Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 78: debated on Thursday 2 May 1985

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Thursday 2 May 1985

The House met at half-past Two o'clock


[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Private Business


Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Monday 13 May at 7 o'clock.

As the other three Bills on the Order Paper are the subject of blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall deal with them together.




Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 9 May.

Oral Answers To Questions

Home Department

Immigration Clearance


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to reduce the waiting times before first interview for application for entry clearance in the Indian subcontinent, particularly in Dhaka.


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the length of time an applicant for an entry permit to the United Kingdom has to wait for an interview in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.

Since the beginning of the year, I have received delegations from two organisations, and received one letter, specifically about delays in dealing with entry clearance applications in the Indian subcontinent, but the matter has been mentioned by a number of other organisations and individuals in discussions and correspondence about immigration control generally.

We have increased the number of entry clearance officers at Dhaka and our immigration section there is already the largest of any of our posts overseas. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is taking steps to ensure that the most effective use is made of these resources.

Is the Minister aware that the annual number of applications processed has declined considerably? Is he aware that the productivity of entry clearance officers in the subcontinent has decreased by 36 per cent. per officer? What will the hon. and learned Gentleman do about that? Is the decrease due to the complexity of the rules that have been made by this Government? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make a statement?

The present rules governing the admission of wives and children are exactly the same as the rules that obtained under the Labour Government. The point that I was seeking to make was that there are now more entry clearance officers in Dhaka than there were at the time of the Labour Government. We realise that this is a serious situation, and we are doing our best to relieve it. Two years ago we increased the number of entry clearance officers. As a result, there have been two extra entry clearance officers at Dhaka for the past two winters. Steps are being taken to keep staffing levels at full effective strength, with five additional postings for six months each being made to cover staff leave and so on. In addition, first-time applicants are to be given a measure of priority over those who have previously applies and been refused permission.

I am sure the Minister will agree that it is to no one's advantage to have such lengthy waiting times before interviews are conducted. In some cases, 22 months pass before the first interview is conducted to decide whether a man's wife and children can join him in this country. Cannot extra efforts be made, especially in Dhaka where the waiting time seems to be longest, to make a big clearance of the queue once and for all so that applicants may be dealt with more humanely?

It is important to give priority to first-time applicants. One of the difficulties in Dhaka is that many people, having had their applications refused and appeals turned down, apply repeatedly. That is very much to the disadvantage of people who, having been here for two or three years, decide to call for their wives and children. We must put this matter into perspective. A comparison of present waiting times with waiting times under the Labour Government shows that we certainly have nothing of which to be ashamed. The waiting time in Bombay was 12½ months in 1979; it is now only six months. The waiting time in Islamabad was 19½ months in 1979; it is now 10¾ months. The waiting time in Delhi is now precisely the same as in 1979. The waiting time in Dhaka was 22 months in 1979; it is now 23 months. Those are not grounds for indicting the Government.

I listened with interest to what my hon. and learned Friend said. Is he aware that any reduction in the waiting list abroad would only mean an increase in the number of unemployed people in Britain, in particular in Leicester and Bradford? Will he reconsider his policy, which is negative and undesirable?

We must apply the rules. Our entry clearance officers have to ensure that there is no evasion, but equally that people receive their entitlement. I cannot go along with my hon. Friend if he is saying that we should now alter the approach which has been adopted by successive Governments over the years and deny to a man who has settled here the right to bring in his wife and children. But my hon. Friend is correct to draw to the attention of the House the difficult social problems involved. I assure the House that if those queues were to be removed tomorrow, we should face enormous problems with regard to schools, social services and hospitals, for example, in Tower Hamlets. A high percentage of the people in those queues would go to our inner city areas. However, that does not mean that we shall alter the policy which gives to the people settled here the right to bring in their wives and children.

Is not one of the significant causes of the delay the Government's excessive zeal in finding reasons not to admit people—in particular, the primary purposes regulations which prevent from entering people who otherwise would legitimately be able to join their families?

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that point. We are often told that we are now applying more oppressive control than was the case under Labour. That is a load of old nonsense. The highest refusal rate of families in Dhaka occured in 1977 under the Labour Government, when it was over 60 per cent. The refusal rate in Dhaka last year was only 50 per cent. I remind the hon. Gentleman that since the introduction of the 1983 rules, the failure rate for husbands and fiancés has decreased.

Do not confidential papers, recently leaked, show that the Home Office is using administrative means deliberately to stop people with a clear legal right to enter this country from doing so? Will he take the opportunity of next Thursday's debate on the Commission for Racial Equality to apologise to the commission for his premature criticism of its immigration control policy, and announce that there will be a substantial increase in entry clearance officers on the Indian subcontinent so that the queues of people, predominantly families, can exercise their legal right to enter this country to join their husbands?

I was content that there should be a debate on immigration next Thursday, but I understand that the Opposition chose otherwise.

If I am wrong, I withdraw the remark. I am entitled to make the point that on three separate days I and the Home Office have been happy to have a debate on immigration, but for some reason that has not been satisfactory to the Front Benches of the two—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am not having it said that we are ducking a debate.

Order. This question has gone on for a long time. I know that it is of great interest to the House, but we should have the answer without an argument about a debate.

My trouble, Mr. Speaker, is that I have forgotten what the question was.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the figures that he has just quoted show that in no way are those entitled to come to this country being unjustly inhibited? Does he also accept that the enterprise of the Asian community in Leicester contributes to employment, not unemployment?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. No impartial and reasonable person looking at the figures that I have mentioned today could for a moment say that the Government are failing in their duty. The very important matter raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has a bearing on my hon. and learned Friend's point. The briefing paper that appeared in The Guardian was used by the journalist to suggest that queues were being used deliberately to limit immigration. Queues exist—and they existed under the Labour Government—because the number of people applying to come here exceeds the capacity of the resources available to deal with them. That was the case under the Labour Government and it remains the case today.

We want the debate on the Commission for Racial Equality report. It was certainly not at the request of the Opposition Front Bench that there should be a further delay in having that debate.

The Minister's answers to the question at issue, today and on previous occasions, suggest a deficiency on his part as regards both statistics and humanity. There is serious doubt about the figures that he has quoted today. Last year, 1984, was the first year when the number of applications processed for entry were fewer than the numbers received. Is that not a sign that the Minister is using bureaucratic methods to increase the delays?

If the hon. Gentleman were right, we would not be sending an extra entry clearance officer to Dhaka and we would not have sent two extra officers for the past two winters, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary would not be making sure that extra staff go to Dhaka this year to see that there is no shortage of entry clearance officers as a result of leave or sickness. If the hon. Gentleman doubts my statistics, perhaps he will challenge me and say where I am wrong.

Drug Trafficking (Seizure Of Assets)


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide for the seizure and confiscation of assets acquired through drug trafficking.

I intend to seek an opportunity for legislation of this kind during the life of this Parliament.

I welcome that brief reply. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the current law is unsatisfactory and that urgent action is needed? Is he aware that those who traffick in drugs are prepared to destroy the careers and lives of their fellow human beings in order to make vast fortunes? Is there not a case for doing something radical—for giving the police immediate powers of seizure before conviction, and for shifting the burden of proof so that, in order to avoid forfeiture, drug dealers have to prove that they obtained their assets by legitimate means?

There is a case for doing all those things. We are considering the matter urgently. It is necessary to take action in this area, and we shall do so. The existing powers are inadequate, but it is important that the courts should not feel that they should not be used so far as they go. Although they need to be supplemented, they are quite considerable.

I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement about the powers. Will he assure the House that any Bill will extend the powers to Northern Ireland?

Are not the major drug traffickers perhaps the most evil and potentially dangerous of all criminals? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this legislation is perhaps the most important single action that his Department can take to combat them and that the sooner it is on the statute book the better?

I would agree with that. However, other action can be and is being taken. I congratuate my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) on successfully piloting through the House his Bill to enact the Government's pledge to increase the maximum penalty for trafficking in serious drugs to life imprisonment. The support given to that Bill shows how seriously we treat the matter.

