Lords Sitting of 16 February 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
Lord Coggan Lord Coggan —Took the Oath.

Arms Contracts: Overcharging Allegations
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 whether they intend to prosecute those British companies which have overcharged the Government on arms and equipment contracts.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, decisions regarding prosecution are for the Crown Prosecution Service and not for Her Majesty's Government. Careful consideration will be given by the service to any allegations made to it that British companies have fraudulently overcharged the Ministry of Defence on arms and equipment contracts.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether it is the case that 23 British companies have had to return over £30 million to the Ministry of Defence because of the revelation by the National Audit Office that they had overcharged the Ministry for arms and equipment provision?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has certain rights under non-competitive contracts which enable the Ministry to review the price charged under a contract after its completion and to secure a refund if the information on which the price was based turns out with hindsight to have been inaccurate. It was that process which was followed to enable refunds to be made.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, how long have inquiries into these very serious matters been continuing? Are they being conducted by the police? If so, will the police be reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the Ministry of Defence?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, in one particular matter inquiries by the Ministry of Defence police are continuing and the investigating officers have recently sought and received advice from the Crown Prosecution Service fraud investigation group.
The answer to the second part of the noble and learned Lord's question is that the report would, of course, go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is for him to decide, in the event of a report being made, what action should be taken.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is it the suggestion in the noble and learned Lord's last answer that with regard to all the other cases he is not aware of any breach of criminal law?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: No, my Lords, I did not imply that. It is fair to say that in one other case a report was submitted by the Ministry of Defence police to the Crown Prosecution Service. It was the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service that there was insufficient evidence to institute criminal proceedings. However, that is the only investigation of which I have any knowledge which has, at the end of the day, come to the notice of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether it is the case that over the past 10 years 36 cases of actual fraud have been reported to the Ministry of Defence police of which only two have resulted in prosecutions? How does it come about that companies can defraud a Ministry without being liable to prosecution as they would be in a normal commercial case?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I do not have before me the information the noble Lord seeks and it does not fall directly within the ambit of this Question. I shall be happy to respond to the noble Lord but all I can say, as I said earlier, is that where allegations are made to the Crown Prosecution Service it will be for the service to determine whether there are grounds for taking the matter further by way of prosecution.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is it not the case that for fraud to be established the intention to defraud must be proved? For the noble Lord opposite to suggest that fraud has been proved is utterly and completely wrong.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. That is what I was endeavouring to state but I did not do so as forcefully as did my noble friend.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it the case that the matter is in the hands, so to speak, of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or is it the case that police inquiries are still continuing?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, the matter to which I referred in response to the noble and learned Lord is one in which the Ministry of Defence police and the Crown Prosecution Service together are continuing investigations.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, far from my making an accusation of fraud, is it not the case that the National Audit Office had taken the matter to the Ministry of Defence and that the Ministry of Defence considered that these were fraud cases? It was not on my say-so but on the evidence given by the National Audit Office.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, so far as I am aware these were matters which the Ministry of

493
Defence itself referred to its police force for investigations. If I am not correct on that matter, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord.

NHS: Funding Proposal
2.42 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: 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 whether they will consider a sweepstake to help finance the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, while the review of the National Health Service is in progress, the Government welcome constructive suggestions on its future funding. We will consider carefully every such suggestion put forward, including this one.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat non-committal reply. Does he realise that all over the country, probably outside the ranks of the Government, there are people who are convinced that the National Health Service is in a state of crisis and who wish to do what they can in small and large groups in the way of raising money? Will he not pay attention to these people who wish to help and who realise that their money can be used, even in small ways, for specific purposes within the NHS?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, most certainly. However, although I accept that every little helps and that this proposal enjoys popular support at the present time, it would be unreasonable to expect a national lottery to make more than a marginal difference to NHS funding. The Health Services Act 1980 gave health authorities powers to raise money locally but did not extend to local lotteries. As I said, that matter will be given our active consideration.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, although I agree with the noble Earl that the National Health Service is in a state of crisis, does the Minister really feel that this proposal is constructive? Would it not be a device that would enable the Treasury to save money from the finances that it puts at the disposal of the NHS, inadequate though they may be? Do not the Government accept the conclusion of doctors, nurses and indeed the public at large, that health care is a national responsibility paid for by the people in the fairest way; namely, by taxation and not by lotteries, sweepstakes, coffee mornings, T-shirts and so on?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I made it quite clear that in the Government's view every little helps. In 1986–87 fund-raising activities by health authorities generated around £3 million, but that was only a small proportion of all their charitable income, which totalled nearly £117 million. Charitable fund-raising
494
has been going on for a very long time; governments of all persuasions have welcomed it and will continue to do so.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when I had the chance to debate this subject on radio with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I received a vast number of letters showing that, although people hate paying their taxes, they want to give to the National Health Service provided they can have a gamble on it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, but the Treasury currently receives £800 million from taxation on gambling, and it is important for that sum not to be endangered by the new sort of gambling proposed. Having said that, I also believe that the £117 million which is already raised from charitable income for the hospital service should equally not he put in danger.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while the National Health Service would welcome additional funds from any source, I ask the Minister to ponder very carefully the advisability of appearing to give government or NHS approval to gambling, which some of us believe is as potentially damaging to the citizen and indeed to society as other forms of addiction. Will he also bear in mind the possibility of the thin end of a rather large wedge? This could lead to the installation of fruit machines in hospitals and doctors' waiting rooms.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there are some Members of your Lordships' House, and indeed many people outside, who would not object to that. Clearly such matters would have to be considered extremely carefully. However, I am aware that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Gambling, which were debated in this House in October 1978, concluded that it would be inappropriate to use a national lottery to help fund services such as the NHS which have a statutory source of funding, and many of your Lordships agreed at the time with that view.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, if my noble friend cannot answer me now, will he be good enough to write to me to tell me how much money is invested in the Pools every week, because that same amount of money might just as well go to a national health lottery?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall have to write to my noble friend. I have not the slightest idea how much money is invested in the Pools every week, but taxation of the Pools is around 40 per cent. and already raises vast amounts of money for general disbursement by the Government.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, in his reply to the noble Earl's Question the Minister said that this review was going on. Will he be good enough to tell us when it is likely to be completed and whether it will be published?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I am afraid not. The review, as I have said on many occasions, will be wide-ranging and fundamental. We are concerned with the development of health services to meet the country's needs for many years to come and we shall bring forward proposals in due course.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought he said that the health authorities raised about £3 million in extra money for the services. I may have the figure wrong. I should be very grateful if he would pay special tribute to the 1,360 Leagues of Friends in Britain. He was kind enough to address our conference. Would he be kind enough to pay tribute to the £15 to £16 million they raise for the health services every year?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, most certainly. I recall only too well addressing the conference chaired by the noble Baroness in the autumn. However, the money that she refers to would be comprised in the £117 million which comes to the health service from charitable income from all sources at the moment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, with regard to the question from the Liberal Benches about gambling being the thin end of the wedge, can my noble friend tell us how much of the income from the biggest gamble of all, Premium Bonds, goes to the National Health Service and other matters?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not for the first time my noble friend puts me in some difficulty. I have never heard of a lottery where one can have one's stake money refunded.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, various forms of fundraising for various aspects of the health service have been welcomed, by all governments, as the Minister rightly said. However, will he state quite clearly for the professional people in the National Health Service that at all times the Government accept full responsibility for maintaining the efficiency and general strategy of Britain's National Health Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course we do, and that is why that is enshrined in various Acts of Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, referring to the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is the Minister aware that any move to bring in a national lottery would negative tremendously the amount of voluntary work being put in today which enables a good deal of equipment to be bought for the health service that should be provided by the taxpayer?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, one of my cautionary remarks this afternoon on the idea of a lottery has been that whatever we do should not endanger the £117 million which is currently provided from charitable sources.

Telephone Kiosks: Preservation
2.50 p.m.
Lord Gridley: 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 steps they are taking, in conjunction with British Telecom, to ensure that the traditional red telephone boxes are preserved and maintained.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently announced that he will be listing, in England, a further 500 traditional red kiosks as buildings of special architectural or historical interest.
Lord Gridley: My Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Can he confirm that in respect of the K6 red telephone boxes the 1,000 to be listed were designed in 1936 by Giles Gilbert Scott and that it is this design which we now wish to preserve for our heritage?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords. I can confirm that we are in principle talking about the K6. Out of the 1,000 that are to be listed, 554 have already been listed. In addition, more than 200 examples of the earlier K2 model have also been listed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that consultations between himself and British Telecom could be better used to ensure that traditional services are preserved and maintained? I know that we can take most things from the Ministry as read! However, when we are considering service to the consumer, surely it would be more profitable to ensure not only that red boxes are available but that the telephones in them are maintained and serviced, and that the consumers interest in respect of access to the telephone and the charges being made by British Telecom is pursued with vigour.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is ingenious in turning a Question about listing into a question about servicing.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Dr. Who's Tardis will be included in the preservation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, can find Dr. Who's Tardis I am sure that my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who is the Government's adviser as chairman of English Heritage, will come to the rescue and recommend the listing of it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as well as the traditional red telephone boxes, will the Government in concert with British Telecom also preserve and maintain new telephone boxes by ensuring that they are kept in order, that the full coin boxes are emptied and that they are protected from vandalism?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, that is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords will my noble friend agree that red telephone boxes are very much more visible? The new ones are very difficult to see when one is travelling in the dark or in a fog. The red telephone boxes are always visible and it would be helpful if we could have more of them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will be pleased that we are keeping so many of the red telephone boxes.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for the Environment on the efficiency with which the English Heritage's listing recommendations have been handled by his department? May I also assure——
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, may I also ask the noble Earl——
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu:—whether he is aware that we have had a full-time inspector employed on the listing of kiosks since last June and that we have been greatly encouraged by the thousands of letters we have received from the general public expressing their preference for the Gilbert Scott award-winning design of 50 years ago to the modern ones that have been put up, especially in conservation areas?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to him for the work that he does with English Heritage in recommending the listing of these boxes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the pleasure of holding on to a large number of these red telephone boxes will spread further than this country? When I asked a Question in the House some time ago your Lordships' discussion was recorded far afield, including in the press of South Australia, where I am sure this decision will give great pleasure.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted that the red telephone box is becoming increasingly famous.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case, though, that the red telephone box is not universally approved, particularly by those people who are disabled, who find the doors extremely heavy to open, and those of us who find that they have been used as public conveniences? Is the Minister aware that, although they are not perfect, the new telephone boxes are better from this point of view?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point. One of the reasons for the change in the design is that some of the earlier telephone boxes which we are listing were not the most salubrious of places to go into.

Education in Inner London
2.56 p.m.
Baroness David: 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 why they are not proceeding with their plans for ILEA in a separate Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the amendments which the Government are tabling today to the Education Reform Bill will secure the transfer of education responsibilities in 1990. The introduction of a separate Bill would inevitably prolong the uncertainty about the future of education in inner London. What is needed is an early decision so that the urgent task of improving London's education service may begin as swiftly as possible.
Baroness David: My Lords, I must say again that I am shocked that a decision has been taken not to have a separate Bill, because a great deal of consultation has to go on.
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness David: My Lords, what arrangements have been made for consultation with the parents, governors and teachers in the inner London schools? If, as I gather, the clauses are to be put down today, does that not leave a short time for those to be discussed before the matter is debated in Committee in a week or two?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that may well be a matter for another place. The Government's timetable Motion in another place is the most generous for 20 years. The Government have made it plain that they will allow additional time to debate these issues. Tomorrow there is to be a full day's extra debate in another place and a supplementary timetable for the Committee and Report stages is being agreed. There will be a full discussion. As we discussed last week on the Statement, the whole question of the Government's manifesto commitment and the consultation process that followed have been taken into account in introducing these changes to the Bill.
Baroness David: My Lords, if I may briefly come back, the Minister has not answered my question about the consultations with parents, governors and teachers.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that we have already had a very full consultation process on the principle behind the changes. We had it in the lead up to the general election last year.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hooper: We had it in the consultation process which followed the general election and we are continuing to have it. As the Government have always said, they are listening to the comments that are being made, and in taking those comments into account they are making these changes.
Lord Alport: My Lords, what factors have arisen since the Government legislated in the last Parliament for a directly elected education authority for London to make them now decide to abolish it? Do the Government realise that the certain consequences of abolition will be to increase the cost of education in London to central and local funds and to gravely damage the education opportunities for the majority of children in London?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, during the debate on the Statement last week, we discussed fully why the arrangements for the break-up of the Inner London Education Authority were being changed. The Question tabled today is directed at how those changes will be taken into account.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that does not mean that there was a debate on the Statement. We do not have debates on Statements. There has been no opportunity so far to debate the matter.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I trust that the noble Baroness will forgive me. Perhaps I should have said discussion.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many school governors in central London who will be absolutely delighted at the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that professional opinion is united in the view that dismemberment of the Inner London Education Authority will lead to a decline in the quality of educational standards in inner London? Is she further aware that in the House some two weeks ago she misquoted me in a misleading way by suggesting that my views were out of line with those of other professions, when they are not? Can she say why the Government are ignoring the views of experts on the matter?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall start by apologising to the noble Baroness for referring to her in her absence last week. I had no intention of mentioning her name. However, it was expressly at the request of noble Lords opposite that I referred to her by name. Nevertheless, I believe that I quoted faithfully from her statement.
As regards the results of discussions with educationists, I believe that it has been made clear in terms of the standards of education in inner London that in recent years the whole system has been in turmoil. The step that we intend to take will provide a once and for all answer to the question of
500
responsibility for London's education service. The interests of the children and the ratepayers of inner London are paramount.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, was not the Question about why there was no separate Bill? Are not we therefore in danger of debating the merits of the decision?
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I return to the Question. Many of us feel that the Education Reform Bill, as it is at present, is a complex Bill, spreading over a wide region of the educational field. Surely, therefore, to add this issue to the Bill will only further complicate it. Will the Minister speak to her right honourable friend and tell him that many of us feel that it would be far better to deal with the matter in two separate Bills rather than in one gigantic one?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the issue of ILEA was in any event to be debated during the course of the Bill. We are not deviating from the principle; we are merely deviating somewhat in the detail. I appeal to noble Lords opposite to ask their friends in the inner London boroughs not to indulge in expensive and acrimonious campaigns, but to accept the realities of life and to co-operate in an orderly transfer of functions in the children's best interests.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, does the Minister realise that she first said that the future of ILEA was a detail—a view with which most Londoners would not agree—and secondly, that it is wrong for people who disagree with the Government to say so? Does she stand by that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I said that the principle of the changes to ILEA and the devolution of ILEA to the boroughs was already well-established. It is merely a question of the method by which we shall do it and the timing.
Lord Alport: My Lords, surely the Minister's assertion that there is general agreement that ILEA should be abolished is not true. I remember in the last Parliament that there was strong opposition in the House to that proposal.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Alport: My Lords, does the Minister remember that in the last Parliament there was strong opposition to the abolition of ILEA, with the result that the Government had to change their policy halfway through the Bill's passage?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware that there is a variety of opinion about our proposed plans. However, we believe that we are responding to the wishes of the majority on the issue.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a school in the borough of Lambeth, which I happen to be visiting tomorrow, the head teacher of which is utterly dismayed at the prospect of her school being handed over to the tender mercies of the local authority, whose leader

501
has described herself as "a militant lesbian", the Labour Party as "racist", and Tory policies as leading to the gas chambers? What shall I say to that head teacher when she asks me my opinion tomorrow?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's difficulties and those of the head teacher. We believe that, taking together all the proposed reforms in the education system, schools in small boroughs will be in a better position than they might have been had those reforms not been put in place.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Government's policy is to destroy the largest education authority in Great Britain? Ought not such a proposal be subjected to all the procedures of Parliament?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it will be.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1988 will be taken.

