Lords Sitting of 18 December 1986

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,

Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Act,

London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Act,

River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Act,

Mersey Docks and Harbour Act,

British Railways (No. 2) Act.

Local Authority Spending
11.6 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following the statement by the Controller of the Audit Commission that the conduct of a number of London borough councils is leading to the risk of a collapse of public services similar to that experienced in the past by New York City.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, my right honourable friend announced on 15th October that the exemption from prescribed expenditure of leasing would be ended as from 1st April 1987. Furthermore, legislation will shortly be introduced to control deferred purchase schemes. These measures will go a very long way towards reducing the scope for such authorities to store up financial commitments for the future. Nevertheless, it is for local authorities themselves to ensure that their spending is kept within their means.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I agree in particular with his last sentence. Is the noble Lord aware that this huge and entirely irresponsible borrowing is, in the case of a number of London borough councils, continuing against the hope of a future Labour Government? Is the noble Lord aware that the Labour Party leadership, I understand, has made clear that it is not prepared to bail out these local authorities? That being so, is it not right for the Government to consider any further action that can be taken in order to avoid the situation foreshadowed by the Controller of the
274
Audit Commission: that, eventually, there could be a collapse of public services in many of these London boroughs, causing great damage to many deprived people in those boroughs?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the controller was talking about a report in draft, and no one knows what the final report will look like. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Lord that the controller issued a timely warning as a result of the current considerations of the Audit Commission. As to what will happen, that is a hypothetical question. If local authorities sort themselves out, the situation will not arise. Like the noble Lord, I note that if the Labour Party were to form a government, the Opposition have made it quite clear that they have no intention of picking up the tab.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the Question refers to the conduct of a number of London borough councils. Will the Minister enlighten your Lordships as to the nature of that conduct?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in a nutshell, that conduct refers to creative accounting on the capital control accounts of the various local authorities in question.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, has the Minister noted that part of the press report of the speech refers to the Government's rate support system giving credit to an Eastern European country and quite possibly wasting the equivalent of the total expenditure on the National Health Service? Will the Minister comment on that part of the speech? Will the Minister also take this opportunity to confirm that councils have never defaulted on loan repayments, and that interest payments and principal repayments are, and will continue to be, the first charge on any authority's rate income?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am well aware of what was said. However, since a quarter of publicly-raised finance is spent by local authorities, any large increases are, by definition, inflationary. So the Government need to control expenditure anyway. It is disgraceful that some irresponsible authorities—almost all of them controlled by Left-wing councils—manipulate the system to run up huge debts which will eventually have to be met by the ratepayer. This must clearly be condemned.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, if I heard my noble friend correctly, he used the phrase "creative accounting". Is that not a somewhat opaque phrase to cover something very much more serious? Can the Minister not be a little more candid with the House? Will the Minister urge his colleagues to take really serious note of what he himself has described as the "timely warning" which the Government have received?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope that I have not given the impression to my noble friend, or to anyone else, that I am not taking this matter extremely seriously. As far as the opacity of the phrase "creative accounting" is concerned, I refer to two comments in my original Answer. The great difficulty is that until

275
the precise financial mechanism which is occurring can be identified, it is impossible to do anything about it. I am comparing this situation with the loopholes in the private sector which continually have to be stopped through the annual Finance Acts.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain what he meant when I think he said that the increases in local authority borrowing were "by definition" or "by nature" inflationary? Will the Minister also confirm the Government's position, as explained in a letter from a Labour Treasury Minister in 1975, to the effect that local authority borrowings are undoubted in status in the banking system?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if I heard the noble Lord correctly, I do not think that it is up to me to defend what a previous Labour Minister has said. However, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I was referring to any large increases, whether in local authorities or through the public exchequer, being inflationary.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it possible that these vast debts might one day be repudiated?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope not.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord again, but I still do not have an explanation as to why these borrowings are necessarily inflationary. I still do not have the Government's view on whether local authority borrowings are undoubted as far as credit is concerned. Perhaps the noble Lord would comment on that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a very technical second question on which I shall have to write to him. However, he knows as well as I do that large amounts of money swilling around the system cause inflation.

London Underground: Steps to Combat Crime
11.13 a.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to combat crime on the London Underground.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, on 28th November this year we published a report containing 50 recommendations for combating crime on the Underground. The report is the result of an extensive study carried out by the Department of Transport in conjunction with London Underground, the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police. Copies are available from the Library.
The Government have declared their determination to secure action on this report by allocating an
276
additional £15 million to London Regional Transport over the next three years to assist the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. The report he mentions is a particularly valuable one. Can he give any outline as to how the £15 million he mentioned will be spent?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the first problems, the most important problems to be tackled initially, will be the installation of radio facilities for the police at 42 key stations, more and improved closed circuit television monitoring, passenger alarms on the platforms, making staff more accessible to assist the public, and improvements to station environments, including better lighting.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, although the reply of the Minister is encouraging so far as it goes, there are, as he says, 50 recommendations in the report. Can he inform the House how Parliament may be informed of the Government's view on all the 50 recommendations? Would he not agree that it is unfortunate that the trade unions were not part of the working party? The report finds,
"problems of morale, motivation and training to be overcome if staff are to play a more effective role in preventing and dealing with crime".
Will the trade unions now be consulted, particularly in view of that comment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that it will be important to consult the trade unions as we go through the remaining 50 recommendations in the report. As to how Parliament should be informed of their implementation, I am not too sure. I am however sure that should the noble Lord wish to put down a Question at some future date, I could keep him up to date with how we are getting along.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister see to it that proper advertisement is given to these new measures that are going to be carried out with this expenditure of £15 million? It may well serve as a deterrent.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I hope that the exchange in your Lordships' House today will add to public awareness of this problem.

Sugar Companies: Takeover Bids
11.16 a.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what remit the Monopolies and Mergers Commission were given regarding the bids to take over S. & W. Berisford and British Sugar plc.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, in the case of any merger reference the commission is required to report on whether a merger situation qualifying for investigation has been created, or will be created, and on whether such a situation operates or might be expected to operate against the public interest.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which I rather anticipated. The Government are keen on competition. We have only two major sugar companies in this country, Berisford, handling British sugar, and Tate and Lyle. If the Italian company Ferruzzi were to take over, any amalgamation would surely be wrong. I cannot understand why it was necessary to put it to the monopolies commission at all if the Government are keen on competition and we want to see this situation maintained in the country, especially with only two major sugar companies involved.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is that it was the Director General of Fair Trading who recommended that all three bids should be put to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because they raised issues of public interest arising from the special nature of the sugar market and the change of ownership of British sugar. The Ferruzzi bid was referred on the grounds, again, of the special nature of the sugar market.
Lord Walston: My Lords, are the Government aware, and is the monopolies commission aware, of the potential threat to the refining of Commonwealth sugar coming in under the EC-ACP agreements that might accrue if the bid by Ferruzzi was in fact acceptable? Is that being taken into account in the decision of the Monopolies Commission, and will it be taken into account by the Government in their final decision?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, the Government are indeed aware of the concern he expresses, as also are the MMC, who will be taking that into the consideration they are currently giving to this matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the criteria of public interest in the Fair Trading Act contain no reference to possible European monopolies as opposed to national monopolies? Should not those criteria be amended? Would that be part of the competition review that the noble Lord's department is undertaking; and when can we expect the results of the review to be published?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that the subject matter of the review is somewhat different from the Question on the Order Paper. I should be delighted to answer the noble Lord if he cares to put down a specific question.

Invalid Care Allowances
11.19 a.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many married women applicants for invalid care allowances have been awarded; how many have not yet applied; and how many have had a reduction in attendance allowance because of a possible increase in invalid care allowances.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, as at 12th December, the latest date for which information is available, 20,000 married women had been awarded invalid care allowance. We have no information about the number of married women who may not yet have claimed. The attendance allowance paid to a person requiring care is not reduced on account of the invalid care allowance paid to the person providing the care.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for that Answer. Can she reassure me about the statement made in another place that the Minister would be writing to all the people concerned so long as their names are on the DHSS computer, but that those who were eligible but who registered through local offices would not have a direct communication? Is the Minister satisfied with the amount of advertising and information that has been given? Can she not consider postponing the date of 31st December 1986, which is very near now? Surely it would not be within the spirit of the findings of the Strasbourg Court that people should be disqualified just because of an arbitrary date which the Government have chosen to fix.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the 400,000 attendance allowance beneficiaries who have received a letter are paid centrally by computer and could be identified quickly and easily. The remaining 200,000 are paid by local offices, and resources are simply not available to carry out the massive task of searching 3 million records held in local offices.
Baroness Jeger: But surely, my Lords, that is a reason for postponing the date. I am sure we all appreciate the enormousness of this task; but is the noble Baroness aware that no one in the House would want women to be disqualified just because there was some hold-up in the office working locally?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we announced the 31st December deadline on 9th July and have since given wide publicity which produced a considerable response. Those claiming after 31st December will still, if they fulfil the usual conditions, be able to claim 12 months' arrears. The Government are not persuaded that the extra statutory concession for longer arrears should be continued after this month.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
11.22 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 18 of the Gaming Act 1968 with respect to the hours for gaming. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Peerages in Abeyance
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This Motion is consequential on the agreement by your Lordships last Tuesday to the special report of the Committee for Privileges.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty superseding the Address presented to Her Majesty's Royal Predecessor on 7th July 1927 and submitting to Her Majesty that if it is Her gracious pleasure to place some limitation on claims to peerages in abeyance, such limitation would be effected if Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to issue the following instructions to the Attorney-General:
If it should appear to the Attorney-General that a claim to a peerage in abeyance is affected by either of the following considerations:

(i) that the commencement of the existing abeyance occurred more than one hundred years before the presentation of the petition; or

(ii) that the petitioner (not being a child of the last holder of the dignity or a descendant of a parent of the last holder) represents less than one-third of the entire dignity,

he should call attention to that in his report to the Crown, and (except where the petition was presented before 7th July 1927 or where there are special circumstances or special reasons to the contrary) recommend that no further proceedings should be taken with regard to the claim; and furthermore the Attorney-General should investigate the nature of any arrangement entered into by the co-heirs to a peerage in abeyance, and if he is of the opinion that there may be grounds for doubting the propriety of any such arrangement, he should bring the circumstances to the attention of the Crown and recommend that the petition be referred to this House;
and further submitting to Her majesty that when consideration is given to whether or not Her Majesty should be advised to extend Her grace to the petitioner for a termination of an abeyance, regard should be had to the character, position, and fitness of the petitioner.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord McNair: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House for longer than is necessary, but I must admit that when I read this Motion standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord I wondered how many of your Lordships had read it to the end. I came to the last three lines with some astonishment. I am sure that the beginning is entirely to be
280
approved. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will be able to explain away my difficulty.
We are asking that the Attorney-General of the day, whoever that may be in the future, should have regard,
"to the character, position, and fitness of the petitioner"
who seeks a seat in your Lordships' House. It has always seemed to me that the only argument in favour of the hereditary system which carries any weight at all is that as hereditary Peers are randomly selected they are likely to be just as dotty and delinquent as a cross-section of the population. I find that an argument which carries some conviction.
If we are to consider character, position and fitness—three highly subjective criteria—I ask whether this is a kind of back-door reform of the composition of the House of Lords. I am absolutely certain that the noble and learned Lord would not lend himself to any such subterfuge, but it seems to me to introduce something slightly novel.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood two points. In the first place, this relates to Peerages called out of abeyance where Her Majesty has a discretion; and in the second place, far from being novel it has been copied from the original resolution which is under amendment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will explain the significance of the words,
"one-third of the entire dignity".
That perhaps seems a litttle obscure.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would take me a rather long time. There are a few Peerages in the English Peerage, and I dare say in the Scottish Peerage too, which are held in what is called coparcenary. That is a technical term of medieval land law. It arises, for instance, in baronies by writ, of which there are still a few. If there are male heirs the Peerage descends in the ordinary way from the last holder of the Peerage to the oldest son or oldest male heir; but if there are no male heirs but a number of female heirs it is held in what is called coparcenary. The Peerage then goes into what is called abeyance until there is only one person left of all stirpes who would otherwise be entitled to be coparceners. In the case of the barony which was resurrected as a result of the recent case—I do not see the noble Baroness in the House—there were three coparceners. They came to an arrangement which was perfectly respectable, as the Committee for Privileges decided. Therefore the Peerage was called out of abeyance in favour of the noble Baroness who was introduced yesterday.
That is as short an explanation as I can give. I trust that it is sufficiently clear to my noble friend; otherwise I shall have to take a good deal longer and perhaps look up some books.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while I question the use of the word "resurrection" in this connection, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his guidance through this maze of medievalism.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord for having introduced theology into the argument.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supplementary Benefit (Housing Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1986
11.28 a.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Supplementary Benefit (Housing Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1986 be approved.
As I announced to the House last Wednesday, these regulations are the product of a long period of consultation. They were referred in draft to the Social Security Advisory Committee last May. The Committee's report was received in August and it was laid before your Lordships' House last Wednesday, 10th December, with the Government's response, when I announced the decisions we had reached. There are three main reasons why the Government think it is right to alter the present arrangements.
First, we wish to strike a fair and reasonable balance between borrower, lender and taxpayer. The present arrangements do not achieve this since they enable all of a claimant's mortgage interest payments to be met by benefit immediately, no matter how short the period on benefit turns out to be. This puts too much responsibility on the taxpayer and not enough on individuals or on building societies and other lenders. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, reminded us last week, lenders do have an important responsibility in this matter.
Secondly, it is right that those who are being helped to acquire a substantial capital asset should meet a proportion of their mortgage interest charges for a limited period. A reasonable and proper role for social security is to concentrate help on those whose needs are longer-term.
Thirdly, it is important to establish equity between those in and out of work on similar incomes. Mortgage interest tax relief is available to all low-income families whether in or out of work. But social security help is only available to low income families out of work. The changes will help reduce this imbalance.
As your Lordships already know, the Government have been flexible in responding to the concerns expressed by the advisory committee. Two important modifications have been made to the original proposals. The restriction period has been reduced from six months to 16 weeks, lessening the impact on individuals and concentrating the change rather more so than previously on shorter-term claimants. We have also accepted entirely the advisory committee's recommendation that action should be taken to avoid creating a "mortgage interest trap". The regulations provide for this, thus helping claimants who might
282
otherwise not have been able to qualify for benefit at all. All the other proposed changes which were referred to the advisory committee and were supported by them are being carried forward.
It is estimated that these modified proposals will reduce the savings from £30 million to £23 million a year. An estimated 75,000 claimants will be affected at any one time. In the average case, up to £170 less benefit will be paid to a claimant whose claim runs for the full 16 weeks. Of course, many claims do not last this long—about half of those who claim as unemployed leave the register within three months. It is not expected that the effects on individuals will be harsh. I must emphasise that the 16-week restriction will not apply to anyone aged 60 or over. Those who are affected will of course be eligible for help with their full mortgage interest payments after 16 weeks. And, any extra interest due on arrears arising from the restriction will also be eligible for payment. In addition, a new eight-week linking rule will ensure that people are not discouraged from taking up a job; and a special disregard of income from mortgage protection policies will allow claimants to benefit from such policies, and thus to cover their mortgage interest payments fully.
I am sure your Lordships will welcome the view expressed by the advisory committee in their report that the changes, in their original unmodified form, would not create significant financial hardship for the majority of claimants. Moreover, the Building Societies Association's press statement last week said that they "saw no reason to expect that people will lose their homes as a result of this measure". These are important assurances, which put the changes into proper perspective. And, of course, during the long miners' strike, building societies and other lenders did not foreclose or seek repossession on properties on which arrears had built up to very much higher levels than might result from the Government's proposals.
I should draw the attention of the House to five other changes incorporated in the regulations. Firstly, we do not propose to carry forward the present practice whereby interest on a loan for business purposes, which in secured on the home, can be paid for up to six months. In future, help with mortgage interest will be restricted to housing-related loans only. Secondly, where a home includes a business, for example a guest house, interest will be met only on the part of the home used for living accommodation, where the home is treated as a mixed hereditament for rating purposes.
The third change is that powers are being taken to allow the adjudication officer to restrict benefit where the home is unreasonably expensive in relation to other suitable accommodation in the area. Benefit can be restricted already where a house is in an unreasonably expensive area or is unnecessarily large. This additional power will bring supplementary benefit into line with housing benefit practice.
Powers are also being taken to enable a second or subsequent loan to be treated in the same way as the loan it replaces. This readmits people with replacement loans to benefit following a commissioner's decision to the contrary. The four changes I have just mentioned were also referred to the Social Security

283
Advisory Committee and were supported by them. The committee also agreed that the fifth change need not be referred to them for consultation as it was entirely beneficial. This will enable foster children to be taken into account when an adjudication officer decides whether a home is too large.
In conclusion, my Lords, these draft regulations represent a fair and reasonable package of limited measures. They will have a limited effect and, in the case of the main changes, for a limited period only. I commend the regulations to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, the Minister may commend these regulations to your Lordships' House. However, to myself and to many of my noble friends, it seems typical of the mean spirit of this Government that on the last day before we rise for the Christmas Recess, at a time of giving, of generosity and of goodwill, they should seek to pass through this House regulations which will take £23 million away from unemployed families. What a Christmas present that is for the Government to give to these people!
On the noble Baroness's own figures, she expects 75,000 people to be deprived of differing amounts through these regulations. It was quite clear recently in another place that members of all parties were concerned, anxious and worried. Some even felt that they could not vote for the Government on the matter. I must make it absolutely clear that we on this side of the House are totally opposed to these mean changes. We cannot think why a government who profess to encourage home ownership should have brought in this disincentive to home ownership, for that is what it is.
I cannot agree with the noble Baroness—whom I respect very much at some times and not at others—that there is likely to be some consideration given by the building societies so that hardship is not unnecessarily induced. What is the evidence for that? I have the figures from the Social Security Commission. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister is not going to say that they are unreliable.
I see from the figures that in 1979, some 2,530 homes were taken into repossession for mortgage default. In 1985, the figure was 16,590. Surely the Government are not being very businesslike or efficient to presume that the trend will suddenly go down. There is no evidence of that. Moreover, we have merely the figures—or, at least, I have merely those figures because I look only at official figures—for default where this has happened through building societies. But I understand—and perhaps the Minister can give me figures on this—that many people are in this position because local authority mortgages have been repossessed.
Under the right to buy, there is increasing compulsion not only on people to try to buy but on the local authorities to create mortgages. My understanding is that the local authorities are not particularly generous in some cases in helping people who are in default, even if only for a fairly short time.
284
And then there is the question of people who are on a second mortgage and people who owe money to the banks. Is the Minister telling us that somehow the banks are going to get the Christmas spirit that the Government have not got, that they will become kind and generous and that they will allow people to have some longer time to collect their finances together?
Moreover, when the Minister talks about saving £23 million taken out of the pockets of the unemployed, she does not seem to be taking into account the enormous cost of homelessness. We know—again from official figures—that 10 per cent. of all households officially accepted as homeless are in that position as a result of mortgage default. That information is on page 13 of the Social Security Advisory Committee Report.
I do not know whether the Government care about how much it costs to put these homeless families into bed and breakfast accommodation, which is not only expensive but is socially intolerable for the families concerned. Then there are the many people who do not officially qualify as homeless because of the restrictions under the legislation and so do not get even that minimal accommodation. That accounts to a large extent for the number of people who will be sleeping rough in London and other cities tonight, and which makes it essential for charities such as Crisis at Christmas to step in and try to assist. I know there are many Members on all sides of the House who try to do something to relieve this terrible situation.
It seems to us that the Government are going to increase homelessness and cause a great deal of distress and poverty, because these people are going to have to find this £23 million out of the unemployment benefit which—goodness knows!—for many families makes their budget restricted enough without the extra impost. So it is with great regret that we have this order before us today, and I very much hope that it will not be long before we can alter it.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for explaining the content and purpose of these regulations, but I am bound to say that we on these Benches remain unhappy about the principal proposal contained in them. It is after all a straightforward cut in benefit. The original proposal, it is true, has been modified. It is now to be for four months instead of six, this representing the elimination of the possibility of a mortgage trap; but still it remains a cut in benefit, and one must look to see what the effects will be.
The noble Baroness has told us that the Social Security Advisory Committee have said that for the majority of claimants the proposals should not bring significant financial hardship. They do not say they will not bring financial hardship but they say they will not bring significant financial hardship. Future claimants of course will lose out as against current claimants but the hardship will not be significant. However, the Social Security Advisory Committee go on to say:
"But the young family with a new mortgage and high monthly repayments may quickly get into difficulties, especially if communication with the lender is poor."
That must be a matter of serious concern.