The Home Secretary might be aware that the Conservative candidate who opposed me at the 1979 general election was later locked up as a drug trafficker and was well known to have a great fortune in Switzerland, which then could not be touched. Is he aware that this is important legislation, but that it is scraping at the symptoms rather than the cause of the growth of drug use by young people, which is lack of opportunity and work?

The seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter is rendered suspect by his wholly unnecessary opening remarks.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that drug traffickers should be subject to criminal bankruptcy? Does he also agree that the figures of those who are not subject to criminal bankruptcy are far too high at the moment? Is he aware that many people who should properly be subject to criminal bankruptcy are escaping, and that their numbers should be halved?

The arrangements for criminal bankruptcy are not a satisfactory solution to the problem. We must act, and the suggestions in the Hodgson report must be considered. We are considering the matter urgently. I accept my hon. Friend's support for the urgency with which we are approaching legislation on this subject.

As drug addiction, especially heroin addiction, has risen by more than 400 per cent. since the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to office, when will he stop the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gallivanting all over the country and the world making gestures and tell him to start doing something effective? What will be the Government's response to the demand by the chief constable of Preston yesterday that he can deal with the problem only if he has more men, resources, and equipment?

If the hon. Gentleman is so insular as to think that a study of what is going on in other countries, such as the United States, which has had the problem longer and is experiencing it more seriously. will contribute nothing to our handling of the problem, his consideration of the subject is unworthy of him. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has engaged in a constructive visit to the United States, where he has seen the problems and the solutions to them. The problem must be tackled comprehensively. It is being tackled more comprehensively through legislation such as I mentioned earlier, by tackling the entry of drugs to Britain, by providing treatment and by publicity. Those approaches are more than anything that has been done by any previous Government, and my hon. Friend has spearheaded that comprehensive approach.

Elections (Proportional Representation)


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to introduce proportional representation for local government elections.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Mr. David Mellor)

No, Sir.

Why, on this day of county council elections, are the Government afraid of facing local government elections by fair and democratic means? Does the Minister agree that the likely result of the elections is that yet more issues will be decided by caucus rather than by democratic debate?

As a non sequitur, the hon. and learned Gentleman's latter assertion takes a great deal of beating. The epitome of caucus politics is a hung council—politicians having to get together to sort out what policy will be, rather than electors doing so.

Does my hon. and personal Friend agree none the less accept that there are already more than 30 local authorities with no overall control and a possibility that that number might increase in the next 24 hours? Does he further agree that it makes slightly more sense to have local authorities which are broadly proportionate to the votes cast rather than made up according to arithmetical accident?

The trouble with the approach that my hon. and personal Friend advances is that the Bill, which has been introduced in another place and which would do what he required, would provide electoral districts for local authorities of between four and nine members—hardly an additional ornament to local democracy—and give councils power to adjust their boundaries. That is an invitation to the sort of malpractice that might go on in other jurisdictions, but which has never been allowed to go on here.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we in Northern Ireland have experience of proportional representation and that we do not commend it? Will he accept our advice that the Government should persist in their view not to introduce it into Great Britain and that they should definitely reconsider its application to Northern Ireland?

I shall not be tempted into folly and comment on the last question, not even today. However, I obviously welcome advice from the hon. Gentleman, and I shall consider it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of proportional representation will in no way prevent ugly and loutish scenes such as those organised by the hard Left in Southwark town hall last night?

Soccer Grounds (Policing)


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about policing methods inside London Football League club grounds.

I have had no recent discussion personally with the Commissioner on this subject, but my Department keeps in close contact with the Metropolitan police about football violence, and ways of tackling it.

Will the Home Secretary consider the proposal that I made in an Adjournment debate on 19 April about setting up football community policing teams, because clearly somewhat more specialised attention is required by the Metropolitan police to the problems of crowd violence inside London league clubs?

Secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the opportunity to discuss with the Commissioner the possibility of transferring the cost of policing from football clubs to the public purse? Chelsea, for example, has paid about £127,000 this year in policing charges. That money could have been more usefully spent on ground improvements for the benefit of the supporters, and, I hope, reducing football hooliganism.

It is best that football grounds are policed by local officers with reinforcements, if necessary, rather than by specialist squads.

Regarding the hon. Gentleman's second point, if a football club organises a match and requires policing inside the ground, as opposed to outside, because of the risk of trouble, it is reasonable that it should pay for the cost of that policing.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the north of England video surveillance and recordings of visiting supporters have led to custodial sentences for those who have committed misdemeanours at football matches? Does he agree that people, such as Ken Bates of the Chelsea football club, should be supported, not discouraged by stupid planning regulations, in their desire to control hooliganism?

We all share the desire to control football hooliganism. My hon. Friend makes a good point about video pictures. The Home Office is experimenting with a van which can take good quality still and video pictures outside and inside grounds. That van is intended to assist in crowd control and to gather evidence for use in court proceedings. The use of such a facility is an important contribution to the problem.

Is it not a fact that since the Prime Minister's headline hunting caused her to stick her meddling fingers into this issue, there has been nothing but ill feeling and confusion? Now that she has suddenly taken an interest in football hooliganism and football, will she abandon her boycott of the Cup Final, attend it again, and take the opportunity to watch Manchester United win the cup?

There are not many matters about which I would take lessons from the right hon. Gentleman, but the pursuit of headline hunting may be one. His remarks about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are singularly inapposite. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note with interest the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to her to attend the Cup Final.

Animal Welfare


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received recently from animal welfare groups in Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

I have received two letters from the Scottish Anti-Vivisection Society concerning the University of Glasgow's connection with brain-damage research performed at the University of Pennsylvania.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety in the west of Scotland about the unbelievably cruel experiments on live monkeys which are carried out at the University of Pennsylvania, following which further research on their scrambled brains is undertaken at the University of Glasgow? Is he further aware that one of the professors engaged in that research has said that in eight years of research no use has been made of the experimental results for the benefits of humans? Does my hon. Friend share my anxiety about those experiments, and does he believe that it is an adequate response to say that those experiments would not be allowed in the United Kingdom?

A distinction must be drawn between what is happening at the University of Pennsylvania and at the University of Glasgow. I saw the deeply distressing video of what has gone on at the University of Pennsylvania, and it appears that animals that may not have been anaesthetised at the time were subjected to brain damage. The conduct of those experiments by some of the researchers left a very great deal to be desired. That conduct would not be permitted in the United Kingdom, and nor would the imposition of those injuries, without an anaesthetic, be permitted in the United Kingdom. The work of the University of Glasgow is confined to research on tissues that have been removed from the dead monkeys. That work is not subject to control under the 1876 Act, because that Act deals with vivisection and experiments on live animals, and does not deal with the use of dead tissues.

Metropolitan Police


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with manpower levels within the Metropolitan police.

On 31 March the strength of the Metropolitan police was 26,751, and the strength of the civil staff was 12,939. These are increases of over 4,500 and 1,300 respectively since May 1979. It is the Commissioner's objective, which I fully support, to ensure that the very considerable manpower at his disposal is used as effectively, efficiently and economically as possible.

Although I greatly welcome those figures for increased manpower since 1979, does not my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the increased duties of the Metropolitan police and the continuing level of crime combine to require a substantially greater establishment? Will he devote some of his considerable energy to pressing for such an increase in due course?

There has been an increase in the Metropolitan police establishment from 1 April 1985. We shall need to keep the position under review as the reorganisation of the force proceeds. That reorganisation, of course, is of considerable importance, as I believe that it will lead to a more effective use of manpower.

Is the Home Secretary aware that crime levels in London's inner city areas are running at more than twice the national average and that the deployment of police in London is not directly related to them? Will he ask the Commissioner to concentrate resources permanently—not temporarily, as with the special patrol group—on areas that have very high rates of crime, which could do with good permanent police officers on the streets?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Commissioner will have that priority very much at the forefront of his mind.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what effect there would be on the manpower requirements of the Metropolitan police if a fifth terminal were built at Heathrow, with the ensuing appalling traffic jams in west London?