Protection of Official Information (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to repeal Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, and to make new provision for the protection of official information and articles, for the publication of certain documents, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bethe11.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Northampton Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Local Government Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 17 [Local and other public authority contracts: exclusion of non-commercial considerations]:
Lord Basnett Lord Basnett moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 14, line 17, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of sections 18 and (Questions relevant to code of Practice on Employment of Disabled,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carter. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 56.
The argument in support of the amendment is clear and simple: persons with a disability have more difficulty finding employment than other people; much of that difficulty is due to discrimination. Some local authorities are, through advice, guidance and counselling, currently helping their contractors to employ more disabled people. As the clause stands, it would prevent further such assistance. The amendment is designed to ensure, without involving contract compliance and taking account of all previous government objections, that some form of assistance in a manner that I shall describe, shall continue.
It is worth underlining the unemployment problems of those with a disability. I am moving the amendment at a time when unemployment among disabled people is double the rate for their peers and for some groups higher than that. For instance, nine out of 10 of those with spinal injuries had employment before their disability but afterwards only five out of 10 did so. All these groups suffer unemployment at a higher rate than others, as a recent survey of the Royal National Institute for the Blind has shown. The Manpower Services Commission review of assistance to disabled people found that the average duration of unemployment among disabled people was twice that of able-bodied people. Most important, an increasing number of companies fail to meet their legal obligation under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and ignore the quota scheme. In 1965, 53 per cent. of employers met their obligations; in 1986 the figure fell to 27 per cent.
This disadvantaged group needs all the help we can give it. Some local authorities have given positive help to improve the employment prospects of the disabled with their contractors. The amendment would help that to continue by allowing local authorities to consider contractors' employment policies in the light of the code of good practice in the employment of disabled people. The voluntary code was launched in 1984 with the support of the Prime Minister, the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Personnel Management, RADAR and the All-Party Disablement Group. The code encourages employers to establish a written policy in relation to the employment of disabled people and the rehabilitation of those who become disabled. It provides commonsense advice and also points employers

503
towards services provided by the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment.
Too many companies have yet to adopt its recommendations and continue to operate recruitment practices that discriminate against people who are one-and-a-half times more likely to be rejected by employers if they reveal on their application form that they have a disability. Previously, the Government have argued against local authorities' rights with their contractors on the grounds that the authorities should not act as extra-statutory enforcement agencies for existing legislation. The Government have also argued that the 3 per cent. quota scheme established by the Act is unenforceable.
The amendment does not mention the quota scheme. It would simply allow local authorities to bring the code of good practice to the attention of contractors and also to establish what is the company's practice. The amendment would not allow contracts not to be awarded. It would however allow local authorities to make inquiries relating to the company's policy on the code of good practice. Contractors who had not adopted the code's suggestions could be referred to the local disablement advisory service.
It is unrealistic to expect the disablement advisory service to contact all employers. Its first priority is to deal with those who request help. At the moment there is no mechanism for identifying those companies which have not adopted the code and which ignore the potential disabled people have to offer. The amendment would provide an additional form of encouragement to employers—not contract compliance, not an extra-statutory enforcement agency, but encouragement.
Acceptance of this amendment would indicate that the Government are still committed to increasing employment opportunities for disabled people. Rejection would indicate that the Government do not see the code as important; it would mean missing the chance to reduce discrimination against disabled people. The Government would be allowing the skills, potential and abilities of disabled people to be ignored. The amendment offends no principles in the Bill; it does not offend the Bill's purpose. It is designed to provide help to those who need help. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the arguments so ably advanced by my noble friend Lord Basnett. The first point to remember is the one he made. The amendment is moved at a time when unemployment among disabled people is double the rate for their able-bodied peers. The code of good practice on the employment of disabled people encourages companies to develop a positive attitude towards the recruitment and retention of disabled people. It helps to overcome discrimination they experience in employment.
I wish to deal with an aspect of the two amendments which concerns the cost-effectiveness and viability of the contracts offered to contractors
504
by local authorities. The Government have stated that local authorities should consider contracts on the basis of their cost-effectiveness and business viability. While the Bill seeks to encourage efficiency in local authorities, Clause 17 restricts information being obtained which is of commercial importance. Disabled people have many skills to offer; they have excellent performance records. In the words of the Prime Minister appearing in New Outlook in November 1984,
"People who employ disabled workers know from experience that it makes good business sense to employ people who are loyal and hard working and have skills and abilities to offer".
The amendment allows local authorities to encourage—not to force—contractors to adopt the code of good practice which can help contractors improve their efficiency. Without this amendment, the local authorities will not be able to obtain the information which is relevant to commercial considerations, as in its current form Clause 17 prohibits questions being asked in relation to workforce matters.
The Government may argue that acceptance of the proposed amendment could lead to local authorities demanding extra resources. The new clause, however, would only allow local authorities to have regard to contractors' compliance with the code of good practice. It does not mean that local authorities will be given a statutory obligation to promote and enforce the code. Those authorities who wish to pursue this line of inquiry should be expected to meet the cost of promoting the code themselves.
The new clause would not provide a green light for authorities to harass employers. But it would allow them to ask some sensible questions which have a bearing on the efficiency of the contractor. The responsibility for the promotion of the code would remain with the disablement advisory service. It has already been stated that contractors who have not adopted the code will be referred to the DAS. If the amendment is rejected the Government will have missed an opportunity to promote the code of good practice. As my noble friend said, the code is supported by all sections of industry and by the Prime Minister. When it was introduced, the Minister of State with responsibility for disabled people's employment stated:
"The Government welcome and endorse the code. We believe that it represents an important and practical tool for ensuring that the abilities of disabled people are fully recognised and their potential at work properly fulfilled". [Official Report, Commons, 14/11/84: col. 263.]
I repeat that there are no enforcement requirements in this amendment.
Many employers will know that disabled people are often better workers than their able-bodied peers. We are not asking for extra statutory powers. We are using the existing recommendation of the Government and supporting their policy in this matter. We have said that if additional resources are required the local authorities will bear the cost. We are asking for them to have the right to exercise an option. As we have said, the Disablement Advisory Service, which is already responsible for the code, is extremely overworked at the moment. I hope that your Lordships will be able to support this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, when I spoke in Committee on the amendments which had then been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Basnett and Lord Carter, I suggested that invoking the 1944 Act was inappropriate. Therefore I am glad to make it clear now that that criticism does not apply to the amendments which have just been moved. These amendments do not refer to the quota scheme but to a code of practice advocated by the Manpower Services Commission. In my view this is much more realistic. I realise that the amendments may not appeal to the Government. I do not know what the Government's view is, but they are certainly a great improvement on the past ones. The Government may not think that local authorities should be concerned with these matters in awarding contracts. My noble friend will no doubt give the Government's views shortly.
However, for my part the particular objection to bringing the quota scheme into these arrangements has been removed. The 1944 Act was introduced mainly for war disabled in the post-war years. The quota scheme which it introduced has not been dropped or replaced during the subsequent 43 years, although this was suggested in 1980 by the Manpower Services Commission which was operating the scheme at the time. That was when Sir Richard O'Brien was chairman.
By consent of the majority who are involved in the quota scheme that scheme has not been enforced. The figure of 3 per cent. has been retained as a target rather than a statutory requirement. There are various reasons for that which we went into in Committee. I shall certainly not go into them again now. But the principal reason is that in important areas the related registers of disabled people upon which the scheme subsisted have been less than 3 per cent. of the working population in those areas. If in an area only 1 per cent. of the working population is on the register as disabled, it would be wrong to take punitive action against an employer who could not reach the 3 per cent. quota.
That is the basic arithmetic which has made the Act unenforceable in this respect. But the quota has still been retained because many of the disabled organisations, of which I in some cases have been an office bearer, regarded the quota as a target and still an exceedingly useful part of the 1944 Act. If enforcement had been attempted it would have been bringing the law into disrepute. In Dickensian terms it would have been making the law an ass. That is why some of us felt that it was wrong to try to invoke the quota system in this Bill.
The amendments now under discussion do not try to enforce the unenforceable. I, as I think your Lordships know, have been involved over the years in disabled organisations and I was the chairman for Scotland during the International Year of Disabled People in 1981. Over a long period in this House and in another place I have made my views clear on the general subject which the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, spoke on, so I shall not go further. I agree with what he has said about the need to achieve higher numbers of disabled people in employment so I shall not add to that. But I think that the amendments that were moved in Committee were not realistic for the
506
reasons that I have given. These certainly seem much better, but it remains for the Government to see whether they fit into this Bill or into other legislation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches would very much like to support this amendment in the form that it now takes. I was in support of the previous amendment but I can well see that the new amendment is likely to be more acceptable to the Government and half a loaf of bread is better than no bread. It would be a great pity if the noble Earl now told us that we cannot even have our half loaf.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will remember, as I do, that the 1944 Act was based on the report of Tomlinson, who was a leading trade unionist at the time. It was not aimed only at military personnel. It was for all disabled persons.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I said the war disabled. That involved quite a large proportion of the civilian population who suffered from bombing. I do not think that the noble Baroness was present in Committee but I mentioned the fact that I was wounded and disabled just about the time when that Act came into force and I have lived with it ever since.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I was present in Committee and I heard what the noble Lord said, but I wish to stress this point, which I think some noble Lords perhaps did not quite take. The Act was intended for the whole civilian population. It was never intended to be solely for people who were victims of war.
I am sure that someone will say that if the disabled are able effectively to do a job then the market will find them jobs. If one can believe that, one can believe anything. There is prejudice against people who have disabilities. Often that prejudice is based on extremely out-of-date ideas about how disabilities affect people's ability to work. Any of us who have worked in industry and have had to deal with disabled people know that that is true. It is often extremely difficult to overcome those prejudices in getting employment for disabled people. When disabled people have been properly trained, as other speakers have said, they often excel ordinary workers because their need to have and to hold a job and their difficulty in finding another one are such that they make very good workers indeed.
The MSC is now giving additional support for the training of disabled people. It would be extremely foolish of the Government to discourage an amendment which will make it easier to find jobs for trained disabled people who will make a very good contribution to the economy of this country.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to add my warm support for these amendments. Although my name is not on Amendment No. 37 it is on Amendment No. 56 and they basically go together. These amendments enable local authorities to ask questions of contractors and they would at least make firms reflect on their policy for the employment of disabled people.
In Committee on 28th January when the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, moved his original amendment the Minister objected (at col. 811 of the Official Report) that it would mean extra resources and that

