to two minor and technical amendments to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts of 1976 and 1989. Both are contained in Article 106. The first ensures that agreements reached in cases conciliated by the Labour Relations Agency are final and brings the law into line with that applying in unfair dismissal and sex discrimination cases. The second in Article 106 is an "avoidance of doubt" provision about the powers of the Fair Employment Tribunal when determining religious and/or political discrimination complaints which also include allegations of unfair
514
dismissal or sex discrimination. It would be remiss of me in this context if I did not take this opportunity to stress the importance the Government attach to tackling the problems of religious discrimination in the workplace, and here I would most certainly acknowledge the very constructive role played by both trade unions and employers in combating sectarianism and in encouraging fair employment practices.
As I have already sought to indicate, around half of the provisions in this order consist of a consolidation and modernisation of existing law. Apart from the fair employment amendments and the two differences to which I have already referred, the balance relates to provisions which already apply in the remainder of the United Kingdom and with which employers and unions are already familiar.
This order will therefore give Northern Ireland workers rights and privileges which are already enjoyed by their counterparts in Great Britain. The fact that it will bring a uniformity to trade union law throughout the United Kingdom is a benefit to both sides of industry in Northern Ireland and to potential inward investors. Overall the order will help to secure industrial relations stability and thereby assist in Northern Ireland's economic regeneration and prosperity. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th December 1991 be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
1 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blease should be leading me in a discussion of this order because he is the one Member in your Lordships' House who has devoted his lifetime to the trade union movement in Northern Ireland. His is the voice that should be heard.
It is a substantial order and it is controversial. The Minister explained its provisions with his customary clarity and fairness but I did not find his defence of the order persuasive. The Government only just managed to collect sufficient support for it in another place. However, the real question is: what lasting damage has been caused by the order?
Damage has been caused because the order has been so offensive to trade unionists in Northern Ireland who do not believe that they deserve it. It is not clear to me and, I am sure, many noble Lords, on what basis the Government decide whether GB legislation should be extended to Northern Ireland. The point is relevant because I note that the Government have decided that a Public Bill which is currently before the House is not to apply to Northern Ireland. I refer to the Prison Security Bill. When the Bill was introduced into this House on 14th February the Chief Whip, who piloted it through the Second Reading stage, explained that it was not necessary to extend it to Northern Ireland because of the different circumstances which prevailed there. He set out the general principles which appeared to guide the Government in such a situation. He then said:
"There is no advantage in seeking parity between the jurisdictions for its own sake. Decisions for Northern Ireland must be made on the basis of what is needed for the Province".—[Official Report, 14/2/92; col. 967.]

515
We fully agree with that principle; we fully agree with that test. However, in our submission the Government have not demonstrated that Northern Ireland needs this industrial order.
There is no evidence that trade unions or trade unionists have abused their position and there is no evidence of malpractice. On the contrary, the affairs of the trade unions in Northern Ireland have been well-regulated and well-served by people of the quality of my noble friend Lord Blease. Moreover, it is the trade union movement which has bravely and consistently opposed the campaign of intimidation that has been waged in the Province.
The trade union movement in Northern Ireland is one of the most important centres of stability and democracy in the turbulent currents there. That has been acknowledged by a succession of Ministers; indeed, it has been acknowledged this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. We on these Benches regret that so much time and effort has been devoted to this order, which will contribute very little to inward investment or to economic development in Northern Ireland.
If it were thought by Ministers that trade union relations should be improved, would it not have been far better to put in train a comprehensive review of the whole field of industrial relations involving both sides of industry and that to be followed by legislation if it were deemed to be necessary? That was the constructive proposal put to the Government by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Sadly, it was not taken up by the Government.
As the order's principal object is to achieve parity we are sorry that an opportunity was not taken in the order to give a right of appeal to the employment appeal tribunal, as is the case in England, Wales and Scotland. That was requested by both the trade union movement in Northern Ireland and the Labour Relations Agency. Further, we regret that the order continues the existing contracting-in arrangement to pay the political levy instead of introducing a contracting-out arrangement, as is the case in Great Britain. I appreciate that the Minister has touched upon those two matters. However, we believe that they were reasonable requests to which the Government could have acceded—and they would have been consistent with the principle of parity—if they had a real desire to meet the reasonable requirements of the trade unions in Northern Ireland. The Government conceded nothing.
There are three categories of trade unions in Northern Ireland. There are the GB based unions, the Republic of Ireland based unions and the few unions based in Northern Ireland itself. The trade unionists believe that some of the provisions of the order will have an unequal impact on the unions, depending on their Republic of Ireland domicile, their GB domicile or their Northern Ireland domicile. For example, it will be difficult to apply a sequestration order against a Republic of Ireland based union. Therefore, the perceived unequal application of the order is a matter of some anxiety. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead,
516
whether the department will issue a statement setting out in clear terms the exact implications of the order for the three categories of trade unions that I have mentioned. That is another reasonable request which was sent to the department by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
I now wish to raise three other specific issues. The first is an important issue concerning the life and safety of those trade unionists who are employed in security-related work. I am sure we all agree that as a consequence of this order nothing should be done that would or might endanger the lives of those working in prisons or police stations or who are employed by firms which are contractors with the Crown. That is a particular risk which is unique to Northern Ireland and the order should, if necessary, include unique provisions to deal with the risk.
The department will know well that anxiety has been expressed by the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance—the union concerned—that Articles 48(7) and 51(3) may in some circumstances expose the identity of its members who are working in sensitive locations such as those I have mentioned. Therefore, those two articles in particular are potentially risky.
It is appreciated, in fairness to the department, that amendments have been made to the original draft to endeavour to meet the criticism, but I am told by The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance that its worries remain. In the real world of terrorism—we have heard about that this morning—it could be relatively easy for a member or supporter of a terrorist organisation, acting in bad faith, to obtain access to information on the register of members and exploit it for his own purposes.
The Minister's right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Michael Howard, has listened to the advice of the TUC on this issue. He has given an assurance that only the independent scrutineer should be allowed access to the register of members on behalf of any union members who are concerned that the list may be inaccurate. That is the effect of the words which are to be found at col. 815 of the House of Commons Hansard for 28th January. It would be appreciated if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could give an assurance in identical terms when he replies to the debate.
A small point arises out of Article 48(7) (b) when it is read in conjunction with Article 60(4) (b). Those two articles deal with a postal vote. Do they mean that trade unions will have to issue to each member who is entitled to vote a pre-paid addressed envelope? We would appreciate guidance on that point.
Finally, I turn to two matters relating to the certification officer. It is to be regretted that he is to be serviced by the Labour Relations Agency. The Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Trades Union Congress believes it is essential that the agency must be seen to be independent of this new office that will exercise the quasi-judicial functions set out in Articles 74, 77 and 79. However, the officer will be attached to the Labour Relations Agency and serviced by the agency. Article 69 is clear on that. I must confess that I do not see how one can negotiate a way around that difficulty. I should have thought the

517
officer should be serviced, and his staff should be appointed, by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland himself.
Why does the order not contain a power for the certification officer to exempt a trade union from strict compliance with the provisions of an article if he is satisfied that the rules of a particular union achieve the objectives of the legislation? That would have been a useful and helpful provision.
I have no more to say about this order which we fear will achieve little of real value for Northern Ireland but which has and will continue for some time to cause unnecessary offence to the trade union movement in Northern Ireland.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I fear that if we need an example of the inadequacy of this way of governing Northern Ireland, we need look no further than this order. It will have a major impact in Northern Ireland on the trade unions. It is being dealt with by affirmative resolution. It is difficult to analyse precisely why the Government felt it necessary to bring this legislation forward at all.
I can quite see that administrative tidiness might suggest that Northern Ireland should have the same trade union laws as the rest of the UK. I can see that party dogma might suggest that if it is thought to be a good measure for GB, it is therefore a good measure for Northern Ireland. But surely it is a good principle of legislation, as it is for handymen, that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". There is not the slightest evidence that there is a trade union problem of the kind there undoubtedly was in the United Kingdom as a whole at the time the Government undertook their programme of trade union reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will know that we on these Benches, by and large, supported the thrust of trade union reform as it came along during the 1980s. However, that legislation was designed to deal with the problems of over-mighty unions; unions run by tiny, unrepresentative minorities; unions meddling in politics and unions exceeding their legitimate place in society. My own observations in Northern Ireland and my discussions with many people involved in the trade union movement lead me to believe that none of the problems that I have just referred to could remotely apply to Northern Ireland. I wish to ask the Government what problem they are trying to solve because there does not appear to be a problem to be solved in terms of trade union relations in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Needham, the honourable friend of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said in another place on 10th February that employee/employer relations in Northern Ireland are good. The Minister himself conceded that in his introductory remarks. I believe there is fairly widespread agreement that trade unions in Northern Ireland have good standing and they have a good relationship both with their members and with employers. What is of crucial importance is that the level of strikes in Northern Ireland is considerably lower than that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The number of days lost through strikes in 1989 was well under half the level in the rest of the United Kingdom.
518
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has referred to my next point. It is a matter upon which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, is expert. The trade unions in Northern Ireland have a particular role to play as champions of the fair employment and anti-discrimination legislation. They play that role vigorously and well. Therefore, there are justifiable fears, to which I hope the Government are sensitive, that any weakening of the trade unions could work towards discrimination on grounds of religion or other background. That role of the trade unions as defenders of fair employment can be underestimated and undervalued, but in my view it is crucial to the success of the Government's policies to end discrimination.
Finally, if one looks at the pattern of trade union and employer/employee relationships in Northern Ireland, one should really look at measures that we on these Benches have long advocated. Those matters are greater employee participation, greater profit sharing and all matters that build on and improve what are generally good industrial relations by involving employees more in their own success and destinies. We on these Benches wish that the Government had not felt it necessary to impose reforms on Northern Ireland which, although appropriate in the rest of the UK, do not seem particularly relevant in the Province.
Lord Blease: My Lords, first I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for his kind personal remarks. He delivered a thorough, constructive and searching response to the Minister's clear and comprehensive presentation of this major industrial relations order. The order contains some 150 pages. I fully support the principles and approaches of my noble friend's speech and the questions he put to the Minister. I welcome too the useful and interesting contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
I wish to make three points. First, I repeat my criticism of, and opposition to, the completely circumscribed and undemocratic nature of the Order in Council in terms of parliamentary procedures presently operated under the Northern Ireland Act of 1974. The procedure adopted for parliamentary deliberation on this important order is, in my opinion, a denial of natural justice, especially as the order proposes sweeping legislative changes which seriously affect the employment rights and the conditions and protection of Northern Ireland workers.
I should make clear my position in respect of these matters. In no way are my remarks meant as a personal criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I fully accept that in his ministerial duties the noble Lord must adhere to the direct rule provisions enacted by Parliament.
The noble Lord is bound by the procedures approved for today's debate, which do not provide for changes or amendments to the order as tabled. I am aware that, as the Minister mentioned, the initial stages of the order commenced some four years ago. The process of consultation was promoted by the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development in September 1990. However, as this order is hailed by the Government as so important