Coalfield Communities (Policing)


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with chief officers of police about policing problems since the ending of the coal miners' strike.

I continue to keep in touch with chief officers about the policing of areas which were affected by disorder during the miners' strike.

Does the Home Secretary intend to consider the lessons that can be drawn from the policing of the miners' strike and the great variety of operational practices found among the different police forces? Does he plan to give the House the benefit of his views on that subject before he publishes his paper on public order?

That will not be possible, because I hope to publish my paper on public order very soon. The examination of the operational lessons to be learnt from the strike is being continued by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and it will not be completed within that time scale.

When the Home Secretary discusses the miners' strike with chief constables, will he make it his business to hold in-depth talks on the mountainous cost of policing that strike? That cost is a terrific burden for ratepayers, and rate-capped authorities consequently find themselves in great financial difficulty. What does the Home Secretary intend to do about that?

The Home Secretary is not going to do anything about it, because he has done something about it. He has announced enormous assistance to police authorities which have had to incur costs on an unprecedented scale. During the strike I announces a series of measures which have cumulatively led to enormous help being given to those authorities which have had to incur that burden.

Why is it taking so long to investigate complaints against the police? I made a complaint in December 1984 and that investigation has still not been completed.

The length of time depends on the complexity of the issues that have to be looked into. However, if the hon. Lady feels that there has been an undue delay, I should be happy to look into her case.

Can the Home Secretary be more explicit about the date of publication of the White Paper? The Prime Minister said in November 1984 that it would be published before the end of the year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, I think, that it is to be published in the next few weeks. Does he mean that?

Sunday Trading


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on Sunday trading.

The House will have the opportunity to debate the Auld report in the very near future and my right hon. and learned Friend will take that opportunity to make a statement on the Government's intentions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a strong case can be made for eliminating the anomalies of the present Sunday trading laws, but that a general relaxation would be disastrous for the cherished way of life of this country? A previous attempt to abolish restrictions was decisively rejected by the House on a free vote. The Government have no mandate for acting in the way that is apparently proposed. Should not Sunday be allowed to remain a day for rest, recreation and religion?

That depends upon one's definition of rest and recreation. For some people it might involve a little quiet shopping. My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to develop his views, as will other hon. Members, during the debate that is soon to take place.

Before the Minister makes his statement, will he consider the fact that to abolish completely the Shops Act would cause very considerable hardship to shop workers? Is he aware that they would have no defence whatever against the unscrupulous employer, because of the abolition by the Government of the wages council? Will he also take into account the tremendous offence that abolition would cause to many hundreds of thousands of religious people throughout the country?

To hear the hon. Gentleman ask his question one would think that nothing had changed since the days of Mr. Polly. In putting forward the views of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, the hon. Gentleman has revealed only too clearly why that union commands the support of only 15 per cent. of those who work in the retail sector.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if Sunday trading were to be allowed, it would add to the employment prospects of very many people?

Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a sense of steamrollering about this issue and that opinions throughout the country vary from total apathy among chambers of commerce to downright opposition among the silent majority?

It is two and a half years since the matter was last debated on the Floor of the House. Every speaker, whether for or against Sunday trading, said that the Shops Acts were in need of amendment. The Government then set up a committee which took almost a year to reach its conclusions. The committee's report was published over six months ago and we are now moving towards a debate on the report. It is interesting that "steamrollering" should be thought to embrace all of that.

Does the Minister not recognise that when his Tory friends brush aside the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) about the conditions for shop workers being made worse should full Sunday trading be authorised, he ought also to recognise that for many shop workers Sunday is the only family day that they have together, since six-day trading already takes place in many of our major cities? If full Sunday trading were to be authorised, conditions for hundreds of thousands of shop workers, not least their wages, would be destroyed.

Again there is an air of unreality about the hon. Gentleman's question, but no doubt we shall have the pleasure of hearing from him at even greater length when the matter is fully debated.

Will my hon. Friend accept that this matter must be decided on a free vote and that very strong views are held about it by many Conservative Members? They believe that all the advantages do not lie in the abolition of the Shops Acts and all their provisions, that Sunday is a day for the family and for corporate worship and that to abolish the Shops Acts would play into the hands of the large retailer, the supermarket and hypermarket, while small businesses—the butcher and the other traders who are a traditional part of this country—would suffer gravely.

I hear what my hon. Friend says. The terms on which any proposal might be put before the House is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is in his place.

Violent Crime


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on offences of violence against the elderly.

Crimes of violence are particularly abhorrent when they are perpetrated against the most vulnerable members of society. Though recent research has shown that elderly people are the least likely to be the victims of violent crime, attacks on the elderly quite rightly attract special concern and the courts have power to impose appropriately severe sentences in the most serious cases.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there have been a number of sickening attacks on the elderly in Stockport recently, often in furtherance of theft? Does he agree that such attacks cannot be tolerated and that, in order to deter others, courts should be encouraged to give long sentences of imprisonment to anybody engaging in that kind of crime, whether or not he is a first offender?

The courts have the power to do just that and there is a strong and compelling case for doing so.

Does my hon. Friend accept that a narrow statement on crimes of violence against the elderly is insufficient for the House and that he should be pressing for a full debate on the whole spectrum of law and order, sentencing policy and everything else that goes with it?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I would be only too pleased to participate in such a debate. We have a good story to tell on those matters.

Juveniles (Reconviction Rates)


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest reconviction rates for juveniles attending detention centres.

About 70 per cent. of juveniles discharged from detention centres in England and Wales in 1980 were reconvicted within two years.

Does that not show that the philosophy behind the Government's thinking in relation to juveniles who do wrong is not working? Would it not be a lot better if the Government concentrated on giving juveniles real jobs in society so that they felt that they were playing a more valid role, instead of leaving them to roam the streets and end up in detention centres?

Those cheap and tendentious observations are somewhat undermined by the fact that in each of the years of the Labour Government the reconviction rates were higher than those I have just given.

Given the lack of success of the detention centres, does the Minister agree that it is time that statutory funding was provided for intermediate treatment for juveniles throughout Britain, bearing in mind the evidence of success of such schemes?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we are attracted to intermediate schemes and that the Department of Health and Social Security has recently put some £15 million into developing intermediate treatment facilities throughout Britain.

Car Milometers


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is available to the Metropolitan police as to the incidence of zeroing of car milometers; and if he will make a statement.

It is Metropolitan police practice to refer members of the public who complain about misleading odometer readings on secondhand cars to the local trading standards officer and no central records on zeroing are therefore maintained by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the zeroing of car milometers is massive, widespread and the biggest rip-off in London and beyond, and is in need of Government attention? Will his Department initiate immediate research with a view to establishing tamperproof milometers that cannot be abused in that way?

My hon. Friend will understand that that is a matter not for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary or myself but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will be aware that that matter was dealt with in reply to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who was told that there were no plans at present to introduce such legislation.

Government Purchasing


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes following the conclusions of the recent report by the Management and Personnel Office on Government purchasing.

My Department has prepared a programme of action in response to the report with the aim of improving value for money in Home Office purchasing.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend do all in his power to encourage small firms to play their part in achieving the hoped-for savings of £400 million per annum?

I appreciate the need to do that. The report itself made no specific recommendation about small firms, but it mentioned the need to improve information and to simplify procedures for small firms. We shall have that in mind as we carry forward our response to the report.

Long-Term Prison System


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a conclusion on the managing of the long-term prison system.

My right hon. and learned Friend intends to make a statement within the next few months on our progress in implementing the report of the control review committee on the long-term prison system.

Can my hon. Friend assure me that, when the Home Secretary makes that response, he will bear in mind the fact that the analysis which was drawn up by the working party was largely based on the American prison experience and that much of the report's conclusion is unsound because it is based on that system, which has armed warders?