507
the local authorities would be setting themselves up as extra statutory enforcement agencies. But if this amendment is accepted, as has already been said, no one will be compelled to do anything. But local authorities could make inquiries about a company's policy on the code of good practice and those contractors which had not adopted the code's suggestions could be referred to their local disablement advisory service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, both in Committee and now, has stressed the very important role that the advisory services play. If as the Bill stands the Government are going to permit local authorities to review companies on the grounds of their compliance with the Race Relations Act 1976, it should not be placing too great a burden on these same companies to ask them to supply information on their compliance with the code of good practice.
It has been said many times already today and in Committee that unemployment among disabled people is double the rate of their able-bodied counterparts. Yet we know that disabled people are good, reliable employees, with lower rates of accident and absenteeism than able-bodied workers, as Dr. Melvyn Kettle discovered in his study Disabled People and their Employment undertaken in 1979 when he was senior research fellow in rehabilitation studies at the University of Aston.
Your Lordships will be aware of the remarkable contribution some very severely disabled people have made to our society. For example, Professor Hawkins is a world expert on black holes. Christie Nolan is the award-winning author of Under the Eye of the Clock. For most of us, such achievements are no more than dreams. But surely disabled people should be encouraged to fulfil their potential, whatever that may be. For most people that entails having a job. If the Bill is unamended, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said, it will be unlawful even to ask a question about the arrangements made by contractors and suppliers for the employment of people with disabilities.
The Minister is a sensible and compassionate man. I hope that he will look kindly at this moderate amendment. If he accepts it or undertakes to come back with something similar of his own, he will demonstrate that the Government are committed to increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
I shall end with a quotation from Dr. Kettle's study which I hope that the Minister will bear in mind when he comes to reply. The quotation occurs on page 35 of the study. He is, in turn, quoting from a paper written by two research workers:
"By way of summing up the importance of work to the individual, the words of Ullman and Davis are apposite. They have said, 'There is little doubt that work, or satisfaction with work, has ego-preservative functions. It is also clear that loss of work is a considerable threat to the ego. To work is to be needed, and to be needed is essential to life' ".
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, may I first say how excellent it is to see the noble Baroness who has just spoken in her place after a prolonged absence. It is good to hear her, as ever, making an informed and well-thought-out contribution. I agree
508
with everything that the noble Baroness has said in regard to the need for our society to help disabled people to get work. I also agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said. I am sure that all your Lordships realise that it is still more difficult than it should be for a number of disabled people to get work, and that work is what they want. That is absolutely right.
The question is whether this Bill and this context are the right place to attempt that. The noble Lords who have moved the amendment have properly—as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Campbell—avoided the legal problem which we shall be coming to in later amendments on the subject of contract compliance. This part of the Bill exists to provide a framework within which local authorities can and must put certain of their services out to tender in order to ensure that an authority gets the most cost-effective and efficient delivery of services for the people of the area.
If we put ourselves in the shoes of the local authorities who are putting services out to tender and considering the tenders which they have received, we shall understand that they must see which tender will produce the most efficient and cost-effective service. They do not have to take the lowest tender and they can take a number of matters into account, all of which should be directly related to the commercial aspects of the operation. However, if other considerations are added to the Bill, local authorities will have to engage in long discussions with each tenderer about what the tenderer does about this, that or the other thing.
For reasons which have been deployed, local authorities will have to take account of race relations legislation. That is in the Bill; whether or not it should stay in the Bill is for your Lordships to consider. Under the terms of the amendment, contractors must be asked what they do about disabled people. If one contractor employs fewer disabled people than an authority considers that it should, and another employs as many as that authority believes it should or complies in some other way with the recommendations included in the amendment, then that authority may well decide to give the contract to the wrong tenderer from the point of view of the people who are paying for the service. That is not what the Bill is about.
To my mind, contract compliance is an outdated idea. It is a side way to arrive at a conclusion. It is the wrong way. The Bill is the wrong place to attempt to do that. It would be a grave mistake and it would not be helpful to disabled people to accept the amendment. It would be counter-productive to the proper operation of tendering by local authorities. That has nothing whatever to do with one's desire to help disabled people into employment. Local authorities should be able to do that in other ways.
Lord Carter: My Lords, do I understand the noble Baroness to imply that the firms employing a higher proportion of disabled people are somehow less efficient than those who employ a lower proportion? Perhaps I may repeat what the Prime Minister said:
"People who employ disabled people know from experience that it makes good business sense to employ people who are loyal and hardworking and have skills and abilities to offer.".
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was not implying that at all. Disabled people often make the best employees. They often make more money for their employers than able-bodied people. I was questioning the place in the Bill of a discussion of the policy of a company on employing disabled people. The Bill concerns tendering and the mechanical process of tendering. I was commenting on the out-of-date nature of contract compliance and the fact that the amendment would frustrate the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment, although I refrained from putting my name to a similar amendment at Committee stage. I refrained largely for the reasons which have been deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I feel that the 1944 Act, however splendid it was in its day, is now defunct and ought to be repealed. I do not think that it is sensible to regard a 3 per cent. quota as a target. By and large, it is an unattainable target. That is true at least partly for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has already stated; it literally cannot be fulfilled. The reason is that the number of registered—I place emphasis on that word—disabled people is not sufficient.
People do not register for complex reasons. However, I fully respect the decision of those who do not wish to register. For instance, they may believe that if they reveal on an application form that they have a disability, they will thereby reduce their chances of being employed. For that reason, I believe that the 3 per cent. quota is out of date. I disagree with my colleagues who are concerned with disability in one way or another on that point. I believe that they should stop campaigning for the retention of the quota and start anew.
A new break was made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he was in charge of the Manpower Services Commission. The excellent code of practice was introduced under his aegis. I strongly support it. I strongly support the amendment, which is designed solely to make a partnership between the national government, who promote the code of conduct, and the local authorities. It seems to me to be an ideal partnership of national and local government, and at a time when Whitehall and local authorities are all too divided I think that that would be a very seemly gesture. It is the proper place for local authorities to intervene to activate and support government policy. Therefore, to that extent, I must disagree with the remarks that have just been made by the noble Baroness.
After all, Clause 17 is not about employment conditions, but local and other public authority contracts. It is perfectly possible with this clause—as with any clause—to make savings, not by doing what this clause is doing, but by making a saving in respect of questions relevant to the code of practice on employment of disabled people.
For that reason, I am very happy to support this amendment. I am very glad that, apart from the speech of the noble Baroness, it has had support from all round the House. I believe that discrimination should be avoided if at all possible, especially against those who are disabled. For some time I have been
510
campaigning to have a Select Committee of this House consider how such discrimination could be diminished if not eliminated. I believe that co-operation between the local authorities and the national authority—the Manpower Services Commission in this instance—could do nothing but good. I hope very much we can have a positive answer from the Minister today.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps I may make just a brief observation. I think that we all agree with the underlying philosophy of the proposed amendment and what it seeks to achieve; namely to make it more likely that employers or contractors employ a greater percentage of disabled people. That has to apply whether it is in connection with local government contracts or anything else. It just happens that we are discussing the matter in the context of this Bill.
I have some reservations. There is much in what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said when she asked: what is the Bill seeking to do and what will happen in practice? Let us imagine that the local authority receives a number of tenders on the given date. With this amendment the Bill will require the authority to take cognisance of the employment of disabled people; but to do so, it has to start by making inquiries as to the extent to which that is already done. In practice this is bound to lead to the very thing that the Bill seeks if possible to avoid—to have local authorities concerned to obtain the best contracts they can for the citizens whom they represent and all that flows from that.
This matter of ensuring that disabled people are employed is an emotive one. People are in favour of it. I am absolutely in favour of employers taking the highest possible percentage of disabled people. Indeed, if one looks at the matter in the context of this Bill, I think that it can only lead to authorities becoming involved in discussions and adjudications. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. I am sure that he meant it. At the end of the day the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that contracting employers are conforming. That is what he is anxious to bring out, and I sympathise with that aim. However, I have reservations as to what will happen in practice when authorities start to make inquiries, as they will be obliged to do. It has to be said that there will be some who will not adopt the attitude that has been expressed today, and with which I concur. That is my concern.
Lord Carter: My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to support the amendment if he were satisfied that it did not require the local authorities to ask those questions but merely gave them the power to do so if they wished to exercise it? It would be up to the local authorities to ask whether contractors had due regard to this matter. They would not be required to do so. Would he be prepared to support the amendment on that basis?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if that is clearly the intention I should feel differently about that aspect of it. I should like to hear what the Minister says and whether he too feels there is the possibility of the problems that I have mentioned.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, my comments will be quite brief. One has to consider, in privatising the services of the local authority by putting them out to contract—call it what you will—that taking them away from local government control can prove detrimental to the employees who are already working for local authorities in departments where an outside contractor might take over their work.
The disabled may receive preferential treatment—if one can call it that—in that they are looked at much more kindly by local authorities, government departments and hospital services. I am involved with the blind and one instance that springs to my mind is British Telecom. All the people it could possibly help were given opportunities to train on new equipment. It has been that kind of body—public or semi-public—which accepts its responsibilities, as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington reminds me.
Can the Minister give an assurance that contractors will take on such responsibilities? That is all that we want him to say. It can then be put into the Bill. We should know that the contractors coming forward will be just as responsible as the local authority was when it was doing the job.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support this amendment. Visually handicapped people seeking work have to compete on unequal terms in the labour market. In the last decade there has been a dramatic fall in the number of visually handicapped people obtaining jobs in the blue-collar sector, and sheltered employment has not taken up the slack. It was concern about that which led the RNIB—the Royal National Institute for the Blind—to commission a survey which showed that visually handicapped people who are unemployed are out of work for a long time despite the fact that most visually handicapped people seeking work have a very creditable employment background. They are not people who have nothing to offer.
As the Bill stands, local authorities cannot take account of a company's attitude to the employment of disabled people. The RNIB is concerned that the positive steps which local authorities have been able to make in encouraging companies to promote equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities should be allowed to continue. Companies should be encouraged to follow the guidelines of the Manpower Services Commission in the code of practice on the employment of disabled people.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the new clause proposed under this amendment is different in form from that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, at Committee stage, but I have to say that our objections to the principle behind both amendments remain the same.
At Committee stage, the proposed new clause attempted to involve local authorities in ensuring that contractors fulfilled their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, a role which rightfully belongs to the employment service of the Department of Employment. The new clause now
512
before us is rather different in that it attempts to involve local authorities in ensuring that contractors have regard to an advisory code of good practice.
If all that a local authority wants to do is bring the code of good practice on the employment of disabled people to the attention of firms with which it is considering doing business, there is nothing to stop the authority sending a copy of the code to a contractor with its invitation to apply for inclusion in an approved list or with its invitation to tender for a contract. However, that is not all that this new clause seeks to do. It seeks to allow local authorities to ask questions, and take account of the answers, about the non-commercial matters in Clause 17(5)(a) if they think it reasonably necessary to ensure that contractors have regard to the non-statutory code.
I do not wish to repeat the arugments I deployed at Committee stage against local authorities taking on the role, not awarded to them under present statute, of ensuring observance of the law—in this case the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. However, our objections to local authorities assuming the role of ensuring that a non-statutory code of good practice is observed are equally strong, if not more so.
Surely we all agree with the underlying philosophy behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord. Lord Basnett. I am sure that we all support the value of the code and, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said, wish to encourage companies to employ handicapped and disabled people. However, it would be wrong for me not to point out the possible consequences of accepting this amendment. On the one hand, there is the consequence, so well stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth)—whom we are delighted to see back in the Chamber—that the authority could refer the tenderers to the relevant agencies. However, my noble friend Lord Bellwin was absolutely right to say that there was another consequence of this amendment: that an authority could decide to refuse to do business with a particular company on the grounds that the company did not, in the authority's view, have proper regard to this particular voluntary code of good practice.
With reference to the second limb of the new clause, which would allow local authorities to refer prospective contractors to relevant agencies, perhaps I may just say that such a provision would be entirely superfluous. There is nothing in the Bill to stop authorities referring contractors to the Employment Service of the Department of Employment or the Manpower Services Commission—the relevant agencies with statutory responsibility for disabled people's employment—if they consider contractors need advice or guidance on such employment.
What is clear from our discussions today is that many noble Lords are not satisfied with the way that the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 operates in practice. But, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said, this is not the Bill in which to make any amendments that noble Lords would like. Whether to allow local authorities to impose on contractors their views on how an advisory code of practice should be observed is the substance of this amendment, and we believe that they should not have that power.
Lord Carter: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that he did not believe that local authorities should be required to enforce a code of practice? If that is the case, do the Government intend to remove the responsibility on the local authorities to enforce the code for straw burning?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no. I believe that the noble Lord misunderstood me. I hope that I have made myself clear. Of course there is responsibility on a local authority for its own employees. I am saying that it should not have that enforcement duty on contractors and tenderers.
Lord Carter: My Lords, they do not employ the people who burn the straw.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise not to question the Minister further—and I wish to adhere to the new procedures which we are looking at for Report stage—but because there are matters which have been inadequately dealt with in the Minister's reply. We have been led astray to some extent by the well-informed, historical analysis of the nature of legislation as it relates to disabled people. It does not matter very much whether the 1944 Act is the right way to set about tackling this problem as opposed to codes of practice brought forward by the Manpower Services Commission. The important fact is that which was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) —that the unemployment rates among disabled people are twice that among able-bodied people. That is the fundamental fact we have to face.
We therefore have to consider whether there is any opportunity in this legislation for us to make matters better—or at any rate not to make matters worse. My noble friend Lady Fisher put her finger on the matter when she said that there are already a significant number of disabled people working for local authorities in services which, if this Bill is passed, will have to be privatised. It will be generally agreed that local authorities have a reasonably responsible attitude towards the employment of disabled people. But they are more likely to pay regard to the 1944 Act, to the various codes of practice, and to the advice of the disablement advisory service than many of the companies who are likely to be tendering for local authority services. Therefore if we leave this clause as it stands the prospect is not of any improvement in the situation of the disabled with regard to employment but of matters getting worse.
In view of that, concessions from the Government to allow this to be part of the questioning and consideration given by local authorities to those who are tendering to do their services is not an immodest or unreasonable demand. It has been put forward with notable rationality and moderation by the noble Lords who sponsored this amendment. I am sorry that it has received such a dusty answer from the Minister. I suggest to them that they would be well advised to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one point following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with whose speech I very much agreed. I have no doubt that there are many good private sector employers who do the best
514
they can to provide employment for seriously disabled and other disabled people. However, the noble Lord is right in this sense. I believe that in this area many local authorities have had an outstanding record of positively working to ensure that they employ the maximum number of disabled people. If this Bill is not amended, there is a substantial risk that the position of many disabled people will substantially deteriorate. The Minister has so far in no way met that argument.
It is all very well to say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, how much one is in favour of helping the disabled. I am sure that that is the objective of all of us. The central question, however, is not whether we wish to do something to help the disabled, but what practical steps we shall take when there is a realistic possibility of doing something, rather than just talking about it. That is why I believe this amendment is right. My noble friends and I will vote for it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords. I hope that the noble Lord has read what I said on disabled people on other occasions with regard to the Bill. If there are extra costs in employing local authorities in a direct labour organisation these can be discounted when it comes to the tendering situation.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, I make a simple, brief point. If your Lordships support this amendment you are doing something for the disabled. If you fail to support this amendment you are doing them an injury—and none of us should have any doubt about that.
I appreciate the statements of support made by noble Lords. All contributions have been supportive except two: those from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite. The noble Baroness accepts the need to do something for the disabled but wants to close an avenue whereby local authorities at the moment give that assistance. That shows little appreciation, in my view, of the continuation of the need for this assistance. In attempting to close one avenue there is no suggestion of what other avenues can be opened. Let me emphasise this. That avenue is open at the moment and we are closing it if we do not accept the amendment.
I say to the noble Earl that there is no contract compliance in the amendment, no extra statutory enforcement rights, no compulsion for local authorities and no interference with the efficiency of the companies concerned. I remind the House of the remark made by the Prime Minister and quoted by my noble friend Lord Carter concerning the efficiency of some of the disabled who work in firms already. One cannot dismiss that. I must test the feeling of the House.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 128; Not-Contents, 119.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Amherst, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ardwick, L.