519
and vital to the whole operational future of industrial development, economic growth, inward investment, industrial productivity and harmony between management and workers, why was it not deemed appropriate to be considered in detail by an appointed Northern Ireland Standing Committee of another place?
The order repeals, re-enacts and amends 14 separate Acts, covering a period of some 121 years. Six of those Acts are primary United Kingdom enactments. Is there not a responsibility on the Government, on Northern Ireland Ministers and, indeed, upon Northern Ireland elected representatives to exercise all available parliamentary procedures and functions to ensure that this major legislative change is subjected to deliberative scrutiny and debate in a Standing Committee under Standing Order 101?
My second point concerns the argument presented by the Government that the order will harmonise industrial relations legislation and the rights of workers in Northern Ireland with those in Great Britain. Desirable as it may be to promote standards and procedures which provide for good industrial practice, the order does not provide for the individual rights of workers nor for the management-worker partnership in industrial affairs already referred to.
Those matters were dealt with at length in well documented and argued submissions made over a year ago by two Northern Ireland trade union representative bodies, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has already mentioned, in connection with the NIC, the paper that it submitted. I should like to refer to the contents of that paper and its conclusions. The paper states:
"The NIC reiterates its previous position that the provisions in this Draft Order are not based on any empirical examination of the industrial relations situation in Northern Ireland, but represent merely a dogmatic decision to introduce such parts of the GB legislation as suits the political philosophy of Government. Nor has there been any attempt to analyse the GB experience of the implementation of the equivalent legislation provisions. As stated earlier in the document, the NIC is prepared to participate in a full and open review of industrial relations".
However, we know that that request by NIC was not granted.
The second paper from which I wish to quote was presented by the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance—NIPSA. Some matters have already been mentioned in the debate about NIPSA's proposals or conclusions in respect of the order. It would be useful to quote from that document. It states:
"If there were a case for bringing the law here exactly in line with Britain, even though we have a separate legal and administrative framework for industrial relations, there could be no justification for departing, as the Draft Order does, from the GB provisions for appeals from Industrial Tribunals and for 'opting-out' of the payment of a political levy. If the Government is insisting on setting up the full machinery for a Certification Officer and for a Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members and on the public purse meeting the expenses of these officers, it can no longer defend its refusal to set up for Northern Ireland an Employment Appeals Tribunal to deal with appeals from Industrial Tribunals. To insist that
520
these appeals must be made directly to the Court of Appeal is to condemn people in Northern Ireland to an inferior and more expensive system of justice.
In Britain the Government was forced to recognise that once a trade union had gone through all the elaborate procedures to acquire political objects and set up a political fund, it was unreasonable not to insist that its members would have to sign individually … that they were willing to contribute to its political fund. If the general aim of the Government is to make our legislation the same as in Britain, there can be therefore no longer be any case for insisting that in this respect Northern Ireland must remain different".
Perhaps I should make some reference to the substance and intent of that industrial relations harmonisation which the Government propose to bestow on the workers of Northern Ireland. The provisions in Britain are not considered by trade unionists and the British TUC as bringing harmony, industrial development and economic expansion to the workplace.
I must quote from a letter sent to me on 14th February by the TUC which stated that it was enclosing documents which went before the General Council of the TUC,
"about the conclusions of the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in 1989 and 1991. The actual conclusions are attached to the documents … The point … is that the legislation which the Government is extending to Northern Ireland has been held by authoritative and independent ILO bodies as being inconsistent with the obligations on Britain arising out of the ratification of ILO Conventions 87 and 98".
The paper stated:
"Working people in Britain already have fewer rights than those in any other European Community country. The Government wants to keep it that way … As well as being out of step in Europe, the British Government's employment legislation has been found to be in breach of international conventions. The Government's record has been criticised by the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations body responsible for employment matters. The ILO called on the Government to amend the law on eight specific counts in order to bring it into line with the minimum requirements accepted by well over a hundred countries around the world. The eight counts on which Britain has been found guilty by the ILO are: the union ban at GCHQ; the denial of negotiating rights to teachers; allowing employers to blacklist union members; restrictions on unions' rights to discipline members; the ban on unions paying fines on members' behalf; the restrictions on sympathy action; allowing employers to split companies artificially to limit legal industrial action; allowing employers to sack members who go on strike".
That is the situation in Great Britain. It is the sort of situation which we are asked to foist upon Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies mentioned the matter of working days lost through industrial action. When the order was debated in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Richard Needham, stated:
"Great Britain's poor industrial relations record in the 1970s was closely paralleled in Northern Ireland, which makes it just as important that the process of step-by-step reform of industrial relations law be extended to Northern Ireland. Those who would contend that there is no need for the Great Britain reforms to be applied in Northern Ireland should remember that, in the last five years of the 1970s, the average number of days lost in Northern Ireland was more numerous than in Great Britain. On too many of our shop floors the 'I'm all right, Jack' attitude seems to have crossed the Irish sea. Now all that is beginning to change". [Official Report, Commons, 10/2/92; col. 731.]
That was a misleading statement by Mr. Needham made in Parliament. I have the total figures for the

521
comparisons in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland for working days lost per 1,000 employees over an 18 year period from 1973 to 1991. The references Mr. Needham made to the 1970s covered three periods of critical community unrest in Northern Ireland. The increase of working days lost during those periods did not occur because of trade union action, nor were they disputes about wages or working conditions. The working days lost were the outcome of political partisan organised widespread community action. It was politically motivated action which included workplace stoppages. Many active trade unionists took part in those political stoppages, but not as trade unionists, nor for any great trade union decision or approval of procedure.
In my view it was wrong to use those inflated figures to bolster support for this industrial relations order. No trade union procedures nor trade union industrial relations legislation could have prevented the work stoppage then promoted. While I hope and pray that there will be no reason for recurrence of those ugly events in the community, the legislation proposed in the order cannot prevent such a work stoppage nor can the penalties for breaches of the law and provisions in the order be enforced.
Mention was made of the number of days lost in strikes both in Britain and in Northern Ireland. I could expand on that at some length but I shall make only one reference. There is a direct and relevant ratio between the full-time working days lost and the dramatic fall in full-time employment, and the tragic effect that that has on family life and happiness. It could be debated at some length and demonstrated that there is this interaction. However, I feel that this is neither the time nor the place.
I have no doubt that the order will proceed, with all its disadvantages to workers and trade unions in Northern Ireland. Whatever the future may be for the full implementation of the order, I am confident that trade unions in Northern Ireland will continue to work earnestly for the rights, wages and working conditions of their members. I believe that they will continue to enjoy the good, honest and creative working relations that exist between the trade unions and management in the Province.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank the three noble Lords who have responded to the moving of this order. I agree with all three that this is not the way to deal with important legislation for Northern Ireland. However, at the moment it is the only way. I thank your Lordships for the detailed way with which the order has been dealt, even though I realise from what has been said that it does not attract universal support, notwithstanding the fact that all the new provisions it contains already apply in Great Britain.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, it is correct that the case for the order is that the legal and administrative framework for industrial relations in Northern Ireland is separate from that in Great Britain; but the legislation has generally followed that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord says that it is no good simply saying something as
522
though by rote; there must be a reason for a specific order. In this case there is such a need. Without going exhaustively over the ground again, it is quite clear that if one looks at the number of days lost through industrial action in Northern Ireland, there has been a steady improvement. I take pride—as quite rightly does the noble Lord, Lord Blease, with his record and knowledge of these matters—in the fact that by and large the record in Northern Ireland has been better than it has been both in the Republic of Ireland and in Great Britain. There has been a steady improvement in Northern Ireland at the same time as there has been a steady improvement in Great Britain. I account some of that improvement to the fact that we have replicated some of the industrial relations legislation passed in the Westminster Parliament for Northern Ireland. I now ask your Lordships to take another step and replicate three more of the industrial relations and employment Acts which have been passed by both Houses of Parliament.
Having said that, perhaps I can add that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blease, that the contribution made by and large by harmonious industrial relations in Northern Ireland, and particularly by the keeping of sectarianism off the shop floor, has been of the most enormous importance in recent years to the industrial and commercial history of Northern Ireland.
One last point that I wish to make on this general lead-in matter, to which all noble Lords referred, is that we must not forget the importance of the perception of those we want to be inward investors in Northern Ireland. If they see what they believe to be a fair and transparent system of industrial relations in place in Northern Ireland, it is the more likely that inward investors will set up there, which is what we want them to do. Surely in that context no one can possibly query the need and desirability for holding secret ballots prior to industrial action and for trade union elections.
I shall not go on about that. There is something of a political gulf in that regard between the official Opposition and the Government. However, your Lordships will perhaps forgive me for again reiterating the general case.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was good enough to give me notice of a series of questions that he intended to ask. Some of them overlap with what other noble Lords have said. The first question concerned whether there was not an unequal impact of the order on unions based in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland and in Great Britain. With regard to the technicalities of the order, there is practically no difference between the unions which are based in the three different territories. The only outstanding difference is that the balloting requirements for unions' principal executive committees will not apply to the unions outside Northern Ireland. That is the only significant difference.
That recognises the realities of the situation and does not in some way give the unions based in the Republic of Ireland some kind of advantage over those based in Northern Ireland. As I said, only 8 per cent. of Northern Ireland trade unions belong to

523
Republic of Ireland based unions. I believe that puts the matter in context. With regard to enforcement, the Government take the view that all the unions operating in Northern Ireland should observe Northern Ireland law. Failure to do so will be a matter for the courts.
The noble Lord asked whether the balloting provisions of the order would place at risk the identity of persons working in security-related establishments. It is the fact that the order was amended during the consultation period in order to provide adequate flexibility to safeguard trade union members working in security-related establishments, and in particular so that there would not be open access to union registers and members would only be able to inspect their own details. Where security is a consideration a member's name and an identifier, such as a payroll number, is all that needs to appear on the register. That is possibly the most important point which has been injected into the order. All that is required is not necessarily the name and address, but the name and some form of identifier, such as a payroll number. Incidentally, as the noble Lord will probably be well aware, but it is worth me saying so once again where security is again a consideration, it is possible for the ballot papers to be delivered by means other than just through the ordinary postal system.
The noble Lord asked whether in elections trade unions would need to provide members with pre-paid and addressed envelopes. The answer is yes, but the order provides that members must be given the opportunity to vote by post and to do so without direct cost to themselves. The union may apply to the certification officer for assistance towards the expenditure incurred. I hope that the noble Lord will consider that equitable.
The noble Lord asked two further questions about the certification officer. The first question which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked was whether the certification officer could be seen as independent of the labour relations' organisation. It is important to bear in mind that the certification officer is serviced by the Labour Relations Agency for purely administrative purposes, or in the jargon, "pay and rations". That is in line with what has happened so far as ACAS and the certification officer are concerned in Great Britain.
Importantly, the certification officer is to be completely independent of the Labour Relations Agency. When detailed arrangements as to office accommodation are being finalised I give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the point that he has made this morning will most certainly be borne in mind in order to see if there is any way in which we can meet that particular point.
Finally, the noble Lord asked whether the certification officer will be able to exempt unions from strict compliance with the provisions of the order. The noble Lord will forgive me if I cannot give a definitive answer to that question in the absence of specific details. All I can say this morning is that the certification officer can only approve rules if they comply with Northern Ireland law.
524
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also recommended that there should be a comprehensive review of trade union law. As I believe I said earlier on, 80 per cent. of Northern Ireland trade unionists are members of the trade unions of Great Britain. Great Britain's legislation has been most successful in reducing the number of days lost and in returning unions to their members in a variety of ways. Although the Government would be prepared to listen to any constructive proposals which had the support of both sides of industry, for that reason I believe that a full-blown review is something which need not be on the agenda.
Before I finish perhaps I may say that I very rarely find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Blease. I felt that the noble Lord was a little extreme, in my terms at any rate, in his references to the International Labour Organisation. The Government believe that there is nothing in general employment law of this country which contravenes any ILO convention ratified by the UK. Where the ILO committees have made observations on aspects of UK law, the Government have always responded, and will continue to respond, as and when appropriate. I end by thanking noble Lords for taking part in what I know is a controversial order. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1992
1.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th December 1991 be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said, My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment. The effect of it is to apply the revised definitions of trade union and employers' associations, contained in the order that we have just agreed, to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, which applies throughout the United Kingdom, in order to exempt union provident funds from tax. The reason for a separate order is because it is being done under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and this is a transferred matter. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th December be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important piece of legislation. It extends to Northern Ireland many of the provisions which already apply to local authorities in Great Britain. It covers three

525
important areas which the Government are confident will result in major improvements to the methods of operation of district councils.
The first area dealt with is competitive tendering. That is being introduced under Parts II and III of the order for a range of council services and will result in greater value for the ratepayers' money. That does not mean that all services will end up in the private sector and it is not a measure designed to reduce council powers. Councils retain responsibility under the order for the service and their direct service organisation will be able to tender for the work. Another important point is that councils will be required to specify the standard of service they require whether or not that service is provided in-house or by contractors. There will be, therefore, no lessening of standards. Indeed, standards should improve since the wider choice which competition will achieve will inevitably mean clearer and more efficient work practices.
Article IV of the order defines the services which are the subject of compulsory competitive tendering. However, councils will not have to seek competition for all the services listed in the order. Competition will be limited to contracts above an annual running cost of £100,000. The contracts we plan will be introduced gradually by regulations and councils will be fully consulted about the timing of these.
Finally, before leaving competitive tendering, I assure noble Lords that the Government are very conscious of the potential for paramilitary exploitation in this field. Every step will be taken to eliminate that risk in whatever form it takes. In Article 21 of the order we are taking additional powers, over and above those introduced in Great Britain, to enable councils to ask non-commercial questions in order to allow the department to specify certain information which a contractor must provide if he wishes to tender. That will act as a filter and should thwart attempts to win contracts by the para-militaries posing as bona fide contractors.
There will, of course, be difficulties in preventing exploitation by the paramilitaries and those difficulties are very real. However, the Government are determined that they will not be allowed to muscle in; and because it is difficult to deal with the problem by way of primary legislation the order also includes, in Article 25, a general power of direction over councils. I know that the House does not like a general power of direction, but this is supposed to be an additional safeguard. It will be used to take additional steps to combat the para-military threat, should it arise, purely as a help to district councils and for no other reason.
The second important area is the proposal in Article 28 in Part IV of the order to allow councils to spend the product of a twopenny rate on the promotion of economic development. This additional power will allow councils to expand their involvement in promoting the economic development of their areas and is being introduced at the request of councils wishing to have a more active role in this field. The Government are delighted to see that positive approach by councils in Northern Ireland and we are glad to be able to recognise their enthusiasm in a positive way in the order.
The third area is dealt with in Part V of the order and sets out standards of behaviour and conduct for councillors. An updated code of local government conduct will be introduced under Article 29 in Part V. That will set out the standards of behaviour and conduct expected of councillors. Each councillor will be required, on accepting office, to sign a formal declaration that he or she will be guided by the code. The code will be introduced only after full consultation with district councils.
It is also important for councils to have clear and effective working arrangements for the despatch of business. The arrangements are contained in standing orders but not all councils have these arrangements. Of those that do, some of the standing orders have fallen into disuse and are no longer effective. Therefore, Article 33 of the order will allow the Department of the Environment to introduce a model set of standing orders for the dispatch of council business, which will allow for a statutory core for councils to follow. That should allow business to be carried out fairly and reasonably and in a manner which properly reflects the interests of all members of the Council. Again, that provision will not be introduced until there has been full consultation with district councils.
Article 38 gives the local government auditor power to prevent district councils from incurring any unlawful expenditure. This will help to ensure that ratepayers' money and interests are protected.
Finally, Article 41 will prevent district councils from spending money on publicity which is designed to attract support for one particular political party. Money which has been spent in this manner in the past has led to division in the council chamber and among local ratepayers.
I remind your Lordships that ratepayers are entitled to expect high standards of service and value for money. They also expect their elected representatives to be accountable for their actions and to conduct business in a way that is fair and reasonable. I am confident that this order will help provide a better framework within which the business of local government in Northern Ireland can be conducted. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for explaining the provisions of this order. We do well to remind ourselves that the functions of local government in Northern Ireland are very few. Nevertheless, local government is still important to all members of the Northern Ireland community. This order, although it is a miscellaneous provisions order, introduces the most important changes in local government in Northern Ireland since 1973. Some parts of the order have been welcomed as worthwhile reform. However, there has also been criticism of some of the concepts outlined in it.
The order therefore merits at least a full debate even if it cannot, under present arrangements, be given the Bill procedure treatment. Therefore, it is very much to be regretted that it had only about two hours of debate in another place. Within that limited