I am afraid that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's assertion that the report is based, to anything like the degree that he suggested, on American experience. I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend, who has heard my hon. Friend's question, will bear in mind that point before announcing his conclusions.

Immigration Officers (Unofficial Guidance)


asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to ensure that unofficial guidance circulars to immigration officers are withdrawn.

Guidance circulars issued locally in respect to types of passenger likely to arrive at particular ports are being reviewed. Where such guidance is necessary in future it will be issued from immigration service headquarters.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give an assurance that when the guidelines are issued they will be made public so that everyone is aware of what guidelines exist and so that there is no doubt, ambiguity or false accusations?

My right hon. and learned Friend said in a speech recently that the question of publication of the instructions to immigration officers is under consideration.

Prime Minister



asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend this morning presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. My right hon. Friend is now in Bonn for the economic summit.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports of the disgraceful scenes at Southwark council last night, when Labour councillors not only disrupted the meeting but attacked television cameramen and damaged their equipment? Will he join me in inviting his Opposition counterpart to condemn that behaviour? Does he not think that it is a salutatory example today of the dangers of voting for Labour councillors?

I assure my hon. Friend that I have seen the report in the evening newspapers of the scenes at Southwark council to which he referred. Such scenes are to be deprecated. They are as much a challenge to democratic Socialism as they are to other elements in political society. I am certain that Opposition Members will join me in condemning such behaviour.

In view of the depressing and demoralisingly high levels of unemployment announced today, will the Leader of the House tell us when he confidently expects the rise in unemployment to be reversed, as he indicated in his letter to his constituency party chairman? Has he yet consulted the taproom wisdom in Llanyblodwel?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who has such a good Welsh name, has such indifferent Welsh pronounciation. I assure him that I at once join him in expressing disappointment with the unemployment figures released today. I said in the letter to my constituency chairman that the rise in the number of people at work

"is still offset by the increase in the potential national work force as those leaving education substantially exceed those ageing into retirement."
I then said:
"I believe, however, that the underlying strength of the economy will, in time, reverse this situation. That will be the most decisive moment during this Parliament."
[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Being tolerably shrewd as well as good-natured, I decline to give a specific date. But I stand by that remark, and all the more so in the light of the encouraging evidence supplied by the recent CBI survey.


asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does the Leader of the House not agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for this Government, egged on by their shadows in the alliance, to remove the political levy from the Labour party when it was revealed yesterday that the Liberal party had received £190,000 from the British School of Motoring and it is well known that the Tories receive millions of pounds from private industry? Is it not true that in both those cases the donors are elite groups and cliques—not the mass of the ordinary people in the country, but the rich stockholders and shareholders?

The hon. Gentleman will know that contributions to party funds have been debated vigorously in the recent past. Of course, we can all make observations about the size of the contribution made by the British School of Motoring—[Interruption.] I am glad to have the assent of the leader of the Liberal party, because it would be improper for me to stand here and defend that contribution. The Tory party is sustained on voluntary contributions, and therein lies its strength.

As my right hon. Friend is standing in for the Prime Minister, may I put a question to him on behalf of the Leader of the House? Will he continue to set his face against any curtailment of the powers of Select Committees to obtain the documents that they need to exercise thir parliamentary powers of supervision on behalf of the House?

My right hon. Friend makes a somewhat good-natured but misleading observation on partial information. I suggest that he tries to ask his question at the appropriate time, which will come after 3.30 pm.

After today's Cabinet meeting, can the Leader of the House inform us whether the Government have decided to betray or to honour their general election pledge to maintain the earnings-related pension scheme? If it is the former and their pledge is betrayed, will that not injure not only the 11 million people in the state earnings-related scheme, but the 10 million people who are contracted out? Would not that, as Sir Terence Beckett informed a meeting in the House only a few days ago, impose additional costs of about £3 billion a year on employers or lead to the winding-up of contracted-out pension schemes?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that there have recently been four major reviews of aspects of the social security system. They are currently being considered by the Cabinet. When that consideration ends, the Cabinet's views will be reported to the House and they will form part of a wider political debate. If the right hon. Gentleman starts by using words such as "betrayal", when one of the central requirements, given our enormous commitment to social welfare, is to ensure that we have an updated arrangement that relates resources to those in need, he will undermine the way in which the debate should proceed.

The House and the country will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's failure to answer the question about earnings-related pensions. Can he at least say whether, on the question of child benefit, the Government will also jettison the pledge given in a letter from the Prime Minister on 20 May 1983 to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), in which she categorically stated:

"there are no plans to make any changes to the basis on which the benefit is paid or calculated."

The answer is simple. I will not betray, to use the right hon. Gentleman's language, any matters that are still before Cabinet. The proper course, when that discussion is concluded, will be for the appropriate Minister to come to this Dispatch Box and present the Government's proposals to the House.


asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Is my hon. Friend aware that an increasing number of retail shops on petrol station forecourts are applying for off-licences, which means that they can sell alcoholic refreshments when pubs and licensed restaurants may not? Does this not make a mockery of our drink-drive laws and our licensing laws?

I know that the position described by my hon. Friend is common in many parts of the country and that it gives rise to some anxiety. That is why it is being considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Since the Prime Minister is in Bonn to observe the diplomatic skills of President Reagan at first hand, will she protest in the strongest possible way at the bully-boy tactics employed by the President of the United States towards Nicaragua in imposing a trade embargo? Will she remind him that when that was done in relation to Cuba, it gift-wrapped that island for Russia? Will she also tell him that, in the case of Nicaragua, he is subverting and sabotaging a country which is extremely poor, which is making the transition from dictatorship to democracy, and which should have the support of the land of the free, not its opposition?

If my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in her quest to seek to influence allies, were to use the rhetoric that has just been employed in this Chamber it would be totally counter-productive. What I do say is that it will be widely felt in the Chamber—I hope on both sides—and in many parts of the world that trade sanctions are not particularly effective.


asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the BBC television poll conducted in Scotland last night on alternatives to the rating system in which 30,000 viewers participated? Is he aware that 51 per cent. of viewers opted for a poll tax, 41 per cent. for local income tax and only 8 per cent. for the present system of property tax? Is that not a clear sign that a poll tax is not only feasible and desirable, but an acceptable alternative for the majority of domestic ratepayers?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the additional evidence which he now possesses to sustain his own well-argued pamphlet on the subject. Whilst I take account of the figures that he quoted, as the debate proceeds it will be seen that the matters involved are a little more complex than was realised by those who took part in the poll.

Today the highest unemployment levels in Britain this century were announced, despite attempts to sanitise the figures by the Tory Government. About 1,000 people a day have joined the dole queues in the last month. Is the Leader of the House surprised that because of that, and in view of leaks about the possible abolition of supplementary benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds, nearly 250,000 15 and 16-year olds took half a day's industrial action last Thursday against the Tory Government?

I do not think that that episode was favourable to those who were politically identified with it.

North Yorkshire


asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to North Yorkshire.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

I understand that my right hon. Friend has no plans to visit North Yorkshire, but I hope that my right hon. Friend who is standing in for her will visit the area soon to praise the county for its singular skill in keeping rates down to £60 per head less than they are in neighbouring Socialist Humberside. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this will result later today in a more substantial Conservative vote, as well as the creation of 4,000 jobs more per year?

Although my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no immediate plans to visit North Yorkshire I am sure that all Tories will look back with nostalgia to the days when Tory Ministers went there in the early days of August, year after year. The requirement today is to take account of the extraordinarily fine local government record of North Yorkshire, to contrast it with what has happened in Labour-held areas close by and to hope that virtue will be rewarded.



asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

In view of the 799 votes cast by one man in the Transport and General Workers Union elections last year, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the current proposals are sufficient to deal with the malpractices that are so obvious to everyone?