285
They add:
"The deserted wife may find that there were arrears on the mortgage before she came on to benefit and her lender is unwilling to allow further arrears to accumulate".
Finally, the Social Security Advisory Committee say:
"We remain concerned that particular groups of claimants will suffer as a result of the changes."
The impact of the change has been mitigated by the cut from six months to four months, but the dangers to which the Social Security Advisory Committee referred cannot have been eliminated. When we remember the increase in evictions and homelessness which has taken place in recent years and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has referred, surely we would not wish to embark on a proposal which might increase those problems, however marginally, unless there were overwhelming reasons and a strong popular demand for it.
With regard to popular demand, a survey conducted by NOP Market Research Limited in May 1986 showed that 72 per cent. of adults thought the original proposal to abolish interest payments for mortgages altogether during the first six months of unemployment was a bad idea and only 13 per cent. considered it a good idea. That may have altered to some extent in the light of the reduction from 100 per cent. to 50 per cent. and from six months to four months; but certainly there is no evidence of public demand for this particular change.
On the point about overwhelming reasons, the Government have put forward four such reasons. They have drawn attention to the increase in expenditure on supplementary benefit payments to meet mortgage interest, and they have stated that the achievement of equity between borrower, lender and taxpayer requires the change. They have said that the change will provide incentives to work. Finally, they have pointed to the saving of £23 million.
The Social Security Advisory Committee have examined all those arguments and they do not deny that there will be a saving, but they reject the other three arguments. The increase in expenditure they regard as only natural in view of the Government's success in increasing home ownership and their failure in preventing the rise in unemployment. The committee are not convinced by the argument relating to equity between the owner-occupiers on benefit and those in low-pay work. They regard the problem of equity between tenants and owner-occupiers on benefit as equally relevant to the issue. And in relation to incentives they believe that the effects of the proposal will be mixed, improving incentives in some cases and worsening them in others.
That leaves the saving of £23 million. Bearing in mind that if mortgage interest relief were restricted to the standard rate some £320 million would be saved, one is bound to ask whether, in view of the reservations expressed by the Social Security Advisory Committee about the whole proposal, it is right to look to supplementary benefit as a source of saving.
To sum up, the regulations represent a cut in benefit from which those 75,000 claimants, as we have heard, will suffer. This may cause no significant hardship but, according to the advisory committee, for some there may well be serious hardship. The arguments in favour
286
of the cut are shown by the committee to be dubious. The Government are seeking a saving of £23 million from supplementary benefit but other more obvious sources not affecting the poorest, are available. Those are the reasons we remain totally dissatisfied with this proposal.
11.45 a.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, whom I nearly always respect, is not fair in her assumptions. Picture a young married couple with an average mortgage: the husband works overtime for a few hours to pay the bills and the wife may work part time for a few luxuries. Then, as so often happens, a baby arrives. Also, perhaps there may not be so much overtime around for the husband to take advantage of. What do they do if they cannot meet the mortgage payments? They have to go to a building society or a bank to try to make some sort of arrangement. Is it fair that a family in a similar situation but receiving supplementary benefit, perhaps not much below the wages in my example, should be cushioned for the relatively short period they are on benefit? The working family would certainly not think it fair.
The Government have listened to the advice that has been offered and have shown flexibility in modifying their original proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, suggested that these measures will act as a disincentive to home ownership. I would say that people wanting to buy their own houses will still have mortgage interest tax relief. The Government will continue to help tenants to buy their homes with discounted prices and the right-to-buy legislation. One million people have been helped with home ownership in this way since 1979. We really must keep this whole matter in perspective. The effect is for 16 weeks only. Half interest payments will be met with full payment after 16 weeks plus extra benefit in higher interest. Finally, 50 per cent. of the unemployed will cease to claim within three months of registering.
With regard to the increase in homelessness mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, again I would say that we must see the changes in perspective. Repossession still accounts for less than one-third of 1 per cent. of those with mortgages. Building societies do not expect that people will lose their homes as a result of this measure.
The noble Baroness asked whether other lenders were consulted. As well as detailed discussions with the Building Societies Association, the department's officials met with representatives from local authorities. Banks were also invited to comment but did not respond. The proposals were referred formally to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. The committee received comments from a wide range of bodies including building societies, local authorities and the National Westminster Bank. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to the words "significant" in connection with financial hardship as used by SSAC. May I remind the noble Lord that SSAC said this in the context of the original proposals. The restriction period was then 26 weeks. It is now 16 weeks, which is a significant reduction—
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Will she agree that I did in fact refer to that point in the course of making the allusion to which she has referred?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords. If I may continue, 16 weeks is a significant reduction and a much lesser impact on individuals will result. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, suggested that the proposals would worsen work incentives. We acknowledge that the proposals will marginally reduce the incentive to return to work for those on benefits for more than four months, but many people do not stay on benefit that long. The changes should improve short-term incentives and incentives to remain in low paid work. And the eight week linking rule should encourage people to work without affecting their benefit if the job turns out to be unsuitable.
As regards the particular position of lone parents and the sick and disabled who were also mentioned, I would say, in reply to that angle of the debate, that the Government's decision to reduce the restriction period from six to four months and avoid the mortgage trap will lessen the impact on all claimants. Those whose claims may be long term such as lone parents and the sick and disabled will have their full interest met after four months. They will also be eligible for any extra interest attributable to capitalised arrears. It is very important that all claimants should contact their lender at an early stage. The arrangement for the department with the claimant's consent to notify lenders that benefit is being paid will greatly assist this.
Finally, with regard to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, who said that the changes are not worth the £23 million which will be saved, I must say that I reject that entirely. The Government must look after the millions if they are to find the billions that are paid out. Many very desirable measures cost less than £23 million. For example, as part of the social security reforms, we are proposing to double the present £3,000 savings limit to £6,000 and to give extra help to severely disabled people living independently in the community. The cost of both those measures is around £10 million. That is the sort of priority that we shall be freer to deal with through saving sums of this order.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I find it appalling that the noble Baroness can come along here and try to justify what is a cut in benefits to the people who are hardest hit by our economic position, and to compare poor people with other poor people. If the Government are so keen on saving £23 million of expenditure, why not compare the poor people with those affluent people who are receiving many millions more through mortgage relief and who can well afford to pay all the mortgage? Why should the comparison be made between the poor and those people who are just above the poverty line? I find that repugnant.
I do not believe for one moment that the noble Baroness is really sincere when she says that the effect of these regulations will be only minimal. Only minimal on whom? Is it minimal on the total budget in regard to this matter, or minimal in the effect it will have upon individuals who have just been made unemployed?
288
I do not suppose for one minute that there is a chance of persuading the Government to change their mind. Somebody who is a slave to statistics has produced these regulations. Somebody had made up his mind that he will do a certain thing, so he brings forward a proposal that is ultimately recognised as not fit to be considered. Then, having heard that, this person goes back and then brings forward another proposal which is somewhat less in degree. But it does not alter the wickedness of the original proposal; that all the burdens of cuts should be visited upon the poorer people. The Government do that and then use the change as a justification for taking the second measure.
May I put this simply point to Members of this House and, in particular, to the noble Baroness? People who experience the pain of being unemployed for the first time, after perhaps being employed and paying their way for 30 years, are helped to get over the immediate shock by the fact that there is a system which helps them to get over it. While they are settling down and looking for another job, they know that their mortgage will be paid and that they will not suffer. But the Government now intend, right at the very beginning when these people have already suffered the traumatic shock of losing their employment, to punish them still further. It would have been much better if the Government had left until later the cuts that they intended to make, allowing the people concerned a chance to settle down.
I find these regulations and the amendment so appalling that I think the noble Baroness should have another look at them. But this time she should not look at them using a brief provided by people who play only with statistics and not with human beings. Then she would find how uneasily she slept at night, knowing that on the question of mortgages many affluent people who do not need it are receiving money from the Government and from the public purse, and knowing that her regulations have imposed these cuts.
I have a note here which says, "You are technically speaking before the noble Lady sits down". I do not care how I am technically speaking. One of the problems with this House is that too much emphasis is placed on technicalities. What I am trying to convey to noble Lords opposite, in particular, is that when such regulations are produced in a little smoky, back room, they are talking about human beings. That is what they should be considering.
I do not know whether I am technically in order or out of order, and I could not care less. What I am saying is that these regulations should not be approved and that we should vote against them. I do not know whether or not we shall, but we should vote against them. They should not be approved, because they are doing the worst possible thing. They are hitting a man when he is down.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am probably technically out of order even in replying. But I cannot resist doing so because the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, seems to feel that he has the monopoly of compassion. I tell him that even those who compile statistics have compassion and know, understand and realise in many cases what it is like for people to lose their job

289
and to be out of work. It is slightly offensive of the noble Lord, although I respect his very deep feelings on this subject, to suggest otherwise.
I shall answer one question, which I think is damned decent of me, and that is on the need to distinguish between help given to encourage home ownership and help given through the benefit system to avoid financial hardship. The Government strongly support the extension of home ownership. The current proportion of households in owner-occupation is the highest ever at 63 per cent. Tax relief is of help to 8 million households many of whom are on relatively modest incomes. It is reasonable to expect people who come on to benefit to do more to help themselves in the early stages of a claim and for building societies to do more to help them. On that note I wish you all a very happy Christmas.
12 noon
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): The Question is that this Motion be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
My Lords, tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place. I declare that the Contents have it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dumping of Waste at Sea: ECC Report
12.5 p.m.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Dumping of Waste at Sea (17th Report, 1985–86, H.L. 219).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the dumping of waste at sea is a matter of considerable public concern and interest, which is evidenced in part by the number of your Lordships participating in the debate today. Our report was published in July and was, I know, considered by certain of the delegation attending the London Dumping Convention in early October of this year. It defines certain issues and expresses views as to certain solutions and I hope that it may have been useful in that context. I suspect that next year dumping of waste at sea will come more into the public domain, consequent upon the Conference on the North Sea which is to be held in November in this country following a similar conference held some time ago in Bremen. So we are talking about something which is of public concern and is, I think, likely to become more well known to the public.
I should make it clear to start with that we found that the Commission's proposal which is the subject of our report expressly did not concern itself with nuclear waste and we followed that principle. So our report does not deal at all with nuclear waste and I shall not refer to it in any way. Any proposal relating to the control of dumping waste at sea is bound to be of special concern to this country. The sea is part of the environment shared by all and it must be safeguarded with particular care. We in the United Kingdom have
290
a special interest in ensuring this to protect the amenity of our coastline and our coastal waters, as well as our commercial interests—most obviously fishing.
But the inevitability of waste has to be recognised. Commercial and industrial waste, as well as natural waste, such as dredging spoil, has to be disposed of. No doubt improved technology in recycling and reducing the volume and toxicity of waste will be developed, but large quantities will still arise and have to be disposed of. If one disposal route is to be reduced or eliminated, another will have to be found or enlarged.
The Commission's proposals are contained in the draft council directive (No. 8805/85) which has as two of its major objectives reduction in the quantities of certain substances dumped at sea, and the eventual elimination of incineration of waste at sea. The reduction in dumping is to be by steps of 10 per cent. per annum for five years from 1989—a total reduction of 50 per cent. This is not confined to chemicals and other substances which might generally be regarded as dangerous, but extends to, for instance, sewage sludge, dredging spoils and industrial wastes. The case for the Commission's proposals rests initially on the potential damage to the marine environment from dumping and marine incineration of waste. Such damage is a matter in the first instance for scientific assessment.
The committee has been struck by the lack of scientific evidence in support of the proposal presented by the Commission and by the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. The committee believes that the case for a major reduction in dumping at sea has not been made out. Indeed, the study undertaken in preparing the report indicates that, for some categories of waste, dumping at sea is in many cases the disposal route involving the least environmental cost and is likely to be the preferable option.
The serious impact of the proposal, if adopted, on the United Kingdom may be illustrated by reference to sewage sludge disposal, which is included among the substances that will be affected. The United Kingdom produces a larger quantity of sewage sludge than any other member state of the Community expect Germany. This is so because some 96 per cent. of the population is connected to the main sewer, a far higher proportion than in most other member states. We rely substantially on sea disposal because such a large proportion of the population—over 13 million people—live on or near the coast compared, for instance, with Germany with about 3·5 million.
The London sewage system was designed so that much of the sewage would be disposed of to the sea, the sewage being transported to the few very large treatment works on the Thames estuary by pipeline, so alternative disposal routes present great difficulties. It is therefore relevant to consider what the environmental impact of dumping sewage sludge at sea is. This depends largely on the strength of water currents on the sea bed near the dumping sites. Most dumping sites are in vigorous waters with the result that wastes are dispersed and have little or no impact on local fauna. Most dumping sites show some accumulation of metals which are trace contaminants of all sewage sludge.
These contributions to the total burden of marine pollution are, however, a minute proportion of the whole. Sewage sludge, industrial waste and marine incineration together contribute only 5 per cent. of the total input of heavy metals to the sea. The most serious pollution comes from the air and from the rivers pouring into the sea.
Of course, the fact that they contribute a minute proportion of the total does not mean that improvements cannot and should not be made. A critical distinction has to be made between pollution effects on the sea which are reversible and those which are not. The former do not present a hazard because it is only necessary to cease dumping to restore the environment. Much, for instance, has been made of eutrophication—the over-fertilisation of plant life—which, it has been said, arises from the dumping of sewage sludge at sea. The evidence given to us does not indicate that this has presented a serious problem in United Kingdom waters. If it did, a reduction or, indeed, elimination of dumping when that problem became evident would cure it. The real danger is from waste which produces irreversible ecological changes which are most likely to arise from heavy metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons.
A much more important input of metals to the sea than sewage sludge arises from dredging spoils, at least ten times the amount from sewage sludge. There are three estuaries, the Forth, the Mersey and the Severn, which are seriously contaminated with metals, and it may be that these dredging spoils should be disposed of to land. In Rotterdam, where the inner harbour is seriously contaminated, that course has been adopted, although the less contaminated spoils from the outer harbour are disposed of to sea.
The Oslo Commission, constituted under the Oslo Convention, has set up a joint working group with the London Dumping Convention to consider disposal of contaminated dredging spoils and the best means of dealing with them. Contamination of the Firth of Forth and the Mersey derives from industrial activity over the past 100 years and more, and in the Severn estuary consists of cadmium, which arises naturally. The vast majority of ports and harbours, however, are virtually free of contamination, and it is essential that they be dredged in order to keep them open. There can be no objection to the transfer of material from one part of the sea bed to another part of the sea bed if it is not contaminated, yet the Commission by its proposal seeks to reduce the dumping of such dredging spoils in the five years following 1989. While the proposal envisages a reduction in dumping at sea, it proposes elimination of marine incineration of waste. The committee has concluded that marine incineration should be retained as an option for appropriate waste disposal.
One advantage of marine incineration is safety. I visited the incineration vessel, "Vulcanus II", and was greatly impressed by the equipment used, including the monitoring equipment, which I was advised was in no way inferior to that used in high temperature incinerators on land, which I have also visited. The likelihood of an incineration vessel having an accident at sea and discharging its poisonous cargo is no greater than such an accident to a chemical cargo vessel which
292
constantly plies across the seas. Failure to incinerate the waste properly is no more likely to occur at sea than on land and is likely to be far less damaging environmentally and to public health than such a failure on land.
For those and other reasons, the committee believes that marine incineration of waste should be maintained. It appears, indeed, from information that has become available since publication of our report that some states which some years ago supported the proposal that marine incineration should in due course be banned are now changing their minds. The Commission proposal, however, falls to be considered not only on its merit; it has to be considered in the context of the international conventions relating to dumping waste at sea and marine incineration. There is a global convention, the London Dumping Convention, and a number of regional conventions, of which the Oslo Convention relating to the North-East Atlantic and the North Sea and the Barcelona Convention relating to the Mediterranean are particularly relevant. The parties to each include both member states of the Community and non-member states.
The conventions represent a substantial achievement in international regulation of the use of a common resource, the sea, by those who share its coastline. Each regional convention contains regulations appropriate to the sea to which it relates. There is a world of difference between what is appropriate for the enclosed sea represented by the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. The Commission proposal seeks to apply the same regulations to all seas. It really is not sensible to apply uniform standards to these diverse environments. As and when new controls on sea dumping and marine incineration are necessary, it would be far preferable that these be introduced under the conventions and with the advice of the scientific teams already assembled.
Those are some of the reasons which have led the committee to consider the Commission's proposed directive on dumping waste at sea and marine incineration to be ill-considered and inappropriate, and to recommend that it should be dropped. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Dumping of Waste at Sea (17th Report, 1985–86, H.L. 219).—(Lord Nathan.)
12.19 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, it is my great pleasure to open the debate by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the Select Committee on a masterly and very valuable report.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has mentioned, there is currently a high level of interest in the quality of the marine environment of Europe not only because of the existence of the European Community draft directive on dumping of waste at sea but also in anticipation of next autumn's Conference on the North Sea, which is to be hosted by this country.
Papers on environmental aspects of the North Sea are already in an advance state of preparation by