527
timetable only four Northern Ireland Members were able to make a substantial contribution to the discussion. Bearing in mind that Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, unlike those from England, Wales and Scotland, usually have an unrivalled experience of local government, it therefore seems to me that the arrangement for discussing this important order is extremely difficult to defend.
The present Government lay great stress upon compulsory competitive tendering. It is therefore not surprising that CCT is one of the main strands of this order; it dominates Part II in Schedule 1. The Labour Party fears that CCT will weaken even further the limited role of the local authorities in Northern Ireland when more outlets should be created for skills, ideas and enterprise to flourish in local government. Furthermore, we are not convinced from the evidence that CCT will lead inevitably to higher standards of service. We believe the evidence is mixed.
As CCT will be a part of the Northern Ireland local government landscape, I should like to ask three questions. First, to what extent will there be a level playing field for all the contenders for a contract? Is it envisaged that the detailed specifications to be drawn up by the councils will contain minimum standards and minimum conditions in certain key areas such as skills, level of wages, holidays and sickness entitlement of the labour force? Secondly, if a contract has been awarded in good faith, but performance during its currency is unsatisfactory, what remedy, if any, is immediately available to the council? Real problems can arise in the real world. Thus, in a cleaning contract the cleaning may be less thorough and less frequent, or the contractor may go bankrupt. What remedies are available to the council in those circumstances? Who will undertake the services in the interval between termination of the contract and the appointment of a new contractor?
I have asked those two questions because they were raised by a Back-Bencher in the debate in another place. As the time which was available to the Minister was so limited it appears that the position has not been fully explained.
The third point about CCT is that it is not clear what remedies are available to an unsuccessful applicant who has grounds for believing that his tender was not properly considered in accordance with the terms of this order. I believe that also to be a matter of concern for the Government because under Article 21(6) (a) he has locus standi to take judicial review proceedings. But your Lordships will know that a judicial review challenge will in general succeed only if the council's decision was perverse. Moreover, assuming such proceedings to be successful, would it be practicable in the real world for that decision to be reconsidered? I therefore ask the Minister whether there will be another remedy? In passing, I also ask whether the department would also have locus standi to institute judicial review proceedings.
The Labour Party welcomes this part of the order. Article 26 should be useful. That article allows a council to apply for a scheme authorising it to give financial assistance in an emergency. By definition an
528
emergency emerges without prior notice and the scheme under Article 26 should therefore be available without endless delay. I ask the Minister how long it will take to obtain such a scheme. I should also like to know what will be the criteria for granting or withholding such approval.
Another helpful provision is to be found in Article 28 which allows a local authority to spend at a rate of 2p in the pound on the promotion of economic development. Can the Minister give us an indication of what would be the product of a rate of 2p in the pound on the rateable value? Here again the question of criteria arises and we should like to know on what grounds consent will be given or withheld.
I have considerable sympathy with Article 29 which introduces a code of local government conduct in Northern Ireland; but I appreciate that opinions differ on that.
I should like to make a general comment about the use of a statutory code. According to my count this order provides for at least three statutory codes. In addition to Article 29 there is a code in Article 35(1) and Article 41, together with regulation-making powers in Articles 7, 9, 21 and 33. Are the codes and regulations available in draft form? If so, have they been fully discussed with the local authorities and the professional and voluntary organisations whose interests will be affected? We certainly accept that there is an important place for a code of practice, with statutory authority, to provide a detailed guidance which would otherwise clutter up the statute book and is sufficiently flexible to be changed in the light of experience. It is desirable that a copy of the proposed code or regulations should be available in draft form before the legislation leaves Parliament. That is what we ought to be aiming at.
Part V contains other important provisions. We completely share the Government's concern about the important need to prohibit a council from using its resources or its position in a way that is designed to give public support for a political party. But does the first amendment, in Article 41, achieve this end? Perhaps I may give an example. If a council publishes a leaflet setting out the perceived merits of the Anglo-Irish Agreement—that being the policy of the SDLP and of the three main parties in Great Britain —or if it sets out the perceived demerits of the agreement—that being the policy of the two Unionist parties—would such a publication be in breach of the proposed Section 115A? Would it make a difference if a council produced a leaflet balancing the merits and demerits, provided it did not attempt to draw a conclusion? Would a council's contribution towards the costs of carriage of this leaflet to distribution points in Northern Ireland be banned by subsection (3)?
My final point relates to the role of the auditor under the proposed Sections 82A and 82D. What exactly is the precise relationship between those two sections? I am in some difficulty in grasping the full implications of those two sections and their relationship, though I readily concede that the fault is probably mine. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could briefly clarify or explain the

529
relationship. Is it envisaged that in practice the auditor will proceed to issue a prohibition order if he believes that he has firm grounds for issuing such an order but may seek judicial review proceedings when he believes that he has less firm grounds?
One could say a good deal more about this important order but I shall not burden the House with any more questions or detailed Committee points. Your Lordships will know that this is the only opportunity we have to raise issues which we believe require clarification and on which people in Northern Ireland have written to us seeking clarification. I end by saying that, notwithstanding the CCT provisions, this order will introduce many necessary changes which will go some way to enhance local government in Northern Ireland. On that basis, I support it on behalf of the Labour Party.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches I thank the Minister most warmly for his, as always, clear and helpful exposition of the order. I am afraid that we have to give it a somewhat mixed welcome. We support the principle of competitive tendering but I wonder whether the Government are wise to insist on compulsory competitive tendering. We are now beginning to see some of the results of experience in the rest of Great Britain. We have seen, for instance, local authorities being forced to tender for the sale of tiny plots of land with little market value. Although competitive tendering is welcome, the principle of compulsion is not necessarily wise. However, having said that, we warmly welcome the code of conduct and the model standing orders which I think will make a great contribution to local government in Northern Ireland. We also welcome the decision to include fair employment considerations in the factors that can be taken into account when agreeing contracts. Would it not be better if local authorities had a statutory duty to take fair employment into consideration when they decide those contracts?
I have one or two other points. First, I very much welcome what the Minister said about the possibility of paramilitary exploitation of tenders for contracts, for instance, by posing as bona fide contractors for refuse collection or street cleaning. I take his point that Article 21 deals with that. I also take his point that it is something of which the Government are aware. However, I cannot urge on the Government too strongly that this is an area of risk and an area where a good idea could actually become extremely dangerous.
My second specific point concerns the people who were at one time employed by the public service being then taken on by private companies to do the same job. The Minister's honourable friend in another place reported that 80 per cent. of the services contracted out in the rest of the United Kingdom have stayed in-house. Yet presumably the problem is presumably that when workers are re-employed they do not necessarily have the minimum standards or clear wage policies which they had when they were in the public service.
Baroness Phillips: And pension rights, my Lords.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentions their pension entitlements too. The Government need to consider, given that they are talking about the worst paid section of the community, what they can do to put some floor under them in terms of minimum standards in the new situation with which they will be confronted.
The final specific point that I wish to put to the Minister and on which I ask him to comment briefly concerns how he will ensure that, when tendering is done on the basis of relatively small local community areas, it is not done on sectarian lines. A particular local authority may largely be of one community or the other. What will the Government do to ensure that these quite lucrative private contracts do not fall into the hands of contractors aligned in a sectarian way?
In conclusion, one of the problems that the Government have in this piece of legislation—it is a problem that has been accumulating in Northern Ireland—is that, because there is such a lack of any real power at local authority level in Northern Ireland, many responsible members of society are not seeking election. Health, education, social security and planning are already taken out of the hands of local authorities. Is it not possible that, if we begin to remove the only remaining duties of local councillors, we will not get good people who are in touch with their local communities? It is because we somewhat fear the further erosion of the contribution that local government can make in Northern Ireland that our welcome for this order can be only a qualified one.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for speaking in some detail—although I know we have been brief because we are discussing an order—about such an important local government order. The part about which we have all spoken and to which we have given the most attention is that which concerns compulsory competitive tendering. That is a parity measure in the sense that it is, more or less, putting into effect the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988. However, there are other important matters in the order. Both noble Lords have said a few words about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was kind enough to give me notice of about five questions that he wished to ask. Perhaps I may reply to each of them in the order in which they were asked. The noble Lord first asked whether there would be a level playing field so far as concerns the tenderers in compulsory competitive tendering. Of course, I cannot anticipate what councils will put into their specifications. But there are safeguards built into the legislation to ensure that the private sector and the councils' direct service organisations (as they are called in Northern Ireland) are treated on a fair, level playing-field basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked the very important question as to whether in certain circumstances—and he identified a situation where the council area is a smaller one—the spectre of sectarianism could come stalking onto the scene in tendering. It is important to note that, under the order, councils will be prohibited from doing anything which has the effect of restricting, distorting or

531
preventing competition. The Department of the Environment will be monitoring councils' behaviour to ensure that that is complied with. All the time in Northern Ireland we have in the front of our minds the desirability to prevent precisely the point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, put his finger.
The second question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was what would happen when something goes wrong in mid-contract. He said that problems can occur and spoke cogently about the matter. I appreciate that it is a difficult area. However, it is essential that councils get specifications right and that, in opening up a select list of tenderers, careful consideration is given to the financial standing of those companies applying for the contract.
If the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, I believe that his question begins to move into the area of contract law. I know perfectly well that he knows a great deal more than I on the subject. If the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, I do not think that it would be appropriate on this order to seek to cover matters which are properly covered in contract law. I say that, bearing in mind—and in the simplest possible way for my own benefit—that, as I understand it, if a contractor is not performing, then the council, under contract law, will be able to go to arbitration in the first instance. However, I must not move into contract law about which I know little. I shall just say to the noble Lord that I believe that there are safeguards for good practice written into the order. So far as concerns the rest of his question, I believe that contract law applies.
The noble Lord's third question was to ask what the remedy would be for a tendering party who believes that his or her tender has not been properly considered. In addition to any damages which could be awarded as a result of a judicial review in such a case, district councils are subject to sanctions and direction from the department to ensure that they award contracts on a commercially fair basis. I believe it is fair to say that Articles 14, 15 and indeed 19 and 20 are relevant in the matter.
The noble Lord was good enough to welcome Article 26 which is about emergency assistance to councils; for example, in a flood situation. However, he asked how long it would take to set up a scheme of emergency assistance—a very relevant question under the circumstances—and what the criteria would be. There are no plans to introduce a formal set-piece scheme. The power will only be used following an emergency or a disaster. That will enable the department to take into consideration the particular circumstances of the case. By adopting that flexible approach, we believe that the department can respond as sympathetically as possible to councils' requests. It is important that I underline the fact that there is nothing in the order to prevent a scheme being adopted quickly.
It is worth adding—I shall be honest with the noble Lord —that there is no precedent for this in Northern Ireland. I do not think that anything of this kind has ever been produced hitherto. The reason for that is not an overemphasis on caution; it is that usually when
532
there is a natural disaster, the main expenditure is found to fall on the statutory organisations, such as the police, the fire service or the Housing Executive. Help is therefore brought to the community through expenditure on the statutory services. Nonetheless, Article 26 is in the order and I am grateful to the noble Lord for welcoming it.
The noble Lord asked me, fifthly, about the criteria for making the twopenny rate payments and what the product of that twopenny rate would be in Northern Ireland. Specific criteria have not been drawn up on what the twopenny rate payments can be put to because it is very much a council-led initiative. The department will be sympathetic to any council proposals, provided that they do not conflict with the work of the statutory bodies, such as the Industrial Development Board and the small business firms' organisation, LEDU—the Local Enterprise Development Unit. The expenditure of twopence in the pound will allow councils to spend, on average, about £100,000 in Northern Ireland, with the larger councils able to spend about £150,000 and the smaller ones about £50,000. Belfast city council will be able to spend about £800,000 on this new provision.
The noble Lord also asked me about the codes in the regulations and about whether they are available now. I must apologise: they are not. The reason is that we are going out to consultation with the district councils before any of the codes or regulations can be introduced. It is important that the department is drafting the codes and regulations with which to take into account the views and the comments of the district councils in Northern Ireland. This is no different from the procedure that we often follow with Westminster legislation. I am thinking of the emergency provisions legislation that we considered last summer, under Section 61 of which we said that there would be an important code of conduct, to which we are sticking, relating to the way in which matters are conducted at the holding centres.
I do not believe that the noble Lord expressed a demand to see the drafting before we introduced the legislation. Therefore, I hope that he will not think that I am being unreasonable when I say that I take his point, but that it is because we are going out to consultation in Northern Ireland, where some changes will undoubtedly be made to the original draft, that I am not able to put drafts before your Lordships before the order is, I hope, agreed to.
The noble Lord fully supports the intention of Article 41, but asked how it will work. The intention of the proposal in Article 41 is to stop councils using council funds to promote a particular party line or dogma for purely party political reasons. In the circumstances described by the noble Lord—he gave an example—it would be for the auditor and/or the court to decide whether such expenditure was legitimate. I would apprehend that that would depend upon the content of the leaflet concerned.
Finally, the noble Lord said that he had difficulty with the role of the auditor under Sections 82A and 82D of Article 38. The two sections that the noble Lord is talking about empower the local government auditor to take immediate steps as soon as he becomes