I am sure that there will be widespread satisfaction over the fact that the Transport and General Workers Union is holding a new ballot. The indications are that even present legislation is encouraging postal ballots in the trade unions. We shall have to see what happens before coming to any further judgments about whether additional legislation is required.


asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the proposal by British Rail to single-track the railway line between Wrexham and Chester, but is he also aware that British Rail is apparently proposing, without consultation, to single-track the line from Wrexham to Shrewsbury, which runs through the right hon. Gentleman's constituency? Does he agree that there must be full consultation with local authorities and the local community before any such action is taken?

I am glad that Question Time is settling around matters of more tangible consequence. I have been happy to be identified with the hon. Gentleman in representations on that matter in the past and I shall be equally happy to be alongside him in the future.

Yes, it arises out of questions to the Prime Minister, which have been answered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Had you noticed, Mr. Speaker, that two questions were put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about his views on something that he had said or thought in the past? While deputising for the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend replies for the Prime Minister. The questions put to him by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) both concerned decisions of the Leader of the House and not of the Prime Minister. It is important that when the Leader of the House deputises for the Prime Minister he should speak for her views and not have to answer for his own.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help. That very point was made by the Leader of the House himself.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of questions to the Home Secretary today. Is it appropriate that even hon. Members from the Opposition Front Bench, let alone those on the Opposition Back Benches, should refer to business for next week, while asking questions of the Home Secretary, when the House has not been notified of the business for next week?

I think that that is legitimate. None of us knows when there will be a debate on this important matter. I know that it is of great interest to the House and that is why I allowed a fairly long run on it during Question Time. As yet, I have no knowledge of what will happen next week.

Business Of The House

3.32 pm

May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The business of the House for next week will be as follows:

TUESDAY 7 MAY and WEDNESDAY 8 MAY—Consideration in Committee on the Finance Bill.

THURSDAY 9 MAY—There will be a debate on the multifibre arrangement, which will arise on a motion for the adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 10 MAY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 13 MAY—Until Seven o'clock, private Members' motions. Remaining stages of the Surrogacy Arrangements Bill, of the Ports (Finance) Bill, and of the Prosecution of Offences Bill (Lords).

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.

We welcome the debate on the important multi-fibre arrangement, particularly as discussions are still in a formative stage and the House has an opportunity to impose its views. We hope that the Government will listen to them carefully.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman for the earliest possible statement of the Government's decision on the reviews on the future of the welfare state? I press him all the more because of the undoubted anxiety throughout the country about their outcome.

When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to fulfil his promise, made many months ago, of a debate on the Green Paper on the long-term prospects for public expenditure? The relevance of that debate to the future of the welfare state is apparent, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must accept that such a debate has an early claim on time.

I hope that it is still in the right hon. Gentleman's mind to have a debate on the report of the Commission for Racial Equality on immigration and control procedures.

In view of today's disastrous unemployment figures—the highest ever April figures—does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he should ask the Secretary of State for Employment to make an early statement in the House?

I shall answer the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) in the reverse order in which he asked them. I shall, of course, draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Employment to the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement.

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the report of the Commission for Racial Equality is that I have indicated my interest in seeing whether we could make arrangements for such a debate, and I am happy to continue discussions through the usual channels.

The right hon. Gentleman may recall that when I was last questioned about the Green Paper on long-term public expenditure I explained that I was keen that there should be a debate but that I thought it appropriate that it should be related to the work being done on the subject by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.

I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the House being informed of decisions on the studies that have been undertaken of the welfare services, and I underline the importance of the point that he made.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the debate that we are planning for Thursday on the multi-fibre arrangement, because it is important that the House should have a chance to make known its views when matters are still formative, rather than fixed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of proposals in certain European circles for fundamental changes to EEC institutions' financial arrangements and other matters? Will he give the House an early opportunity to debate these issues before Her Majesty's Government may be invited to commit themselves on them, possibly returning to the House with some sort of fait accompli?

I accept at once the importance of the point that my hon. Friend makes. I am sure he will agree that we have the Scrutiny Committee as a means of helping to guide our judgment in these matters, and I shall, naturally, look to that Committee, but if the matter goes perhaps wider than that I shall, if my hon. Friend contacts me, see what can be done.

The Leader of the House will be aware that there is widespread and continuing anxiety among commercial ratepayers north of the border about the imposts that have been put on them in the course of the rating revaluation that has just taken place. Has he noted that the ten-minute Bill which I introduced yesterday was unopposed? Will he have words with the Secretary of State for Scotland to see what chance there may be, if not for taking the measure in Government time, at least for considering the matter further, with the possibility of a debate in the future?

There is a charming innocence about that request. The Secretary of State for Scotland is mindful of the problems which the hon. Gentleman identifies and will take action in his own way and in his own time.

Can my right hon. Friend arrange time, if possible next week, to debate the question of the proceedings of the House being televised, so that those of us who think that it would be an utter catastrophe may mobilise our forces? Will he take the opportunity to make it clear to everybody, inside and outside the House, that it is a matter which concerns the House as a whole and not the Government?

I have no doubt that a decision on the matter will be undertaken by the House and in the spirit of a House of Commons decision. I am afraid that I must disappoint my hon. Friend, in that I cannot provide time for a debate that speedily. Probably the House would like to have some chance for a more measured assessment of the experiment in another place before coming to its own judgment.

Will the Prime Minister make a statement next week on her recommendations to the Government arising from the report of the review body on the pay of nurses and midwives, as she has had the information on her desk for quite a time?

That is clearly an important matter, and I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to follow precedent.

May I ask my right hon. Friend, in response to his kind invitation—readdressing and rephrasing my question—whether it is the intention of the Government to interfere with the time-honoured constitutional right of Select Committees to send for papers from public bodies? Does the pledge that I gave when I was Leader of the House—that every Minister, from the highest to the lowest, would co-operate with Select committees—still stand?

I have been consulting the Chairman of the Liaison Committee on the powers of Select Committees to send for personal papers and records under Standing Order No 99. Those powers are governed by long-standing conventions with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St John-Stevas) will be familiar. The Government consider that certain changes to those conventions might be helpful. I understand that the Liaison Committee considered these changes at a meeting earlier this week. I shall be discussing its views with the Chairman of the Committee in the next few days. It is very much a relaxed and low-key exchange, and does not quite bear some of the drama with which it seems to be now invested.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to make a statement on her current visit to the summit at Bonn? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ask the Prime Minister to explain why, since June 1983, she has spent more than 77 days, or part days, visiting abroad, and only 18 days, or part days, visiting different parts of the United Kingdom? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to explain the reason for that to the House and the nation?

The hon. Gentleman will find that there is on record in the press a comprehensive analysis which shows that the journeys of my right hon. Friend have been as active within the United Kingdom as without. I shall, of course, bear in mind his anxiety that my right hon. Friend should make a statement on the Bonn visit. Whether the hon. Gentleman approves or disapproves, there is no doubt that the House will feel that it is only appropriate that my right hon. Friend should report.

Will my right hon. Friend, when casting around for matters to debate, consider the great interest in conservation matters shown not only by colleagues in the House but by many of our constituents? Will my right hon. Friend therefore find some time for a debate on this very important subject, which is close to the hearts of many of our constituents?

I am afraid that there is no prospect of Government time being available for such a debate in the next few weeks. However, I thoroughly underline the importance of the topic that my hon. Friend raises. I believe that it will be of growing political significance.

Bearing in mind that VE day falls next week, can the Leader of the House find time to initiate a debate on the disgraceful level of pensions paid to those who were widowed during the second world war? I understand that they are paid £47 a week. Perhaps the House would like to contrast that with the £97 paid to those widowed during the Falklands war and as a consequence of events in Northern Ireland. When we are marching up and down next week celebrating the defeat of Fascism and Nazism, perhaps the House would like the chance to show how grateful we are to the people who gave their lives to make VE day possible.

No Government time is set aside over the next week or thereabouts for the debate requested by the hon. Gentleman. However, I believe that it would be admirably suited to an Adjournment occasion.