515

Attlee, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Banks, L.

Lawrence, L.

Basnett, L.

Leatherland, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blyth, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milford, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Milverton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Molloy, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Nicol, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oram, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Parry, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Perry of Walton, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

[Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Porritt, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Reilly, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Foot, L.

Rugby, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shannon, E.

[Teller.]

Shaughnessy, L.

Greenway, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Grimond, L.

Somers, L.

Hampton, L.

Soper, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hayter, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tordoff, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kearton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennet, L.

Willis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Aldington, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Allerton, L.

Caithness, E.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Chelwood, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cowley, E.

Bellwin, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Beloff, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belstead, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

De Freyne, L.

Blatch, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dundee, E.

516

Eccles, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Effingham, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elibank, L.

Morris, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Munster, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nairne, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nelson, E.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gridley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Pym, L.

Haddington, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Renton, L.

Marylebone, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodney, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Romney, E.

Harvington, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Havers, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hesketh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Holderness, L.

Sandys, L.

Hood, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strange, B.

Joseph, L.

Sudeley, L.

Killearn, L.

Swansea, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinton, E.

Kimberley, E.

Terrington, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Teviot, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tranmire, L.

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Margadale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Marley, L.

Wolfson, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Mersey, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Baroness Platt of Writtle moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 14, line 17, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of sections 18 and (Sex Equality Matters),").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 38. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 48. They are paving amendments. I shall further speak to Amendment No. 57, which is the main amendment of principle, and to paving Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I am supported by my noble friend Lady Lockwood, my predecessor and founding chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am also grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Faithfull at Committee stage.
That all-party support for an exactly parallel clause on sex to match that of the Government on race must show that this is a sensible, middle-of-the-road addition to the Bill. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister commended the wording of this amendment at Committee stage. It is designed to ensure confirmation of the consideration of sex and race on equal terms by the Government, local government and employers, as has been the case, until now, since the two Acts were brought into force in the mid-1970s.
As I said at Second Reading, it is backed wholeheartedly by the Women's National Commission, whose terms of reference are to ensure by all possible means that the informed opinion of women is given its due weight in the deliberations of government. It is a sound, responsible body housed in the Cabinet Office and includes all the well-established women's organisations: the Women's Institute, the Townswomen's Guild, business and professional women's clubs and all the women's party-political organisations. There are 50 of them in total, representing 3½ million women. It has made its views known both to the interministerial committee set up as a result of the United Nations Decade for Women to consider matters such as this and to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment.
The consistent answer given to everyone, including your Lordships' House, is that in the Sex Discrimination Act there is no parallel clause to Section 71 of the Race Relations Act giving local governments statutory responsibilities in the elimination of racial discrimination but not sexual discrimination. Race can be a matter for consideation in contract compliance, but not sex.
The Equal Opportunities Commission and the women's organisations concerned consider that to be a technical viewpoint and that the wider public message should also be taken into account. If this amendment is not passed the message to the public at large will be that sexual discrimination is not as important as that of race.
I am not here to argue for or against contract compliance. The Government have made their stance clear both in respect of race discrimination in this Bill and religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. They are in favour of contract compliance carried out reasonably and imposing the minimum burden on industry in terms of questions to employers and their response. The Equal Opportunities Commission supports that approach. It was most concerned that different local authorities among the several hundred in this country, may ask a variety of questions. In that case potential contractors may have to answer different questions, fill in different forms throughout the country, and may find themselves weighed down by paperwork. The commission feels, as do the Government, that it is much better to have one short list of questions, set centrally but applying nationwide. The commission's view is that that should apply equally to sex as to race, and therefore my amendment is similar to the clause drafted by the Government in respect of race.
At the Committee stage the Minister said that the Government would consult the Commission for Racial Equality about those questions. It is hoped that if this amendment is passed the Government will also consult the EOC. Apart from that matter, the commission believes that it is in women's interests that contract compliance on their behalf should be as simple as possible but equal to race. Remembering the previous debate, I must emphasise the fact that there is no requirement to ask these questions. The amendment would provide only for allowing local authorities to ask the questions laid down by the Secretary of State if they wish.
Much emphasis has been placed by Ministers on the EOC putting forward amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act in our consultative document Legislating for Change. It includes that of a parallel clause to Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. It is no secret that it will put that suggestion forward strongly in its final submission to the Home Secretary in March.
The earliest legislation which could result from that would be carried in the next parliamentary Session, and may be further away than that. Even then, the only assurance given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his letter is that:
"The Commission may well decide to press the Home Secretary for a Section 71 type duty on public authorities. If that proves to be the case, and if the Government is persuaded of the need to make such changes the position with regard to the contractual process would of course need to be reflected in the amending legislation".
We are grateful that he said:
"I and my colleagues will take every opportunity during the Bill's passage to emphasise that its provisions in no way weaken the duty of contractors to observe the law on sex discrimination and that any changes to the Sex Discrimination Act formally proposed by the Commission would be given full consideration by the Government.".
That is cold comfort. There is no undertaking of a new local government Bill even if the amendments were put into force in the Sex Discrimination Act. There is not even an assurance of jam tomorrow. There is a little butter of conciliation on our bread, if we are lucky, but nothing more. That is not good enough when we are referring to 42 per cent. of the workforce and 51 per cent. of the population.
The CBI, in its equal opportunities document issued in support of the EOC's code of practice, firmly places sex and race on an equal footing. It states:
"The CBI believes that it is in accordance with the spirit of the legislation and in line with the two codes of practice for employers to have equal opportunities policies.".
We are grateful for the CBI's support for the ECO's code and for the continuing practice of employers to put their equal opportunities policies for sex and race on an equal footing. Despite the assurances of Ministers, however, we feel deeply that that equality of consideration will be undermined if the Local Government Act is passed in its present form. If it is a matter of obtaining a contract, employers are bound to give far more consideration to matters of race and sexual discrimination will become of secondary importance in their policies.
The Institute of Personnel Management has issued a document entitled Principles of Practice fir Contract Compliance based on a research project that it commissioned. It also wishes to see consistency between schemes and believes that the standard of performance with regard to equal opportunities on race and sex should then be set by the legislation and the two statutory codes of practice. As do we, the institute wishes to see sex and race regarded equally in the Local Government Bill. I plead with the Minister that, on behalf of the Government, he accepts this amendment, even at this late stage.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are two reasons I should like to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. The first relates to

519
social justice and the second to economic efficiency. Women have achieved a great deal in the past 20 years in terms of their position in the labour market. However, they still have a long way to go before they catch up with men. The best statistic which demonstrates that statement is that on average their earnings are only 75 per cent. those of men.
As everyone knows, we have a woman Prime Minister; but in many fields there are far too few women at the top. The reverse is the case. Women tend to be concentrated in lower status jobs with lower pay than men. Is that just or fair? Women want to play a full part in the nation's economic life but they do not want to end up in jobs which provide fewer rewards in terms of either pay or job satisfaction.
Turning for a moment to the efficiency argument, can the nation really afford to waste the talent and the ability of many women because they are not fulfilling their potential? Surely it cannot. Surely we must try to provide the means to prevent that happening in the future. The inclusion of sex in contracts compliance procedures is, of course, only one way of preventing it. It is not the only way because other things are needed, including better training and better child care provision; but it is an important way. To suggest that employers always know what is in their best interests is patently untrue. I am afraid to say that old attitudes die very hard. As a result, some employers are consciously —perhaps more often unconsciously—discriminating against women.
I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. The fact that the Government have conceded that contract compliance is a desirable method of improving employment opportunities for the black community and for the religious minority in Northern Ireland will make it all the more incomprehensible to women that the Government are at present unwilling to do so as far as employment opportunities for women are concerned.
In the debate on Second Reading of this Bill I referred to the fact that the Government are taking what I believe to be quite unnecessary powers actually to determine the questions that local authorities may ask contractors regarding race. Those questions have now been published and I am afraid that they confirm the worst fears of those with experience in this field. They will not provide the information that local authorities need adequately to enforce contract compliance. If this amendment on sex is accepted I very much hope that the Government will not jeopardise its effectiveness by producing similar, over-limited and ill-thought out questions rather than letting local authorities get on with it using the existing statutory code.
In my generation women have had to fight extremely hard to achieve parity with men in many fields of employment. Some have been successful, but many others have found the struggle just too hard. There is a prospect of doing something about this through the amendment. I hope that it will be accepted so that women of my daughter's generation have a little more help than those of my generation.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, quizzes are rather fashionable at the moment, so I will begin with one.
520
What have Cleopatra, Boadicea, Joan of Arc, Florence Nightingale, Margaret Thatcher and the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, in common? They are all women who have made their way in the world without the help of the Equal Opportunities Commission or contract compliance.
I feel that there is a great deal to be said in many fields of life for expanding the opportunities for women to be employed. However, for two reasons I differ from the philosophy behind this amendment. The most important of these is that I believe it is quite wrong to link this either to the question of discrimination on racial grounds in this country or to the totally different situation of the two, alas, conflicting religions in Northern Ireland.
It is a fact—a damnable fact, but it is a genuine fact—that race prejudice in this country is widespread in all classes of society and makes itself felt, among other ways, in a denial of equal opportunities to members of minority groups. It was therefore reasonable, in my view, to give a greater area of enforcement to bringing about a remedy to this problem than in the case of women. I submit that in their case there is, in spite of what the noble Baroness said, no evidence of the kind of discrimination which is based solely upon prejudice against people who in every other respect would obviously be equally qualified.
There is, of course, some hesitation in certain areas of employment as regards the employment of a woman compared with a competing male candidate, but that arises not from prejudice but from some natural disabilities under which women labour. I have never seen a pregnant black man. I do not think it would be desirable that women should heave dustbins. I think it is a blot on Soviet society, which I understand Mr. Gorbachev is trying to correct, that women do so much physically hard labour. In other words, when we come to the employment of women, we are dealing with reasons—some may be exaggerated, some perhaps blown up out of Proportion—which are quite different from the reasons which lead us to try to protect the members of ethnic minorities.
The second reason is that, if reliance is placed upon anti-discrimination legislation of this kind—and here I differ profoundly from the 3 million women who apparently support the noble Baroness Lady Plan of Writtle; that monstrous regiment of women, as a Scottish clergyman once described them—we may take our eyes off what is, or should be, the main objective of those who are concerned with greater opportunities for women's employment. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, would agree that over the years I have shown my concern in this respect. The main objective is to ensure that women are given the same opportunities through training at the various levels of industry and other occupations which will make them telling competitors. They will get to the top, as did the famous people to whom I referred, without the inclusion of this particular form of contract compliance. It is misleading and to some extent insulting to women and the ethnic minorities to put them on a par in this way.
Lord Parry: My Lords, some of us are at a disadvantage. We do not speak Neanderthal. Is it possible to have a translation service?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that that was a particularly pleasant remark.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am sorry, could the noble Baroness repeat that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that the remark made by the noble Lord was anything other than insulting to a Member of this House.
Lord Parry: My Lords, may I have the Floor? I was so amazed at the speech made in the context of this debate that I failed to understand it. My remark was not intended to be offensive but to be mildly humorous after the rather insulting nature of the speech to which the House had to listen.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I usually agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff but in this case I must disagree with him. I should like to give one example to illustrate why I do so. I am no Cleopatra and certainly not a Boadicea, and I am nothing like as intelligent as the Prime Minister, but some years ago I applied for a job and was very thrilled because the employers sent for me first. I thought I had the job.
It was a very senior job and the committee said, "You are the best candidate but we do not want a woman. Therefore we are not going to offer you the job but are offering it to the man who applied." The committee did so but he was so inefficient that two years later he was sacked. In that case, had the Sex Discrimination Act been in operation, the employer could not have done that. Therefore, I have to say to my noble friend Lord Beloff that there are times when women do achieve something but because of discrimination they are not given the job.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the account of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, of how women have made progress is most compelling. He named six women who had done very well. He had to go back 2,000 years to get his six! As far as I am aware most of them were born with a silver spoon in their mouth or married a man able to put a silver, or even a golden, spoon into their mouth. Both attributes are a very great help. Many of us have neither been born in such circumstances nor have we been able to acquire them.
The noble Lord says that there is no discrimination against women as there was in the past. Perhaps I may remind him that in 1971, before the Sex Discrimination Act came into force, the percentage of women in the Institute of Chartered Accountants was 1.6; in the Law Society the figure was 4 per cent; there were practically no women engineers at all, with a figure of 0.6 in the case of the civil engineers. There is no doubt that all of us, those who have worked and friends of ours who have worked and applied for jobs, could repeat the kind of story that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has reported from personal experience.
There is no doubt that there has been discrimination—often unconscious, I absolutely
522
agree, but all the more difficult for that. I prefer to meet the discrimination of a man who says, "I do not want you because you are as woman", than the man who says, "We are very in favour of women". As one chairman of a committee said to a female member—the statutory member of course—"Yes, Madam, we like women. Your misunderstand us. We are in favour of women, we like them, we have them at home". That has been the attitude that we have been up against. It is far more damaging than open discrimination, which I agree is less than it used to be. Because discrimination is so deeply entrenched that most people are not even aware that it is going on, we need the support of the law.
It was a mistake that such a clause was not included in the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975. If we had had the wisdom of hindsight, we should have put it in. It is proposed that we now put it in. Can the Government be so limited in their approach as to say, "No, we will not give it to you now, even though we give it on grounds of race. Wait until we find parliamentary time to make an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act and then of course you can have it"?
Let us not waste any more time. We all know what the real situation is. Let us vote for the clause quickly.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should very much dislike to find myself involved in a row between by noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lord Beloff. That would be an exceedingly uncomfortable position to occupy, particularly for one who is as faint-hearted and full of fear as I am.
I approach the amendment, and indeed the Bill, I have to confess, as I approach most Bills, with a lack of enthusiasm for modern legislation. That said, I have to add that that lack of enthusiasm applies particularly to that body of the law which aims to make people behave reasonably when it comes to questions of discrimination on grounds of either sex or race. However, we do have legislation which sets out to forbid such discrimination.
Now the Government are placing before us a Bill that says among other things that when contracts are put out for tender the local authorities must confine themselves to the question of getting the work done well and on reasonable terms and must not go outside matters that do not arise directly out of the contracts. Then, as I understand it, a degree of discrimination will be allowed. We are told that local authorities will be free to discriminate on questions of race. I find it very difficult to keep company with my noble friend when he asks us to agree that it is all right for local authorities to challenge a company as to whether it behaves itself properly on questions of racial discrimination but that it cannot raise the same, similar or parallel question where sex discrimination is concerned.
Therefore, while I have the greatest possible regard for the wisdom and judgment of my noble friend, I shall find it very difficult to support him in the lobbies if he is not swayed by the arguments so eloquently put by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the debate is turning into a discussion about whether there is discrimination against women. Indeed, there was a debate earlier today about whether there is discrimination