533
aware of a council's course of action that may result in unlawful expenditure. Therefore, in answer to the noble Lord's question, "Does the first section mean that the auditor can go straight for a prohibition order?", my answer is "Yes". When the noble Lord asked, "Does Section 82D refer more to judicial review?", I should put it slightly differently. That section would be used where the auditor discovers, in the normal course of his audit work, that the council has acted unlawfully. The auditor has always had that power. The new power is to be found in Section 82A. With those replies to the points that have been put to me, perhaps I may thank both noble Lords who have spoken and, once again, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medicinal Products: Prescription by Nurses etc. Bill
2.19 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It gives me unusual pleasure to introduce to the House this short Bill. My honourable friend in another place Mr. Roger Sims, who is a recognised champion of nursing and nurses, steered his Private Member's Bill through another place with the utmost speed and dexterity, and he has charged me to do the same. With great skill and success he resolved, with the help of my honourable friend Mrs. Bottomley, the Minister for Health, all doubts and concerns, so that any objections and amendments were put on one side and support from all quarters gladly given. The Bill flowed unimpeded. I am aware that it is asking a great deal to give it equal and exceptional treatment in your Lordships' House but I hope that that will be the case. Perhaps exceptions are in order when a Private Member's Bill has been given total support by the Government, Opposition parties and all the professional bodies involved.
There are nearly half a million nurses in this country. They are heartily tired of being referred to as handmaidens and angels. The Bill refers to them as practitioners. That is as it should be, for years of training amply qualify them as nursing practitioners and have put them in a position of great trust.
In 1985, I chaired a review team to advise the Secretary of State on the future of community nursing. We spent three months touring the country, visiting community nurses and GPs in their practices. It became obvious to us that time was wasted and delays experienced by nurses having to request modest prescriptions to be signed by a doctor. We had sympathy for those GPs who signed blank prescriptions for nurses to fill in, because those doctors trusted nurses implicitly. But those doctors were transgressing. We found other nurses, with years of experience and exceptional skills, frustrated by having to wait, sometimes days, for a doctor to sign a prescription, knowing that in the meantime the patient in their charge was suffering needlessly.
In our many visits we found no one who questioned the skill and experience of, say, Macmillan nurses in
534
their ability to care for terminally ill people. Most people we met were aware of and respected the midwives' skills. As one who has had two babies at home, delivered by community midwives, I endorse that. Most people acknowledged that the district nurse was the recognised professional in home care. So often it is the nurse who puts us back together again, physically and mentally, after the doctor has had, perforce, to take us apart. But it is not all tender loving care, nurses need ointments, sprays and dressings, and no one knows better than they do what they need.
As we move to more day surgery and shorter hospital stays, so nurses in the community take on more responsibility. They must be well equipped to do that task. The Bill, although important, is simple. It contains five provisions. First, it specifies that registered nurses, midwives and health visitors, are appropriate practitioners for the purpose of prescribing a limited number of prescription-only medicines under Section 58 of the Medicines Act 1968. It includes a power for the Secretary of State to limit the categories of nurses who can prescribe prescription-only medicines by reference to qualifications and training.
Secondly, the Bill makes a technical amendment to give the Secretary of State additional powers to make secondary legislation under the Medicines Act. Thirdly, it enables community pharmacists to dispense, on the NHS, a specified range of medicines and appliances which have been prescribed by particular categories of registered nurses, midwives or health visitors who have satisfactorily completed a prescribed programme of appropriate training. Fourthly, it applies the provisions to the United Kingdom. Lastly, it includes a provision enabling the Secretary of State to bring the Act into force by order.
By conducting proper consultation, through an expert advisory group, the Department of Health has gained the support of all the nursing professions and organisations. The national training boards are arranging the necessary training courses. There will be nothing slipshod or left to chance. Nurses have always been responsible for their professional actions. I know, from being a member of the United Kingdom Central Council Disciplinary Panel, that that regulating body will allow no nurses to sully their profession.
The BMA has given support to the measure, and after a considerable cost-benefit investigation by Touche Ross, the well-known firm of chartered accountants, even the armoury of the Treasury has been pierced. Touche Ross concluded that nurses make effective use of available resources entrusted to them. They estimate a saving of 2.84 million nurses', carers' and GP hours. To me, that is really significant: all that time wasted fiddling about getting prescriptions when it should be spent caring for people. That is a tangible benefit and it is what people want. The Bill slices through unnecessary bureaucracy and will benefit an estimated 7 million patients every year.
But above all, a highly responsible, highly trained professional group will have the reasonable dignity of being allowed to decide what it needs in order to do

535
the job properly. This transcends all other considerations. The whole nursing profession will benefit from this rightful, professional recognition.
I must pay a tribute to the work of the department's advisory group, the experts who hammered out the implications of nurse prescribing. There are six core recommendations and they are very important. The first and second general ones are that prescribing nurses should be well qualified; that they will prescribe in clearly defined circumstances from a limited list and be able to adjust the timing and dosage of medicines within a set patient-specific protocol.
The third specifies that district nurses, health visitors, and practice or private nurses who have had the necessary additional training should be able to prescribe items for people in their care. The fourth is specific to nurses with specialist training who will be able to prescribe for stoma care and continence, and school nurses for lice control.
The fifth recommendation deals with adjusting the timing and dosages by nurses of medicines prescribed by doctors and covers medicines for diabetics and psychiatric patients and nurses working with terminally ill people who need to adjust pain-relieving drugs. I know that my noble friend Lord Mottistone wished to be here today but was unavoidably detained in another part of the country. He is concerned that community psychiatric nurses should not be allowed to prescribe drugs. Under the Bill, they will not be able to do so, thus my noble friend can rest assured that the Government have no intention of introducing such a measure. Paragraph 3.6 of the advisory group's report makes that plain.
The last recommendation is that nurse prescribing should be ready for introduction on 1st April 1992. However, this has been delayed for various reasons and the aim is now October 1993, when training will have been completed.
The suggested formulary covering the range of drugs which nurses will be allowed to prescribe contains only three medicines which cannot be bought over the counter. The formulary will be updated every two years, after wide consultation among the professions by the joint formulary committee. Nurse prescriptions will be distinctive and will be subject to close scrutiny and budgetary control, either by an employing GP or the local district health authority or, where it exists, the local community trust, which employs the community nurses.
The Royal College of Nursing which has done so much to promote the professionalism of all nursing, but in this case of community nurses, makes a special plea for nurses working in rural areas. The RCN can see great benefits to elderly and chronically disabled people, people suffering from a mental illness, those who have diabetes and people who are homeless or dying.
It is now over six years since my review team first made this recommendation; there have been six years of negotiation and evaluation. In other words, 16 million nursing hours have been lost; not needlessly, perhaps, because we have to get things right. But it would be most disappointing if the House were
536
instrumental in causing another delay, because without the legislation nothing can happen. It might be a fairly long delay if a general election intervenes and this Private Member's Bill is lost.
I know that there are many Members of your Lordships' House who have great knowledge and expertise in these matters. They may be tempted to improve the Bill, although I gather that at the Committee stage in another place it took less than one minute to pass.
In effect the department has drafted the Bill. My honourable friend in the other place, Mr. Roger Sims, and I have gone through the text with a fine-tooth comb. We have taken advice from many quarters. We hope that your Lordships will feel able to pass this enabling Bill as it stands with no need for further amendment. However, I very much look forward to hearing the debate on this Second Reading of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Cumberlege.)
2.30 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and many others I welcome the Bill. I congratulate the noble Baroness on the very clear and succinct way in which she introduced it. She is the appropriate person to take the Bill through this House because of her major contribution to community nursing, which is well known to all of us.
The Bill is particularly timely now that, at long last, the primary health care team is receiving the recognition in kind that it has had in words for as long as I have been in practice, which is now most of a professional lifetime. As the noble Baroness hinted, the Bill in effect recognises in law the practice which has long existed in my own case and that of many other doctors. Nurses, particularly district nurses, have virtually prescribed the dressings and appliances which they need for the care of their patients. Prescriptions are sometimes written on a list by nurses and subsequently copied and signed by the doctor. Occasionally, they are written directly on the prescription form by the nurse and signed by the doctor. I do not recommend as a practice the pre-signing of prescriptions by doctors although I know that it occurs sometimes. A high degree of trust exists, as the noble Baroness pointed out, and suggestions from nurses are seldom, if ever, turned down. I know that district nurses are the experts in home care. I value their suggestions.
In hospitals some of the items requested by district nurses from general practitioners are available directly from hospital stores without a prescription being necessary. Even so, I can see that there may well be items which a hospital nurse of appropriate seniority and training, as laid down in and enabled by the Bill, should be able to prescribe, thus saving an over-worked junior hospital doctor considerable routine work. Here I differ from the British Medical Association which strongly objects to hospital nurses being given prescribing rights. After all, only a limited list of items would be permitted, although that may well grow as both professions begin to use the

537
provisions of the Bill effectively over the years. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Walton will explain why the British Medical Association is opposed to the provisions of the Bill applying to hospital nurses.
In my practice in anticipation of the Bill we are developing our own list of drugs—and we hope that it will be the same—which our practice nurses, according to a strict protocol and after training and full discussion, will be able to prescribe. That may well be more extensive than the initial list of drugs which the regulations provided for by the Bill may define. We shall watch that aspect with interest.
The professional training of nurses and their ethical code is, in my view, enough to ensure that indiscriminate or unwise prescribing would be extremely unlikely. The provisions of the Bill ensure that only nurses of an appropriate category will be allowed to prescribe. That means that some additional training in prescribing the categories of drugs which are listed will have to be given before any nurse can prescribe. That will act as an appropriate safeguard. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Walton will go into greater detail about the discussions which the medical and nursing professions have had, separately and together, with the Department of Health.
I was surprised that it has been estimated that additional costs of £17 million would accrue as a result of the Bill, because most of the drugs which nurses will prescribe are already prescribed by doctors at the request or suggestion of nurses. However, I understand that that sum has been at least partially calculated to cover the costs of training. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to explain that.
It is a good Bill. It will enhance the professional satisfaction and status of nurses; it will save doctors and nurses much time; and, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, it will avoid delay in supplying very necessary items for patients.
2.35 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am sure that the House regrets that the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, a nurse, has been unable to take part in the debate. It took me nearly four hours to reach here from Oxford this morning. I imagine that the journey from Manchester made it quite impossible for her to reach the House as I am sure that she would have wished to have done.
Perhaps I may echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in saying how clearly the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, introduced the Bill which I too warmly welcome as a member of the medical profession. For many years doctors and nurses have worked in close association both in hospital and in the community. As the noble Baroness said, many nurses now work in general practices or in association with general practitioners fulfilling the role of a nurse practitioner to the mutual benefit of the patients and of both the medical and nursing professions. The quality of training and experience which many of those community nurses have achieved has increased the level of responsibility which they are able to assume in relation to patient care.
538
It is some years since I had the opportunity as president of the General Medical Council, with some of my colleagues, of sitting down with nursing members of the United Kingdom Central Council and with the Royal College of Nursing to discuss the issue of nurse prescribing. At that time we hoped very much that it would become a practical reality. The noble Baroness was one of those who has been most instrumental in making the arrangements possible which have led to the introduction of the Bill.
As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, the British Medical Association welcomes the proposal that suitably qualified nurses working only in the community should be able in clearly defined circumstances to prescribe from a limited list of items and to adjust the timing and dosage of medicines within a set protocol. All nurses working in the primary health care team, including practice nurses, should be eligible for the necessary additional training which would enable them to achieve the qualifications allowing them to prescribe from a nurses' formulary. The arrangements for nurses' prescribing will, under the Bill, ensure that a doctor clinically responsible for the patient is in agreement with the treatment given and that the doctor must ultimately take the final decision if there were to be any disagreement over the treatment of the patient. Good communication with the doctor about variations in dosage will be essential.
All those factors to which I have referred are made possible under the Bill. I trust that your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading and, as the noble Baroness suggested, will agree that the Bill has been carefully drafted and is not in need of amendment.
Having made that point, if the Bill becomes an Act, a number of issues may arise regarding the regulations which will be made by the Secretary of State. Certainly, the nurses who would be able to prescribe would include those visiting patients in certain cottage hospitals. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I believe that it would be unwise for that provision to be extended to nurses working in major general hospitals if only because, first, in such hospitals doctors are readily and constantly available to prescribe; and, secondly, the very nature of the illnesses which are being treated in such general hospitals makes it likely that the drug requirements of the patients will be much more complex and that there are potential dangers unless a qualified medical practitioner is available. Those dangers are not only medical. If the extension of the nurses' prescribing powers were to go into such general hospitals, there would be dangers of potential side effects and of those which are medical/legal.
The Bill would give discretion to nurses to take a new degree of independent action, and that is to be welcomed. However, it is important to note that under the regulations which will stem from the Bill there could well be medical/legal implications. If the nurse is an employee of a general practitioner, the GP will be ultimately responsible for his or her actions. If the nurse is an employee of a health authority, the authority will be responsible. The medical defence