I hope that my right hon. Friend has had time recently to read early-day motion 515, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and more than 70 hon. Members from both sides of the House, calling for an early debate on the recent report of the Select Committee on Social Services.

[That this House, noting the widespread interest in the issue of care for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped in the community following the publication of the report of the Social Services Committee on this matter, calls for an early debate on the recommendations and implications of this report.]

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be an early debate on care in the community, particularly of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, because this issue is causing deep and increasing concern in all the constituencies in the land?

The Government are considering their response to this most important report. When that response has been made known, we can see whether it would be most helpful to proceed by way of debate.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 645,

[That this House profoundly regrets the proposed visit of President Reagan to the German Military Cemetery at Bitburg, containing the remains of Nazi SS stormtroopers; regards the visit as an offence to the memories of Jews and so many others persecuted and murdered by the Nazis, and as insensitive and ill-advised; and calls on the President, in the name of good relations between our countries and between all the allies in the war against Nazism, to cancel that visit.]

which has been signed by a large number of Members, and early-day motion 658,

[That this House believes that there can never be any reconciliation with fascism; therefore condemns the British Broadcasting Corporation Newsnight programme of 30th April for its lengthy and uncritical coverage of the collection of Nazi memorabilia by wealthy people; in the United States of America and Britain; believes that such programmes can only serve to make Nazism respectable; and further believes that the memory of the Jewish people, gypsies, Communists, trade unionists and gay people who were murdered by the Nazis and the millions of Soviet, British, American and other peoples on every continent who died to defeat fascism should not be defiled by any attempted rehabilitation into respectability of fascism.]

both of which concern the memory of the people who died fighting Fascism and the disgraceful intention of President Reagan to visit Bitburg cemetery? Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to give the Government's view of the President's intention to visit that cemetery of SS memory?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for a special debate next week to consider the rise of Fascism and racism now occurring in many European countries and the need to condemn utterly all that went on in Nazi Germany and ensure that such tyrany can never arise again, and the need to ensure that proper memory is accorded to all who died fighting Nazism, whether they were Russian, British, French or from any other country in the world?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already commented on President Reagan's proposed visit to Bitburg cemetery, and I have nothing to add on that. On the wider issue, no provisions have been made for the debate requested by the hon. Gentleman, but those who view totalitarianism with such great hostility would be more convincing if their attitude stretched across the whole spectrum.

We seem to be getting a blow by blow account of Cabinet discussions about the earnings-related pension scheme. Can my right hon. Friend say when we are likely to revert to the tradition whereby Cabinet discussions are secret?

Secrecy is something to which we all aspire, with more success on some occasions than on others. I should have thought, however, that things had gone rather well in the past few weeks. If my hon. Friend can contain his patience, I assure him that he will be more than rewarded.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the crucial role that he can play, both as Leader of the House and as a member of the Cabinet, in the discussions on the future of the state earnings-related pension scheme by maintaining the strong underpinning all-party support and consensus on which the scheme was originally based? Will the right hon. Gentleman use both those aspects of his responsibility to take the scheme out of the present welfare state review debate, not allow the Cabinet to make a decision on the matter and involve the Opposition, both Labour and Alliance, in discussing the future of the scheme sensibly, as was the case when it was set up? Does he agree that that is a far better way to make progress?

The hon. Gentleman has sought with great skill to finesse an answer out of me with a bridge strategem worthy of the late Iain Macleod. He knows that I cannot answer that question, because I remain very much of the opinion that I expressed at the outset of this exchange about the review being undertaken in the Cabinet.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the deep revulsion of the millions of people in this country who contributed to food aid and other aid for Ethiopia at the action of the Marxist regime in driving 60,000 people, who were receiving treatment and being brought back to life with proper food, out of their beds and into the countryside to grow food? We accept that it is necessary to grow food in Ethiopia, but will my right hon. Friend arrange for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to make a statement to the House on this important matter?

I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, heard on the radio this morning the graphic and moving description by Father Finucane of the fate of people at the Ibnat camp. I understand that our ambassador is in close touch with the United Nations co-ordinator about ways in which we can help, but I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to the point made by my hon. Friend.

Despite the allegations of the Minister of State, Home Office, at Question Time today about the circumstancces in which it was decided that the debate on immigration policy expected next week would not take place, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government arrange the business, and will he give the heaviest of hints that that debate will take place the week after next?

I effectively answered that point in replying to a question from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I do not think that it would help matters very much if I strayed beyond that original reply.

I support the request by the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) for a debate on the financial position of those who lost their husbands during the second world war.

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on arranging a debate next week on the multi-fibre arrangement, which is of interest to the textile and clothing industry, which is the fourth largest employer in this country. Will my right hon. Friend consider extending that critical debate beyond 10 o'clock to enable every hon. Member with an interest in textiles snd clothing to participate? My right hon. Friend extended the foreign affairs debate. Will he now do the same with respect to a debate on industries which affect many parts of the United Kingdom?

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, such matters are arranged through the usual channels. I cannot answer my hon. Friend now on that point, but I have heard what he said.

Will the Leader of the House suggest to the Ministry of Defence that a statement should be made next week on the local overseas allowance for British forces? I ask this question because of the letters that I have received from members of the armed forces. I do not know whether other hon. Members have received such letters. These letters are unprecedented, because they seem to reflect a well-organised campaign which has the sanction of many high people within the armed forces. The Ministry of Defence should make a statement on the changes in local overseas allowance.

The right hon. Gentleman's point is highly topical. There is certainly a great deal of interest in it. I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 663?

[That this House notes the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 29 April, listing the identification documents which will be required to enable electors to vote in the forthcoming local elections in Northern Ireland; notes that UB40 cards are not included on the list; condemns this omission as totally undemocratic in that it will effectively defranchise thousands of young people, for whom the UB40 cards are their sole means of identification; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to redress this omissionimmediately, or, if time does not permit, to postpone the elections until a fully-democratic means of enfranchising all bona fide voters has been worked out.]

That motion was tabled yesterday by me in response to a statement on Monday in the Chamber by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. My early-day motion deals with a list of identification documents which will be required at the local elections in Northern Ireland, which are to be held shortly. The list does not include UB40 cards. Given the unemployment levels in the north, which have been exacerbated in the past four weeks, as we have seen in the figures published today, does the Leader of the House, not think that another statement should be made to the House to explain how the Government will prevent thousands of young people from being disfranchised because the UB card is their only identification document? If that is not possible, should not the elections be postponed until an equitable method has been devised so that everyone is entitled to vote in the Northern Ireland elections?

I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise at once that I am in no sense competent to comment on the significance of UB40 cards. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

The Leader of the House is surely by now aware of the great disappointment felt by both sides of the House at the fact that he has not arranged for a more appropriate debate to be held on 8 May—VE day. War widows would have been a most appropriate subject for the House to consider, notwithstanding the important matters in the Finance Bill.

As the Prime Minister is in Bonn, will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to ask the right hon. Lady to protest to the West German Government about the reunion which the Death's Head Tank Division of the Waffen SS will hold on VE day? That reunion will give rise to a good deal of deep feeling among many people in this country.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Such occasions give rise to unease and antagonism, but I hope that we sometimes reflect on the fact that many activities which we undertake in this country have such consequences among our neighbours. It might be in the spirit of 40 years on and reconciliation if we began to be a little easier in our judgment of each other.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will note the point made by my right hon. Friend the member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) about the opportunities given to the House to keep a check on the Executive by questioning through Select Committees and by the reporting of Select Committees. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not allow this check on the Executive to be weakened in any way.

My hon. Friend makes a point which I understand. The last thing that I would want is for this matter to become a point of conflict. I should prefer there to be a discussion to see whether we might find ways of interpreting the Standing Order to minimise friction, rather than focus upon it.