523
against the disabled. Woven into the debate is the subject of discrimination on grounds of race. I have to say yes to all three charges. There is discrimination. What I am not convinced about, nor shall I be, is that the Bill should be used as a vehicle for putting right all those ills. That is not its purpose.
My noble friend will know that I have enormous disquiet over the amendment to Clause 18 put into the Bill in another place concerning discrimination in favour of people of racial minorities. I do not believe that it will necessarily work in the interests of those people. The more we legislate in this way the more we thwart what noble Lords hope to achieve.
If this exemption is made, we are moving right away from local authorities having a primary function, first, to determine the services that they wish to provide, then to put them to the market and then to see that the jobs are done properly. As a member of a local authority and of that great 3 million people alleged to be in favour of the amendment, I know that this will become an industry. It will put a layer of bureaucracy onto the private sector the like of which your Lordships have not seen.
The rationale for the Bill in the first place was to rid local authorities of the nonsenses that there have been when determining who shall do work. We have all seen the worst examples of this. Here we are bit by bit putting back into the Bill scope for getting up to further nonsenses. I do not believe that any of this will be in the interests of our coloured brethren, of the disabled or of women.
I firmly believe that the people to determine whether a company or individual is in breach of law are the courts, not local authorities. Local authorities should not act as judge and jury over commercial companies. I believe strongly that the disabled should have a Bill enshrining within it protection to outlaw discrimination against people on grounds of disability. Judgment on whether someone is discriminating should not be left with local authorities.
I make this plea to those who are wavering. If their concern is about women, not only in the work place but in the work that they do in order to take their proper and rightful place in the hierarchy of a company, this bid to enshrine the principle in the Bill will not achieve that objective. I ask noble Lords not to accept the amendment. There was an earlier reference to being weighed down by paperwork. I can confirm that people certainly will be weighed down by paperwork.
Imagine the first questionnaire that will go out—and I have the questions that are out for consultation in front of me. Question No. 4:
"is your policy on race relations set out?".
Examples are given of how it should be set out. Companies are then required to write in to say, "Yes, our policy is set out". The local authority can then require justification and proper substantiation of that information by written submissions.
I should prefer to ask a company whether it is abiding by the law, full stop. If it says that it is, whether it is in breach of the law should be a matter for the courts to determine subsequently. The
524
industry that this will spawn will not be in the interests of the people we serve or the three groups that we are talking about. It will certainly not achieve what noble Lords hope to achieve by the amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I support this amendment. In doing so I find the Government's position very difficult to understand. I understand the position of some Members of the House such as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who is completely opposed to the principle of contract compliance. I understand, with some difficulty, the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I believe his speech was an indication of the fact that discrimination against women is not completely understood. It is the deep, ingrained attitudes about women which bring about the discrimination; it is not deliberate discrimination. The noble Lord described pregnancy as a natural disability. Pregnancy is part of normal life for the majority of women, but so is earning a living and having a career. We have to facilitate both within our policy.
Therefore it is clear that some noble Lords do not yet understand the nature of discrimination against women. I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who said in Committee that women have made tremendous progress. Quite considerable progress has been made in recent years, but I believe we must recognise that it has been made because of the legislation operating at the present time. It is the Sex Discrimination Act which has helped women to make that progress. However, progress is far too slow and much more needs to be done. That is why this amendment is so important.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I find the attitude of the Government to this amendment completely inconsistent. They have stated time and time again that they support the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Opportunities Commission and are anxious to bring about equality of opportunity for women. But they are not prepared to accept this amendment. In failing to accept it, they use Section 71 of the Race Relations Act as their shield. I said in Committee, and I say again, that Section 71 is insignificant compared with the similarities between the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. Both Acts give the same responsibility to the commissions to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity.
This is an amendment to enable the two commissions to do their work more effectively. As has already been indicated, employers who follow an equal opportunities policy prefer to deal with race relations and sex discrimination together. One of the difficulties is that if the clause goes through unamended, those authorities which are already pursuing an equal opportunities policy on the basis of contract compliance will be able to do so in future in relation to race discrimination but not in relation to sex discrimination. If the Government's stance on promoting equality of opportunity between the sexes is sincere, it seems to be the natural corollary of their policy that they would enable this clause to be accepted.
It is the responsibility of employers to obey the law, to obey the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act, but both commissions have found that

525
from time to time employers need a nudge in the right direction. The nudge can be given by the question process and further assistance can be given in the form of advice to those organisations which seek it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, indicated, there is no compulsion on local authorities to follow such a policy.
I hope that the Government will think again and decide that they can proceed with the elimination of race and sex discrimination on an equal basis by incorporating this amendment into the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, following my noble friend who has just spoken, I should like to remind the House that we are talking about equal opportunities. I speak as one who has been involved in the fight for women practically all my life, and we still have the fight before us, I am afraid. I notice that we are all slipping back into the "Mr." "Mrs." syndrome and we must be careful that we do not find ourselves becoming the little woman behind the throne, which I thought went out with Madame Pompadour. This is about sex discrimination—equal opportunities. I went through the legislation originally because I was in government then and I can recall speaking to a group of nurses because there was discrimination against men becoming nurses and midwives. We are talking about equal opportunities for both sexes.
We know only too well that if these matters are not written into Acts of Parliament they are not obeyed. There are the health and safety Acts. Why do we have these Acts? We have them because they are necessary. Just as it is necessary to remind companies, employers and local authorities that there is race discrimination, so we must remind them that there is sex discrimination. If I had my way there would be an Act about age discrimination, because I receive many letters from people who want to know why they cannot apply for a job because they are over 50. There are many forms of discrimination. These measures must be written into Acts of Parliament, otherwise they will not be obeyed.
Lord Somers: My Lords, as a mere man perhaps I may say a few words in this debate. I am quite in favour of the amendment and I certainly feel that any discrimination between men and women should be entirely eliminated.
I should like to say something about the word "discrimination". It should mean any lack of preference in either direction, but unfortunately it has too often been interpreted as a preference for the less favoured party, whoever it may be. For instance, when the Race Relations Act was first introduced, one found that a whole number of foreign people were employed not because they were better at the job but simply because they were foreign. It seems to me that the only factor that should count in an appointment is whether people are good at their jobs and whether they are able to do them more efficiently. One should entirely ignore whether someone is male or female, English or foreign.
There are some things that women can do a great deal better than men. There are a few things that men
526
can do better than women, possibly because of their superior physical strength. Apart from that there should be no preference, one way or another. If we pass the amendment I should hate to see a whole lot of men immediately losing their jobs and women being appointed instead.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, three types of objections to these amendments have been put forward and I want to suggest to the House that they are all in their own ways either misconceived in matters of fact or misconceived in the interpretation of the amendments. I hope that when he replies, the Minister will not feel it necessary to rely on some of the points that have been made.
The first proposition was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He said that there was no need to intervene because there is really no problem about sex discrimination. I readily yield to the noble Lord, Lore Beloff, as a compiler of quizzes. I much admire the quiz that he helped to compile in The Times this morning. However, he was answered effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The fact of the matter is that there has been, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, discrimination against women throughout nearly all the time the noble Lord was talking about, and where there has been progress it has come largely because of the efforts made in legislation and in attempts to move public opinion against discrimination.
The fact that there is still so much further to go is indicated by what was said by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, who pointed out that the average earnings of women are still 75 per cent. of the average earnings of men. I did not know that the figure was as high as that. The Institute of Personnel Management which ought to know best in this matter has strongly supported contract compliance and the continuation and extension of anti-discrimination legislation.
The second argument was that put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who spoke of the bureaucratic nonsenses that would arise if the clause were to be implemented. I cannot think that she has read the clause. The clause says that the questions have to be approved by the Secretary of State and that the evidence which the local authorities are able to take into account has to be approved by the Secretary of State. If that is not an adequate power for the Secretary of State to ensure that there is no bureaucratic nonsense, I cannot think what is.
The third point was that there will be a burden on the companies in answering the questions put by local authorities. The answer to that is exactly the same answer as in the case of the race relations legislation. The burden on companies is only to comply with the law and nothing else. There is no additional burden and there is no requirement other than that of seeing that the existing law is complied with. The analogy with the Race Relations Act and the additional clauses which the Government have accepted on that subject is immensely powerful.
In the circumstances I much prefer the points put forward from the central bank of the Conservative Benches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Platt and Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to

527
those put forward by a smaller number from the extreme Left-wing. I hope that the Minister will feel the same and that the House will see fit to support these amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the main point has not been mentioned by the noble Lord. The question is whether in operating the tendering procedure local authorities should be asked to assist in enforcing a law in other companies through a tendering procedure, a law other than one which it is already a mandatory requirement for them to enforce. They have the mandatory duty to assist in enforcing race discrimination legislation. They do not have a mandatory duty to do this in relation to sex discrimination. This point was made clear at previous stages of the Bill. This is the nub of the matter.
We know that the noble Lords on both the Liberal and Labour Benches are extremely suspicious of the effect of this Bill on local authorities. They do not want to back up the whole notion of depoliticising the business of issuing tenders. They do not want a clear framework for the tendering procedure. We have seen that from the voting pattern to date. Whether this debate about the importance of continuing with the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission is linked to that desire, or whether it is completely separate, I do not know, but the effect of what we are talking about is that it would be linked.
I believe that the sex discrimination legislation has been absolutely crucial to the development of women. I do not regard even my own progress as unrelated to it because I have got there by being a mandatory woman and all sorts of things. I have been very fortunate in that regard. There is still a lot of work to do. I admire what my noble friend does and what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, did, as chairmen of the commission. We have been discussing that issue but the real point of the amendment is to amend a Bill about the tendering process. A discussion even on questions which have been agreed by the government of the day, a discussion with firms which are tendering about whether they are keeping the law of the land in this respect, is not only irrelevant but is likely to be very damaging to the purpose of the Bill.
I believe that the debate has been put in this context for reasons additional to enthusiasm for the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I approve of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and I feel that there is a long way to go, but this amendment has no place whatever in the Bill
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, the only reason that there is the difference between the two Bills is that the Sex Discrimination Bill was first and the Race Relations Bill was second. If the Race Relations Bill had been passed before the Sex Discrimination Bill, I have no doubt that there would have been a similar Clause 71 in the Sex Discrimination Bill. I hope that the Government will take that into account.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these amendments so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle, who unfortunately was not able to
528
take part in the Committee stage debate, are identical to those equally ably moved and withdrawn by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, at that earlier stage. I warned on that occasion that I feared that I would have to repeat my arguments against the amendments, and I am sure your Lordships will understand that inasmuch as the amendments have not changed, neither have my arguments.
Much has been made of the fact that the Bill does not deal with sex and racial discrimination on an equal basis. Indeed the debate we have had this afternoon has ranged much wider than the amendments or their effect. Although I was interested in what my noble friend Lady Faithfull said about trying to obtain a job at an earlier stage of her career, I can say to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that the amendments are not about appointments. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said that we must write things about sex discrimination into Acts of Parliament. Parliament has already done that in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act. The duty on employers not to discriminate is already clearly set out, along with the means of enforcement. Therefore the amendment has nothing do with that aspect. It is about allowing local authorities to assume a further role.
I must remind your Lordships that the Bill has been drafted deliberately to reflect the present position regarding local authority statutory duties. I say to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil that there is a basic difference in that respect between the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. Local authorities have no statutory duties, except as employers, under the Sex Discrimination Act; but they have limited powers under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. It is solely those powers that we have translated into the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said that that seemed to her almost irrelevant. A provision in a Bill cannot be irrelevant—
5 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I said "insignificant".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise. I shall take the word as "insignificant". However, a provision in a Bill is not insignificant; it is rather vital, which is why we have translated into this Bill that section of the Race Relations Act rather than anything in the Sex Discrimination Act, which does not relate to the issue. When the noble Baroness said that her amendment was an enabling amendment to allow the two commissions—that is, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission—to adopt the same practices, she was not quite right. I think that she will now realise that the amendment has nothing to do with the powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission and that it relates solely to the local authority's powers.
Let me repeat that in the event of the Equal Opportunities Commission deciding, as a result of consultations on its document Legislating for Change, to press my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for changes to the Sex Discrimination Act which, among other things, would impose a Section 71 type duty on public