539
organisations believe that it should be strongly recommended that nurses who will be involved in the new prescribing arrangements should have their own indemnity cover. The clarification of legal liability for nurses, doctors and health authorities will need to be addressed once the Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it will.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I was surprised by the figure of £17 million in view of the fact that the drugs being prescribed would have been prescribed in any event by the doctors. However, I am sure that the sum covers nurse education and training as well as the cost of producing and distributing a nurses' formulary. Nevertheless, we shall need clarification of the figure. It is also important to bear in mind that in the regulations which will stem from the Bill when and if it becomes an Act we need clarification of the legislative and administrative changes which might enable dispensing doctors in rural areas in particular to dispense items prescribed by nurses. That is not an issue which to the best of my knowledge has been addressed.
The points that I have raised need to be given further consideration only after the Bill becomes an Act. As I said at the outset, as a member of the medical profession I warmly commend this important Bill to the House.
2.42 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I rise to speak on a subject which would normally have been dealt with by my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington. She would have congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on her work and on her clear presentation of the Bill. It appears to have universal support not only from Members of another place but from medical practitioners, nurses and other interested people.
We on these Benches support the Bill because, principally, it adds to the care of patients in the community. It also adds to the status of nurses, which has lagged behind in recent years. The training given to nurses has fallen behind the increase in their responsibility and capability as regards taking what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, described as discretionary and independent action.
The party for which I speak has a great deal of its representation in rural areas where the new freedom for nurses to prescribe will be clearly appreciated. It has been greatly needed because often there has been a delay which is worrying for patients and frustrating for nurses. They have not been able to prescribe medication which will be included in the new list of drugs available to them as a result of the Bill.
I wish to mention the hospice movement, which I have witnessed in action to some extent in recent times. Admirable developments have been made in the movement, which cares for people who need quick access to medication. There has been evidence of delays which have caused discomfort, pain and anxiety to patients. The Bill will improve that situation.
540
I now turn to the amount of additional money that is required to implement the provisions of this Bill. That money has been calculated at £17 million for the United Kingdom as a whole. From what has already been said, I understand that training will account for a large part of that expenditure, but we do not know that that is the case. I wonder why something was not stated on that point in the paragraph of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum dealing with financial effects. We are left with an unnecessary degree of doubt about how the money will be allocated.
However, I congratulate those who have promoted this Bill on persuading the Treasury to agree to the necessary expenditure. I have no doubt the figure is accurate, but it would be interesting if the noble Baroness in her reply could tell us a little more about the costs and the proportion of those costs that will be taken up for training. What is expected to be the increase in prescribing which will result from this Bill?
We on these Benches thoroughly approve of the Bill and of the consensus it has achieved in all quarters. We wish it speedy progress to the statute book.
2.46 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for introducing this Bill. She has explained it with her usual lucidity and therefore there is no need for me to go through it in any detail. I should follow the convention that applies to those who speak from this Dispatch Box and make it clear that my remarks reflect my personal view. However, my party obviously would agree with my remarks. This Bill is a sensible measure and I would advise my noble friends to support it.
Before I discuss the Bill I should remark that there is a procedural matter that interests me. I believe that this is the fifth Bill on health that has been introduced recently as a Private Member's Bill. We have had the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill; the Osteopaths Bill and this Bill. We shall shortly deal with the Still-Birth (Definition) Bill which is also a Private Member's Bill. The Bill on community care and residential accommodation was also a Private Member's Bill. All those Bills have been welcomed by the department. I believe that most of them have been drafted by the department. In that case why are they not Government Bills? I shall not take up the time of the House in discussing that. I hope that the Minister will write to me about it and place a copy of the reply in the Library for the benefit of other noble Lords who may be interested in the matter. Perhaps the Government's business managers have their business in rather a muddle and have to rely on private Members to get these Bills through.
We have certainly promised the Bill a fair wind and we shall not table any amendments in Committee. The Touche Ross report is a valuable analysis and it underlines a point that was made by my noble friend Lord Rea that nurse prescribing is already happening informally. Like all analyses of this kind, the Touche Ross report is a cost benefit analysis and it depends on

541
assumptions. Page 42 of the report contains an excellent summary of the measure that we are discussing. It states:
"We conclude that the nominal value of time saved and the gross costs of nurse prescribing are relatively close, before allowance is made for benefits not evaluated in this study, namely: faster treatment, at times, for patients; benefits from additional items prescribed; increased job satisfaction for nurses".
That quotation leads on to a point which has been made by a number of speakers as regards the financial effects of the Bill. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill states:
"Clauses 2, 3 and 4 will result in an increase in prescribing and dispensing … The cost to the Exchequer has been estimated at about £13.3 million per year for England alone and £17 million for the United Kingdom as a whole".
That clearly implies that the extra cost is due to the extra prescribing and dispensing that will occur. Like other noble Lords I thought that perhaps the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum was ambiguous on costs and that it included training. However, I note that the Touche Ross report states on the page which precedes page 1:
"We have quantified the costs of nurse prescribing that arise from: monetary costs to Family Health Service Authorities for additional prescribing by District Nurses and Health Visitors".
The report then states that there is:
"an annual cost to Family Health Service Authorities, following full implementation of nurse prescribing, of £11.7 million for additional prescription items and £1.7 million for dispensing fees".
It goes on to deal with the costs of the prescription for the pricing authority. We all find that difficult to understand because one assumes that those medicines, bandages and dressings would have been prescribed by doctors which will, after this Bill becomes enacted, be prescribed by nurses. An increase in the number of prescriptions can only mean that doctors have been underprescribing. I find that hard to understand and perhaps the Minister will explain it.
I have only two queries as regards the detail of the Bill and I informed the Minister before the debate that I should be raising these matters. I believe that she is aware of the BMA's anxiety about the effect of the Bill on dispensing doctors. The BMA says that clarification is needed on the legislative and administrative changes required to enable dispensing doctors to dispense items prescribed by nurses. As far as we are aware, that problem has not been resolved by the Department of Health. The BMA says that it is possible that an amendment may be needed to the Bill. I hope that an amendment is not needed, but perhaps the Minister can clarify the position.
The other question concerns the growth of the prescribing of generics and pack dispensing, which will increase over time. As the formula is updated and changed, presumably proper account will be taken of the use of generic drugs.
Apart from those two points of detail, we welcome the Bill and we shall do our utmost to ensure that it reaches the statute book before the election.
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for bringing forward this Bill. I welcome the support that it has
542
received. Many of your Lordships may know, of course, that the Government have supported the principle of nurse prescribing since it was the subject of a recommendation in the 1986 report on community nursing by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. The report recommended that:
"The DHSS should agree a limited list of items and simple agents which may be prescribed by nurses as part of a nursing care programme, and issue guidelines to enable nurses to control drug dosage in well-defined circumstances".
Since then a great deal of work has been carried out. As a first step, the Government set up the advisory group on nurse prescribing to advise on,
"how arrangements for the supply of drugs, dressings, appliances and chemical reagents to patients as part of their nursing care in the community might he improved by enabling such items to be prescribed by a nurse".
The advisory group report recommended among other things that nurses working in the community who had district nurse or health visitor qualifications should be permitted to prescribe items from a limited list of products needed for the nursing care of their patients and to supply medicines, or vary their timing and dosage, within agreed protocols.
The Bill of my honourable friend Mr. Roger Sims in the other place provides the primary legislation to enable the prescribing aspect of the recommendations to be implemented. I should, however, mention that we are at the same time taking forward the recommendations concerning supply and changing timing and dosage. However, I understand that they do not require primary legislation.
The advisory group also recommended that a more thorough study of the benefits and a full assessment of the costs of nurse prescribing were needed before final decisions about implementation could be made. As a consequence the Government commissioned Touche Ross to carry out a cost-benefit analysis, copies of which are available in the Library.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords raised the issue of financial costs. The Touche Ross report considered that, apart from the one-off costs of implementation, nurse prescribing will cost the Exchequer £15 million per year in England. Most of those extra costs —approximately £11.65 million —are estimated to arise from additional items prescribed. I can understand noble Lords finding that rather strange. I do not believe that those costs will arise as a result of doctors underprescribing in the past. However, I understand that nurses can reach people such as travelling and rootless people. That will be of great help to individuals. Also, they will have greater contact and quicker recognition of symptoms and, one hopes, for the benefit of the people concerned, quicker resolution of the illness. I can assure the House that it is not a figure costed lightly; it will bring benefit to the patients. In addition, there are the costs of pharmacists' dispensing fees, costs at the Prescription Pricing Authority for pricing nurses' prescriptions and monitoring them, the cost of providing copies of the nurse prescribers' formulary, the drug tariff and prescription pads, and various other administrative costs.
Against these costs must be set the considerable benefits from introducing nurse prescribing. Nurse prescribing would do away with the need for doctors