293
departments of state, and are also being prepared by intending participants in a preliminary conference that is to be held in the spring under the Water Research Council.
In addition, concerned non-governmental organisations have been encouraged by grants from the Department of the Environment and from industrial and other sources to put together their views within the framework of a North Sea forum which I have been invited to chair. This forum will report early in the new year. In the Netherlands, a North Sea seminar has already been held under the sponsorship of Werkgroep Nordzee, and in the United Kingdom Friends of the Earth, in late October, launched a new international campaign which they have called "Seas at Risk".
In my own personal involvement in an appraisal of all these activities, I have found the Select Committee's report an accessible, convenient and most comprehensive source of detailed information. The witnesses who came to be interviewed included a full range of specialists and experts on different aspects, working from contrasting standpoints. I recommend the report most strongly for its value as a source reference on all these topics.
As your Lordships heard a moment ago from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, it is the committee's opinion that a directive to reduce the dumping of waste at sea is undesirable and inappropriate, and that the related proposal to eliminate marine incineration altogether is unjustifiable. Paragraph 93 of the report points out the illogicality of trying to apply uniform regulations to such varied environments as the European seas; and paragraph 94 disputes the need to duplicate the functions of the existing international conventions. These points were emphasised a moment or two ago by the chairman of the committee. Nonetheless, we must recognise that not only in Brussels but in other quarters also, including I suspect some United Kingdom based non-governmental organisations, these recommendations will be controversial. The steps by which the committee reached its conclusions need to be looked at with some care.
Paragraph 86 of the report emphasises a point (which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and for which there is abundant confirmatory evidence) that inputs of organic pollutants and of inorganic materials—pollutants that are degradable and others that are persistent in nature—are far greater from indirect sources—from air and from rivers—than from direct dumping. Taken in isolation, however, this fact does not support continued dumping. If there are pollution problems all sources must be attacked, including minor sources. Direct inputs are the more easily controlled; and even if the resulting improvement is slight, they should be among the first to be tackled. The argument de minimis is not applicable, and I felt that the committee was wrong to hint that it might be so, although I judge from his words just now that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, would not in fact have gone that far.
Paragraph 87 introduces the most important topic of cross-media pollution, to which I shall come back in a moment or two. Paragraph 88 comments on the lack
294
of scientific evidence of current damage to the environment. I felt that this paragraph rather lightly dismisses three factors. The first is the undisputed evidence of local pollution due to admittedly transient episodes of eutrophication of the water column, and also to localised degradation of the sea bed by blanketing effects—places where the sea bed is covered thickly with sewage sludge, colliery wastes or with fly ash in non-dispersive sites.
Against the evidence of deterioration of the marine environment one can argue perfectly satisfactorily that to dump materials of this nature on land would equally sterilise the receiving area; but I do not think the parallel is exact. Especially in the longer term, marine covering matter is potentially more susceptible to unpredictable movements than is any solid matter disposed of on land. This must be kept in mind.
Secondly, and a point not enlarged upon by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, there are undoubtedly some unpleasant phenomena among the living marine creatures—notably diseases and strange lesions in fish—which demand some form of explanation. Scientific research needs to be intensified to satisfy public unease on this issue.
Thirdly, there is an important and legitimate worry, touched on in paragraph 90 of the report, that black list substances may accumulate, perhaps over very long periods of time, until a threshold is crossed and their effects begin to show. It can then be too late to act. The monitoring that is advocated in paragraphs 104 to 108 of the report would serve to give a prompt warning of environmental crises. But if black list substances have accumulated until they begin to have deleterious effects, no amount of monitoring will ever provide a remedy.
These three issues remain in the field of controversy and cannot be dismissed lightly at present. On the other hand, the committee is surely right in paragraphs 87, 89 and elsewhere to stress the central importance of a multi-media approach to pollution control. The phrase "best practicable environmental option", shortened conveniently to BPEO, orginated in the fifth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and now a decade later, rather suddenly, it has become a term very much in vogue. It appears in this report in the evidence from ICI on page 64, from the Water Authorities Association on page 90, from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on page 114, from the British Ports Association and in many other submissions.
I was particularly interested to note the firm support for this concept enunciated by Mr. Markham and Mr. Peet of Friends of the Earth International, particularly in paragraphs 406 and 412 of their evidence as it appears. Mr. Peet is a Dutchman, and cross-media analysis is very strongly emphasised in the Netherland's pollution control policy. The Netherlands 1986–90 five-year plan for the environment has adopted this approach wholeheartedly and I think it is one which should be very strongly recommended to fellow members of the European Community in this and other contexts.
I await with some interest the reply of my noble friend the Minister. If Her Majesty's Government decide to follow the strong prompt which has been

295
provided by the committee's report and reject this directive, it will be essential to evolve a firm policy on several of the points that have been raised. For instance, in paragraph 106 there is a call for further scientific research. Paragraph 108 suggests that there must be openness on matters of practice of waste disposal. Paragraph 109 talks of vigilance against infringements. Paragraphs 110 to 113 talk about careful evaluation of alternatives and, as I have mentioned just now, place emphasis on the BPEO; and paragraph 114 calls for consistent attempts to minimise wastes. All these are thoroughly laudable and surely require to be incorporated openly and firmly into government policy.
But beyond this I think there is one very important need for action, here and now. What we require is a synoptic approach to the entire United Kingdom submarine shelf zone and the seas that cover it; that is, the EEZ by another name. Piecemeal action by different government departments and different agencies is not an acceptable way of approaching the environmental problems of this important national area. What is required is an integrated strategic plan for long-term sustainable management of this vast new frontier which is being opened up to us by international recognition of our responsibilities over the continental shelf and the shelf seas. It is only if such a plan exists that any one sectoral aspect, such as the problems of the disposal of waste by dumping, can be sensibly evaluated in the larger context.
Our national plans must include the designation of zones suitable for appropriate uses. I have no doubt that such uses would include the exploitation of the sea bed by dredging or mining for sand, gravel, ballast or hardcore. It should include reserves for fisheries purposes, including pelagic and benthic fish and shellfish. It should include strict marine nature reserves. I think it is quite plausible to assume that the overall plan would include zones which could legitimately and safely be recipients of dumped waste and could be sacrificed by being blanketed permanently by deposits that are harmless to the wider environment.
Such a strategic approach to the management of our shelf seas must obviously wholeheartedly take account of international obligations. It must not provide any form of excuse for the Government to refrain from open participation in the fora provided by the Oslo and Paris conventions. It must also be sensitive to the special problems of adjacent areas of the shelf seas such as the shallow inshore waters of the southern North Sea.
Personally, I remain open minded on the question tackled by this report of how, or whether, a specific European Community directive on the dumping of wastes could improve the protection of the marine environment, and I shall follow today's debate with great interest.
12.33 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, there is a lot to agree with in what has been said both by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. The basic thrust of the committee's report is vividly illustrated for those who have not had time to read it
296
all by the pie charts on page 17 which set out in sectors of circles where all the metals, including heavy metals, that are found in the North Sea have come from. What strikes one immediately is that industrial dumping is virtually invisible on that pie crust display. It is atmosphere and rivers all the way, and not industrial dumping.
To the extent that we agree that metals, especially heavy metals, are the main danger, to that same extent we must realise the force of the argument that the Commission has been tackling a very small part of the problem and that perhaps it would be wrong to adopt directives which get ahead on one tiny corner of it before anything is ready for the rest. I believe that our Select Committee has got it right in the main; that is to say, that this directive should not go ahead alone. The work that has been done need not be wasted. The right step would be for the Commission to tackle the much wider spectrum of problems concerning North Sea pollution and include the work already done on industrial dumping. The de minimis argument does hold. It is so tiny a part of the real problem that it would be reasonable to wait until a broader view can be taken.
What would that broader view be? Here, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is absolutely right. After the Rhine disaster, it is perfectly obvious that rivers must be right at the top of the list of what must be done to reduce sea pollution. It is not only river pollution but sea pollution too. I am not quite sure how all these words are used—crossmedia, cross-sectoral, synoptic, and so on—but what does someone do who is now dumping his refuse into the North Sea when he is not allowed to do so? One must look at how that would be if it were dumped on land. One must look at how it would be if it were dumped in the deep Atlantic. One must look at how it would be if it were incinerated on land, or shot into space, or disposed of in any other way. Every possible combination of the alternative disposal systems must be considered. If at the end of the day you find that each would be as bad as dumping in the North Sea, or worse, and if dumping in the North Sea really matters—we come back to the original decision—there is no alternative but to forbid the process that gives rise to the waste.
I submit that any consideration of these disposal problems in general which does not include the possibility of forbidding a given industrial process—if there is no sensible solution to the dumping process—is an incomplete consideration. One must consider the whole picture. If the material cannot be safely dumped anywhere, then it must not be produced.
With that, I conclude by saying that I warmly endorse the approach of this report.
12.37 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, on his lucid introduction in moving the reception of this report and, indeed, on his customary ability in leading the committee to make the report. It is important, and as a member of the committee I join with the noble Lord in acknowledging the importance of the subject and the interest in it.

297
I agree with the noble Lord that we are certainly not complacent because we are advising that the Commission's directive is not justified. Indeed, there is no scientific evidence which would justify it, so we are certainly not complacent. In that context, it was particularly interesting to hear my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, with his great authority and knowledge of these matters and who evidently read not only the report but all the evidence, speaking on the subject and emphasising the necessity to take this matter seriously, although we are advising against accepting this particular directive proposed by the Commission.
There is one point on which I did not agree with my noble friend. He contended that it was easier to stop dumping waste at sea than to control the effluents from the rivers. I do not think that is so. Certainly one can stop dumping waste at sea but, as has already been said, one is presented with the very difficult problem of alternative methods of disposal. However, on controlling the quality of the effluents, that is a subject on which we in this country have a great deal of experience. Indeed, it costs a great deal of money but we are making a manful attempt to do this, estuary by estuary, while we can.
However, when one looks at the condition of the Rhine—and there are appalling international problems to be dealt with—it is perfectly obvious that the Rhine is discharging more pollution of every sort, particularly heavy metals, than all the other rivers in Europe put together. If we can set about controlling industrial effluents in this country in a methodical manner—and that is the subject to which I wish to refer—the quality of the effluent in the estuaries of the rivers can be controlled and made acceptable and we can eliminate damage done in that particular way. So it is really a matter of considering one method of approach compared with another.
In this particular case, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has said, if the directive were implemented the method of disposal would hit this country particularly hard because we dispose of far more sewage sludge than any other country in the Community, and therefore the cost of finding alternative methods would bear very heavily upon us. In fact, we dispose of some 29 per cent. of our annual production of sewage sludge into sea dumping areas; that is, some 12 million tonnes. As the report states, alternative methods of disposal will involve us in capital costs amounting to an extra £85 million and an annual cost of an extra £32 million which would have to be passed on to the Community in increased water charges.
It is therefore reasonable to ask why the directive was made. From the evidence that we received it appears that there is serious concern in Germany about pollution of the North Sea in the Wadden Sea area off the north coast of Germany. They are also concerned with the harmonisation concept and the fact that this is a cheaper method of disposing of sewage sludge than they themselves are able to employ. However, I do not think that that is an argument that would necessarily commend itself here in this country or generally throughout Europe.
The point has already been very well made that there is no scientific evidence to show that the dumping of waste in that area of the North Sea is the major cause of pollution. On the other hand, there is
298
much evidence for massive pollution from the Rhine and probably from other German rivers discharging northwards. Incidentally, when considering alternative methods for the disposal of waste one must never forget that in West Germany there is the handy alternative method of disposing of waste by taking it across the frontier into East Germany, where methods of control seem to be very different from those in Western Europe.
The British method of dumping sludge is very carefully controlled, and it is worth saying so now. Specially designed sludge vessels go out regularly from nine estuaries to dump sludge at points fixed some miles out to sea. These areas are selected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for their suitability, and are regularly monitored to ensure that there is no toxic build-up of heavy metals in particular. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspectors regularly take samples from consignments of sludge to ensure its acceptability.
The regional water authorities who are the producers of the sludge, which comes from some hundreds of sewage treatment works in the country, control the industrial effluents discharged from their plants by the industries concerned and they set the appropriate standards with which the industries must conform. The industries instal the necessary pre-treatment plants, with particular reference of course to heavy metals, in order to conform with these standards, and the inspectors make periodic checks to make sure that these standards are maintained.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, made a point as to the need for greater openness. The records are there but greater publicity should undoubtedly be given to them in order to relieve anxieties which are felt in many quarters as to how well this control is in fact effected. My belief is that it is very thoroughly done, but if reports were more regularly published undoubtedly they would produce greater confidence. I therefore hope that the water authorities will take note of that point.
Our rational system of treatment control and monitoring enables us to claim with some confidence that the sea-dumping of sludge is doing the minimum amount of harm and certainly conforms with the principle, to which reference has already been made, of the best practical environmental option. That was the finding of our Select Committee, and I hope that my noble friend who will reply to the debate has been convinced by it and that the world as a whole will see that our recommendation has been soundly made.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for the opportunity that I have had to listen to the arguments and assimilate the evidence which has been logically and methodically marshalled in order to assist in arriving at an agreement to the final version of the seventeenth report on the dumping of waste at sea. The background to this report is that this country and its European neighbours are becoming increasingly more complex industrially; increasingly urbanised; increasingly demanding of resources; increasingly wasteful and destructive of the habitat; and perhaps increasingly intolerant of the effects which the

299
economic priorities have had upon their neighbours. The report is therefore opportune and welcome.
The economy of the European nations thus outlined must sooner or later come to terms with an environmental policy which, apart from other considerations, will insist on stricter guidelines as to how to dispose of waste products in all their varying degrees and categories of toxicity; how to separate the harmful from the less harmful; and how to explore the best routes for disposal. It must highlight those practices which are unneighbourly and damaging to the Community. I therefore concern myself with the three clear headings which were spelt out in the report. First, there is the assimilative capacity of the sea and its ability to absorb what is being put into it without long-term damage and to restore the status quo within a reasonable period once the dumping has ceased.
As regards the dumping of sewage, various marine areas around our coast have been used for dumping, and these have been well monitored. One example is the Firth of Clyde, which over a 12-year period had some 19 million tonnes of sewage deposited within an area of approximately one square mile. Tests showed that the effects were nil for four miles in any direction from the centre of those deposits. The immediate centre itself could have been aptly described as a maritime square mile of hyper-enrichment, including of course some accumulation of heavy metals, but after some two years, when the deposits of sludge had been stopped, returning to its original state. Therefore that seems to me to be an acceptable route for disposal so long as it continues to be carefully monitored.
My second heading is the best practical environmental option. This heading introduces the thorny subject of black-listed chemicals which are highly toxic, persistent and resistant to chemical change. The options for disposal are limited and politically sensitive. In this regard I was most impressed with the evidence given by witnesses dealing with incineration at sea. It is my personal view that these black-listed materials—organo-halogens and PCBs—should be tested for their destructibility by such incineration. It is a developing technology, and at present there is nearly 100 per cent. total destruction within these very efficent burners. It is my hope that the Commission will look carefully at this method as being the best practical option for the disposal of these toxic chemicals, and that furthermore, if this method is found to be successful, it might possibly commission a ship which might be built in our dockyards.
The third option comes under the heading of precautionary action and altogether discounts marine disposal of any kind. The committee really did not establish a very good argument on the basis that any kind of disasters in the foreseeable future would show up from the manner in which we dispose of these waste products.
Dredging spoils have been referred to in various ways during this debate. I was rather interested in one particular point, and that was the manner in which Hamburg, with 2 million cubic metres of dredging spoil to be disposed of each year, attempted to put it on to the land and found that it poisoned the crops because of the enormous cadmium content. They then made arrangements with East Germany, who were no
300
doubt delighted to take it at great cost, and then proceeded to dump it back in the sea again.
Finally, in committee I raised the particular point of the disposal of what is known as PFA (pulverised fuel ash), commonly known as fly ash. Thirty million tonnes of this are produced per annum. It is a dust which is extracted from smokestacks of coal-fired stations and from their furnaces. After the many usages for which it has been made commercially acceptable, it still remains in considerable surplus.
The method deployed by the Central Electricity Generating Board at Blythe and Newcastle is quite simply dumping it in the sea along the south Northumberland coast. I think it may not be too long before that is seen to be environmentally unacceptable. Therefore this appears to be an area in which ingenuity and enterprise can be exercised in achieving a more acceptable and possibly rewarding avenue for a viable usage of this embarrassingly surplus by-product.
My Lords, I welcome this comprehensive and valuable report. I hope that the Commission will find it of immense value in formulating their policies.
12.52 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, it has been a great privilege to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I have formed a great admiration over the last few months, for his knowledge of these somewhat unsavoury matters. I should also like to congratulate him on the way he has introduced the debate.
I support the conclusions which the committee has reached. I want to deal only with one matter—the incineration of waste at sea. Like the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, I had the opportunity to visit the marine incineration vessel "Vulcanus II" and to see for myself at first hand what it does.
This is a vessel specially built for the purpose. I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters, but the system with which it is designed seems to me to be as perfect as it can be. A 99.999 per cent. efficiency is claimed in destroying harmful chemicals by this method, and the computerised system of monitoring what happens would seem to me to be as foolproof as it is possible to make it.
I will not elaborate upon the reasons behind the committee's decision on this matter, as they are set out in some detail at paragraphs 96 to 101 of the report. It is important to remember that the alternative—incineration of this type of waste on land—can be potentially much more dangerous, and up to five times as expensive. The Commission's view which, I think, caused it to suggest this ban, was based on the much more primitive technology which was available up to 10 years ago. It should be remembered also that the scale of the problem in the United Kingdom is that about 3,000 tonnes per annum needs to be incinerated. That figure is less than 5 per cent. of the potential annual capacity of the "Vulcanus II" to destroy.
It is also significant that this vessel has been visited by Greenpeace which is hardly an organisation likely to agree to such a process as marine incineration without a fairly critical approach. Greenpeace has not