Unborn Children (Protection) Bill

3.54 pm

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether it is appropriate for me to raise the point now, but it might be helpful to you if I do. It relates to the provisional selection of amendments for the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, which is to be considered tomorrow. May I ask you, respectfully, to reconsider the selection, on the basis that none of the amendments selected deal with genetic research and the effects that that has? It is a matter which has not been dealt with adequately in Committee and upon which many points have come to light since the Committee dealt with the Bill.

I went through the selection carefully this morning. The hon. Member will understand that I must take account of what was discussed at length in Committee. I shall reconsider the matter, but I cannot give him any hope that I shall change the selection.

Bill Presented

Oil And Pipelines

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. David Hunt presented a Bill to provide for the establishment and functions of a body corporate to be called the Oil and Pipelines Agency, for the vesting in that Agency of the property, rights and liabilities of the British National Oil Corporation and for the subsequent dissolution of that Corporation: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 139.]

Statutory Instruments, &C


That the draft Scottish Special Housing Association (Limit of Advances) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.— [Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill Money (No 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—


That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Secretary of State in paying fees or other amounts to the Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 taken from the extraparliamentary panel in respect of their duties under the said Act of 1936.— [Mr. Garel Jones.]

Orders Of The Day

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 6

Amendment Of Enactment Relating To Solicitors

'The Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1949 and the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 shall have effect subject to the amendments set out in Schedule [Amendment of enactments relating to solicitors] to this Act.'.— [The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.57 pm

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 53, 55 and 56.

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause and the schedule propose amendments to the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1949 and the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 which were recommended by the council of the Law Society. The proposals were fully discussed in Committee and we undertook to bring forward on Report a revised schedule incorporating those items that we accepted as suitably adjusted. The terms of the new clause and the schedule have been agreed with the Law Society of Scotland. I commend them to the House.

I am pleased to say that this is one of a number of occasions upon which I can fairly thank the Solicitor-General, or one of his colleagues, for useful amendments. As the Solicitor-General fairly says, new clause 6 and the fairly formidable schedule are the products of a good deal of consultation and discussion. They were originally tabled by me in Committee. I was then, in a sense, acting as an agent for the Law Society which had approached me and asked that the matter should be raised.

The Minister was good enough to accept that there was good sense in most of the provisions, but he cavilled at one clause which dealt with the slightly more controversial matter of the need to tax solicitors' accounts before court action could be raised for recovery of fees due.

I took the view, and I still do, that on balance that was probably sensible, if it is seen in the context of what will be a lengthy and continuing debate about the fairly traumatic shock of the arrival of advertising and competition in the staid and respectable world of Scottish solicitors. We shall probably want to return to that subject at leisure on another occasion. That matter has gone from the schedule and I understand the reason for that.

A number of useful changes remain which deal with the right to levy a subscription and the right to have a special levy to fund a project, such as the new Scottish law publication with which the Law Society is involved. There are a number of other such matters—the recovery of expenses and the rather sad circumstances in which the Law Society has to take over a solicitor's business because of problems that have arisen.

The provisions bring some flexibility to the framework within which the Law Society operates. These matters underline the difficulties that can arise when one needs primary legislation to effect minor tunings and changes which experience has suggested would be useful. I welcome the fact that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has—as one would expect—honoured the undertaking that he gave in Committee. I welcome the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

Power To Pay Extraparliamentary Commissioners For Service On Inquiries Under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936

'In section 5 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 (which provides amongst other things, as to the appointment of Commissioners for inquiries under the Act) there shall be added at the end the following subsection—

"(9) The Secretary of State may pay Commissioners taken from the extraparliamentary panel such fees or other amounts in respect of the performance of their duties under this Act as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine". '.— [The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 51.

4 pm

The new clause adds a new subsection, subsection (9), to section 5 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, to empower the Secretary of State to pay fees to commissioners appointed from an extra-parliamentary panel to serve on the inquiries into provisional orders submitted to him under that Act.

Four commissioners are appointed, under section 5 of the 1936 Act, to serve on an inquiry. They are normally two hon. Members appointed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and two members of the House of Lords, appointed by the Chairman of Committees.

If the Chairmen are unable to appoint four parliamentary commissioners, the Secretary of State appoints as many persons as are required from the extra-parliamentary panel. The panel consists of 20 persons qualified by their experience of affairs who are nominated by the chairmen, acting jointly with the Secretary of State.

Recourse to the panel is very infrequent. Until last November, when two members were appointed to act as commissioners for the inquiry into the Lothian Region (Edinburgh Western Relief Road) Order 1984 only three members from the extra-parliamentary panel had been called upon to serve in the last 20 years.

Section 14 of the 1936 Act provides for the payment of travelling and subsistence allowances for all commissioners, but there is at present no provision for the commissioners from the extra-parliamentary panel to be paid a fee or to be reimbursed for loss of earnings through service as a commissioner. The absence of such a provision might create a difficulty when the Secretary of State next has to appoint a commissioner from the panel. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), who served on a recent provisional order inquiry, will well understand the need for this provision, which seeks to remove the possibility of difficulty.

I apologise to the Solicitor-General in that, because I have only just entered the Chamber, I do not know whether he has already mentioned this point. Is it perfectly clear that such payment would not involve commissioners in a difficulty over the question of an office of profit under the Crown?

No, the new clause would not create any difficulty, because commissioners who happen to be hon. Members will have no access to this opportunity. It is only in those infrequent cases where a commissioner is appointed from the extra-parliamentary panel that there might be a need for payment. The power to pay a fee—the level of which would be determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury—will be additional to the provisions of section 14 for the payment of travelling and subsistence allowances. It will apply only to commissioners drawn from the extra-parliamentary panel. Hon. Members continue to receive their normal parliamentary salary when serving as commissioners, and Members of the House of Lords are entitled to allowances on the same basis as for attendance in their House.

I commend the new clause to the House and trust that it will be seen as facilitating the private legislation procedure in Scotland.

The amount is not limited; it is to be determined by the Secretary of State. It will be subject to Treasury approval, and that might lead us to believe that it is likely to be very modest, but should Parliament give an open-ended commitment? It is acceptable that people should be paid, but perhaps Parliament should have some control over the size of the payment.

The level of the fee is to be determined by the Secretary of State. If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) fears that the fee might be too high, he must be failing to take account of the fact that the approval of the Treasury will be required. It would be a unique experience, if the Secretary of State for Scotland were to find that the Treasury was prepared to agree to the payment of a sum, that the House might consider that excessive.

I see that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), with his experience, accepts that proposition.

I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the new clause. I do so with enthusiasm because I recently served as a parliamentary commissioner on a lengthy inquiry. Because only two of the four commissioners were Members of Parliament, it was necessary on that occasion to bring in two people from the extra-parliamentary list. The inquiry was privileged by the appointment of Mrs. Morris and Mr. Lowson. Mr. Lowson was retired, but Mrs. Morris was a very active person who found it necessary to forgo, for nearly three and a half months, practising her profession as a psychologist. It is entirely appropriate that this power should be granted, so that, in future, the private legislation procedure will be able to depend on the services of the talented and able people who are needed to serve in the onerous position of commissioner.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has pointed out that the amount to be paid would be unlimited. That must be right, because the appropriate reimbursement may vary in different circumstances. Given the Treasury's record, I cannot believe that it will be prepared to pay substantial amounts without justification. I welcome the new clause with enthusiasm.

I welcome—in a somewhat muted fashion—a minor change. There should be room for recompense for those who give such public service. No sum likely to get past the eagle eye of the Treasury would be likely to compensate for the sufferings of the commissioners on the Edinburgh relief road inquiry. The comments of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) resembled a cri de coeur.