543
to spend their time signing prescriptions for items which nurses need for the care of patients. Appropriately trained nurses would be able to sign them instead. Also, community nurses would no longer have to make trips to the surgery to get prescriptions signed. On an individual basis such time savings are not substantial, but taken as a whole, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege said, a considerable amount of time will be freed up which community nurses and general practitioners could devote to patient care.
More important, however, are the benefits to patients and their carers. Patients will be able to obtain their medicines and appliances more speedily, which may often mean quicker resolution of problems. In addition, they and their carers will be saved journeys to their doctors' surgeries—not always easy for someone who is ill. And there are other benefits. Community nurses will have the satisfaction of being allowed to take full responsibility for the nursing care they are providing. That is right and proper.
The products which the advisory group thought should be available for appropriately trained community nursing staff to prescribe are listed in Appendix E of its report. Again, copies are available in the Library. Most items on the list can be bought over the counter by patients, if desired, except for the following prescription-only medicines: Nystatin, for oral fungal infections; Clotrimazole, an antifungal preparation; Iodosorb, a medicated dressing, and Varidase, a desloughing agent.
That list is, of course, only illustrative. However, we expect that the final nurse prescribers' formulary will cover roughly the same range as the illustrative one. It is for the nurse prescribers' sub-committee of the joint formulary committee, which produces the British national formulary and the dental practitioners' formulary, to produce a nurse prescribers' formulary. Medical, nursing and pharmaceutical interests are represented on this sub-committee, which has already met twice, and plans to complete its work in the summer.
I said earlier that in line with the advisory group's recommendations nurse prescribing will, at least initially, be limited to those nurses holding a district nurse or health visitor qualification. It is only after monitoring and evaluation of this that other areas may be considered. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
Before such nurses may prescribe, they will of course need training in nurse prescribing. At present the health departments are working with the UKCC and national boards to develop a free-standing module for appropriately qualified nurses. Longer term, it is intended that such training will be incorporated into the curriculum for district nursing and health visiting training. The UKCC has advised the Department of Health about standard, kind, content and length of courses, and the national boards are now organising discussions with course tutors. The courses will cover the items on the nurse prescribers' formulary, drug interactions, reporting adverse
544
reactions, communications with other professionals, good practice in prescribing, budgetary accountability and monitoring, and all other relevant issues.
I am pleased to be able to report that extra money has been made available for this training module. Government have provided funds in 1992–93 for setting up the courses and producing training materials, and funds for the subsequent two years for running the training modules. We envisage that about 23,000 nurses will attend the special courses between April 1993 and April 1995. Nurses who have satisfactorily completed the training module will have their details submitted by the national boards to the UKCC, who will identify them as nurse prescribers on the UKCC register. Eligibility to prescribe can then be checked by bona fide enquirers with the UKCC at any time.
I would like in passing to mention the arrangements for budget accountability and monitoring. More work needs to be done in this area and the Department of Health is working closely with the Prescription Pricing Authority to develop suitable mechanisms. Where nurse prescribers are practice nurses—that is to say, employed by general practitioners —we envisage their prescribing costs being linked to their general practitioners' indicative or actual prescribing budgets. Where, however, nurse prescribers are health authority employed, we envisage each provider unit being responsible for prescribing costs. But, as I said, more work is to be done in this area before final decisions can be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, kindly gave me notice of the fact that he was questioning the "possible muddle" of government legislation. I am delighted to say that that is not the issue. The issue is that there is no way in which this Bill could have been brought forward before the cost-benefit report was available. That was in November and therefore it could not have been part of the gracious Speech. It is felt that the benefits can be obtained more quickly by taking advantage of my honourable friend Mr. Sims's ability to bring the matter forward.
As regards other matters raised by noble Lords, as has been rightly said it is not necessary to discuss them in detail at this stage. I can only assure them that they will be comfortable with the answers on all those issues. I am sure that my noble friend will draw specific attention to them.
Given the strength of commitment to nurse prescribing that exists on all sides of the House and with professionals, patients and their carers, I hope that I have convinced all your Lordships that the Bill of my honourable friend in the other place is a positive step forward and one that the Government are fully committed to implementing.
I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for bringing the measure forward today. There is still much that needs to be done and the work required to train nurse prescribers, prepare secondary legislation and make the developments needed at the Prescription Pricing Authority means that implementation cannot take place before October 1993. We are working hard to ensure that this implementation date will be met.
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for the generous remarks that have been made about my personal efforts in trying to get this particular measure enacted. I again pay tribute to my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Roger Sims, and also to the nursing profession which has been unceasing in its attempts and efforts to ensure that this Bill becomes a reality.
I am grateful but not surprised by the overwhelming support for this measure, which I believe is a very common-sense one. It will be effective. It will not only enhance the professionalism of nursing but perhaps, more importantly, it will benefit sick and suffering people.
Perhaps I may pick up one or two points made by noble Lords. I very much welcome the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who is, I believe, the only active practitioner in the Chamber today. He may be the only active practitioner in the House, but perhaps there is one other. I know that the noble Lord is very effective in his practice. I know his practice. It combines the elements of efficiency, effectiveness and compassion. It sets the highest standards in patient care in central London, which is not easy.
The noble Lord raised the question of hospital nurses being allowed to prescribe. Although I share the sentiments and the intentions expressed in that view, I favour the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. It is early days. We have to experience what this measure will mean for both doctors and nurses before we consider further widening the categories of nurses who are allowed to prescribe.
I share with all noble Lords their views on costs. I have listened very carefully to what my noble friend the Minister has said on the subject, and as always she has been most lucid and persuasive. However, I do harbour the suspicion that perhaps costs have been over-estimated, but that is a fault on the right side. So often costs are underestimated, to the annoyance of the Treasury.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who has had such a distinguished and inspiring career, raised the question of legal implications. As I understand it, the well-known principle of employers' vicarious responsibility remains. But nurses will, of course, have their own professional indemnity. I understand that this is an area where the department intends to issue covering guidance before nurse prescribing is introduced to enhance clarity. I hope very much that we shall be able to satisfy the concerns of the British Medical Association. If this Act is to work properly it needs partnership in its broadest sense between doctors and nurses.
I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for passing on the kind thoughts of his noble friend Lady Robson who was my predecessor as regional health authority chairman in South West Thames. Her reputation still enhances the work of the authority. I very much agree with the noble Viscount that rural areas will greatly benefit and I share his admiration for the hospice movement.
546
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, brought to the debate the support of his party for this Bill. I should like to thank him for that and for his undertaking not to amend the Bill further.
My noble friend the Minister has given the Government's support. That is of course crucial, for I fear that we shall be overtaken shortly by events beyond our control. In conclusion, I welcome the support that has been given this afternoon to give this Bill a speedy passage. That we are able to enact the Bill. I am sure that the nursing profession throughout the country will be very grateful. Finally, I formally request this House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Still-Birth (Definition) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In presenting this short Bill to your Lordships I bring before you a measure which has come unamended from another place where it was introduced by Mrs. Rosie Barnes, with all-party support. I hope that the same fair wind will speed it through your Lordships' House.
The main provision of the Bill is to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Acts by reducing from 28 weeks to 24 weeks the gestational age at which a baby is recognised as still-born. There is an important humanitarian motive for this which I shall shortly explain. It will also make the definition consistent with the consensus view of professional bodies about the gestational age at which a foetus could be said to be viable. Pressure to amend the law in this respect has increased since 1990 when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act inserted the time limit of 24 weeks for the majority of abortions under the Abortion Act.
As the law stands, considerable additional stress can be and is caused to parents if a child is born dead as the formal term of pregnancy is nearing its end but where the period of gestation is just too short for it to fall within the legal definition of a still-birth. In those circumstances the death is regarded as a miscarriage, which gives the baby no legal status and denies the parents the formal procedures which a still-birth involves.
It is true that some hospitals have introduced voluntary procedures, but these vary considerably from area to area. Some hospitals may have made arrangements with their local crematorium, others have burial areas in local cemeteries. But generally the remains of miscarriages are incinerated and the grief of parents has no outlet in any form of dignified procedure.
After 28 weeks the picture changes radically. The law, as it currently stands, requires certain definite procedures. The doctor or midwife who attended the delivery, or who examined the baby's body after delivery, will issue a medical certificate of a still-birth. The parents will attend before the local registrar and formally register their child as a still-birth. The

547
still-born child may be given a name and a still-birth certificate is issued. Documents are made available to allow for the child to be buried or cremated.
These formalities—in particular being able to name the child and obtain a birth certificate and, if they so choose, to arrange a funeral—are greatly valued by many parents as a recognition of the baby's existence.
By reducing to 24 weeks the limit by which a child born dead is formally and legally recognised as a still-birth it is estimated that in the UK as a whole the facility to formally register the dead foetus as a still-birth will be available in some 900 cases which would otherwise have been regarded as miscarriages. This is the humanitarian cause to which I referred and which I am sure will find favour both inside and outside the House. It also has the committed support of professional bodies such as the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nurses, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Medical Association, and voluntary organisations, in particular the Still-Birth and Neonatal Deaths Society—SANDS is the acronym—whose publication A Dignified Ending is to be recommended as essential background reading on this whole issue.
It may be appropriate to address here a question that might be forming in some people's minds concerning the very few abortions carried out after 24 weeks—there were only 21 such abortions in England and Wales in 1991—and their position under the Bill. In such cases, which will be very few in number, the delivery will be recorded as a still-birth and an abortion. At that stage in a pregnancy an abortion is most often carried out because of a substantial fetal abnormality. In these circumstances the disappointment of losing a wanted baby is bound to be heavy and the parents are likely to welcome being able to obtain a still-birth certificate. In this respect I would argue that the Bill constitutes an improvement on the present situation.
As a natural accompaniment to the lowering of the definition of still-birth to 24 weeks, the Bill also enables statutory maternity pay (SMP) and maternity allowance (MA) to be paid to those additional mothers who will now qualify under the new definition. This requires an amendment to the definition of "confinement" in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which received Royal Assent on Thursday 13th February, but whose provisions do not come into effect until 1st July of this year, or if not in force by the time the provisions of this Bill come into force, the Social Security Act 1986. This will have the effect of enabling SMP and MA to be paid to qualifying mothers where a child has been still-born after 24 weeks' gestation.
As regards the number of women who will benefit from these changes to social security law, it is expected that about 300 more will qualify for SMP and MA than at present. The additional cost of these payments is estimated at £0.5 million in a full year. About 90 per cent. of these costs will be reflected in payments of SMA, with the remaining 10 per cent. being payments of MA. There will be no additional demand on the social security budget, as it has been agreed that the
548
Department of Health should cover this additional expenditure and transfer the necessary funds to the Department of Social Security for this purpose. A money resolution to this effect has been passed in another place.
The Bill will apply to England, Wales and Scotland but contains power also to make corresponding provision under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. It is proposed that the Bill should come into force on 1st October this year. This will allow time for making an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act and for the issue of instructions and necessary documentation to registrars, hospital administrators and medical practitioners.
I think it is incumbent on me to take the House very briefly through the clauses. Clause 1(1) amends the Births and Deaths Registration Acts in England and Wales and provides for an amendment to the existing definition of a still-birth in the terms that I have described. Clause 1(2) provides for a corresponding amendment to be made to the law of Scotland. Clause 2(1) (a) and (b) amends the definition of "confinement" in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act for the purposes of entitlement to maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay respectively by reducing the period of pregnancy after which a labour is treated as a confinement, where a child is born dead, from 28 weeks to 24 weeks.
Clause 2(2) (a) and (b) amends that definition for the same purposes in the Social Security Act 1986 in the unlikely event that the Still-Birth (Definition) Bill comes into force before the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act, which comes into effect from 1st July 1992.
The effect of Clause 2(1) and (2) is to confer entitlement to statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance to qualifying women where a child is born dead after 24 weeks' gestation.
Clause 3 gives power to Her Majesty by Order in Council to make provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to that which the Bill makes for Great Britain. The clause prescribes the negative resolution procedure for the Order in Council. That will enable the order to be made as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Clause 4 provides for the Short Title, commencement and extent.
I should like to conclude with a personal experience which, if not exactly within the scope of the Bill, is very close to it. Many years ago, my wife gave birth to a premature child who died minutes after birth and would therefore have qualified in this country for a birth and a death certificate whatever the period of gestation. However, this took place in Spain where the regulations are different. I am not criticising another country for having different procedures. I think that I could probably have made better arrangements than I actually did had my wife not suffered a serious haemorrhage and had I not been naturally more concerned with her survival than with the disposal of the baby's remains.
However, the result was that no proper burial took place and the child was consigned to a common grave. We had decided on a name for him, but it was never

549
recorded. It is something that my wife and I have never ceased to regret. I can testify on our behalf how extraordinarily difficult it is to get over a loss which has not been recognised or signified in any formal way. On those grounds, in addition to those that I have already stated, it gives me a particular satisfaction to present to your Lordships a Bill designed to alleviate the distress of a considerable number of parents faced with a similar type of grief.I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Kilmarnock.)
3.16 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I rise briefly to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on the Bill, which, as he explained, is in effect consequential. It recognises that legislation which is now applicable to a foetus of 28 weeks' gestation —namely, that it should be registered and given what is in effect a combined birth and death certificate to allow burial or cremation—should apply to a foetus of 24 to 28 weeks' gestation.
The noble Lord very graphically described in personal terms the distress which parents feel when they lose a potentially viable child. It so happens that I have had a personal experience which is almost precisely the same. Therefore, I know that we are dealing with an important and sensitive area. I believe that the noble Lord presented the Bill in a very suitable and sensitive way.
In fact, the moment that the movements of an unborn child are detected by the mother is very significant. From then on the foetus starts to be felt as a separate entity from its parents. That usually occurs at around 16 to 20 weeks gestation. However, it has almost no chance of a separate existence outside the womb until 24 weeks. So that is the logical point at which the current definition should be changed, rather than waiting, as now, until 28 weeks. That may have been the logical age 40 years ago in 1953, when the current legislation was passed. But today it is possible for babies with as little as 24 weeks' gestation to survive.
Because of the remarks that I made about the feelings of the mother when experiencing foetal movements, there may be a case for lowering the age of still-birth even further than 24 weeks. The emotional bond starts to increase from the moment that those movements are felt. The mother's grief will not necessarily be any less if she loses the child at 23 weeks rather than at 24 weeks. Counselling and the parents' personal acclimatisation to their loss is helped, as the noble Lord pointed out so well, by the outward recognition of that loss that is allowed by registration, naming and a form of burial and cremation.
If we were to go below 24 weeks, the question of how far back one should go would arise. I can see endless difficulties in deciding on a suitable cut-off point. However, the organisation that the noble Lord mentioned, the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society, which supports mothers who have suffered a still-birth
550
or neonatal death, feels that future legislation should consider a gestation period that is even shorter than 24 weeks.
I think that this Bill has got it about right. I hope that the House will carry Mrs. Barnes' Bill through quickly without amendment so that it reaches the statute book before Parliament is dissolved. I have no difficulty in supporting the Bill and I hope that the rest of your Lordships' House will do the same.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to Mrs. Rosie Barnes for introducing this Bill into another place. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on the clear, comprehensive and sensitive way in which he has explained its provisions in your Lordships' House. My comments, too, will be extremely brief.
An article published in the February 1991 issue of British Medical Association's News Review begins:
"Thirteen years after she gave birth to her first baby, who was born dead 24 weeks into her pregnancy, Jeanette Philpott gave birth to a second baby, also at 24 weeks—and also born dead. Her first baby was taken away immediately, but the second was given a dignified burial in a marked grave. Jeanette is sure she recovered much more quickly from her second loss than from her first because of the sensitive way in which it was handled. 'There was no comparison,' she said.
The burial helped me to face the baby's death.
The death of a stillborn baby is always a tragedy for the parents. Being able to have that death formally acknowledged is an important part of the grieving process. The ability to give the baby a dignified burial and to have a certificate recognising its existence is of very great value to parents suffering such a bereavement. This Bill would help to deal sensibly with parents' wishes. I commend it to the House and trust that it will be given an unopposed Second Reading.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for introducing the Bill and explaining it so clearly. As is the convention, I speak from this Dispatch Box to give my personal view. I shall not be proposing any amendments. My personal view is particularly relevant because, like other noble Lords who have spoken, we experienced a miscarriage with our first child at seven months. Even though that happened 34 years ago, I can still remember very clearly the trauma of that time, especially for the mother.
As has been said, the Bill has been welcomed by everybody, including the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association and others. We are dealing with what is a sensitive and agonising time for parents. Their bereavement would certainly be eased by the ability to say goodbye properly and to arrange a burial service.
Hospital practices in this area have not always been as sensitive as they might have been. There used to be many old wives' tales in maternity hospitals about what happened to dead foetuses. All that can be put behind us. The Bill will go a long way towards making a tragic time a little more bearable.