301
seen fit to object to the process, either to the owners of the vessel (as far as we were told) or indeed to this committee during the inquiry.
Furthermore, Friends of the Earth who, at the time of this inquiry had not done more than visit the ship and had not spent any time there, had no evidence to give to us of harmful effects of incineration at sea. I hope very much that this country will be able to continue to use this process because I believe it is the safest, the best and the cheapest method available for us in the circumstances.
Finally, there are those who think that your Lordships are at their very finest when they are debating sewage and related matters. For their benefit, and because it is almost Christmas, I hope noble Lords will allow me to introduce a small carol into this debate. I have no intention of singing it because I cannot sing. It is very brief:
"God rest ye merry gentlemen, God bless the EEC,
And if you handle sewage sludge, don't dump it in the sea,
But if you get away with it, bless Sub-Committee G".
12.55 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do not think that I can cap that! I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his patient and courteous chairmanship of the committee, as well as his expertise, and indeed for the comprehensive way he has introduced the subject this afternoon, which leaves very little for the rest of us to do. It was a very interesting subject and the committee had to discuss matters outside the scope of the proposal. Indeed, we all found it so fascinating that the difficulty was to restrain ourselves for most of the time to something approaching the proposal.
The conclusions, which I fully support, were inevitable given the terms of the proposal and the evidence available to the committee at the time. In spite of the wording of paragraph 86 I do not think that the committee was at all complacent about the situation or accepted dumping at sea as a long-term inevitable activity. I think that point is plain if you read through the text of the report. The committee was certainly not complacent about the total arrangements for waste disposal in the United Kingdom. The activities which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, mentioned as being about to take place were very welcome. Some of them were news to me, especially the idea of the North Sea forum. I look forward to seeing what their activities produce.
Perhaps the most important part of the report for the purposes of our debate this afternoon is the section on "alternative proposals" starting on page 23. I support these proposals not only as a member of the committee but also from the Front Bench.
The problem of disposal of waste at sea cannot be separated from that of disposal on land. The two activities are related to each other. The availability of alternative sites is an essential factor in deciding which route will be followed for waste disposal. This is particularly evident in the disposal of those wastes currently incinerated at sea, about which so much has already been said. To dispose of these substances on land would require special facilities; namely, special incinerators which would probably be resisted anywhere in the United Kingdom.
302
At this point it may be relevant to ask ourselves whether or not it is in the interests of applying the best practicable environmental option for responsibility for waste disposal to be divided between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, dealt with the difficulties of division of responsibility on a much wider scale. He was also discussing research. However, I wish to concentrate for the moment on this question of sites, because it makes it extraordinarily difficult to reach a decision about which is the best method of disposal if there is a split responsibility between two government departments.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has already drawn our attention to this matter on a number of occasions and has reiterated it in the context of this report. It seems to me that an activity of such environmental importance should properly be the concern of the Department of the Environment. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is here to answer us this afternoon, because no doubt he will have something to say on that.
That brings me to the question of the way forward. We have heard already in general terms that if we are to improve on the present situation—which we must—there are two basic requirements: research and monitoring. We need research to discover better methods of disposal and to examine possible long-term effects of current practices. On that point the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, enlightened us on the question of fish diseases, about which we seem to know only a marginal amount and seem to take a lot for granted. Above all, we need research into ways of reducing waste at source.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, whom I am sorry to see is not in his place, mentioned forbidding the output of certain substances, but I feel that control must start at a much earlier stage than that.
The question of waste output should play a large part in the granting of planning for any new process. That must be the best solution. We seem to overcome one difficulty only to encounter another. The only safe route is to assume that all waste substances are potentially harmful and to take steps to reduce output at source.
The noble Lord, Lord Rugby, drew attention to our disregard for the growing problem of waste output of all kinds. I do not feel as pessimistic as he did about it, because I think there is a growing public concern about waste output generally, especially in the Scandinavian countries, from which I hope we shall learn lessons. They are now using a great deal of household waste for recycling and heat regeneration. That is a useful thing to do.
Efficient monitoring is vital, especially at our present state of development. It must ensure that agreements and conventions are upheld; that permit or licence conditions are adhered to; and that disposal sites are checked constantly for unforeseen or abnormal effects. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred to monitoring by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I find it disappointing that the ministry has not accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology that inspection of industrial waste dumping at sea should

303
be 10 per cent. of voyages made, but has set a target of 7 per cent. That is mentioned on page 24 of the report. I hope that the Minister can give us a reason for a lowering of the target to 7 per cent. and can tell us whether it took expert opinion on this matter, and if so, whose opinion it was.
Other points emerged in evidence which pointed to the need for a closer monitoring of disposal. Some were connected with land disposal and so were not strictly relevant to the proposal that we were discussing, but they serve to illustrate the committee's concern for greater vigilance. For example, we had rather unsatisfactory exchanges and discussions with the CBI on the use of boreholes. That should be investigated a little further. We should never be complacent about the state of our knowledge on waste disposal. As I have said, today's apparently harmless substance may be tomorrow's problem, as we have already found to our cost with, for example, asbestos.
This sensible, unemotional report offers wise advice. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take it.
1.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and your Lordships who were members of his committee for having produced a most valuable and well-researched report. It is a constructive contribution to the discussion on marine environmental policy. I welcome the opportunity to try to set out not only the Government's view of the Commission's proposal, but to give our response to your Lordships' further recommendations about the United Kingdom's sea disposal policies and practices.
The Government attach great importance to the protection of the marine environment. Last year, your Lordships debated and gave agreement to what is now Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Under that Act, sea disposal may not take place except under the terms of a licence from the appropriate government department. Such licences are not issued unless scientific examination shows the operation in question to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the marine environment, the living resources it supports and human health, and unless it conforms with the Oslo and London dumping conventions. The Act also requires that interference with legitimate uses of the sea, such as fishing and recreation, should be prevented and that licensing authorities should consider the practical availability of alternative disposal methods on land before permitting recourse to sea disposal.
That Act laid down some tight but general criteria which must be taken into account when licensing is undertaken. The amounts of waste we dispose of at sea are a small part of the total waste arising in this country. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent for what he said about the care with which sludge is disposed of at sea. I assert that great care is taken to ensure that each application for a sea disposal licence receives critical scientific scrutiny and that each is assessed against the prevailing international rules. That work is carried out by scientific staff at the
304
Ministry's fisheries laboratories at Lowestoft, Burnham-on-Crouch, Aberdeen and elsewhere. Your Lordships will be aware that considerable resources are committed to that important task, and rightly so in view of the importance of the sea in the country's economic and social life.
While sea disposal may be the best practical environmental option for certain types of waste, we must be sure that that is the case on each and every occasion that a licence is granted.
I noted that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook drew attention to the general support given by all who contributed to the report for the principle of the BPEO and that in particular representatives of the Friends of the Earth see the merit of weighing environmental costs of land and sea. That underlines the fact, ably highlighted by the committee in its report, that we cannot just rule out waste disposal options as the Commission proposal would do, before most scrupulously weighing the alternatives on scientific criteria.
The Government share the committee's main recommendation on the directive in paragraph 102 of the report: that the proposed directive on dumping at sea is inappropriate and should not be adopted. We think that, for reasons which I shall go through quickly because your Lordships have dealt with them so ably and succinctly. The first, as the report says, is that the Commission proposal attempts to harmonise what cannot reasonably be harmonised. By that, I mean that the proposal would impose one set of rules for sea disposal in seas as divergent as the Mediterranean, the Baltic, the North Sea and the north Altantic. That is precisely why different international conventions—the Oslo. Helsinki and Barcelona conventions—exist: to regulate sea disposal in those different sea areas.
Secondly, the Community proposal would require a 50 per cent. reduction in the sea disposal of certain types of waste. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said that the committee had been struck by the lack of scientific evidence to support the various recommendations. It is strikingly evident that the Commission presented no scientific justification for that second drastic step. There is no recognition, for example, of the fact that the overwhelming majority of contaminants which reach the sea arrive via the atmosphere or rivers rather than from the sea disposal of waste, as has been amply demonstrated in the committee's report. As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, great efforts have been made in the United Kingdom to reduce discharges from our rivers. That is an area where we can look forward to continuing improvements.
To return to the Commission, it has not made any attempt to assess the possible drawbacks associated with the increase in land disposal which would be the inevitable result of its initiative. It is central to the Government's policy that the best practicable environmental option be assessed, scientifically and objectively in each case, without the kind of preconceptions that we find here.
I feel that I must say on behalf of the Government that the economic and environmental consequences of a 50 per cent. reduction of sea disposal would have a considerable effect on this country. As the report points out, significant extra quantities of sludge, liquid

305
industrial wastes and dredged spoil, which are being safely disposed of at sea at present, would have to be disposed of on land. That would be likely to damage the competitiveness of British industry, to cost jobs, and to add considerably to the problems facing water authorities. All that is involved for a proposal with no scientific basis and, by virtue of the domination of river and airborne contaminants over those disposed of directly at sea, unlikely to result in any appreciable improvement in the marine environment. That really does not seem to the Government to be an acceptable balance sheet.
Thirdly, and much more briefly, because the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, together with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and my friend Lord Ridley have spoken about this, the Commission proposal envisages an early end to the practice of marine incineration, but once again with no evidence to show why this is necessary or desirable. As my noble friend Lord Ridley said, we do not actually make a great deal of use of this option in this country, but we do not think—without scientific evidence—that it would be in Europe's best interests for this option to be closed off completely. Surely it is common prudence, bearing in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that we have to recognise the inevitability of waste and to keep scientifically acceptable options at least available rather than arbitrarily to foreclose them.
On this recommendation of the Commission, finally, I should like to pay tribute to the excellent track record of the existing international conventions in this field, notably the Oslo and the London dumping conventions, to which this country adheres and to which we make a major scientific contribution. Their work is based above all upon good science, and I am sure that your Lordships need no persuasion from me to be convinced of the efficacy of these bodies. For these reasons, which very much follow the speeches made today, the Government do not believe that the Commission's directive should be adopted.
Perhaps I may now briefly try to reply to the other recommendations of your Lordships' committee for the further improvement of our domestic controls over the disposal of waste at sea. The first one is that mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. It is the question of the level of inspection carried out by departments to satisfy themselves that sea-disposal operations are being undertaken in accordance with licence conditions; and in particular the recommendation of your Lordships that not less than 10 per cent. of voyages made by vessels dumping industrial waste should be inspected, in line with the view expressed by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology some years ago.
The Government have given careful consideration to this recommendation, as we did when it was first put forward. Taking account of an efficiency scrutiny recommendation, the Government at that time took the view that an inspection level of 7 per cent. would be sufficient. In re-examining this decision we have taken into account the very small number of infringements and irregularities which are uncovered each year and which tend to indicate that such phenomena are, if anything, declining as the higher 7 per cent. inspection rate bears fruit. The noble Baroness asked me for our reasons. We have no
306
evidence of any fall in standards—rather the reverse. Consequently, there is no indication at present that current inspection rates are inadequate. For that reason, we believe that we should stick to the 7 per cent. However, I should like to assure your Lordships that the situation will be kept under careful review.
Secondly, the committee calls for additional research to improve our understanding of benthic communities and sediment movement. I am happy to report that departments are already engaged in scientific work in these fields, and that we shall certainly examine the best and most cost-effective ways of building on what has already been achieved.
Thirdly the Committee asked the Government to consider what they can do to meet the wishes expressed by a number of witnesses for more information on the quantities and characteristics of wastes disposed of at sea, and for more public consultation before licences are issued. Looking first at the question of publishing information about the wastes disposed of at sea, your Lordships rightly pointed out that this material is already published in the annual reports of the Oslo Commission, copies of which are in the Library of the House. However, the Government accept that more can and should be done to provide public reassurance, and I am therefore pleased to be able to respond to your Lordships by announcing today that reports on the licensing, enforcement and monitoring of sea-disposals will in future be published each year and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It is hoped to produce the first of this new series next year in relation to disposals this year.
As regards consultation before licences are issued I am a little less forthcoming. Departments already can and do consult on an informal basis with those who have an interest, principally water authorities, which have responsibilities for water quality within the three-mile limit. However, we do not see a need to go beyond this as of now, though we are willing to keep the position under review.
The committee recommends that others outside the Government departments, and in particular water authorities, should play a role in presenting evidence on the UK's sea disposal policies to the public, through the water authorities' annual reports to Parliament. This point of the committee's had been drawn to the attention of the Water Authorities Association, and I can say that its members are considering what contribution they might usefully make in this field.
The committee recommends that automatic data recording devices should be fitted to vessels engaged in sea disposal operations. Strangely, that is a point which has not been raised today. I say "strangely" because it was on Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 that my noble friend Lord Craigton moved an amendment in this House which enables us to stipulate as a condition of a licence that automatic data recording equipment ought to be fitted to a vessel. However, the Government wish to satisfy themselves that suitable equipment is available to licensees before ordaining that it should be used, and we need to consult further those concerned both in the manufacture and the use of such equipment before we take a final decision. We are now actively pursuing the development of the specifications for such equipment in consultation with those concerned.

307
The committee also recommended that water authorities should reduce inputs of contaminants to the sewerage system so as to lessen further any effects of sea disposal of sewage sludge. We understand that this is a policy which the authorities already pursue, to the extent consistent with economic constraints both on themselves and on business, and concentrating necessarily on any potential problem areas such as heavy metals. I am able to say today that I understand this has already resulted in a significant reduction in the levels of a number of contaminants disposed of at sea in recent years. I am sure that the water authorities will have noted the report's recommendation in this regard.
With regard to dredged spoils, your Lordships made no recommendation except to suggest that if land disposal was to replace sea disposal as the main outlet for this material, local authorities and central government ought to be prepared to give financial assistance to port and harbour authorities to offset the additional costs involved.
Your Lordships argued that "the polluter pays" principle would be inappropriate in these circumstances. Your Lordships may be aware that this year the Oslo and London conventions adopted new guidelines for the disposal of dredged spoils at sea. These guidelines indicate the factors to be taken into account in assessing whether or not the environmental impact of disposal of dredged spoil is acceptable. But they do not rule out sea disposal as the best practicable environmental option for the UK's dredged materials, and the eventuality addressed by the committee in this instance is therefore not one to which I need respond now. If that necessity arose we would wish to look very carefully at all the circumstances before deciding on the appropriate response.
Finally, the committee recommended that a general policy of encouraging the reduction of waste and the toxicity of waste should be pursued, so as to tackle pollution problems at source. I am sure that this is a general principle which we would all endorse, and I know that industry itself is aware of its responsibilities in this area. We must, however, remind ourselves that such reductions cost money and that we must, as always, balance the economic burdens we place on our industries against the likely benefits to the environment. That is not a justification for doing nothing and I am not saying that. It is a recognition that we must order our priorities with care and strive for balance between competing uses.
There are two further points to which I should like to reply. The first was raised by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook who asked for a co-ordinated approach to be taken to the management of the marine environment. The Government believe that it is an important consideration and are establishing arrangements to help ensure that account is taken of all relevant research in this field within government. That is a matter to which my noble friend Lord Nugent also referred.
Then there was the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about departmental responsibilities. It is almost inevitable, I am afraid, that responsibilities will be split between departments
308
where different considerations arise. The Department of the Environment is of course responsible for the disposal of wastes on land whereas my department is mainly responsible for the protection of the marine environment and its resources, of which fish are by no means the least. But there is close liaison between the DoE and the Ministry of Agriculture and formal procedures are in place to check on each application.
I should like finally to say that the Government are committed to the protection of the marine environment, and I hope that we do not appear in any way complacent. We are constantly seeking ways of improving our knowledge and we have strengthened our domestic legislation on sea disposal. We continue to meet our international obligations. We devote considerable resources to evaluating the effects of sea disposal according to scientific criteria and to examining alternative disposal options.
We are really very willing to learn from, and to respond to, the many suggestions in the committee's report. I hope that some of what I have said has shown that we have already accepted some of what your Lordships have said. But we share with your Lordships' committee the conviction that our approach rather than the Commission's proposal is the right one for this country.
1.22 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, my task at this stage of the debate is merely to thank those who have participated in it. It has been extraordinarily encouraging to find the spread of expertise and knowledge which has been available this afternoon. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is a leading scientist, and his support for so many of the conclusions that we reached is extremely encouraging because of his great knowledge of the subject. I was glad to note that he dwelt a little on the alternative proposals that we had listed towards the end of the report, and to which I had no time to refer in my remarks.
It was interesting that he referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, just now, to the question of the management of the continental shelf and the waters over it, which was the subject of more informal discussion in the committee because it fell, we thought, rather outside the precise terms of reference to which we were bound to confine ourselves. It was also encouraging to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who has been so interested and concerned with regard to the North Sea over such a long time and who has taken a leading part in its protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, as a Member of the committee, is an infinite source of knowledge on anything to do with water, fresh or salt, and to have his support is an enormous encouragement. He spoke of controlled sludge dumping. I know from what he has told me that he has actually carried out the dumping by pulling the lever on one of the specialist ships concerned, so he speaks from personal knowledge.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, how grateful I am for his assistance on the committee, and particularly for referring in his remarks to certain of the principles that we thought it right to indicate in our report—the assimilative capacity of the sea; the