529
authorities as part of a package of changes which the commission would wish to see made to the Sex Discrimination Act, the Government will give careful consideration to such a proposal. If that proves to be the case (my noble friend said that that is what would happen) and if the Government are persuaded of the need to make such changes, the position with regard to the contractual process would of course need to be reflected in the amending legislation.
I must also repeat and emphasise the point that the provisions of the Bill in no way weaken the duty of contractors to observe the law on sex discrimination or indeed on any other matter. I appreciate that my noble friend will be no more satisfied with my rejection of her arguments today than she has been with their rejection at earlier stages of the Bill's proceedings. But she is asking the House to set up local authorities as extra statutory enforcement agencies when the law already provides the remedies to deal with those who do not comply with the law.
My noble friend Lady Platt said that there was no requirement for local authorities to perform such duties. But some of them have already done so. That is the mischief. Local authorities have set themselves up as extra statutory enforcement agencies on a huge raft of activities, the common factor of which is that they all relate in some way to non-commercial matters, upon which they ask contractors to answer numerous questions so that they can decide whether to approve that contractor or tenderer.
The issue is not about race, which is covered by the Bill, but it is about local labour; training; the fair wages clause; whether there should be self-employed labour only sub-contractors; the South African and other policy conditions; and whether contractors have to be members of trade associations. Those are just some of the examples of the raft of noncommercial matters that local authorities insist should be taken into account before deciding whether to approve a contractor. The amendment is asking local authorities to set themselves up as further extra statutory enforcement agencies with regard to that point.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I have listened to the debate and am most grateful to your Lordships for the interest that you have taken in this matter and for the support that I have received. Many women have succeeded on their own, thank God, over the generations but many have not. As an Equal Opportunities Commission we have a statutory duty to consider applications for assistance and that we have done. We have taken cases to the courts and the courts have decided that people have acted unfairly.
I am sorry to say that often the people concerned are powerful employers with the power to hire and fire, dealing with young women who are in a vulnerable position, perhaps in their first jobs. Women need those jobs. They may not always have the job they would first choose, but they need the money. There are a million one-parent families in this country. In nine cases out of 10 the mother is the breadwinner. Three times as many families would be on supplementary benefit if the wife or mother were not working. I am pleased to say that some employers
530
are good, and have good equal opportunity policies which they carry out with determination; but others do not, and their attention should be drawn to our Act.
We should value the assistance of local authorities carried out in a reasonable manner and in terms of equal opportunities between men and women, not just for women alone. The proposal covers men and women generally. Requirements are laid down by the Government, and I am sure that they will preserve the principle of simplicity.
I am disappointed by my noble friend's reply, which I believe shows a narrow, legalistic view. Our two Acts were carried out in parallel, albeit one after the other, and our two codes of practice also went through both Houses in parallel with all-party support. I believe that in the Bill we should remain the same and that sex equality should be regarded on an equal footing with race. I must test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does she agree with me that, whereas the race relations legislation is part of the mandatory responsibility of the local authority, the sex discrimination legislation is not, and therefore, it would be difficult to discriminate between the two?
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I did not realise that I was out of order. I thought that I had the right to ask for clarification.
5.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 142.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ennals, L.

Amherst, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ardwick, L.

Ezra, L.

Attlee, E.

Faithfull, B

Auckland, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Banks, L.

Foot, L.

Barnett, L.

Gallacher, L.

Blackstone, B.

Galpern, L.

Blease, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Glenamara, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Grey, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grimond, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hampden, V.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hampton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Chitnis, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Dainton, L.

Hughes, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hunt, L.

David, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Jacques, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jay, L.

Diamond, L.

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

John-Mackie, L.

531

Kearton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Rea, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Seear, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lockwood, B. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Longford, E.

Shackleton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Somers, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stedman, B.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Milverton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mishcon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Underhill, L.

Mulley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Walston, L.

Nicol, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Northfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ogmore, L.

Willis, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Oram, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Parry, L.

Winstanley, L.

Phillips, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Young, B.

Platt of Writtle, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Gisborough, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allerton, L.

Greenway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Arran, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Haddington, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Bellwin, L.

Marylebone, L.

Beloff, L.

Halsbury, E.

Belstead, L.

Hanson, L.

Bessborough, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Birdwood, L.

Harrowby, E.

Blatch, B.

Harvington, L.

Blyth, L.

Havers, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hayter, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hertford, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hesketh, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Hives, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Holderness, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hood, V.

Caithness, E.

Hooper, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carnock, L.

Joseph, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kimball, L.

Cowley, E.

Kimberley, E.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Crathorne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Croft, L.

Long, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Davidson, V.[Teller.]

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

De Freyne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Deedes, L.

Margadale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Derwent, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Dormer, L.

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Eccles, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elibank, L.

Morris, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Munster, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nelson, E.

Gainford, L.

Northesk, E.

Gibson, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

532

Orkney, E.

Swinton, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Terrington, L.

Pender, L.

Teviot, L.

Porritt, L.

Teynham, L.

Pym, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thurlow, L.

Renton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Renwick, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rodney, L.

Ullswater, V.

Romney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rugby, L.

Vinson, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Sandford, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sandys, L.

Windlesham, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Wise, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Stockton, E.

Wrenbury, L.

Strange, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wynford, L.

Swansea, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 15, line 9, at end insert—
("(4A) (a) This subsection applies where a local authority intends to award a public supply or works contract to the person submitting the most economically advantageous tender.
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude the local authority from including in the criteria for the award of the contract a requirement that a reasonable proportion of the workforce shall be unemployed and residing in the area served by the authority or such other area as the authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, may prescribe from time to time; provided that any such requirement shall be subject to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 39 was in one sense aired in Committee, but we think it is necessary to raise the matter again. The amendment is concerned with local labour, the ability of a local authority to include in the criteria for the selection of a winning contract the requirement that:
"a reasonable proportion of the workforce shall be unemployed and residing in the area served by the authority or such other area as the authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, may prescribe from time to time; provided that any such requirement shall be subject to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome."
I am well aware that this has become a legal rather than a political or social question, which I find extremely unfortunate. I want to go on to show that it is nevertheless important that the amendment should be debated and should be received sympathetically by the Government. The principal reason for saying that this is an important matter does not rely on any arguments from left-wing Labour local authorities. It does not even rely on arguments from the local authority associations, some of which are controlled by the Labour party, some of which are under no overall control and one of which is under Conservative control. However, the local authority associations associate themselves with this amendment, including those which are not under Labour control.
No, my Lords, the reason for putting forward this amendment is that the Government have committed themselves on more than one occasion recently to the principle of the use of local labour, particularly in the regeneration of inner cities. I should like to quote from two documents which have come from the Government in the course of the last month. The first

533
was the subject of a statement in this House from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, on the White Paper, DTI— the department for Enterprise, issued in January 1988. Under the heading of "Inner Cities" we see the areas on which attention should be focused in seeking to regenerate inner cities. One of the six areas quoted is:
"the employment of local labour to provide more jobs for people in their own communities by tackling barriers to local recruitment and by encouraging local enterprise".
The matter of barriers to local recruitment is a matter for government and for the companies concerned but I suggest that the encouragement of local enterprise must be also a matter for the local authorities. Indeed in all the discussion of the White Paper that has been taken for granted.
The second document is slightly older. It dates from 16th December 1987 and is the Government's observations on the first report of the Employment Committee in another place in the 1986 to 1987 Session. In the course of that response the Government state, again under the heading
"The Inner Cities (use of local labour)":
"Increasing the use of local labour in publicly financed construction projects in the inner cities is of course an important theme of the Government inner city policies."
Again, the intention of that, as I perfectly recognise, is confined to construction projects because that is the context in which the observation is made. But surely it cannot be argued that it is proper for it to be an object of government policy to increase the use of labour in construction projects and not to try to increase the use of local labour in local authority services, particularly blue collar services which take up the bulk of the employment of local authorities.
So it is the Government themselvs and not us who are saying as a matter of policy that the use of local labour is a desirable objective and a relevant consideration, particularly in the case of inner city policy. So what is the objection? The objection, as we were told by the noble Earl in Committee, is that it is not possible under EC legislation. We are told that the European Commission is challenging; not that it has challenged or that it has succeeded in a challenge but that it is challenging particular local authorities who have put local labour conditions into contract offers which have been placed with the European Gazette.
I suggest that that is lying down and waving one's paws in the air before one is even properly attacked. That is giving up before the pressure is even fully there. Surely the self-respect of this Government and the self-respect of this country, without in any way being anti-European—I am certainly not—must mean that while it is not shown that what we are doing is illegal and while it is so clearly in accord with government policies, we should fight the matter through the courts and through the European institutions. It is not as though the matter had already been decided. There are still drafts before the Council of Ministers regarding the final content of any such legislation.
The fact that the European Commission is jumping the gun is no reason for the Government to give way on a principle which they themselves claim to be
534
important. I suggest that there is nothing significantly at variance with government policy in the extension of local labour clauses to this Bill and that this amendment deserves the support of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the Government's attitude as lying on their back with their paws in the air because the Government drew the attention of your Lordships to the distinct possibility that action of this kind would be contrary to the Treaty of Rome. I do not claim to be an expert on the Treaty of Rome and I do not have the faintest idea whether or not this particular proposal would be contrary to that treaty, but I should have thought that it was not very good legislative practice to legislate to give to local authorities powers which there was some reason to believe might be illegal under the Treaty of Rome.
It is one thing to give way in advance on the actual conduct of the matter but it is quite another—I should have thought it was very poor practice—actually to legislate in a way which may well be conferring powers which then cannot legally be exercised by the bodies on whom they are conferred. That seems to me to be an unhappy way—I put it no higher than that—to legislate.
There is also the substance of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, quoted quite properly statements of government policy, particularly in respect of the inner cities, on the giving of employment as a result of government projects. All your Lordships are in favour of that, but of course there is a distinction (and one which this Bill brings out very clearly) between government policy and what the Government seek to do with their full political authority and what local authorities are to be permitted to do in respect of the giving of contracts.
Whatever else may be the case, it is plain that if local authorities are to act as this amendment suggests, that is a real departure from what I understand to be the principle of this part of the Bill—that their concern is with a good commercial proposition on behalf of their ratepayers. It would enable local authorities who so wished to refuse to conclude thoroughly satisfactory, economical, efficient contracts with contractors on the grounds that they were not employing the local unemployed. Indeed, it would enable them, if they wished to make difficulties, to reject almost any responsible offer of a contract and to fall back on saying that they cannot get a contract and that therefore they will have to do it by direct labour. That indeed might be the object of some local authorities because there are many jobs for which it would be quite impossible for the contractor to find workers who were both unemployed and residing in the area.
There are many skills which are not very widely held and which, being in great demand, mean that the holders of those skills are very rarely unemployed at all, particularly in certain areas. Therefore to some extent to put this provision into the Bill would have a frustrating effect on one of the main purposes of this part of the Bill, which is that local authorities should act commercially on behalf of their

535
ratepayers. To put this in, I suggest, is to frustrate this part of the Bill in a quite considerable degree.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I venture to speak in support of this amendment. In doing so I revert to the position which I held on Second Reading. In Committee, my noble friends voted against this amendment for precisely the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has set forth; that is, that they were informed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that this amendment was incompatible with two EC directives, one on public works and one on public supplies. He set that forth quite categorically, as can be found in col. 754 of the Official Report, which I shall not read out.
As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has pointed out, there are two different issues at stake. The first is whether this provision is incompatible with the Treaty of Rome. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that he did not know and had not the faintest idea on that. I have had a look at the Treaty of Rome in this respect and I have also looked at the letter from the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment which deals with this very matter. The crucial sentence in that letter reads:
"A geographical limitation on the area in which a certain percentage of the workforce must be resident, whatever that percentage, would infringe the EC Works (71/305) or Supplies (77/62) Directives if in practice it created an obstacle to the equality of treatment of contractors tendering from other Members States in the EEC.".
As I understand it, that is the legal issue. The letter and the directive are concerned with the right of contractors in the European Community to tender on equal terms. I think that that is highly desirable. I do not see that the labour force which such contractors would employ is referred to.
Take the example of a Belgian construction firm bidding for a contract to build a "carbuncle" in the London Docklands area. I am wholly in favour of the right of a Belgian firm to tender on equal terms with British firms. But no one truly supposes that a Belgian firm would bring over a Belgian workforce to work in the docklands, any more than a London firm which had won a contract in Liverpool would transfer its workforce from London to Liverpool. It might bring senior management or certain personnel. But those kinds of firms recruit locally wherever they go.
All the amendment demands is that a firm building a carbuncle in the docklands area should employ a reasonable proportion of local labour. If such labour is not available—which is the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—or if the skilled labour which is required is not available, it would not be reasonable for the firm to be expected to recruit there. However, it is not unreasonable for such firms to be asked to recruit a reasonable proportion of local labour in such circumstances. Nor can I see that that would be in any way in conflict with the directive to which our attention has been drawn. I hope that in the light of that information I and my noble friends will be able to vote in support of the amendment.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I believe that we are again up against the difficulty which I mentioned in our debate on the previous amendment. A firm which has won a contract must first decide on a desirable quota and then it must find people to fill that quota who are both resident in the neighbourhood and unemployed. That may not be too difficult in these days of high unemployment. But such a firm must then decide how many of those people are really suitable for the jobs which they are to be asked to do. That was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made a great deal better than I can. Suitability for the work must come first.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I spoke on this clause at Committee stage. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord McIntosh has said that the EC directive should be tested. That was a comment which I had made; we seem to have tested all the other directives but we have not tested that one.
I referred particularly in my previous speech to the Handsworth project in Birmingham. When the Minister replied at the end of the debate, he answered my question concerning whether or not the Government would be breaking an EC convention as regards the Handsworth taskforce. He said, at col. 756 of the Official Report of 28th January:
"It would be wrong for me to comment on that case because I have not been able to study it. However. I can assure the noble Baroness that I shall look into it now that she has raised the point".
I sincerely hope that he does. It makes one wonder what the Government are up to.
On 22nd October 1987 the Minister of Housing and Planning, the right honourable William Waldegrave; came to Birmingham. Perhaps one Minister does not know what another Minister is doing. However, Mr. Waldegrave came to the Handsworth project in Broughton Road. In his opening speech he singled out Birmingham's submission on the Handsworth project as, "a great achievement" and "a major step forward".
The project was visited in connection with the National House Improvement Council award ceremony. On that occasion the director of the NHIC announced that the judges had broken with tradition in requesting that the city certificate of merit should read "highly commended". It had included the Government through its taskforce, the local authority and also the builder—Tarmac—which had taken on 24 trainees. Those were all in what is called the core area where all the money for the inner-city partnership is spent. It was delightful to learn that at the end of the contract Tarmac had not only given jobs to 24 trainees but had been able to give six of them permanent employment.
In discussing the breaking of EC regulations, it is obvious that the Government—I believe that both my noble friends Lord Jay and Lord McIntosh raised the matter at Committee stage—are part and parcel of breaking the EC regulations. I use the inner city taskforce in Handsworth as an example of money that is being used in that way. If such money is used in that way, then the Government must be breaking EC regulations. It is strange to hear a Minister sitting on the Front Bench say, "We cannot do those things".