On another occasion, we could have a useful debate about the way in which the procedure operates, its effectivness as a method of dealing with the immensely complex issues that arise in such inquiries, and the extent to which it can be conclusive. However, while the procedure exists, and while we ask people—we may ask them with increasing frequency in future—to serve from the extra-parliamentary list, it is only right that there should be some provision to pay them for their services. The Opposition would not wish in any way to obstruct the proposal.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Places For The Care Of Drunken Persons

'In Section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, at the end, there shall be added—

"(2A) Where a constable has power to arrest a person without warrant for being drunk and disorderly, drunk and incapable drunk and in charge of a child, and drunk and attempting to enter licensed premises, then the constable shall take him to any place designated in Schedule (places designated as suitable for the care of drunken persons) to this Act, unless (a) the person refuses to go to such place, (b) the constable has reason to suspect that he has committed another offence or (c) there is no such designated place reasonably accessible. Where a constable does not take a person to a designated place and charges him with any of the above offences then he must enter on the charge his reasons for failing to take the person to a designated place.
(2B) Where a constable has power to arrest a person without warrant for any other offence and the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person is drunk, the constable may if he thinks fit, take him to any place designated in Schedule (places designated as suitable for the care of drunken persons) to this Act.".'.—[Mr. Maxton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Places designated as suitable for the care of drunken persons

'The following Schedule shall be added to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980— PART I
  • 1. Within six months of the coming into force of this Act each Regional authority in Scotland shall submit to the Secretary of State for Scotland a list of places within each region which they consider suitable for the care of drunken persons.
  • 2. Such places shall be those that having been inspected by the Social Work Department and the Local Health Board, are considered to have met the criteria listed in paragraphs 3 and 4 below.
  • 3. The Social Work Department and the Local Health Board shall be satisfied that the place, whomsoever it is run by, has suitable accommodation for the care of drunken persons and meets the statutory, fire, health and safety standards.
  • 4. The Social Work Department and the Local Health Board shall be satisfied that there is one person on the staff of such places who either is qualified to deal with drunken persons or has considerable experience in dealing with drunken persons.
  • 5. Where a regional authority is of the opinion that there are inadequate numbers of places in the region for the purposes of section 5 of this Act, then they may, if they so wish, establish such places under their own authority.

  • 1. When the Secretary of State has received from each regional authority the list of places considered suitable for the care of drunken persons then he shall designate such places if he is satisfied that they are suitable, and accordingly inform the regional authorities.
  • 2. The Social Work Department and Local Health Board shall inspect the designated places every six months to ensure that the standards as laid down in Part I of this Schedule are maintained.
  • 3. If at any time the regional authority reports that a designated place is no longer suitable then the Secretary of State shall move that place from the list of designated plans.
  • 4. A regional authority may, if it so wishes, make grants to other bodies in order to maintain such places.

    Purposes of places designated as suitable for the care of drunken persons
  • 1. Designated places shall take into care those persons brought to them by a constable and shall offer such treatment as the qualified or experienced person considers appropriate in order to resolve the problems the drunken person has.
  • 2. A drunken person shall be asked to stay for such time as the qualified or experienced person considers necessary for the treatment.".'.
  • Those who served on the Committee may well recognise the words of these new clauses. New clause 2 is, or course, a new schedule to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. The new clauses are exactly the same as amendments that I tabled in Committee.

    Part 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act gives constables certain powers when they arrest drunks for certain specific drunken offences. I believe that there are only three specific offences—drunk and disorderly, drunk and incapable, and drunk in charge of a child. In the case of those offences a constable may take the person in question to a designated place where he will receive treatment, rather than taking him to the police station, charging him with the offence and bringing him before the court. My new clauses require a constable to take a person to a designated place unless quite specific conditions have been met or the person refuses to go. It is not enough to say that constables may take people to a designated place, because the evidence of the past five years shows that they do not.

    New clause 2 provides what designated places are. In 1980, I wanted to ensure that the Secretary of State did not start designating unsuitable places where no treatment was available and which were essentially doss houses. The designated places should be capable of treating offenders and of keeping them there for a specified time. Medical care should be available and health and safety regulations should be met. I thought it necessary to have control over designated places.

    My fears have been proved utterly unfounded because, with the exception of one place in Aberdeen, none have been designated. Ministers had enormously high hopes during the passage of the 1980 Act. Of course, with the exception of the Secretary of State, none of the Ministers involved with the Act are still on the Front Bench. We were told how the Act would decriminalise drunkenness in Scotland. It was a laudable effort. We all welcomed the principle and agreed that it was time that people with drink problems should stop being treated as criminals.

    Five years later, nothing has happened. Last Friday I spoke to the chief constable of Strathclyde—Sir Patrick Hamill—who, when he heard that I intended to raise the subject, asked me to push it as hard as I could because he wants to decriminalise drink. I can think of no section of the community that disagrees with that. Each year, about 15,000 to 20,000 people are charged with offences caused principally by a drink problem. On the clause 5 stand part debate, my hon. Friends said that unless the Government were prepared to provide resources, nothing would happen. With the honourable exception of Aberdeen, that is what has occurred.

    4.15 pm

    Matters are even worse in England as, far from detoxification units being opened, they are being closed for lack of resources. The Manchester unit is being closed for lack of resources, although I accept that it has problems because it is a little out of the city and not easy for the police to reach. In Glasgow we have an area that could be used as a designated place. It is doing a marvellous job treating people with serious drink problems. Like the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), I have visited it. I refer to the Department of Health and Social Security resettlement unit at Bishopbriggs. It is doing a tremendous job and treats people with the most serious drink problems—the people whom the voluntary organisations will not touch. Only when the resettlement unit has partially dried people out will the voluntary organisations take them on. In spite of its good work, the unit is being closed. That is not good enough.

    I hope that the House is grateful that I have tabled these new clauses. They give Ministers an opportunity to explain what they have done since 1980. After all, there is no point in enacting legislation, no matter how well intentioned, unless it is put into action. That is what has happened here.

    What will happen to the man who is simply drunk on the odd occasion and is clearly not an alcoholic? Would he be covered by these new clauses?

    To some extent such a man would be benefited by the new clauses. If a man goes out on a blinder, he might be charged with being drunk and incapable and therefore have a criminal record, although he is an honourable man. However, if my new clauses were enacted, he would not be charged and he would therefore have no criminal record. He might be taken to a detoxification unit, but he would be there only one night as the staff would quickly be aware that he had no history of drinking.

    I hope that the Minister will say what the Government have done in the past five years and what they intend to do. Do they realise that passing legislation is not enough on its own, and that they must give local authorities, health boards and voluntary organisations money to ensure that there are places to which police constables can take people who have committed a drink offence?

    As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, these new clauses are identical to amendments that he tabled to the original clause 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and which were discussed in the Scottish Standing Committee on 5 June 1980. I appreciate his reasons for retabling them—principally to enable further discussion of a subject that is still worrying. Although we do not think that provision such as this would be helpful, I should like to outline developments since the 1980 Act which have overtaken parts of the new clauses.

    Following the passage of the 1980 Act, the Scottish Office undertook consultation with many bodies and organisations, including the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Social Work. In April 1982 we produced two sets of guidelines for designated places, covering the caring aspect of setting up and running premises suitable for designation and advice to the police on those who might be suitable for taking to such a place.

    The guidelines represented the detail that we thought it reasonable to lay down. They included the standard of premises, care and supervision in the premises, links with other types of facilities and co-operation with social work, medical and nursing services.

    While the guidelines for the police explain the purpose and scope of section 5 procedures and the degree of discretion which the police might want to exercise, for example, when a person has committed more than one offence, they also cover—I mention this in the context of the new clauses—the action to be taken if a person refuses to go to a designated place or if staff decline to accept him and he may be taken to a police station and charged.

    A specific part of the provisions of the new clauses, regarding the standards of premises and supervision, and the action to be taken by the police, need not and possibly should not be included in primary legislation. Some provisions—for example, specifying that a designated place must take into care all those brought in by the police, or that such persons would be asked to stay as long as the person in charge of the designated place thinks fit—would encroach on the proper use of discretion by those concerned and, possibly, on the liberty of the citizen.

    New clause 2 would require local authorities, within a limited period, to