551
One of the financial effects of the Bill is to increase the entitlement to statutory maternity pay, which is entirely proper and sensible. As I have said, we all welcome the Bill. As far as I am aware, it went through the other place with the minimum of debate at all stages. I hope that today the Bill can have an equally speedy passage through this House.
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for bringing forward the Bill and for sharing with us, as did other noble Lords, his own sad experiences. There can be few, if any, more difficult experiences for any person to face than the loss of a baby. I also express our gratitude to Mrs. Barnes who brought the Bill forward in the other place.
We have in recent years seen a radical change in the way the death of a baby, a still-birth or a miscarriage, is treated, and I am pleased to acknowledge the valuable work of health professionals and of the voluntary organisations in that respect. With a better understanding of the feelings of others has come also the realisation that bereaved parents should be given the opportunity to express their grief and time to come to terms in their own way with their loss. We have heard how difficult that is and that there is no limit to the time it takes. The proposals before us will extend to those parents whose baby is born dead between 24 and 28 weeks gestation the right to have their baby's existence legally acknowledged and recorded formally.
The noble Lord described the present situation when a child is born dead at a fairly late stage of pregnancy, even up to 28 weeks, where, because the period of gestation is just too short to fall within the existing definition of a still-birth, the parents are deprived of the registration of their child with all that that brings. The comfort for bereaved parents of being able to give their child a legal identity and to obtain a birth certificate is well appreciated.
Instances have arisen where twins were born prematurely before 28 weeks, with one born alive and the other born dead. As the law stands, one would be registered as a live birth whereas the remaining twin would be classed as a miscarriage and not registered. In other words, the child born alive would receive a birth certificate while the child born dead would receive no formal recognition. The child born alive, even if it died shortly afterwards, would also be entitled to a formal burial, whereas any arrangements made for the twin would be dictated very much by local practice.
Many hospitals have developed special procedures to deal with those tragic deaths, including where a child is born dead before 28 weeks, providing parents with a letter from the doctor or midwife stating that their baby was born before the legal age of viability. Such practices have been encouraged by the Department of Health, which has issued to the NHS copies of the Still-birth and Neonatal Death Society booklet Guidelines to Professionals. Those guidelines are a helpful source of information and play a useful
552
role in helping health professionals to have a better understanding of the special support parents may require after suffering the trauma of losing their baby.
The proposals in the Bill will require that all children born after 24 weeks of pregnancy, whether born alive or, sadly, born dead, are formally registered and not, as now, regarded differently in the eyes of the law.
The Bill is uncontroversial and worth while and will be welcomed by professionals and the public. The Government are on record as accepting that a change to 24 weeks in the definition of still-birth is called for and fully support the Bill.
I am also pleased to say that the Government fully endorse the noble Lord's proposal to amend the definition of "confinement" in social security legislation which is a logical consequence of the main purpose of the Bill. That will allow an estimated 300 more mothers every year to obtain statutory maternity pay or state maternity allowance where a child is born dead after 24 weeks of pregnancy instead of after 28 weeks of pregnancy as at present.
Today we may have the opportunity to exercise our privileges in a most worthwhile manner. For the unfortunate people involved in these tragic circumstances, and the professionals who help them, the Bill is an important piece of legislation. I hope that your Lordships will give it swift passage.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate for their support. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that possibly an investigation of a lower limit might be desirable at some time in the future. I was glad to hear him say that at present we have got it about right. I was also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for his support and to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on behalf of the Labour Party.
It was interesting to note that no fewer than three of your Lordships, including myself, have experience of something along those lines. That goes to show that it is not so remote a possibility or so unusual an experience.
It is not necessary for me to say more; not a voice has been raised against the Bill. Support has been universal, the Government accept it and will provide the necessary funding for the social security implications. Thus, my hopes that the Bill will receive a fair wind in your Lordships' House have so far been realised. It is very much my hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading today and that we shall manage to get it on to the statute book before Parliament is dissolved. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Traffic Calming Bill
3.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Private Member's measure has come from another place under the careful nurturing of my honourable friend Mr. Mans, who achieved all-party support there. Its purpose is to reduce road casualties in built-up areas, especially in the residential streets of our towns and villages, and to improve the road environment near where people live.
The Bill proposes to achieve that by enabling the Department of Transport and the Scottish Office to lay regulations to provide a framework of acceptable traffic calming measures. It rather surprised me that after today's Motion was put on the Order Paper, several noble Lords asked me what traffic calming measures were. They are defined in Clause 1(3) as:
"works affecting the movement of vehicular and other traffic for the purpose of promoting safety or preserving or improving the environment through which the highway runs".
Clause 2(2) (c) gives the same definition as it applies to Scotland.
That is fine so far as it goes, but I have to explain that the works in question are not road humps or "sleeping policemen", as they are popularly known. These are the only traffic calming measure for which there is currently legislative provision. Although they have their use in slowing down traffic in urban areas, I do not believe that they are successful on bus routes or roads in regular use by the police, fire or ambulance brigades. Indeed, they are widely resented by these groups of professional drivers who find that not only do they cause deterioration to their vehicles, but they cause suffering to their passengers and crew. I refer, of course, to the original type of humps. I am delighted to see that recent regulations on improved design have been achieved by the Department of Transport.
Private motorists, too, have in the past suffered knocked oil sumps and fractured silencers. The emergency services, the RAC and the AA are all supporters of the Bill, as are the highway authorities, Transport 2000 and Friends of the Earth, to whom I owe special thanks for their work on the Bill. That amounts to a pretty powerful combination.
The kind of measures that I see as being covered by the Bill are rough road surfaces, chicanes, gutters, increased kerb heights, with the attendant occasional ramp for disabled people, pavement widening and bollards. They could be used in addition to the measures in the Department of Transport's recent and successful urban safety demonstration project, about which we shall doubtless hear something from my noble friend Lord Astor.
It is a blight on urban motorists that such measures are required. But when I say that in 1990 there were 2,400 fatal accidents on our built-up roads out of a total casualty rate of 234,500, the need is readily apparent. When I add that the number of casualties is 70 per cent. of the total and that they occurred when the speed limit was 40 miles per hour or less, it is clear that, in the words of Edward VIII as Prince of Wales,
554
"Something must be done". The tragic loss of life and damage to people's bodies reflected in those figures, to say nothing of the burden placed upon the police, the ambulance service, doctors and hospitals, mean that anything that can be done to reduce them should be done and done quickly.
The Department of Transport has calculated that a vehicle travelling at 40 miles per hour is bound to kill a child, but at 30 miles per hour half the children struck would be killed, and at 20 miles per hour one in 20 would be killed. The "anything" I referred to a few moments ago is clearly reducing urban motoring speeds. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Government wanted to introduce similar measures themselves but, as happens far too often in our crowded parliamentary sessions, were unable to secure a suitable legislative vehicle. The Bill provides them with an opportunity to give a boost to their stated objective of reducing road casualties by a third by the year 2000. I hope that they will seize it with open arms because it has been proved that the measures I have outlined work.
Some 25 years ago I lived and worked for a year in Holland where traffic calming was beginning to be introduced. More recently, in the past 10 years, West Germany has invested heavily in such measures and there has been a drop in pedestrian fatalities from 6.2 to 2.3 per 100,000 of the population, a reduction of fractionally under two thirds. That is a very impressive figure. However, I am afraid to say that that compares with a fall in the United Kingdom of only half that number. I am also afraid that it is a horrific fact that in 1980 there were fewer such deaths in the United Kingdom than in West Germany, but in 1990 there were more, in spite of the Government's success in reducing road accidents in other areas, notably through the drink/drive campaigns highlighted so well by my former colleague Mr. Bottomley.
Horrific as the situation undoubtedly is, I do not bring the Bill before the House only to reduce road accidents. Traffic-calming schemes on the Continent have included very attractive planting schemes, especially of trees. In spite of my green credentials I do not have an interest to declare in this respect. I have never sold a tree to anyone, but I recognise their value in prettifying the urban environment. Shrubs, however, are a different matter. Planting them in large groups often results in a road hazard as children and even elderly people can emerge from behind them very suddenly, resulting in emergency braking, skidding and injury. Trees, however, with the sight-obscuring lower branches removed, can and do, if planted in strategic places, cause traffic to slow down.
It is noticeable that trees do not grow well in tarmac or, rather, in small areas of soil surrounded by tarmac. They do far better in planting holes surrounded by bricks or stone sets so that the rain can penetrate over a wider area. Bricks or stone sets are themselves traffic-calming measures, so those comments are not merely gratuitous horticultural advice to local highway authorities.
Having said that, a recent Kew study, which I received only this week, has shown conclusively that shrubs improve the environment by making it quieter

555
and reducing airborne pollution by fixing carbon as they grow, thus offsetting the carbon released by the burning of fossil fuels of which petrol is a major example. Therefore, banks of shrubs parallel but not at right-angles to the pavement are most desirable, but not as traffic-calming measures.
Finally, I refer briefly to the two schedules—Schedule 1 relating to England and Wales and Schedule 2 relating to Scotland. They are the nuts and bolts of the Bill and specify that traffic-calming works are to be the subject of prescribed regulations or to be specially authorised by the relevant Secretary of State. They also make clear that the schemes are to be treated not as an obstruction but as an integral part of the highway and are to be maintained as such. They also put beyond doubt that any powers which the authority already has to erect or remove such works shall not be prejudiced by the fact that they are not covered by the regulations as virtually all the regulations made under the Highways Act 1980, which the Bill amends, are subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.
In summary, this is a useful Bill, a Bill wanted by everyone involved. I hope that it will receive the blessing of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be read a second time.—[Lord Skelmersdale.]
3.40 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for introducing and explaining the purpose of the Bill. While I do not deny that the Bill plugs a rather large loophole in the 1980 Act, it gives rise to some concern.
The specific anxiety that I wish to underline today —I hope that the Minister is able to give me some assurance—is that in the schedules the relevant Secretaries of State have some impressive powers; they can make regulations. Nowhere in the Bill does it suggest that those Secretaries of State shall consult with any other bodies. One has to recognise that the highway authorities, to which the responsibility will be devolved, do not have any consultative obligations. I hope therefore that the Minister will reassure me on that point.
I do not disagree with my noble friend's resumé of the accident rates, and so on. However, I question some of his remarks on those measures which he envisages as traffic calming measures, in particular those relating to trees, shrubs and so on. I do not pretend this afternoon to be able to give a complete list of measures that might be taken. Let us hope that this simple and straightforward Bill gives a spurt of energy to that new breed of people called road traffic engineers or road traffic managers. It seems to me that for too long local authorities and highway authorities have used the road hump, the sleeping policeman, in its various forms as the only method available to them for traffic calming. There are innumerable other measures. If a little more investment and effort went into the design of traffic management schemes, much of the damage which my noble friend seeks to prevent by introducing the Bill would be set aside.
556
I should declare an interest to your Lordships. I am a member of the Public Policy Committee of the Royal Automobile Club. The RAC states in its excellent brief:
"Good traffic calming relies on a creative combination of these measures. In countries where traffic calming is well established (largely in northern Europe) reliance on humps is minimal … There is a need for standards and regulations to be wider in scope applying to a wider range of measures so that local authorities are aware of what is permitted".
It suggests, and I concur, that we need higher quality and higher standards.
Perhaps one may be anecdotal. Noble Lords will see that I have been somewhat injured, right outside the Palace of Westminster in Abingdon Street. It appears to me that the new traffic lights in Parliament Square, which culminate in a pedestrian crossing at the beginning of Millbank, have now become a trial site road testing area. Cars leap off that traffic light in a surge in the need to reach Vauxhall Bridge Road faster than anyone else has ever done it. Previously it was a long trail of traffic; now we have a trial. Perhaps those who are responsible might allow some of your Lordships who have been knocked down in that road a greater sense of security.
One hopes that, in the traffic management schemes which the Bill will help to promote, the highway authorities will use all the tools at their disposal rather than imposing blanket restrictions on the use of a motor car, as some authorities are inclined to do. The motor car and motor vehicles generally are an essential part of our economy. They should be fostered but they should also be directed. If the Bill does any reasonable good to the further direction of the use of motor vehicles, I welcome it.
3.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, described its contents most ably. I agree that its title is quaint and it is also attractive. I doubt whether in Holland or Germany the Bill would be described as such. Its title pays tribute to the flexibility and charm of the English language. Traffic calming can mean many things. Taken together with the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill, a rather strange picture may be painted for those who are not familiar with the chaos on our streets.
The Bill's aims are clear and they are most welcome. I lived for a while in London in what is commonly known as a "rat run". It was a quiet street in a residential area which was used at certain times of the day to join two major roads. During that period the road became extremely dangerous and there were many accidents. However, the local authority was loath to introduce any of the measures which are included in the Bill—for example, the humps—because of the potential problems that it might face in the event of accidents, claims for damages and so forth. The Bill goes most of the way towards dealing with such problems.
However, I doubt whether the Bill will do much to calm drivers. They will be extremely irritated wherever they go by any measure which decreases their speed. The selfishness, intolerance and rudeness of drivers in