537
In Birmingham, the International Convention centre is being built. The Prime Minister came to visit that centre. The estimated cost of that scheme, as revealed in the city accounts for 1986–87, is £121.6 million. Grant aid has come from the European Regional Development Fund to a total of approximately £40 million. That is the largest grant paid to a project of that kind in the United Kingdom.
If the European Regional Development Fund, which operates under the auspices of the EC, puts that much money into the project, surely it is aware of the contract compliance which is occurring. In that contract, because it is in the inner city core area, a great deal of' inner-city partnership money is involved. The sum of £40 million from the fund is not to be sneezed at. Surely the local authority would have been told that it could not implement contract compliance. An international firm has been awarded the contract, which contains a provision concerning the percentage of employees from the inner core area who must be taken on if they are suitable for jobs or training.
In talking of local labour one can talk of local labour which would be all over Birmingham. There is nothing to stop anybody from the city applying for a job—anyone from London, or from Germany, Belgium, Spain or anywhere can work there. However, the contract says that the people who are living in the inner core area, which has an unemployment rate of 38 per cent. according to the latest figures, should be enabled to work on jobs that are in their locality. In the main they are people of ethnic minorities. I think it is important that they should have an opportunity of working alongside other long-term unemployed people in the core areas.
Therefore, now that the Minister knows about the projects of which I spoke in Committee, when he comes to reply will he confirm that the local labour clauses that have already been introduced into such contracts are perfectly acceptable to the EC? Not only are they helping the unemployed in the areas in which they live, but they are also promoting good opportunities and good race relations. When the Prime Minister came to the city and saw both schemes she was not at all dismayed. She complimented the city, as did the noble Lord, Lord Young, on this aspect of its work in helping trainees in large cities to take up full employment.
I hope that the Minister will not tell us again about EC law because I feel sure that, if it were contested, there would prove to be nothing against the contract clauses as we know them. The local labour clauses operate in closed areas and have nothing to do with the point of view put forward by the Minister on the last occasion.
Before I sit down, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that last night he said that, unusually, I was incorrect when I asked him about the consultation paper. However, in col. 449 of the Official Report the Minister said that it was right:
"that my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales issued a consultation paper".
When I asked the question: "Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the
538
consultation paper referred to Scotland and Wales", the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, replied: "Unusually for the noble Baroness she is incorrect. There is a consultation paper for England and I know that Birmingham had it". But it did not say that in Hansard. It was not reported that way in Hansard. When I asked the question I did so because it related to the opinion which he had expressed.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have again had an interesting debate on an issue which has come generally to be known as local labour, and I recognise the efforts of some noble Lords opposite in attempting to draft their amendment to overcome the objections to this type of provision which were upheld in the other place.
The Government's position on the issue of local labour has been made perfectly clear. It had been our intention to include in this Bill a special provision to allow authorities to use the contractual process to promote the employment prospects of inner city residents. However, it subsequently became clear that European Community rules designed to ensure equal conditions of competition for public works and supply contracts do not permit the introduction of that type of measure into the contractual process. EC Public Works Directives 71/304 and 305 and Public Supplies Directive 77/62 set out the criteria on which the contracting authority shall base the award of such contracts, and those criteria do not include the area of residence of the workforce. Any conditions in contracts which require local labour to be used would therefore constitute an obstacle to equality of treatment of contractors tendering from other parts of the Community.
I was intrigued by the ideas and attitude of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on how we should approach the EC directives. I thought how different they were from some of the attitudes taken by his noble friends on other EC directives. It was a useful point to note. In his amendment the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has attempted to qualify the local labour provision by confining it to:
"a reasonable proportion of the workforce shall be unemployed'',
and requiring the Secretary of State to consent to the type of area in which authorities could have regard to local labour issues. It is further attempted to qualify the provision by making it subject to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, yet, as I have already pointed out, local labour clauses—by their very nature—would constitute an obstacle to equality of treatment.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear during the Bill's Second Reading in the other place, the fact that local labour requirements are unlawful in no way weakens the Government's resolve to ensure that inner city residents share fully in the benefits flowing from new investment and initiatives in the inner cities.
While I am on that topic perhaps I may answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. When I re-read the Official Report and looked into the matter I assumed that she was referring to the Broughton Road project, and indeed she confirmed that this afternoon. As was made clear by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the

539
Duchy of Lancaster when he announced the scheme at the end of 1986, the scheme in Handsworth was a unique and experimental one. The work in Handsworth had been organised by the construction company Tarmac, who were appointed on the understanding that they would sub-contract to local firms and employ and train local people to do the bulk of the work. The aim was for the sub-contractors eventually to be able to bid more competitively for the work on future projects. As I have said, the scheme in Handsworth was experimental and clearly, in view of the legal advice now available to us, cannot be the model on which future schemes should be based.
Perhaps I may answer the other point of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal (which has nothing to do with the amendment) about what I said yesterday. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for England, so there was a consultation paper for England. I should have thought that that was fairly clear. As I said to her then, local authorities have received it.
Clearly, proper training is an essential component of many inner city projects, and we need to ensure that training is well matched to employers' needs and to develop the capacity of small local firms to win contracts. Within the various inner city initiatives being undertaken by the Government, which we all welcome, the aim is to raise skill levels so that local people are better equipped to compete for jobs and employers find that it makes sound sense to hire them. The answer is not to have a blanket requirement that a certain number of jobs must go to local people, but to make sure that those people are better trained and motivated to grasp the opportunities created by our various initiatives.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, quoted from two recent government Statements—namely, the DTI White Paper and the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Employment. As he knows full well, neither of those documents mentions local labour clauses in contracts. That is what the amendment is concerned with and what is illegal under EC rules. The Government's position is clear. They will do all they can to ensure that inner city residents benefit from the jobs that inner city spending creates. That is the message of the two documents. It is just the method of achieving that policy that is not available.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he tell us which rule in the EC regulations makes this unlawful?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have already referred to the two EC directives. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to them when he spoke.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has made no attempt to answer the points I made about the strength of the Government's commitment to inner city regeneration, and their recognition of the necessity for employment for local people—which is local labour, is it not?— in order to achieve that. He made an attempt to answer the
540
points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, but I thought that he signally failed to do so.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, the provision for local labour in contracts is illegal if it is intended to discriminate between contractors from one country or from another country. That is the point. It is not that it is generally not permitted. It is not permitted if it has, or is intended to have, that effect. The Minister does not seem to understand the nature of local authority services. He has been a short time in the job in the Department of the Environment. He learns very quickly. I admire the way that he has caught up with some of the complications of local government administration. However, he has not caught up with this aspect.
Most local authority services have an essential component of local labour because people have to be on the spot if they are to clean schools, cut down trees, sweep streets or whatever else it may be. I have no doubt that the Minister will reply that the amendment is unnecessary because there will he local labour anyway. But that is not the point. The point is that there must be a presumption that local labour will be used wherever the contractor comes from. We wish to ensure that, for those services which would be better carried out by local labour, we do not have cowboys coming in. We do not wish to have roving teams moving around the country, doing nothing for employment in the area, in no way changing the asserted breach of the Treaty of Rome, and generally providing a bad service for the local communities.
As the Minister correctly said, the amendment has been very carefully drafted. It refers to "a reasonable proportion". It gives the Secretary of State the oversight of what that reasonable proportion shall be. The amendment also provides that nothing shall be done which is in conflict with the Treaty of Rome.
Do not the Government have the courage of their own convictions to accept this as a worthwhile and desirable amendment? I suggest that if the Government do not have that courage the House ought to. I suggest that the House should take a view on this matter.
5.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 147.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Amherst, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Basnett, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Blackstone, B.

Diamond, L.

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Donoughue, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ennals, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ewarl-Biggs, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Foot, L.

Carter, L.

Gallacher, L.

Chandos, V.

Galpern, L.

Chitnis, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Grey, E.

541

Grimond, L.

Northfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Harvington, L.

Parry, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Phillips, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hughes, L.

[Teller.]

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rea, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Serota, B.

John-Mackie, L

Stedman, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Walston, L.

McNair, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whaddon, L.

Meston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Willis, L.

Molloy, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Mulley, L.

Winstanley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Wrenbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gibson, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gisborough, L.

Allerton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ampthill, L.

Goold, L.

Arran, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Gridley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Beloff, L.

Marylebone, L.

Belstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Birdwood, L.

Hanson, L.

Blatch, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blyth, L.

Harrowby, E.

Borthwick, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harvington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Havers, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Hayter, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hertford, M.

Butterworth, L.

Hesketh, L.

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Holderness, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hood, V.

Carnock, L.

Hooper, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Joseph, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kimball, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kimberley, E.

Crathorne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Croft, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Davidson, V, [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Deedes, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Derwent, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Margadale, L.

Dormer, L.

Marley, L.

Dundee, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Elibank, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Avon, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mersey, V.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mottistone, L.

542

Mountevans, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Moyne, L.

Somers, L.

Munster, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Nelson, E.

Stockton, E.

Northesk, E.

Strange, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinfen, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Swinton, E.

Pender, L.

Terrington, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Teviot, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Teynham, L.

Prior, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pym, L.

Tranmire, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rees, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rodney, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Romney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Rugby, L.

Windlesham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wise, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sandford, L.

Wynford, L.

Selborne, E.

Young, B.

Shannon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 15, line 15, leave out ("training of or the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41, as both hang together in this context. As the Minister will recall, these amendments deal with the issue of training. I shall describe the effect that they would have on the face of the Bill. Clause 17(5) deals with what the Government euphemistically call "non-commercial matters". So far as we are concerned, the training, health and safety of a workforce of an authority and equally of a company that tenders are of importance to both ratepayers and the community.
Amendment No. 40 seeks to delete from the Government's illustrations of non-commercial matters the words "training of or the" and Amendment No. 41 inserts in their place,
"except in relation to reasonable questions as to health and safety training undertaken by contractors with a view to ensuring the satisfactory carrying out of such training".
I fear the worse judging by the parliamentary arithmetic witnessed in respect of earlier amendments and equally because of the Government's determination, I believe wrongly, to protect those who will seek to tender competitively in respect of matters which the Minister and his supporters argue ought not to be the concern of a council which in some instances will be spending ratepayers' money.
As on earlier amendments lost by this side of the House, I am again at a loss to understand why the Government view satisfactory standards of training as being non-commercial and not of sufficient weight and interest to an authority to merit on the face of the Bill an obligation to take those aspects into account.
The Minister will not need me to remind him that, despite the efforts of the Government and of many governmental agencies, the quality and the quantity of training, whether in the form of apprenticeships or something else, are falling seriously below the standards this country enjoyed for many years. I