309
question of the best practicable environmental option, which has been discussed a good deal; and also the precautionary principle, which seems more and more to dominate Commission thinking, derived perhaps largely from a German influence.
We had certain apocryphal stories with regard to the circulation of the waste from Hamburg through East Germany and out again through the river to Hamburg and the sea, but alas we had no evidence to support the story—which is a good one—in our report, and it therefore cannot be found there.
To the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I must say a word of thanks for his remarks with regard to marine incineration and the question of monitoring, and indeed for his Christmas carol. To the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I would say that I am grateful for her reference to the alternative proposals, and particularly for the unification of responsibility for ascertaining the best practicable environmental option with regard to waste disposal. It is very much the same point to which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
I was also interested in the point—which is of great concern—as to the production of waste; the question of planning production processes and, in the course of that planning procedure, considering what waste is to be produced and how it is to be disposed of. This is a matter of increasing concern. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for her reference to research with regard to the accumulation of some of the more dangerous wastes. The phrase used so often in the recent reports of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is "the creation of these time bombs". It is something to which one wants to pay particular attention.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, how grateful I am for the encouraging remarks he made and also for the encouraging tone in which he made them. It is clear that he strongly and personally, and no doubt on behalf of the Government, too, supports the main thrust of the recommendations we have made in the report. This is a great encouragement, and really makes the rather large amount of work involved in the preparation of the report very much worthwhile.
With regard to the dredging spoils, to which he referred late in his remarks, the point that we had in mind was that there were certain estuaries, to which I had referred, which are heavily contaminated. We had certain thoughts with regard to what should be done about that, but since that very question was under consideration by the scientists who are an expert group under the Oslo Convention it seemed foolish that we should embark upon that subject. We should much prefer to await their report on what should be done. It was for that reason that our conclusions quite clearly were tentative and depended upon what that group of experts might tell us.
Finally, once again may I thank those who have participated in the debate for the trouble they have taken in making their contributions; and I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, not in singing but in referring to his song, and wish everybody a happy Christmas.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
1.28 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In so moving I should like your Lordships' leave to read the terms of what I moved nearly 10 years ago, on 14th June 1977, against the late Lord Arran's Bill reducing the age of homosexual consent from 21 to 18. What I then moved (at col. 14 of Hansard) was:
"in view of the growth in activities of groups and individuals exploiting male prostitution and its attendant corruption of youth, debasement of morals and spread of venereal disease, this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading".
That Motion was carried by a majority of 152 to 25, and had the very substantial support of the whole House.
What I then said of homosexuality, at col. 14, was this:
"Given any disability whatever, one has the alternatives of either making the best or making the worst of the situation in which one finds oneself. Homosexuals have this choice. It is as open to them as to anyone else. Those who make the best of their situation are the responsible ones who would no more molest little boys than a responsible heterosexual would molest little girls, or go down the streets soliciting strangers, or reject stabilised relationships for promiscuity. The law does not concern itself with them and nor do I".
Those who make the worst of their situation are the sick ones who suffer from a psychological syndrome whose symptoms are as follows: first of all, exhibitionism; they want the world to know all about them; secondly, promiscuity; thirdly, proselytising; they want to persuade other people that their way of life is the good one; fourthly, boasting of homosexual achievements as if they were due to and not in spite of sexual inversion; lastly, they act as reservoirs of venereal diseases of all kinds. Ask any venerealogist: syphilis, gonorrhoea, genital herpes and now AIDS are characteristically infections of homosexuals.
I was referring to male homosexuals. I did not think then that lesbians were a problem. They do not molest little girls. They do not indulge in disgusting and unnatural practices like buggery. They are not wildly promiscuous and do not spread venereal disease. It is part of the softening up propaganda that lesbians and gays are nearly always referred to in that order. The relatively harmless lesbian leads on to the vicious gay. That was what I thought then and what I still in part continue to think, but I have been warned that the loony Left is hardening up the lesbian camp and that they are becoming increasingly aggressive.
One of the characteristics of our time is that we have for several decades past been emancipating minorities who claimed that they were disadvantaged. Are they grateful? Not a bit. We emancipated races and got inverted racism. We emancipate homosexuals and they condemn heterosexism as chauvinist sexism, male oppression and so on. They will push us off the pavement if we give them a chance. I am, in their jargon, a homophone, a heterosexist exploitationist. The whole vocabulary of the loony Left is let loose in a wild confusion of Marxism, Trotskyism, anarchism and homosexual terminology. I have files and files of it with which I shall not weary your Lordships. The coffee table glossy Changing the World, produced by

311
ILEA, is said to be a charter of gay lesbian rights, as they are claimed to be. I have put that and other material in the Library for all to see and study. It does not bear quotation in your Lordships' House.
I shall not make a long speech in commending this Bill to your Lordships. It is too short a Bill to need one. I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for help in drafting it. It has only one main clause, with four subsections. The first subsection prevents a local authority from giving financial or other assistance to any person for the purpose of publishing or promoting homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship or for the purpose of teaching such acceptability in any maintained school. The words "other assistance" would of course include providing local authority premises for a guest speaker; that would be forbidden.
The second subsection declares that a breach of the first is justiciable in the civil courts. The third identifies the class of persons who may institute proceedings under the second and gives them locus standi. The fourth merely excuses a local authority for deliberate disobedience to its instructions by its employees. There then follow the Short Title and the scope of jurisdiction. It does not apply to Northern Ireland.
I have had overwhelming support for this Bill from all over the country, and a very good press. I believe I shall have support this afternoon in your Lordships' House, to judge by the number and quality of the speakers who have put down their names and to whom I am greatly obliged.
Only two dissentient voices have been raised against the Bill. One is (surprise, surprise) that of the most reverend Primate the Archibishop of York, who feels it is a further incursion of centralism into our education system. The other is that of Professor Peter Campbell, chairman of the Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality. He takes the exact opposite view from that taken by the most reverend Primate and thinks we need more centralism in our education system, not less, but thinks it unfair to start with homosexuals. Well, as Mandy Rice-Davies once said on a celebrated occasion, "He would say that, wouldn't he?"
I cannot put the world to rights singlehanded, but I can locate a specific mischief and begin there as I am doing this afternoon with one of the worst mischiefs corrupting the fibre of our children and ultimately of our society itself. They are its future. I shall leave the most reverend Primate and Professor Campbell to settle between them the question of centralism versus decentralism and I shall say no more at this stage. The hour is late and many other noble Lords are waiting to speak.
My Lords, I commend this Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
1.36 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it was typically kind of the noble Earl to acknowledge the paternity of this Bill, but it was courageous to have adopted it as his own so as to give it the best possible start in life and all the advantages which only the noble
312
Earl could confer: a prologue of persuasive clarity which is such as to stamp the order of our debate with the hallmark of his own sincerity and purpose; a masterly exposition of the part of the measure of misconception that permeates the anathema ex cathedra of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and a reasoned resolution to some of the objections of Professor Campbell.
This is an emotive subject, but the case for the Bill rests solely upon reason. It is a very limited Bill in scope and structure. It is not designed to harass or humiliate homosexuals. They are often sad and lonely people, unable to have stable relationships, and they are, I am sure all your Lordships will agree, worthy of compassion. The provision of special services, welfare facilities, by local authorities for these people is in no way inhibited by the Bill. To express a limit is to avoid this. The Bill does not prohibit the appointment of a homosexual teacher. It in no way impinges upon sex education as ordinarily understood. It in no way derogates from any aspect of existing legislation.
To take but two examples in the realm of the local authority, the advertisements in Gay News for a lesbian and gay unit administration officer and for other similar appointments would not fall within the prohibition. Another example is babysitters on the rates for lesbian mothers while they attend a conference. Neither the conference as such nor the provision for the babysitters would fall within this prohibition.
Other noble Lords—and I am anxious not to take too much time—will deal with matters which clearly lie within the prohibitions: such matters as the promotion of lesbian and gay rights, as it is called—although what is gay about it is difficult to appreciate—as it is implemented in our schools. That falls within the prohibition, as does the provision of explicit books of certain types—and on the Floor of your Lordships' House it is wholly inappropriate to quote from some of them—which are made available to these children, with contact addresses; and also references to other, similar books. Such books were once described by a police officer—and I quote him—as "a lure to pervert the young". In one of them, as I think your Lordships will have seen from the papers, you have a girl aged five in bed with two naked homosexuals, one of whom is said to be her father. Hence this lead to the acceptable family aspect which is being promoted.
Of course, there are the borderline cases. To give but one example of the borderline cases, to illustrate how the Bill would work, the fostering facilities offered by one of these local authorities are such that they afford to homosexual couples of either sex fostering facilities for children of either sex on exactly the same basis as is afforded to heterosexual couples. That, on the facts of any particulr case—and it would be, of course, a matter for the judge to decide on the evidence—could fall within the prohibition or could not.
The plain and simple intendment of the Bill is to curb an abuse of rates which is of particular concern to parents; for the promotion of homosexuality as this so-called family relationship, as is implemented today, which is acceptable all too often in its presentation, has the presentation of what they call "positive images".

313
These positive images, as implemented as a matter of policy, involve a direct attack on the heterosexual family life—as the noble Earl put it, pushing us off the pavement. They do it in various ways, and two ways come to mind. One is that they attack the paternalistic disciplines of an ordinary family as being totally wrong because children should be totally free. Another is to teach the children that in some way the reproductive potential of the heterosexual relationship constitutes a positive social mischief in an over-populated world.
In this age of tolerance, have we not really reached the intolerable where parents seeking to protect their children from moral corruption are exposed to abuse, ridicule, threats of violence and even visitations of violence? Parental rights are virtually denied and challenged; and, what is more, the traditional ethos of local government has been traduced.
Now, how to deal with it? As your Lordships appreciate, local government is a creature of statute, so it is only by statute that it may be ordained what lies within the province of local government and how such ordinance may be enforced. We have no written constitution. As matters stand (and I am relieved to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his place) it lies as a matter of law within the administrative discretion of the local authorities to pursue these very policies—a discretion which is not subject to judicial review unless there is bad faith, error as to limit of power, some substantial procedural irregularity or unreasonableness verging upon absurdity. Hence the need for interventionist legislation and the justification for some type of enforcement as is proposed by this Bill.
This was recognised in the Widdicombe Research Papers. The role of local government was considered at Volume III. Chapter 5. At Volume IV, page 109, reference is made in those papers to the proliferation of pressure groups at local level devoted to the achievement of particular goals, one of which, sexual behaviour, is in point. And it is recommended in that research paper that in this and in other regards there is a need "for adjustments to be made". Such is the case for interventionist legislation which must be met by those who oppose the principle of the Bill.
It may well be that certain noble Lords may entertain preconceptions about ILEA. I mention ILEA because they set up the 1984 project, "Relationship and Sexuality", and they put on a course in May 1986 which included as one of its stated aims to develop materials "presenting positive images of lesbian and gay men". This, in the wake of the old GLC "London Charter" of 1985 and the implementation of some of the 142 recommendations, in particualr "Tell it to the classroom" and "Kangaroo courts for teachers", could well fall within the prohibition.
As your Lordships know from the papers, the Association of London Authorities, some ten London local authorities and three elsewhere, all in densely-populated area, in fact implement these policies. One local authority alone has spent £180,000 promoting these positive images (and I quote) "from nursery school to further education".
Taking into account the safeguard measures in the Bill, which not only afford a defence but could also
314
affect dismissals and reinstatements, it will be for the civil courts to decide, in accordance with well-established procedures, whether to grant interim relief, whether a breach of prohibition has been made out on the evidence on a substantive hearing, and, in the very rare case, whether to award damages. Costs will be in the discretion of the court, and the sanction for enforcement will be contempt. Officers and servants of the local authority may not be impleaded other than in the contempt proceedings. Enforcement goes to the principle of the Bill, but the proposed procedural machinery for implementation goes to drafting, which would ordinarily be resolved on consideration of amendments at Committee stage.
In conclusion, may I say this. It is common ground that children are exposed at this moment to corruptive influences as a matter of local government policy. It is common ground that the role of local government has been abused, and it is common ground that these manifestations of misconduct are not acceptable. So may we not make common cause of our common concern, accept the principle of this Bill and give it a Second Reading?
1.51 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, following the telling speeches made by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I do so from a conventional Christian point of view: not one particularly Protestant or Roman Catholic but just Christian. I hasten to say that I am not speaking under the guidance of my political or spiritual masters or after consultation with anybody at all. I am speaking just as my conscience tells me to speak.
Any Christian, it seems to me, must approach the question of homosexuality with particular care. There is nothing that I can find about it in the Gospels—subject, as always of course, to any corrections from the right reverend Prelate—and what is to be found in St. Paul is undoubtedly quite firm but is not necessarily binding on all of us. When the Wolfenden report was produced 30 years ago, I introduced a Motion in this House in favour of it, at a time when no one in the other place would touch it with a barge pole. I remember getting up to move that Motion and wondering, as I rose to my feet, whether I was on the right side. Of course by that time it was a little late to change. I proceeded along that line, and I still feel I was on the right side.
I spoke just afterwards to the most distinguished of all the Law Lords. I have not asked his permission to quote this, and indeed I might or might not obtain it. He led the opposition to that Bill, and I congratulated him on his eloquence. He said (and I am glad he is still with us): "I only made up my mind at the last minute whether I was going to be for it or against it". So your Lordships can see that these are very delicate matters of conscience.
I was called at that time by the late Lord Boothby, who was not then a Member of this House but who was interested in these matters, "The non-playing captain of the homosexual team." I mention that only because I do not want anybody to think that I suffer from some form of paranoia about homosexuals, male or female. In recent times I have addressed a number

315
of homosexual societies, both male and female. If anyone is going in for that kind of talk, I think they will have a better time with lesbian societies than with male homosexual societies. That is my experience. At any rate, there is certainly profit to be derived from speaking to such bodies and arguing these matters with them.
When I wrote a book some time ago about St. Francis of Assisi, I was told by a famous Franciscan that I must have a chapter about St. Francis and contemporary lepers. Your Lordships may remember that whenever St. Francis saw a leper he went and kissed him. I suppose he would do the same today with someone suffering from AIDS. I am not going to dwell on that subject at all, but it comes into my mind at this moment. I changed the chapter in the book to St. Francis and contemporary outcasts and I dwelt briefly on a number of people whom I regarded as outcasts. Of course outcasts do not always like being called outcasts, but I dealt with the position of the mentally disturbed, the blacks, homosexuals and criminals.
I pleaded in all those cases then for much more compassion and understanding, and I would certainly say that homosexuals, particularly the kind of homosexuals referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, but really all homosexuals, whether they are high-minded or not, deserve our compassion and understanding. Today we are asked to support a Bill which would prevent the promotion of what is called now a positive image of homosexuality by certain London boroughs. That means the insistence in the growing propaganda of these boroughs that heterosexuality and homosexuality should be placed on precisely the same footing. I am bound to say, having studied some of this propaganda that I agree with the noble Earl that it is shocking and is not really suitable for the delicate ears of your Lordships. Of course the promotion of homosexuality goes hand in hand with a good deal of promotion of promiscuity of all kinds, aimed in quite a few cases at very young children. It is revolting stuff.
I am not going to deal with two important aspects of this question. One is the extent to which central government should interfere with local government. That is perhaps not for me to deal with today. Secondly, I shall not deal with the responsibility which falls on the leaders of a great political party—in this case my own party, the Labour Party—for making sure that the moral ideals of the party are properly reflected at local level. It is very distressing for honest, serious Labour people in these boroughs to find themselves being told that this propagation of active sexuality is Labour Party policy. Of course it is far from being that. I leave that happily to the leaders of my own party in this House and elsewhere.
However, I am bound to say that when I hear these references to the loony Left from the noble Earl, whom I am supporting, my mind goes back to the great school—he now regards it as the greatest of schools—which we both attended. He was there rather later than I, but we overlapped. I think that from our experience of that great school (and the other public schoolboys who may be present today may agree) in those days at least homosexuality was not a perquisite of the Left-wing. I think that is something to be borne
316
in mind because old public schoolboys may become a little self righteous and they may be asked: where do the ideas of the loony Left come from? I therefore wonder whether everybody may feel they are qualified to be the first to cast stones. However, that is by the way. What I am concerned about is the simple issue—and, alas, it is a very relevant issue today—regarding what we have just heard (and we shall hear more) from the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, about what is going on.
Can any country claiming to be Christian spend public money on the active propagation of actual homosexual practices? Of course I am not talking about homosexual attitudes. Everybody is aware that homosexual feelings are not sinful even by the strictest of Christian standards. We are talking of actual sexual relationships and behaviour. These are being promoted now in some areas as an alternative to fidelity in marriage and family life. If one is asked whether any Christian country can hold up its head if it allows a large amount of money to be spent on the promotion of such practices, there can be only one answer, which is of course a negative one.
As I indicated earlier, I am not going to bring AIDS into this debate. It strengthens the argument, obviously, but I do not feel that it is necessary to bring in AIDS in order to make out this case. I should have said what I am saying now before I had ever heard of AIDS.
Homosexuals, in my submission, are handicapped people. Of course some of them do not confine themselves to relations with their own sex. I suppose Oscar Wilde is one of the most famous examples. I am not referring to people who attempt to have it both ways, but I am talking of people whose tendency is so strong that they can have relationships only with their own sex. I think particularly of male homosexuals because, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, brought out, lesbians are no danger.
The tragedy of such people is that they cannot enjoy family life and they cannot have children. If only for that reason I suppose that not many of us—perhaps none of us—would wish our children or grandchildren to grow up homosexuals. But, as I think I indicated earlier, in so far as these people are handicapped they deserve our fullest compassion and understanding.
In so far as an attempt is being made to expand homosexualism throughout this community, the outcome can only be fatally disruptive for the family. It is bound to be of profound concern to Christians and to everyone else who wishes to maintain a healthy community. I am not saying that the promotion of acts of homosexuality should necessarily be made illegal. That might or might not be discussed on some other occasion. I say only that it should not be financed by public bodies in a country that still claims to be Christian. I support the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
2.3 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I should like to give the strongest support to my noble friend Lord Halsbury's Bill. When I was first made aware of what was going on in certain of our schools by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I was horrified. Before speaking