557
London has become marked in recent times. On the other hand, I have no doubt that there will be a certain amount of calming for parents of small children, owners of animals and old people who live near roads which produce an enormous amount of traffic noise. There is no doubt that, in reducing the speed of traffic vehicles, one reduces the noise. However, in slowing down the type of traffic that one gets in South London one may reduce the engine noise but not the length of time when one must listen to loud music coming from a car which in the summer has its windows and roof open. The music is played at a level of decibels which will cause damage to anyone who has to listen to it for long. I hope that the problem will be dealt with in the near future by other legislation.
The Bill will be of great benefit to people in built-up areas and it can only lead to further sensible measures in relation to the environment. By introducing measures to reduce the amount of traffic—for example, by using trees —one creates variety in the streets. Sometimes streets are narrowed to create what are called traffic throttles. Bollards are put in place in order to slow down the traffic which must pass between. If done imaginatively, all such measures will enhance the appearance of our streets, in addition to improving safety and reducing noise.
Although the Bill goes some way towards dealing with the increasing problem of motor cars, I suggest that if noble Lords want to be calm in traffic they should think of riding a motor cycle. I rode a motor cycle this morning, not having heard the tragic news about the bomb that had exploded in London. I was able on my motor cycle to pass rather smugly through some of the worst traffic I have seen in London for a long time. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, I have formed a parliamentary all-party motor cycle group. We have various aims that we wish to tackle, including legislation from Brussels, but we shall also be attempting to persuade people, including noble Lords, to consider moving to two wheels, whether that be a motor cycle or a pedal cycle. We shall seek to persuade people that that is a good alternative to using a car. It is an environmentally attractive alternative and statistics prove that one is less likely to have an accident while on two wheels. Next to walking I believe it is the best way in which one can serve one's fellow human beings in terms of being less of a danger on the road and of being more environmentally progressive, as it were.
We welcome the legislation and I look forward to hearing the noble Viscount's comments when he replies.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, like other noble Lords I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House. I congratulate his honourable friend, Mr. Mans, for the way he introduced the Bill in another place. No one should have any doubts about the validity of the Bill after listening to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. However, anyone who has any doubts should read the comprehensive speech given by Mr.
558
Mans on Second Reading of the Bill in another place. That speech fully outlines and explains the purposes of the Bill.
This is a Private Member's Bill but I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that the Opposition give it their full support. The Opposition spokesman supported the Bill at Second Reading in another place. The purpose of the Bill primarily is to clarify any doubts local authorities may have about traffic calming measures. People may query the term "traffic calming", but it is that process that the Bill seeks to achieve. The title of the Bill does not matter. What matters is what Parliament does with the Bill and what local authorities do with the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to tidy up the legality of highway authorities undertaking traffic calming measures. The Bill determines what measures highway authorities may take. There is doubt about what they can and cannot do. The Bill will help them ascertain what they can and cannot do. The Bill enables local highway authorities to take account of the interests of residents and of through traffic that may pass through the residents' areas.
Mr. Mans referred to the matter of pedestrians. I shall not weary the House by giving figures of pedestrian fatalities. However, any noble Lord who is interested may find it worthwhile reading the Second Reading debate on this Bill which took place on 24th January in another place. At col. 613 of Commons Hansard Mr. Mans said that we in Britain pride ourselves on the measures we have introduced to reduce traffic accidents. Those measures have certainly reduced traffic accidents, but as regards traffic accidents involving pedestrians our record is far from being the best in the European Community. However, I repeat that I shall not weary the House with those figures today.
As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, the Bill has received widespread support from a variety of organisations. I believe I am correct in saying that it has the full support of the Government. It should pass through your Lordships' House without difficulty. Highway authorities are uncertain as to whether traffic calming measures could make them liable for prosecution for obstructing the highway. The Bill will help to clarify that point. Mr. Mans has emphasised that he wants a minimum amount of regulations but a maximum amount of discretion given to local authorities. I believe that that view is shared by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities of which I am president. It is also the view of the Association of London Authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned regulations. I hope that we shall pay great attention to the regulations when they are issued. I doubt whether there will be many amendments to consider in Committee because we wish the Bill to reach the statute book without difficulty. Therefore, we may not be in a position to deal with amendments to regulations. Much responsibility will be placed on the two Secretaries of State and the Department of Transport in framing those regulations. I agree with Mr. Mans that we do not want too much regulation.

559
We want proper regulation with the maximum flexibility so that highway authorities can get on with their work.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, stressed what can be done as regards the appearance of streets. As one drives around, one can see where attention has been paid to the appearance of the street. I do not just mean greenery because trees can be dangerous as well as useful. Therefore, attention must be paid to that aspect. However, one can see roads—and there are some in my area —with grass verges which have become disgraceful to look at because cars have parked on them. There is such a verge not far from me with a sign stating that it is illegal to park on the grass. However, nobody seems to take much notice. That is an important point.
The best traffic calming can be carried out by the individual. I echo what some noble Lords have said about the disgraceful, selfish and arrogant driving that one finds. I believe that 95 per cent. of drivers drive decently and properly. However, the other 5 per cent. cut in and generally drive badly. We debated the matter on the Road Traffic Act. That applies also to courier motorcyclists who are an absolute menace in London. I appreciate the care which most motorcyclists exercise but that does not apply to courier motorcyclists. Anyone who drives in the City of London will realise the truth of what I am saying.
All noble Lords could detail points which they believe should be considered by highway authorities in carrying out the provisions to be made under the Bill. There are two points about which I am particularly worried. I am surprised that one or two Members, although not of this House, seem to justify rat runs on the basis that they make the flow of traffic easier. I have been pleased to note in the past couple of weeks that in part of the borough of Waltham Forest, where rat runs have been a nuisance for years, there has been constructed a two-foot stretch of pavement with proper kerbing which has stopped rat running along three roads. It prevents traffic impeding other traffic going from left to right and from right to left. It will be better for the residents living in those roads which have been used as rat runs. Local authorities will wish to tackle that problem.
The other matter about which I am particularly concerned will not be covered by this legislation. That is the problem of drivers jumping red lights. Unfortunately, I find it necessary to travel more often by car these days in the city. Every day I see people jumping red lights and jumping across the yellow criss-crosses. Those are two menaces which must be dealt with. However, I am not certain that they can be dealt with by the provisions of this Bill.
We could all detail points which we should like to see tackled by highway authorities. I hope that your Lordships will give full support to the Bill and that the Government will confirm their support for it. I hope that the regulations will be sufficiently flexible so that they do not inhibit local highway authorities doing what they believe is best for their area.
4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government attach considerable importance to the use of traffic-calming techniques. They can be invaluable in enhancing both the safety and appearance of a locality. They form an integral part of most area-wide local safety schemes, which can particularly benefit the most vulnerable road users.
The public perception is increasingly that traffic calming offers an economic means of encouraging people to drive at a speed and in a manner appropriate to the roads they are using. The precise measures to be used in any situation have to be decided at local level. That is a matter for the individual highway authorities, in consultation with the police and others with an interest. The major contribution which we can make is to ensure that they have the appropriate tools for the task. It has become apparent that some of the techniques which have been used successfully in other countries are in doubt under current UK law. This Private Member's Bill is therefore welcome, and the Government have been assisting with it.
The legislation is intended to clarify the legal status of traffic calming measures. It would give highway authorities the confidence to use a wider range of appropriate techniques than hitherto. That is important in tailoring permanent safety or environmental schemes to meet the anxieties of local people, and in ensuring cost-effectiveness. It would permit the temporary use of traffic-calming features, which would help in fine-tuning measures in a particular location, or in restraining traffic speeds in the vicinity of road works. It would also allow authorities scope for innovation and experimentation.
The Government have a continuing involvement in developing new traffic engineering approaches. Development and demonstration work is under way, aimed at providing highway authorities with technical guidance. A number of recent and current projects place extensive reliance on the use of traffic-calming measures. The Government's Urban Safety Project demonstrated the value of an area-wide approach to traffic engineering measures aimed at accident reduction. Subsequently work was undertaken with the Institution of Highways and Transportation to give local authorities advice on improving urban safety management, involving traffic calming. Guidelines were issued last year.
The Bill contains provisions for the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing traffic-calming works for the purposes of the legislation. This is preferable to trying to define each and every traffic measure in primary legislation; it will ensure that measures available are safe in the sense that their parameters have been tried and tested before inclusion in regulations; and it allows future techniques to be included, without the need for primary legislation. Some doubts have been expressed about the degree of detailed control which might be exerted through regulations, and over the extent of consultation. I am able to give some assurances which I hope will allay anxiety on those points.
The Government's aim would be to exercise a light hand in making any regulations. It is not envisaged

561
that regulations would be as detailed as those for road humps. It is thought important to leave as wide a flexibility as possible for local authorities on the design of particular features. In many instances, regulations may need to do little more than list the measures concerned. The intention would be to consult widely with interested organisations in framing any regulations. That would include the local authority associations, as well as professional bodies and organisations representing road users.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised the question of noise. We believe that a wider range of traffic-calming measures will allow the flexibility to use features which avoid generating unnecessary noise. For instance, in some locations road humps can create noise from the slowing down and speeding up of vehicles and from bodywork and suspension of heavy vehicles passing over them. Access to a wider number of measures will enable local authorities to avoid or mitigate noise nuisances.
The noble Viscount spoke also of motor cycles. I am glad to hear that he does not drive his motor cycle in the same way as some couriers. There will be significant benefits for cyclists as well as for pedestrians and local residents. However, I understand that the recent painful experience of my noble friend Lord Lucas was in fact caused by a cyclist. It is therefore particularly apt that he speaks on the Bill today.
As I have said, the Government are supporting the Bill. The legislation will help in encouraging the development of new and wider traffic engineering approaches. These can have a significant effect on road safety and the street environment. I wish the Bill success. I thank my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for sponsoring it and I commend it to your Lordships.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House who have supported this Bill today. I particularly welcome the moral support of my noble friend Lord Lucas, with his very long experience in this particular area. I believe that he asked the Government the key question of the day, namely: how, if we put this measure on the statute book, will the Government operate the new power? All the motoring organisations will be grateful for the response of my noble friend Lord Astor in that the highway authorities and other interested parties should be consulted and that relevant Secretaries of State should only specify sensible traffic-calming measures which are pertinent to the area in question with—he did not quite say "a light touch", but he used an expression of that kind for which we are all grateful.
I was concerned with some of the matters about which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, spoke. He almost talked about an urban driver frustration Bill which I regard as being rather unfair. I remind the noble Viscount that in paragraph 49 of the Highway Code it is stated:
"You must obey the speed limits for the road and for your vehicle. Remember that except on motorways there is a 30 miles per hour speed limit on all roads where there are street lights unless signs show otherwise. Bear in mind that any
562
speed limit is a maximum. It does not mean that it is safe to drive at that speed—always take into account all the conditions at the time".
"All the conditions", after these regulations are produced, will include the traffic-calming measures that we have been discussing this afternoon. I was also very grateful for the blessing—almost the beatitude —of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and especially for his views on the road environment. The noble Lord spoke of a former rat run in the borough of Waltham Forest and its cure by a traffic-calming measure, possibly of doubtful legality.
That is the point. This Bill will remove legal uncertainty which exists over authorities' powers to use traffic-calming measures. As my noble friend Lord Astor said—and to whom I am also grateful—these measures have been tried both in this country and in Europe, and they work.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
4.7 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill passed through another place in all its stages with support from all sides of the House. It is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is in line with the recommendations made in July 1991 to the Home Secretary by the Firearms' Consultative Committee, of which I am privileged to be the chairman. The Bill has the support of the shooting community in all its disciplines. There is no risk whatsoever to public safety. Within the Bill there is substantial scope for cost savings.
The Bill does one thing and one thing only. It gives to the Home Secretary power to extend the life of firearm and shotgun certificates. At the moment he has the power to reduce them by order. Under this Bill he will have the power to extend them, but he will only be able to do so by statutory instrument subject to the negative procedures. Therefore, if at the time there was some doubt about the action, it would be debatable both in your Lordships' House and in another place. It is a modest measure and one which is urgently needed. I hope that the House will endorse it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Kimball.)
4.9 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is a very sensible and welcome measure. I am extremely pleased to support it from this Dispatch Box. It is a Bill which is short in length but long on common sense. I am extremely glad to give the Bill support. Like the other Bills that we have dealt with today, I hope that this Bill will be given a speedy passage through the House and that it will reach the statute book before the general election.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the sponsorship of my noble friend Lord Kimball for this Bill, which has the Government's full support.

563
The Government have been criticised by some within the shooting community who see our every move as part of a hidden agenda to eliminate shooting sports by a gradual process of erosion. That is not our intention. The Government have no quarrel with legitimate shooters, the vast majority of whom are responsible and law-abiding members of the community who are well aware of their responsibilities to a wider non-shooting public. Our overriding concern is for public safety. But, beyond that, we are committed to making life as easy as possible for the shooting community and for the police who have to operate the firearms licensing system.
564
The Bill enables the Secretary of State to consider taking a valuable step towards enhancing the efficiency of the firearms licensing system by cutting work and costs for the police without in any way risking public safety. Such a move will be warmly welcomed by the shooting community, and it has the support of experts in policing and firearms alike. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I am most grateful. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past four o'clock.

  LEICESTER DIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION: POWERS
  LEICESTER DIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION: POWERS
  GUILDFORD DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE: POWERS
  GUILDFORD DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE: POWERS
  ROSE THEATRE: SCHEDULING
  ROSE THEATRE: SCHEDULING