317
today, I read some of the material that is being produced by some local authorities for the teaching of schoolchildren. I read extracts from Lesbian and Gay Youth Magazine and from Changing the World, a London charter for gay and lesbian rights. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to page 32:
"What exactly is heterosexuality? And what causes it?".
Then follow nine different denigratory reasons such as.
"In most cases of compulsive heterosexual behaviour, the parents will be found to have suffered from similar difficulties … A terror of mortality lies beneath much heterosexual coupling. Driven to perpetuate themselves at any cost, most heterosexuals are indifferent to the prospect of the world-wide famine that will result if the present population explosion continues unchecked.".
On page 9, one reads,
"Heterosexism is not only individual attitudes, it is an institutionalised system that openly promotes the attitude that heterosexuality and heterosexual family life is normal and natural.".
Under the heading, "Tell it in the classroom", we read,
"There should be openly understood procedures for complaints by college students and school pupils and students about heterosexism as about racism and sexism. Parents of lesbian and gay students should also be allowed to complain about heterosexism.".
What will that lead to? It will lead to the setting up of kangaroo courts to examine teachers accused of heterosexism. As for what will take place in those courts, my mind boggles. When we hear, as I hope we shall do, from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, what has happened to parents who protested at what their children were being taught, I think your Lordships' minds will boggle too.
Finally, I looked through The playbook for kids about sex. I hope that every one of your Lordships will do so too, because I cannot bring myself to quote from it. As a mother and a grandmother, I was more than horrified. I was appalled. I have said before in this House that I believe corrupting children in any way is one of the worst crimes that anyone can commit, and I make no apology for repeating it. I believe that we in Parliament have a duty to protect young people from this kind of pernicious and harmful indoctrination.
As a result of what is going on, a recent poll carried out by NOP research revealed that 59 per cent. of people thought that parents should have the right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons, and this at a time when responsible sex education in schools has been made vital by the spread of AIDS. But who can blame them?
I trust that I have said enough to persuade anyone who is in any doubt that the Bill is really necessary. If any noble Lord has not seen the publications to which I refer and would like to see them before speaking, I have filched them from the Library and have them here. That should save any noble Lord a journey to the Library. The third leader in today's issue of The Times also puts it in a nutshell. I have copies of that, too.
This is a small Bill—a David of a Bill that sets out to kill a Goliath of an evil. I wish it well. Decent people, parents all over the country, will wish it well. As my noble friend has said, he has had a great many letters from people wishing it well. Let us not disappoint them.
2.7 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Bill. It is one thing to be tolerant of the sexual deviation of homosexuality; it is one thing not to discriminate against or to persecute those who indulge in the practice. The law on the matter is clear enough so far as I am concerned, and I am quite content to let is stay as it is in that way. Our society has set the standards, and so be it. What to me is abhorrent and why I strongly and vigorously support the Bill—a number of your Lordships have expressed surprise that I should be speaking on this subject—is that the Bill has considerable local government connotations to which I want to refer.
Above all, what worries and troubles me—and that is the mildest way I can think of putting it—is this whole business of accepting homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality. This is clearly a distortion of the worst kind and has now reached a point where it is time to say that enough is enough; the thing has to stop and not be allowed to go on as it is going on now, because it is spreading all the time.
I too will desist from a whole series of quotations from the many publications I have seen. The list is long indeed. But I should like to refer to just two which I think are very apposite. One comes from the London evening Standard of 10th December. It was a cri de coeur from a priest who has vowed,
"to fast from New Year's Day unless Haringey Council reverses its policy of positive classroom images of homosexuals".
What the priest went on to say in many ways sums up the depth of feeling and the great concern that exists on this matter. The priest, a Mr. Rushworth-Smith, said:
"Haringey Council want to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. If they carry this through they will destroy society as we know it".
The London evening Standard went on to say that Haringey parents, thousands of them, from all creeds are praying that in fact this policy will be rejected.
Yet we see in writing by the council the following words:
'We will oppose heterosexism in all its forms and will work to ensure that lesbians and gay men have an equal position in society. Local councils need to take a public stand of opposition to heterosexism as promoting one sexuality as a superior one".
The only other quotation that I wish to read is from the Gay Liberation Front manifesto, which says:
"We along with the women's movements must fight for something more than reform. We must aim at the abolition of the family. The end of the family will benefit all women and gay people".
I wonder whether everyone knows that in the London boroughs of Islington and Lambeth the word "family" is proscribed. It is not permitted to be used. The term to be used is "social unit". One might ask: have we all gone mad? Where do we draw a line? I was impressed by what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had to say. Knowing his particular views, I thought he made a responsible contribution. But the most important thing he said was in regard to his concern, too, for the family.
There are two other aspects that I want to cover in a speech which must not be too long. I do not think this subject or the Bill calls for that. To me this is the tip of the iceberg. I am concerned so much about the

319
image of local government. Again and again we hear from authorities which claim that they are short of funds to provide services at the levels they wish. The word "cuts" has apparently become engraved on the hearts of all of them. There is sympathy for things they cannot do if they do not have the funds. But how can they possibly equate the spending of money on this kind of propagation of the employment of people at many thousands of pounds a year—not one or two, but many of them—with the need to provide services such as housing, housing repairs, social services and others, for all the people?
When I was elected to office as a councillor I was told—and I tried throughout all the years to carry it out—that we represented everyone in the ward whether or not they voted for us and whatever were their beliefs. That put upon us a special duty to be concerned about the spending of every penny and where it would best be used. Can anyone in local government say, particularly in areas where there is deprivation, that this is the best way to spend much-needed money? I am not speaking about the protection of rights; I am referring to spending money to propagate this kind of belief. That is my first point concerning local government and what kind of priority there should be.
I come now to my second point. Is it not strange that it was the point that the noble Earl referred to as being the objection of the most reverend Primate when he said that his concern was a move towards more centralism, the taking of more powers away from local government to the centre. However, if one looks at the history of what has happened in recent years, again and again local government has protested and objected because this or that power has been taken away. But what do local governments expect if they conduct themselves in this way and so abuse the system which has been set up by statute, as my noble friend Lord Campbell reminded us?
It is no good complaining if you set out to defeat the government at Westminster on its mandated policies. It is no good complaining if you tolerate that kind of behaviour. The fact is that the local authority associations, who were always so proud of their at least outwardly professed neutrality, have done nothing. Why have they not done something and at least spoken out against that which we are assured, and which I accept without question, is not the policy of the Labour Party or any other party? I accept that without hesitation.
These associations are today, in the main, controlled by Labour authorities. They must speak up because the damage which this is doing to the reputation of local government is intolerable to those of us who want to see local government that is not something which we joke about and hold in contempt, and which is feared by parents. We want to protect its image and not see it go back further, as is being allowed. The associations will have to speak up and stop this nonsense, because really that is all it is.
I promised that I would not make a long speech. I applaud the initiative and the courage of the noble Earl in bringing forward this Bill. It is a sensitive subject and so often one tends to shy away from it because one knows that extraneous factors will be
320
introduced as reasons for not taking action. I hope the Government will give this Bill a fair wind and time for it in both Houses. If the Government wish to take over the Bill themselves I am sure that the noble Earl will have no complaint about that. That it is needed is surely something that no one in the House could argue against. There is the fear of thousands and millions of parents and children that these teachings will be imposed upon them. It is fatuous nonsense; it must be stopped and action must be taken. Therefore I am pleased to support this Bill.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. Like him, I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I warmly support this Bill. Homosexuality clearly is not what God intended for human beings. Therefore I deplore any attempt to promote it by public money as an acceptable family relationship. I deplore it even more if public money is used to indoctrinate children in this way. I warmly support this Bill and I hope that it will get a Second Reading today.
2.18 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wish to give this Bill the strongest possible support for two reasons. The first is an urgent necessity to put a stop to the use of public money to promote teaching and other policies in our schools which are causing grave offence to many parents and members of the public; and, secondly, because of the harassment and intimidation meted out to those parents who have tried to protect their children's interests.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I have no criticism of teaching which increases tolerance and understanding in human relationships, and which reduces the likelihood of victimisation of homosexual groups or individuals. Indeed, I would welcome such teaching. However, what is happening is fundamentally different. It is different in philosophy and in its policies, espoused under so-called positive images; and much of what is being promoted is in the name of so-called anti-sexism. The balance has swung to the active promotion of positive images of homosexuality and outright attacks on the concept of the normality of heterosexuality.
This policy takes many forms and absorbs huge sums of money. For example, the costs of the Haringey proposals for the gay and lesbian unit do or could involve expenditure in the order of magnitude of £250,000, in an area where there is plenty of social deprivation and no shortage of problems which could benefit from such resources.
But it is important to realise that although the parents of Haringey have hit the headlines with their very courageous stance—as one can read in the leader in The Times today—these developments are taking place not only in Haringey but also in other parts of London and other parts of the country. I was speaking to teachers in Manchester on Saturday and was assured that similar policies are being pursued in parts of the North of England. This should not surprise us. A book called "Tackling Heterosexism", which has been brought out by nine London boroughs, recommends that the Inner London Education

321
Authority and other local education authorities should:
"put resources into developing materials and changing curricula in order effectively to challenge heterosexism in lessons at all stages in the education system from primary school up to colleges of further education and that a variety of materials be developed, for example videos for use in lessons which would raise the issues of heterosexism and present Lesbians in a positive light … [and that] heterosexism awareness training courses should be introduced as a compulsory part of in-service training and during teacher training programmes".
In places such as Brent, those who do not pass such courses are to be debarred from sitting on appointments panels, and the implications of that for future appointments are self-evident; namely, that successful candidates in the future will have to be ideologically correct and have the appropriate sexual attitudes.
One of the most deeply disturbing features about the whole of this positive image policy is the kind of teaching materials and books which are being recommended and which are available in teachers' resource units and in children's sections of public libraries. One which has already been referred to by some noble Lords, which is called "A Playbook for Kids about Sex", is written for very young children. Another book, which is recommended or mentioned in ILEA's publications and which is available in the children's section of Haringey libraries is called "The Milkman's on his Way". I shall not shock your Lordships with quotations from it but it describes in very explicit detail intercourse between a 16 year old boy and his adult, male, homosexual lover. It is material such as this that is causing enormous offence and concern to parents and members of the public. I urge your Lordships to look at it. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has offered to make available some of the material that she possesses, and I shall willingly do the same because I think it explains why parents are so very upset. It will also help to explain why in places such as Haringey children as young as four or five are going home from school, and asking their parents whether their friends are gay or lesbian.
I have mentioned the parents of Haringey and I wish briefly to return to their experience because it is instructive for two reasons. The first is because they have been subjected to gross intimidation in ways which are totally unacceptable. When parents have attended council meetings they have been harassed, spat upon, had eggs thrown at them and have even been urinated upon. They have been denied the right to put their views. After one meeting they were followed home and during the night their cars were vandalised. They have received numerous abusive 'phone calls including death threats and what I think are the most ominous of all death threats—death threats to their children. They have been told that the callers know where their children attend school and they will "get" their children.
This intimidation is going on in our own country and here in our own city. Surely we owe it to those parents to give them some protection in the stand they are taking to try to have their children educated in ways that do not violate their deepest religious and moral convictions. When one mother told a councillor that she was claiming the religious freedom which she thought was her right in this country, she was told by
322
him that people have died for their religion and perhaps she should too.
Other parents have been told that their children are not their own, and that they have no rights as parents. They were told by a member of the gay and lesbian sub-committee: "parents do not know what is in the best interests of their children, but we do."
Surely, my Lords, the time has come when we must make provision for these and other parents to have education for their children in accordance with their religious convictions and also give them some protection for their own physical safety. I must add that it is not only Christian parents who are deeply concerned. Many Moslem and other parents are equally worried and active in protest. Indeed, the Parents Rights Group in Haringey have obtained over 5,000 signatures on petitions saying no to homosexual lessons from nursery schools upwards.
It is because of the kind of brutal intimidation to which these parents have been subjected that this Bill is also necessary. We cannot just rely on the Government's proposals—good although they are in principle—to depend on increasing parental representation on governing bodies to defy these evils. In areas such as Haringey and Brent LEAs will just ride roughshod over them.
I am happy to say that support has been forthcoming from some of the local religious leaders though by no means all. I am rather sad to see that no right reverend Prelate is speaking, or has put down a name to speak, in this debate. However, a Baptist Minister in the area near Haringey has held a special service for prayer on these matters and has pledged (as one of the noble Lords has already said) that he will begin a strategic fast on January 1st which will continue either until the council changes its policy or is itself changed.
I hope that this Bill will receive support, from all parts of your Lordships' House as it already has done from speakers. Therefore I do not wish to make any party political points; but it is necessary to understand that there is a political dimension which we cannot ignore and that is the involvement of the hard line far Left in local government and also in local politicised branches of the National Union of Teachers.
At the council meetings where there has been such violence, there is a forest of banners including those of the revolutionary Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party and in Haringey the Haringey Branch of the National Union of Teachers.
Neil Kinnock has in the past few days asked these far Left dominated councils if they will desist from these policies which are causing such aggravation, but they have refused to give any such undertaking. As quoted in The Times on Monday, Miss Bellos, leader of the Lambeth Council said:
"If you mean are we going to back pedal on positive policies, as far as Lambeth is concerned, certainly not."
That again is further indication for the need for this protective legislation. As I conclude, I have tried to show that the situation is not only necessary, serious but also urgent. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will support this Bill.
Before I sit down, I have one very minor reservation concerning the wording which I must put on record. I

323
have discussed this with the noble Lord, Earl Halsbury, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. We have agreed that it would be the best policy to identify this problem now and ask perhaps that the committee in another place might consider how to rectify it. I refer to the words in lines 9 to 10:
"as an acceptable family relationship:"
I am worried because these words make the Bill both too wide and too narrow. They imply that promoting promiscuous homosexuality might be acceptable. They also might be taken as derogatory of stable homosexual relationships, where partners live together discreetly for many years. I would suggest that perhaps it might be preferable if those few words were deleted, or if there were to be some other amendment on those lines.
I must emphasise that I hope that this reservation will not delay the passasge of this Bill through your Lordships' House, as it needs to go through with maximum speed if it is to become law in time to protect parents and their children.
As I sit down, I must emphasise that those who are living in our inner city areas such as Haringey, Brent and Inner London and those in leafier suburbs such as Ealing are desperate. Their children are trapped in an education system from which they have no escape. Their children are being subjected to policies which violate their parents' most fundamental religious beliefs and moral values, and in which, not only to quote Yeats' phrase:
"The ceremony of innocence is drowned"
but where they may be exposed to influences which could be seriously psychologically destabilising, and where their parents suffer brutal intimidation. I hope that your Lordships will agree to give them the protection which the Bill can afford.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that the material to which she referred is not mine. It was placed in the Library by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I shall put it back there immediately after the debate.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I find myself in agreement with almost everything she says. I find it remarkable that she, like one or two other noble Lords, found the contents of some children's books unsuitable for quoting in the broad-minded atmosphere of your Lordshps' House, when we remember that those books are designed for five-year olds. That is a point we should remember.
I express my grateful support to the noble Earl for introducing this Bill. I speak as a private individual although I speak from these Benches. I feel free to do so because I believe that this matter should not be thought of as a political one, although the authorities against whom the Bill is directed are dominated by representatives of the extreme Left of my party. Because they are extremists I feel no disloyalty, any more than did my noble friend Lord Longford, in
324
speaking against their policies when they are by no means official Labour policies and when I totally condem them.
The extremism of those policies has been emphasised by one noble Lord after another. They seek not merely to put homosexualism on an equal basis with heterosexualism, as several noble Lords have said, but to suggest that it is superior. I do not intend to go into any further details about the disadvantages of homosexuality because they have been mentioned with great force by many noble Lords.
The point I wish to make is that the rationale of those policies, if rationale there be, is that homosexuality is necessarily innate; it is there at the time of birth in the case of all who are destined to become fully fledged and committed homosexuals in their adult lives, and that therefore in all cases any such proclivity should be discovered, then nurtured and increased. It is as though it were intended not to multiply the number of committed homosexuals, which is what would be achieved, but to diminish the number of repressed homosexuals who are taken as being condemned at present to a life of unfulfilled misery through trying to live a heterosexual life when their natural, true desire, inevitable because innate, is supposed to be otherwise.
I hold strongly that this is not the case. A hereditary Peer can hardly dispute the importance of heredity. However, I believe that in many matters environment is of still more importance. I am sure that there are some, the nature of whose genes predispose them at birth towards homosexuality. I believe that far more important are the influences brought to bear on them between their early childhood—their birth, as Freud would have us believe—and their eventual maturity. My belief is strongly supported by my own personal experiences when I was at Eton in the 1930s, and into which I have no intention of going. The part played by the public schools has also been alluded to by my noble friend Lord Longford.
I have no doubt that these policies will greatly increase the number becoming practising homosexuals though they were, genetically, perfectly capable of leading happy, fulfilled, heterosexual lives if their influence in childhood had been different. I emphasise "happy" and "fulfilled" because I am not talking about morality. If a person is a committed homosexual, so be it: I accept it, and I am quite unconcerned. However, I have a son who has just turned five years and I also have a grandson who is a teenager. My five-year-old son will enter a state primary school in January, and above all I want his life to be happy and fulfilled. If we lived in Brent or Haringey, have no doubt, my Lords, but that we would move away for Sean's sake, no matter what cost in convenience or what disruption might be involved. But others cannot afford to do so, however much they would like to.
This Bill may not be perfect, but I note the strong opinions expressed that it is a model of draftsmanship. It cannot do any harm; I believe it will do much good; and I strongly support it.
2.38 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I, too, most wholeheartedly support this Bill. First, I deal with the

325
necessity of it in point of law because at the moment local authorities are given much too wide a discretion in the way in which they deal with their funds. Section 137 of the Local Government Act, 1972 says that a local authority may incur expenditure on contributions to,
"the funds of any body which provides any public service in the United Kingdom otherwise than for the purposes of gain".
The latest amendment in the 1976 Act states that they can give money to a voluntary organisation whose activities are carried on otherwise than for profit. That is the width of the discretion which is given to local authorities in respect of their funds and the way in which they use them. At the moment the difficulty is how to challenge that in a court of law. We have had recent decisions on the procedure of judicial review saying that the courts are not to interfere with the discretion of local authorities unless they exceed their powers altogether, or do something which is totally absurd. It would be difficult at the moment to challenge the way they are distributing their funds for these homosexual purposes.
I am glad to see subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1. You have a procedure—we can draw it up from the past—where any person affected who is sufficiently interested, a parent or whoever it may be, or a ratepayer, can go to the courts (the word "justiciable" is used here, but I do not mind which is used) and ask for a declaration that a local authority is misusing its funds and applying them as they should not be, if this Bill is passed, for homosexuality. They can ask for a declaration and an injunction to stop the local authority using its funds in any such way.
If this Bill passes, it will give an immediate remedy to stop local authorities using their funds, if I may say so, for homosexual purposes. That is the objective of the Bill, which I hope everyone will support.
I wish to make a few remarks on more general matters, first, perhaps on religion. I looked up the Book of Genesis again.
"But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly".
And the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
When I read the article in The Times this morning, I thought of altering those words and saying:
"But the councillors of the Borough of Haringey were gay, and corrupted the children of the borough exceedingly".
And, I should like to add, after this Bill,
"The Lords destroyed those councillors".
That is the religious aspect.
May I say a word on the legal aspect of homosexuality. The common law, as long as it has existed, condemned the abominable offence of buggery. I have tried many cases, adults and the like, and sentenced them to three, four or five years imprisonment for that offence.
Sir John Wolfenden's report—we all knew his report, and all followed it—did not legalise it at all. It said, "Over 21, in private, no longer a criminal offence". But the law still preserves, I hope, and protects, our youngsters. Against a child under 16, there can be imprisonment for life.
Let me tell you the influence that these books that we have seen can have on youngsters. A lot of medical
326
evidence was taken for the Wolfenden Report. I should like to read one paragraph of Sir John Wolfenden's report:
"Our medical witnesses were unanimously of the view that the main sexual pattern is laid down in the early years of life, and the majority of them held that it was usually fixed in main outline by the age of 16".
There it is. The influence on youngsters under 16 may make them or mar them for the rest of their lives. Then we see them being made or marred by these booklets and publicity distributed at the hands of the local council in the schools. Are we going to let our young people be corrupted in this way? We need this Bill. It is not only in relation to those under 16 that there can be a sentence of life imprisonment. It is still unlawful, criminal, under the age of 21. We still do not allow it in our armed forces, the army or the navy. We know it destroys discipline and the like.
We must not allow this cult of homosexuality, making it equal with heterosexuality, to develop in our land. We must preserve our moral and spiritual values which have come down through the centuries. One way we can do it—I support it altogether—is by passing this Bill as speedily as we can. I accept the emendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I do not think there is any need for the words "acceptable family relationship". A local authority should not give any funds for the purpose of publishing or promoting homosexuality.
I hope that this Bill will pass speedily into law because it will deal with the present evil that has been brought into our society.
2.46 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming this Bill, introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. It seems very strange to me that in society today, when we spend a great deal of money and time trying to prevent physical and mental disability, in some of our schools they are promoting sexual disability. There is no doubt in my mind that homosexuals and lesbians are disabled sexually. It has nothing to do with their physical ability but is to do with the whole aspect of sex.
In addition, as other noble Lords have mentioned, it is offensive to the practice of Christianity. But not only is it highly offensive to those who practise the main religion of this country: it is highly offensive to those who practise many other religions. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, it will lead to the ultimate breakdown of family life, upon which the whole tenor of this country and its ways have been formed for generations and upon which the whole civilised world has been formed and based.
It is getting late. I shall not say any more except that I note from the Order Paper that we have an almost deafening silence from the Benches in front of me. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will be able to support the Bill, even if only in a few words. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
2.48 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps mine will he the only voice in the debate that is not in favour of giving this Bill a Second Reading. I want to

327
begin by saying that I do not stand here with any brief either for homosexuality or for lesbianism. I fully share all the criticisms that have been made about the behaviour of some councils and councillors in pursuing what they believe to be their duty to their ratepayers and citizens.
I have listened very carefully to the debate and carefully read the words of the Bill. I confess that I am somewhat confused. We are told that there are no politics in the Bill, yet the noble Earl who began the debate said that the loony Left is hardening up the lesbian camp. When we begin a debate on a serious topic such as this and a person whom I greatly respect sets the tone of the debate I think it is sad because the topic deserves to be treated far more seriously than that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, told us that there were no politics in this but then felt constrained to proceed to tell us that there were politics in it, politics of a certain kind. The other puzzle that I have is precisely what the movers of the Bill want. If what the movers of the Bill want is to stop harassment, to stop (as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said) fair-minded people with great worry in their hearts from being urinated upon and spat upon and from having eggs thrown at them, then I shall be, if not the first, alongside her to deplore that anyone anywhere should suffer that kind of behaviour. It has to be condemned. It has of course to be validated; but when it is validated I shall certainly condemn it, too.
We are told that this is but the tip of an iceberg. I was very pleased to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He began by saying that the Bill is not designed to harm or harass homosexuals. Then we heard various phrases which to me were designed if not to harm or harass then certainly to indicate an attitude of mind towards them. Then I looked with great care to see whether or not there are half-way houses in this matter.
The Bill seeks to prohibit the promotion in schools of homosexuality. We have had "promotion" defined as the discussion of, the teaching of, the mere presence in schools of the topic of homosexuality. If there are those who have come here to support the proposition that it shall not be discussed, that it shall not be argued about, that it shall not be left to the individual children and their parents to form a view, than I very much depart from them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment only very quickly to take the point? Nobody is saying that promotion meant what the noble Lord has just said it meant. It is the promotion of the positive images as a matter of policy. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He asked a question and posed others. Almost every person in the Chamber will have different views of what positive promotion is. It is a debatable subject. I would simply remind the House that Section 8(5) of the Education Act 1980 requires local education authorities or school governors to inform parents of the manner and context in which
328
education about sexual matters is to be given in schools.
The department has just published a booklet, Health Education from 5–16. It invites comments by the end of this year. It contains a section on sex education, including the treatment of homosexuality. This is what it says:
"Given the openness with which homosexuality is treated in society now it is almost bound to arise as an issue in one area or another of a school's curriculum. Information about and discussion of homosexuality, whether it involves the whole class or individual, needs to acknowlege that experiencing strong feelings of attraction to members of the same sex is a phase passed through by many young people, but for a significant number of people these feelings persist into adult life. Therefore it needs to be dealt with objectively and seriously".
That is what the booklet published for observation by the public by the Secretary of State says.
What I am arguing is that there is a great danger, if this amending Bill is passed, that it will seek to repress the honest and open discussion of these matters at a time when, in my view, they ought as never before to be discussed seriously and sensibly in our schools.
Criticism has been made of authorities, and particularly of ILEA. Let me simply tell the House that in seeking to fulfil its obligations it has published a booklet called The teaching of Controversial Issues in schools. That gives the following advice, regardless of how that advice may have been interpreted by some authorities:
"Controversial issues cannot, and should not, he excluded from the curriculum in schools: they will arise spontaneously from pupils' interests, experience and questions, and they will have a proper place in planned courses of study. It is recommended that teachers:

(i) select controversial issues in a way that is appropriate to the age, maturity and cultural background of the pupils;

(ii) handle these issues in the classroom in a professional manner by adopting procedures appropriate for balancing teaching and learning".

There is a great deal more written sensibly. I have looked through the booklet. Other than quoting individuals like Sir Keith Joseph, who gave very frank views to the teaching authority on how they should teach another controversial issue (that is, the nuclear issue), the booklet is unexceptional. I have not had the opportunity to read in detail some of the booklets that have been pleaded in aid during this debate. I do not deny what they are said to contain, and I would abhor what they are said to contain as well as anyone else.
However, I believe that this is not a helpful Bill. I believe it does not promote what in fact we ought to have at the moment, which is a greater understanding of the sexual orientation of everyone who lives in our society. I believe it would have the effect of repressing discussion in schools and of hampering the development of organisations designed to assist.
Let me conclude by saying this. If anyone here with responsibility on this side of the House believes that the image of the Labour Party or of Labour in local government is aided and assisted by the performance or behaviour of some individuals or collectively in certain parts of the country, then they are not correct. So far as the Labour Party is concerned, we are anxious to ensure that every individual is entitled to be treated with respect and to have their views respected, too. I very much hope that when we hear what the Minister has to say he will sympathise with the

329
situation in which a great many people find themselves, but share my view that a Bill of this kind is not the way to proceed.
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support this Bill and press Her Majesty's Government to give serious and positive consideration to it. I thank the noble Earl. Lord Halsbury, for bringing the Bill before your Lordships' House.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that I speak from no political motive. I speak for the sake of children. I accept that there are circumstances which lead to two men or two women living together in a lasting and stable relationship. What one cannot accept is promiscuity, bitterness and instability in those relationships. What is also not acceptable is the aggressive promotion and teaching in our schools and in our community of homosexuality as a way of life in our society.
I wonder whether I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that I agree with him that of course knowledge and understanding of different ways of life is one thing, but the promotion of homosexuality as a way of life is another. There well may be books which follow the first line, which is to give knowledge and sensitivity about different ways of living in our society. But if the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, were to read all the books that we have read, I think that he might feel very differently about some of the teaching that is going on in our schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spoke of young children. May I speak of adolescent boys and girls who, more often than not, go through a phase of experiencing deep feelings for older people of their own sex. It is a phase. If it is encouraged, if it is taught to be a way of life, there are some—and I say only some—who will not pass out of that stage, but will remain homosexuals and follow the homosexual way of life to their lasting unhappiness.
My second point deals with happiness and stability in our society. Children, while growing up, need the experience of living alongside a father and mother who are in a stable relationship. Through this relationship between husband and wife, children learn to relate both to the world of men and to the world of women. In this way, children learn to aspire to a stable marriage with children which provides them with happiness and fulfilment.
I suggest that research—particularly that of the National Childrens Bureau in the national cohort—and experience show us that a stable, happy family life provides for most people a way of happiness and self-fulfilment. Conversely, there are many lonely people who suffered in their childhood. There are many in our prisons—and I have visited many prisoners—where the prisoners have said to me: "If I had had a stable, normal happy life I might not be here today." Giving financial or other assistance towards publishing about and promoting—and I repeat "promoting"—homosexuality, or for the purpose indeed of teaching homosexuality, deprives both children and adults of a way of life which betokens happiness and stability but undermines the concept of family life.
3.3 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, it is rarely that I intervene in debates in this House and on legislation which does not affect my homeland of Northern Ireland. However, I feel so strongly on this issue that I am compelled to stand up in the House today and give my full support to this Bill, and to the way in which it has been introduced by its sponsor, the noble Earl. Lord Halsbury.
For other reasons, I am now compelled to live in Great Britain and cannot live in Northern Ireland. To a great extent, my family have moved to this country with me—my daughter and my sons and granddaughters. My sons and grand-daughters are now attending schools in this country, and I hope that what we are debating here today will make it less likely that they will be brought under the influence of the councils which are propagating homosexuality.
At present, this propagation is restricted to a few schools, mostly within London; but if those councils are given free rein people will be afraid to stand up to them and will be frightened of them. Some people may be frightened that they will lose votes at local government level, while others may feel that they will lose votes at parliamentary level if they support this Bill. If those people have a conscience, then I can only say that on an issue such as this I should be prepared to lose my deposit in a Parliamentary election. As I listen to my radio every morning, whether it be Radio 1, 2 or 4, and hear the appeals that are being made in relation to the terrible scourge of AIDS that is now affecting this country, I have absolutely no doubt that a significant number of present AIDS carriers within our society were given positive education in homosexuality when they were at school. I believe this is a very necessary Bill and I am quite prepared to face criticism from the so-called libertarians within this country and from those who propagate homosexuality and lesbianism.
We shall be told that we are a non-elected House and should not put ourselves in the position of dictating the morals or otherwise of people within this country. I believe that this House, elected or not, has a duty. I believe that the other place has a duty as well. I want to see this legislation put on the statute book and I only wish that we could guarantee this afternoon in this House a very full attendance so that those who support and oppose this Bill could go into the Lobby. I shall say that my noble friend, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has shown courage in this House this afternoon. I believe that courage is misdirected, however, and I should like to see a full vote in this House and in the other place to determine which way society will go and how it will be judged in the future in this country.
I am speaking from a purely personal position in this matter, and from a position of conscience. Most of all, I am concerned about the society in which my grandsons and grand-daughters will he brought up.
3.06 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Fitt has said that he speaks from a personal point of view. This is a Private Member's Bill, and we are all speaking from a personal point of view. I must make

331
it clear at once that although I am speaking from the Front Bench I am not expressing the views of my party. However, I do believe that I speak for a great many people on our Front Bench when I say that we are sympathetic with the aims of the Bill of the noble Earl. We do not want to promote homosexuality. But perhaps this is a much more complicated matter than the Bill suggests, and I should like to go into a few details concerning it. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, raised some of the problems; but with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, no-one has yet mentioned very much about the wording of the Bill, and I should like to go into a few details about that.
I wish to make it clear that I, and, I am sure, a great many of my noble friends, would condemn many of the things we have heard about this afternoon. However, I should like to quote from the HMI document Health Education from 5 to 16 in saying that the discussion of homosexuality in schools is important. I understand that the Secretary of State has supported this as well.
Health Education from 5 to 16 states:
"Given the openness with which homosexuality is treated in society now it is almost bound to arise as an issue in one area or another of a school's curriculum. Information about and discussion of homosexuality, whether it involves a whole class or an individual, needs to acknowledge that experiencing strong feelings of attraction to members of the same sex is a phase passed through by many young people. But for a significant number of people these feelings persist into adult life. Therefore, it needs to be dealt with objectively and seriously, bearing in mind that, while there has been a marked shift away from the general condemnation of homosexuality, many individuals and groups within society hold sincerely to the view that it is morally objectionable. This is difficult territory for teachers to traverse and for some schools to accept that homosexuality may be a normal feature of relationships would be a breach of the religious faith upon which they are founded. Consequently, LEAs, voluntary bodies, governors, heads and senior staff in schools have important responsibilities in devising guidance and supporting teachers in dealing with this sensitive issue."
We also have to remember that a certain number of children may be affected if they are living with one parent who may be living also with someone with whom he or she has a homosexual relationship. We have to remember these children when considering what to do about the Bill.
As to the wording of the Bill, it inhibits local authorities from giving
"financial or other assistance to any person for the purpose of publishing or promoting homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship".
It is to this that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred. On the face of it, this does not appear to inhibit local authorities from themselves publishing or promoting homosexuality. It would clearly prohibit the funding of voluntary organisations with such aims, but it is not clear that authorities could not issue such publicity themselves; for example, through lesbian and gay units. To put it at its weakest, the wording is sufficiently ambiguous to cause difficulties, particularly if read in conjunction with the Local Government Act 1986, Section 2(3) of which categorically states:
"A local authority shall not give financial or other assistance to a person for the purpose of material which the authority are prohibited by this section from publishing themselves.".
332
It also refers to,
"the purpose of teaching such acceptability in any maintained school".
Again, the issue is whether a local education authority is itself teaching such acceptability or giving assistance to other people, and only the latter appears to be prohibited. Advertising for and appointing, say, an adviser on gay rights for schools would probably be caught by this, but it does not seem to cover teaching staff already in post teaching part of the normal curriculum which may well include homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship.
This Bill would restrict local authorities in buying material from other bodies (if their purpose was the promotion of homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship) because this would be giving those other bodies financial assistance. If the above argument is correct, authorities could continue to promote outside material already purchased.
On the question of who can institute proceedings, the Bill as drafted is not entirely clear but it does refer to,
"any person having a sufficient interest",
which is probably somewhat wider than "any ratepayer". I hope that the Government, when responding, will deal with the points that I have raised here.
The Bill is of course intended to curb the amount of work that is being carried out by local authorities on gay and lesbian issues. As my noble friend Lord Longford mentioned in what I thought was an extremely sensible and sensitive speech, it is ironical that the Bill should be introduced at a time when there is a national awareness campaign sponsored by the Government on AIDS, yet it is workers in voluntary organisations—for instance, the Terence Higgins Trust—who have been providing most of the information up to now. Their work could be affected by the Bill.
I should like to say a word about the remarks of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York about not supporting the Bill because it takes powers away from local government and puts more powers into the hands of central government. As somebody who has repeatedly made the complaint that the Government are taking many more powers to themselves, I should like to say a word in support of what he has apparently written about the Bill.
I hope that I have said enough to show that I support the aims of the Bill, but I think it is a much more complicated issue than would appear—and, indeed, that has been confirmed by many of the speakers today. I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say in reply.
3.14 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope no one in your Lordships' House will think me patronising when I start the Government's response to the Bill put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, by saying that he brings great credit to this House by bringing before us a most important subject which is much in the public mind at the moment. It is extremely disturbing to see some of the material which is

333
published or made available by local authorities and I should like to endorse the aims underlying the proposals in the Bill and the tenor of today's debate.
We have come a long way since the pre-1967 days of sexual persecution. Homosexuality in private between those over 21 who consent is now legal. However, that does not mean either that it should be encouraged or that it should be publicised, both of which, as we have heard today, do go on. The Government believe unequivocably that to promote homosexuality as a normal way of life—to anyone, let alone children—is to go too far and to create the serious risk of undermining those normal family relationships which are the very fabric of our society. There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that this is the effect of some councils' spending of their ratepayers' money. Some would say that it is the reason for it, and as it increases it makes even my simple mind wonder whether this is not in fact the truth.
The Banquo's ghost haunting this debate has been the connection with AIDS. If local authorities wish to distance themselves in the public mind from charges of encouraging the spread of this disease, would they not be better advised to target any money that they wish to make available to the essential task of ensuring that accurate and effective information is available about how to avoid the further spread of AIDS?
It is worthy of note that, however odious, damaging or misplaced the funding of gay and lesbian clubs may be, or however distasteful a particular sexual proclivity, this Bill does not attempt to prevent local authorities or local education authorities from pursuing those activities. That, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has made clear, is not what this Bill is about—not, in the vernacular, where we are at. I am not sure that certain sections of the media, and indeed one or two of your Lordships today, have taken that point.
This Bill seeks to add a new section to Part II of the Local Government Act 1986, a part which, as has been pointed out, is concerned with the regulation of local authority publicity. Section 2 of the Act prevents a local authority from publishing any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. But quite clearly that provision does not assist with preventing the type of publicity about which this Bill is concerned, since such publicity is not designed to favour the fortunes of a political party. Equally clearly, provisions to stop local authorities promoting homosexuality do not sit easily alongside the existing party political prohibition. I cannot envisage, even when looking on the black side, that homosexuality will ever be a party political issue in the sense of that section.
Section 3 of the 1986 Act goes on to make it clear that local authorities may publish information under their general powers only on matters relating to their statutory functions. It is by no means clear to me that local authorities are empowered to promote homosexuality in their publicity, as opposed to providing some forms of information. Their discretionary powers in Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 have, as many of your Lordships are aware, been used for a number of bizarre activities, and local authorities are at present
334
entitled to publish information about those activities under Section 142 of the Act.
They may not use Section 137 to promote bizarre ideas, since we have already stopped that use of Section 137 for persuasive publicity campaigns and other promotional publicity in the 1986 Act. The Government are actively considering whether further limitations need to be put on the use of Section 137 in the context of our consultation on the Widdicombe report, which is due to be completed at the end of the year.
Section 4 of the 1986 Act is, however, relevant and could be of direct assistance to the noble Earl's objectives. This section enables my right honourable friend to issue a code of recommended practice as regards matters such as the content, style, distribution and cost of local authority publicity. We believe it right, in the highly sensitive area of publicity at ratepayers' expense, to have such a code, to highlight factors that may lead to bad practice, and to require local authorities to take account of certain principles in deciding whether or not to incur expenditure on publicity. In so far as local authority publicity expresses particular views on matters only tangential to the functions of local authorities, or is controversial and sensitive, it will be covered by the principles to be set out in the code of practice. A draft code is currently being prepared for consultation with the local authority associations. The code will, in due course, be placed before your Lordships' House for approval. Your Lordships may well think, with me, that this code should contain clear principles to be observed on the questions which we are debating today.
I have said that we believe it right to require local authorities to give due weight to these principles. Your Lordships will remember that the House did not accept the Government's advice to this effect. The Government have made clear their intention to bring forward legislation to strengthen the legal status of the code later this Session. I very much hope your Lordships will bear in mind the importance of the provisions of the code of practice when we come to debate those legislative proposals in the new year.
Turning now to the second part of the prohibition, we are all agreed that the most dangerous and pernicious effects of loosening sexual values are on children. Schools must approach the difficult task of teaching their pupils about sexual matters in a responsible and sensitive manner. We must ensure that children are not subject to insidious propaganda for homosexuality. Moreover, the physical and emotional dangers of promiscuity should be spelt out. Regrettably there have been instances—we have heard some referred to in this debate—of the use of unsound teaching methods and materials and the propagation of extreme and unrepresentative views of sexual ethics and mores in the main related to the presentation of homosexuality. The Bill seeks to make this illegal by prohibiting financial or other assistance being made available by local authorities for this purpose. Moreover, it refers to a very subjective word—namely, "acceptability", a word which could occupy your Lordships, sitting in your judicial capacity, for hour after hour.

335
Be that as it may, the Government are firmly committed to the provision of appropriate sex education in schools and equally to the need for effective action to prevent irresponsible and inappropriate teaching in this field. We debated these important issues at some length earlier this year during the passage of what is now the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Not least because of the deep concern among parents, Parliament has just approved a change of the law on sex education, through the new Education Act, to prevent such abuses and to ensure that parents' wishes are given due weight and respect by schools.
Under the new arrangements, all those responsible for the provision of sex education in county, voluntary and maintained schools will be required by law to ensure that any teaching offered is set within a clear moral context and is supportive of family life.
Full control over the content and organisation of sex education will be placed in the hands of the new-style school governing bodies, which the Act establishes. These have increased parental representation and are answerable to an annual meeting of parents. Parents will thus be able to influence directly the sex education which their children receive, both through their elected representatives on the governing body and through making their views known at the parents' meeting. As part of their new responsibilities for the content of sex education, governors will be able to see any books and other teaching materials which teachers intend to use in this field, and to decide for themselves whether they are suitable for classroom use or not. I am confident that no governing body—given the strong influence of parents—would permit inappropriate and unbalanced materials to be used. It is surely preferable to concentrate, as the Government have done, on ensuring that unsuitable materials never reach the classroom, rather than to look for redress and recourse to the courts after the damage has been done.
These are significant changes, which demonstrate the seriousness with which the Government views this issue.
My noble friend Lady Cox, acting in concert with the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, himself, does not know her own power. I am advised that under the Bill and through the Education Act 1944 the Secretary of State is empowered not to allow any such interference in the democratic process nor in the arrangements that he has introduced for parent power, which will be paramount. Should an authority be found to be acting in breach of the provisions of the new Act, I am certain that the Secretary of State will bring to bear on the authority concerned the full force of his powers.
What all this means is that the Bill of the noble Earl seeks to prevent local education authorities from encouraging the promotion of homosexuality in schools at the very time that those same authorities are about to cease to have a direct role in determining the kind of sex education to be offered in schools.
My noble friend Lady Cox made the point that books of the nature that we have been discussing this afternoon which are to be found in public libraries need also to be caught. But in public libraries, which
336
are covered by different Acts of Parliament, different considerations apply. Putting a book on a library shelf is not—I repeat "not"—promoting the views put forward in that book. I have no doubt that the House will want to go into this particular subject in some depth in Committee.
Finally, on that aspect of the Bill, I should express reservations about how the wording of the Bill—with its prohibition of the promotion of homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship—might be interpreted in practice. The House will want to investigate, again in Committee, whether the meaning is clear or whether there is a risk that any teaching about homosexuality will effectively be outlawed. The Government's policy is that schools should be prepared to address the issue of homosexuality, provided they approach it in a balanced and factual manner, appropriate to the maturity of the pupils concerned. The issue cannot be ignored by schools when it is widely discussed in society and when pupils may well ask questions about it.
We must also recognise the role which schools have in informing their pupils of the threat to health posed by AIDS. Questions about homosexuality are very likely to be raised by pupils in this context and they must be dealt with. As the Government's public education campaign about AIDS makes clear, ignorance is the greatest ally of this terrible disease.
The Government have made quite clear that any teaching about homosexuality must never, in any sense, advocate or encourage it as a normal form of relationship. To do so would be educationally and morally indefensible. I appreciate that the noble Earl's Bill seeks to prevent only such abuses. I fear, however, that the distinction between these, and what I have described as proper teaching about homosexuality, cannot be drawn sufficiently clearly in legislation to avoid harmful misinterpretation. That is a risk we cannot take.
In these circumstances, in the Government's view, the Bill is unnecessary. I am confident that the provisions of the new Education Act will prove fully effective in safeguarding pupils from the kind of undesirable and extremist influence about which your Lordships have heard today. They must be given a chance to prove their effectiveness. To support this part of the noble Earl's Bill would be to cast doubt on, and indeed to undermine, the provisions of the new Education Act before they have even come into effect. That cannot be a sensible way of proceeding.
To summarise, I cannot emphasise enough that the Government have every sympathy with the aims underlying the proposals in this Bill. We are quite convinced that the promotion of homosexuality as an acceptable way of life reflects a misguided and possibly dangerous view, particularly where young minds are concerned. We question however the need for, and the appropriateness of, the proposals set out in the Bill. Educationally, we have already taken steps to put the responsibility where it belongs in the hands of the parents. On publicity we have made an important start with the Local Government Act 1986 which we will ourselves seek to amend and strengthen this Session. The proposed code of practice covering local authority publicity will be particularly helpful in achieving the noble Earl's aims if its legal status can be strengthened.

337
A section dealing with the matters we have been discussing today included in that code would be a far better way of proceeding. I do not want to debate the merits of various trigger clauses with my noble friend, Lord Campbell of Alloway today, but I hope my point is clear.
The fact that the Government stance is one of neutrality on a Bill of this sort does not, as I have sought to explain, mean that it is negative. I close as I opened by saying that the Government do not disagree with the noble Earl on the aims but solely with the means.
3.33 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps I may commence my winding up by thanking all speakers, particularly for the very wide variety of the aspects they highlighted. There was so much unanimity that I shall not go through everything that was said and try to summarise it.
However, I should like to refer to one matter which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned and where there was some misunderstanding by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Schoolboy homosexuality starts as post-pubertal curiosity. I discussed it with my parents before I ever went to public school. I discussed it with my outgoing headmaster of my prep school. I discussed it again with my tutor at Eton. As an older boy, a captain of the house, I was expected to collaborate with my headmaster and housemaster in discouraging it wherever I could. Why was I always warned against it! It was simply because a habit once started may become a permanency and can only lead to unhappiness in later life.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, seems to think that discussion of sex in schools is something new. It is not at all new. It has gone on all my life. I have had discussions with my children about it, and they have had discussions with their pastors and masters. We are not talking about discussion at all. We are talking about encouragement, and I am glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is with me on that.
The Wolfenden report specified that people's sexual orientation was not fixed on leaving school. They needed a close period of several years so that those of them who may have had homosexual experiences at school had some free time to shake loose from it if they were not in fact permanently orientated that way. I have been told by psychologists that is is only at about the age of 24 that a person's sexual orientation is finally fixed. Therefore the idea of orientating them in the wrong direction for a very long period up to the age of 24 is very wrong indeed. It may lead to total unhappiness in later life.
Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will be cleared up when he sees Hansard tomorrow. I said that I was warned that the loony Left was hardening up to the lesbians. I did not make a positive statement that it was. Therefore I was not introducing politics into this subject.
I do not think that I can withdraw a Bill which has had so much support. If there is opposition to it then I must express myself Content and take the matter to
338
a Division. It is quite right that a minority should stand up and be counted; but there is something else a minority can do, which is to stand up and not be counted by failing to appoint tellers. That has happened once today.
I must remind your Lordships that if those who express themselves "Not-content" that the Bill should be given a Second Reading fail to appoint tellers, it is in order for any Member of your Lordships' House from either side who has not spoken in the debate to go to the Table and appoint himself a teller, as a volunteer, for the other side. It is wrong to stand up and not be counted. We must know what the force of argument is, remembering always that I have had not only immense support in your Lordships' House but also immense support in correspondence from all over the country, and a very good press.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Business
3.35 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Statement which is to be made in another place on the airborne early warning system should, by leave of the House, be printed in the Official Report.

Airborne Early Warning Aircraft for RAF
Following is the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence referred to above:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on airborne early warning aircraft for the Royal Air Force. I apologise in advance for its length.
"The House will recall that in March 1977 the then government announced their decision to proceed with the Nimrod system to replace the Shackleton in the airborne early warning role. Contracts were placed with what is now British Aerospace plc for the necessary work on the Nimrod airframe, and with GEC Avionics Limited for the development and production of its mission system avionics. At that time it was envisaged that the aircraft would be available to the RAF in a training role in May 1982 and for operational service in April 1984.
"British Aerospace have delivered the airframes in accordance with their contract. But as the House knows, serious difficulties have arisen in the development of the avionics system for the aircraft, and these have led to very serious time and cost overruns.
"On 26th February last my right honourable friend the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed the House that the Government had decided to consider all of the available options, both from this country and from overseas, for meeting the RAF's needs before taking a final decision on the way forward. He also announced that for Nimrod itself we had negotiated

339
with GEC revised contractual arrangements involving a sharing of financial risk with the company and giving them adequate incentives for completion.
"The intention was that, by the end of an interim period of six months, GEC would provide us with a firm price proposal against a technical specification aimed at fulfilling the needs of the RAF, and would also demonstrate to us the progress they had achieved on the development of the project. Meanwhile, we would explore alternative solutions. On 25th September my noble friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement announced that best and final offers were being invited from GEC Avionics for the Nimrod and from the Boeing Aerospace Company for the E-3A aircraft. These offers have now been received and assessed.
"GEC's offer for Nimrod has been judged against a cardinal point specification based on the Air Staff requirement endorsed in 1977, with the addition only of an air-to-air refuelling capability. Since 1977 the air threat against the United Kingdom has increased, but we have not (as they say) moved the 1977 goalposts so far as the Nimrod system is concerned.
"GEC's offer covers three levels of attainment. In ascending order, and cumulatively, they have offered three aircraft in the second half of 1987 to the standard of the present trials aircraft; six aircraft between mid-1989 and mid-1990 which would approach the final standard subject to certain exclusions, of which the most important is a vital secure data link to and from the aircraft; and 11 to the final standard between October 1991 and September 1993.
"The first of these offers is not of any value as the system is not now of a standard that could be used for training. The question I have had to consider is whether, taking account of the work GEC have done since February, and in particular of recent flight trials, together with our knowledge of the results they have achieved during the last nine years, I can have confidence that they could deliver aircraft with the second and third levels of performance in the time-scales they have offered. This is an assessment of the Nimrod programme against the objective standard of the Air Staff requirement and not against the E-3A.
"I am sorry to say that the conclusion I have reached after the most careful consideration is that I cannot have that confidence. GEC have certainly made technical progress in some areas since February, and have also accepted contractual terms which would give them the strongest incentive to achieve success. I pay tribute to them for that. Nevertheless, there have been technical disappointments as well as progress. The recent flight trials which have been attempted have not produced a consistent and reliable pattern of results. Such results as have been achieved fall well short of the Air Staff requirement.
"The company have therefore made proposals for a new programme of work which would improve the system's performance over the next few years. I have considered the proposals very carefully, but the
340
unanimous view of my scientific and military experts is that the required performance is unlikely to be achieved before the mid-1990s at the earliest, if then.
"This is a question of scientific and engineering judgment; the likelihood of success does not lend itself to absolute proof one way or the other. I must judge the prospects on the basis of the scientific and Service advice available to me. That advice is clear and unanimous.
"As I have said, Nimrod AEW should have entered RAF service for training in 1982 and for operations in 1984. Airborne early warning is a vital air defence capability and multiplies the value of other forces. The existing Shackletons, which entered service in this role in 1972, are obsolescent and would be of limited value in hostilities.
"Very reluctantly, I have decided that the time has now come to cancel the Nimrod AEW programme, notwithstanding the expenditure of £660m so far, just over half of which has been spent on the avionics. All existing contracts are therefore being terminated. Subject to satisfactory completion of contractual negotiations, we shall instead be ordering six E-3A aircraft from Boeing now, with the option of adding a further two within the next six months. The E-3A is already in service with the NATO AEW force as well as with the United States Air Force. The RAF version will meet or come close to the 1977 operational standard we have set and will in several respects significantly exceed it, thus improving the RAF's capability against the military threat. There is plenty of potential for stretching the sytem to match further developments in the threat. I am confident that the E-3A will give excellent service with the RAF.
"Allowing for termination costs on the Nimrod contracts, the cost of acquiring the six E-3As with initial support will be £860m at 1986–87 prices, which is £200m more than the remaining cost of acquiring 11 Nimrods. These prices are based on sterling quotations from Boeing. The difference represents value for money, given our total confidence in the E-3A's ability to perform the operational task in an acceptable time-scale. On a through-life cost basis including running costs over 20 years the difference is marginal. These comparisons are confined to future expenditure and take no account of past expenditure on the Nimrod system. The cost of this purchase will be contained within the planned defence expenditure totals published in my right honourable friend's Autumn Statement.
"Nevertheless this is a sad decision to have to take, but I have no doubt that it is the right one. There are lessons for all of us in this outcome, and I do not seek to evade my department's share of responsibility. Our experience with Nimrod has reminded us of the importance of establishing agreed contractual terms at the earliest possible stage, with clear specifications and agreed acceptance criteria, which place the contractor under an effective discipline. My fellow defence

341
ministers and I will be ensuring that these and other lessons are fully absorbed and acted on in our future handling of major projects.
"While this must inevitably be a sad day for GEC and their workforce, this decision must be seen in its proper context. They will remain one of MoD's biggest equipment suppliers; we spent over £700m with them last year, even excluding expenditure on Nimrod. They and other British firms will continue to design and manufacture airborne radars despite the present decision. The loss to British defence technology will be solely in this highly specialised field of large and advanced AEW systems, and it is not strategically vital for this capability to be retained in British Industry. In any case, Britain will continue to be involved in this technology through the participation of Racal, Plessey and Ferranti in the E-3A order for the RAF.
"Furthermore, Boeing's proposals for the E-3A include a contractual commitment on their part to an extremely high level of offset, amounting to £130 to be spent on work for British companies for every £100 which we spend on the E-3A. This commitment has been welcomed by British firms who will be participating in the E-3A project. Boeing are publicly committed to placing high technology work with British companies and have an excellent record for honouring undertakings of this kind. Our assessment is that job losses resulting from the cancellation of Nimrod will be equalled if not exceeded by job gains in firms all over the country resulting from Boeing's offset proposals.
"As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the decision I have announced has not been an easy one. I wish very much that it could have been otherwise. However, if the RAF is to have the equipment it urgently needs to defend this country, this is the only decision that can be right. I commend it to the House."

Motion for the Adjournment
3.36 p.m.
Before I move the Adjournment of the House, I should like to wish a happy Christmas and New Year Recess on behalf of my noble friends and noble Lords in all parts of the House, and on behalf of the whole House, to those who serve us so well and so patiently at this end of the Palace of Westminster.
Baroness David: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, I should like to add my good wishes to Members on every side of the House and in every quarter, and wish them a very happy Christmas and a happy and, I suppose I must say, prosperous New Year. Perhaps I should have some reservations about that. I heartily endorse everything that has been said about every member of the staff of the House in every part—and there are a great many parts—and wish them, too, a very happy Christmas and New Year.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like from these Benches, and with the assurance that my noble friend Lady Stedman would have been here to join in adding
342
her wishes if she could, to wish the whole House a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year, without reservations. I express great thanks to all the people who work in the House both in the Chamber and outside and, as was put to me by a noble Lord a few minutes ago, to the people who have redecorated the Palace, especially those who were working on the Throne, which is now such a great glory to the Chamber. There are so many people both inside and outside the House who contribute to the daily workings of the House that it would take too long to express personal thanks to them all, but I am sure that the mood is that we should all go away and have a very happy Christmas and come back to a good and successful New Year.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to extend our thanks to all those who look after us so well and of course wish everyone a very happy Christmas, with good wishes for the New year.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at twenty-two minutes before four o'clock until Monday, 12th January next.