543
make no point about any particular years, so as not to draw a distinction between parties. In my view, this is not primarily a party matter. However, when one considers the amount of time and money spent by our major competitors on training, it is nonsense to say that a local authority spending ratepayers' money should not concern itself with the training record of those who will be awarded contracts.
I quote Mr. Geoffrey Holland, chief executive of the MSC, who has stated:
"The real skills gap is that our country is under-educated, under-trained and under-skilled. That is because our approach to education and training is and has been for decades too little, too narrow, too few, with too few expectations and hardly any follow through".
That is the premise upon which I plead with the Government to allow a local authority to poke its nose into this area—even though the Government are determined to keep it out—so that the authority may try to ensure that the record of training and safety of those who receive contracts is satisfactory.
A 1984 study commissioned by the MSC showed that private sector employers invested on average only £200 per employee per year on training or 0.15 per cent. of turnover. Some 24 per cent. of establishments provided no training of any kind in the previous 12 months, and 69 per cent. offered no training at all.
The Minister might say that the recipient of a contract awarded by a local authority is entitled to that contract purely on the basis of having made the lowest possible tender, perhaps combined with a good reputation and having made a good case for the contract. He will say that it is not for the local authority to find out exactly what are the levels of that contractor's training.
One may consider the situation in a particular industry. I take the case of the building industry and refer to a survey undertaken by the Federation of Master Builders only last year entitled Manpower in the Building Industry. It makes very illuminating reading and is relevant to our discussion on the level of training that exists in other sectors. From the eastern region of the FMB survey comes the comment:
"Training youngsters is disheartening. As soon as they., are experienced they leave to become self-employed".
From the southern region:
"Training appears to be letting the industry down— huge amounts of money are spent on training but is the money spent on the right areas and is the information getting to those who need it? I don't think so in every case''.
Also, from the southern region:
"Please ensure that apprentices are trained by first-class tradesmen at least 30 years older than the apprentice. Many don't even realise that tradesmen have their own tools".
From the north-west:
"We feel that insufficient training is given, producing semi or even totally, unskilled operatives and would prefer training to be encouraged by apprenticeship schemes controlled by companies such as ours, rather than job creation schemes which give young persons the impression they are able to carry out work in the industry".
On the question of the level of skills in London:
"Our main problem is the general low standard of all trades and in particular of bricklayers".
From the northern region:
"Good joiners are not available no matter what wages are offered".
From the Midlands:
544
"Shortage of manpower is not a problem—shortage of skilled manpower capable of carrying out any quality work is the major problem'.
I rest my case by asking the Government to look more sympathetically at what they are doing by excluding the sense of this amendment.
The amendment may not be worded in a way that suits either the Minister or those who guide him. However, when we are talking in terms of spending millions of pounds in awarding contracts, it is right and proper that we should eliminate the cowboys. It would take a very derelict council to award contracts to cowboys in the building or any other industry. But we are talking here of taking a positive step, with the Government coming to the aid of local authorities by trying to improve the level of training, safety, security and health in our industries.
The Minister may say that there are other ways of achieving this, that it is the responsibility of others and that such is not the responsibility of local councils, as the Government have said in respect of the two previous amendments. I must respond by saying that any stick that is to hand ought to be used. If the Minister is concerned, as we are, that there is a disinclination on the part of many employers to spend money on training, then at least councils ought to know that certain employers are by comparison spending very little money on training and take that into account. If a council decides that it does not wish to award a contract because of a contractor's poor record of safety, training and education, among other things, then it should be allowed to do so. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, considers it right for authorities to ask detailed questions of a contractor about the training he gives his workers. One of his arguments is that an authority will not know if a contractor is competent if it cannot seek details about how his workers are trained. We know full well that a contractor's competence can be judged in various ways without the need for detailed questionnaires about any kind of training programme which happens to catch an authority's fancy. Amendment No. 40 would allow unscrupulous authorities to discriminate against contractors on many grounds and unfortunately we know that a number of councils will go to any lengths to discover such loopholes in these provisions.
The noble Lord will have heard what I said about the Government's initiative on training when speaking to the last amendment. We believe that it is right for companies to undertake, and to be encouraged to undertake, constructive training of their workforce for particular skills. However, that is a matter for the companies and not for local authorities when it comes to contracts with those companies.
It has also been argued that an authority should be allowed to take into account a contractor's training in health and safety procedures. It has never been our intention to prevent authorities taking account of contractors' health and safety records when considering tenders and awarding contracts. While I see no need for an authority to seek details of the way a contractor ensures that his workforce is competent

545
in this area, nothing in the Bill stops an authority establishing a contractor's policy on health and safety or evidence of the effectiveness of that policy by way of his past record.
Indeed, a recently published Construction Industry Advisory Commitee document, endorsed by the Health and Safety Commission and entitled Managing Health and Safety in Construction, specifically encourages customers—and that includes local authorities—to take full account of health and safety matters in drawing up tender lists. This can be done without giving unscrupulous authorities the opportunity of devising a huge questionnaire on the ways a contractor chooses to ensure his workforce's competence in that area. We believe that to be the right way forward.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it seems to me extraordinary that the Minister should not be prepared to accept inquiries into training. The building industry and notoriously the construction industry have a wide range of suppliers—from those who train well to those who do not train at all. If anyone in your Lordships' House were to have building work done, surely it would be reasonable to discover whether one was hiring a properly trained labour force. One would not know that merely by looking at the tender. Why on earth cannot one discover their policy and make a judgment accordingly? This is not a matter of protecting the labour force but of making a competent economic judgment and awarding a tender. I am at a loss to understand why the Minister opposes the amendment, except that he has a habit of total opposition.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I have the honour of being president of the health and safety officers. One knows that the building industry is notorious for contracting and sub-contracting. At the moment I am in the process of dealing with a development by a well-known property developer in Westminster. It is appalling to watch the behaviour on the site.
The sub-contractors obtain the cheapest labour possible. They are now shipping in workers from Liverpool, who, I understand, are cheaper than those on the spot. They observe none of the health and safety standards of which even I know. I have lectured them in the street and I gather that I am known as "our lady"—there is a slight difference. There is not a hard hat among them and they carry out the most appallingly dangerous procedures. I recently pointed out to one young man that if at the age of 23 he fell off the scaffolding and broke his back because he had no safety connection, not only would he never work again but he would merit no compensation because he was not carrying out the rules of health and safety.
I had to invite the safety standards officer from Westminster council to come along; it was a major exercise to discover who he was. I gather that there is only one officer for the whole borough. I contacted him through the old-pals act only because I knew
546
someone who worked for the council. When he eventually arrived he slapped on three orders because the contractor was not complying with the health and safety standards. If the site belongs to the local authority and the contracted labour, accepted under a tender, is working for the authority but is not carrying out the health and safety standards, it is an irony: but what does the authority do? Does it claim Crown immunity as we do in this House?
It is vitally important to emphasise that the health and safety Act was a major piece of legislation. I am sad to say that training in health and safety still lags. Local authorities must lead the way in their treatment of those they employ on such schemes. They cannot take refuge behind the fact that they know companies are doing the right thing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I had hoped that the Minister would wish to respond to some of the points directed to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who put forward a powerful argument. The Minister is virtually saying that there is no need for the words on the face of the Bill because there are ways in which a local authority can draw its own conclusions. It has access and the experience of watching people. Listening to my noble friend Lady Phillips one would imagine that the Westminster council needs its head examined if, with its experience, it engaged the contractor to which she referred. However, that is happening.
I take exception to the words used by the Minister. Apparently this subsection is designed to deal with unscrupulous authorities which would go to any lengths. I have no doubt that the Minister has illustrations of the practices of some councils. There are more than 400 authorities. If, in this subsection, the House is attempting to deal with three or four councils who have carried out a practice designed to ensure that the work being undertaken for them in their area is carried out by firms able to satisfy them in respect of safety, education and training—if we are talking about authorities which have committed that heinous crime—I cannot understand the argument put forward by the Minister.
The noble Earl makes allusions to other motives for an authority wishing to lay down terms and conditions. I believe that the Minister will throw out the baby with the bathwater, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, no one in his right mind can object to what the amendment seeks to achieve. It is that the authority should be able to take into account the record on safety education and training of those who wish to be the recipients of ratepayers' money. It is a laudable, sensible and proper objective. I am sad that the Minister has not seen fit to say anything kind but has been derisory and derogatory in his remarks about unnamed authorities who are apparently committing the heinous crime of wanting to ensure that ratepayers' money is spent in the proper way. He ought to be ashamed of himself, although I do not believe that he will be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 15, line 26, leave out ("the country or territory of origin of supplies to, or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment and revives the matter debated in Committee about the country or territory of origin of supplies. It is necessary to do this not only because of the intrinsic merits of the case but because of the strength of feeling aroused about the matter.
I appreciate that the Government have taken a firm stand on this position. I do not expect there to be any significant change in their point of view. As one who lives in a borough with a very high proportion of people from other countries and with other ethnic backgrounds, I put it to the Minister that this is not in any way a matter of political interference by local authorities. We are not referring to local authorities doing the horrific thing that governments always say they should never do—interfering in national politics. In the case with which I am familiar, and noble Lords may well be familiar with others, the attempt by a local authority to discriminate—and we are talking about South Africa, are we not? —between goods coming from South Africa and goods coming from countries with less abhorrent racial laws and practices is not undertaken for political purposes; it reflects the composition of people in the area and their abhorrence at the prospect of being forced to use goods produced by the Republic of South Africa.
Nobody thinks that it is in any way wrong that people should exercise their individual judgment about whether to use a boycott of South African goods in their own purchasing. People have different views about whether it is a good idea, whether it is a moral issue and about the effect of sanctions on the Republic of South Africa. I respect all those different views. Nobody says that it is wrong for people to hold views different from those that one holds oneself. In this sense, although not in all senses, a local authority in an area with a high proportion of the population feeling strongly about the country of origin of the goods supplied "for the public service" has a duty to enable those people who feel strongly not to be forced to use the goods coming from a country of origin like South Africa. That is what it comes down to.
I do not think that this is in any way an infringement of individual liberty, as was suggested on Second Reading and in Committee. I suggest that the amendment and provision are worthy of the serious attention of the House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, despite the noble Lord's attempt to suggest that this is a different approach from that on which we spent a good deal of time in Committee, the amendment is in fact fundamentally the same as that which we discussed earlier.
The noble Lord suggested that there are areas in which certain sections of the population have strong feelings about certain overseas countries. They are of course perfectly entitled to those feelings, however misguided they often are. However, there one is getting straight into matters of international politics. If one is to take the line that one will not buy goods
548
that originate in a particular country because one does not like the way in which the country conducts its affairs, one is getting straight into international politics and away from the proper functions of local government.
I do not want to waste the time of the House because we discussed this at great length and came to a clear decision earlier. I hope that we shall similarly come to the clear decision that, whatever views people may have of whatever overseas countries, that excursion into international politics is not the business of local authorities and they should keep out of it.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I hope that we shall come to a decision different from the decision we reached in Committee. Perhaps I may repeat some of what I said earlier. I believe that the issue is not whether sanctions against any country will work, but the question of whether local authorities have a right—or, as I would say, a duty—to reflect the feelings of the consumers whom they are serving.
If a large number of people in a particular local authority area do not want to eat the product brought from a certain country, I think it is the duty of the local authority not to buy and force those products on the people. This is particularly so in the case of catering for children. They have no choice. Their parents may not want them to have the goods. Therefore, the local authority should be in a position to take into account the people's views in the matter.
The Government say that the local authority must not take into account the people's wishes in the matter. That I regard as an abuse of power. Central government is saying, "This is national politics. We do not think it right to have sanctions against any country. We shall decide this. You on the other hand must never take into account the fact that your people do not want the goods from that country to be used in your services".
I cannot see how the Government regard as defensible the suggestion that, when local authorities say they will not buy, for example, South African oranges for children, those local authorities are indulging in international politics. That is rubbish. What they are doing is reflecting the views of the people in the area. In the case of catering, the people for whom they are catering are consumers. Consumers have rights. The people who sell the goods have responsibilities. Central government is saying that, regardless of the views of consumers and what they may request, the local authority must buy from where it chooses and force its consumers to accept that.
I am sure that is wrong and that noble Lords will recognise that it is wrong. It is not what should be done. If the people in a particular local authority area do not want certain products, the local authority should be free not to buy those products so that it does not have to serve them to people who do not want them. I therefore hope that the House will recognise the issue for what it is and accept the amendment.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I listened to the argument deployed in Committee and I have listened to the argument today. I think that all Members of

549
the House will respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who has had a long, distinguished career in local government.
I pose the following question. Leaving aside whether South Africa, which I have not visited, Czechoslovakia, which I have, or any other country has a regime that is dissimilar to our own, who in the local authority will decide on these purchases? As I understand it—and I have never served on a local authority, as my remarks might suggest—it will put an enormous burden on local authorities when all parties in government are trying to make their lot easier. I believe that this amendment, sincere as it might be, will put that burden on local authorities.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the one thing that is probably more responsible than anything else for bringing local authorities into disrepute is their tendency nowadays to discuss national and international issues. I believe that local authorities should be organisations which provide local services for local people. In so doing they are guardians of other people's money; not their own, but other people's money.
If one takes a purely pragmatic view of this amendment which seeks to assume a power for local authorities to decide that they do not want South African goods. Czechoslovakian goods. or whatever it may he, the practical business of doing that is to dissipate resources which could be caring for the elderly, educating children in schools, or doing a host of things for which local authorities are primarily responsible. I ask your Lordships to consider the thousands upon thousands of products which are purchased by local authorities, from pencils and rubbers to books and food which is eaten by the children in schools.
It is not only direct links with South Africa that are affected. I belong to an authority which has passed a resolution not to deal or trade with any company which has any links, direct or indirect, with South Africa. That involves precious time—and time is money—and precious resources in not only carrying out detective work on the companies directly concerned but also on the companies with which those companies have links, and with which they have links, and so on. Frankly, I challenge my authority on whether it can do that job properly. I believe that in practice it is turning a blind eye. We have indulged in tokenism. We have passed a Motion in council that South Africa will be all right because Cambridgeshire County Council no longer buys goods that originate from that country.
I believe that we should get back to what this Bill is about. More than almost anything else it is about depoliticising our local council chambers. I am in favour of that. I believe that people are fed up with the politicking in our council chambers. The amendment will give all the scope in the world for the kind of politics that will do very little to resolve the problems of South Africa or any other country. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords. I should like to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and to what was said earlier about the responsibilities of local authorities. If one takes the argument that has just been put forward by the noble Baroness, then local authorities, people in general and governments should always buy the cheapest irrespective of the ethical issues which arc involved.
We argued in Committee, and again today, that local authorities have a moral and ethical responsibility, as well as a direct responsibility, to reflect the views of the majority of the people that they represent. This brings me to the noble Lord who spoke earlier and who asked who is to decide. Our answer is quite simple —the people. This is the issue put so clearly by my noble friend Lord Pitt. If a local authority just like a national government—takes an action which is disapproved of by a majority of the people, our constitution gives the people the opportunity to reject that decision and to turn the council out.
As my noble friend Lord Pitt pointed out, in this Bill the Government are taking it upon themselves to decide for all the people. The Government, who after all have been elected by a minority of the people, are themselves to decide what people in different localities have the right to do and what they do not have the right to do. Is that in tune with the philosophy of the Conservative Party which has constantly expressed its belief in decentralisation and in giving the people a choice?
Surely the issue here is this. If a majority of the people in any part of the country, gathered together to be represented by a local authority, express a majority view and that view is constantly put before the electorate—and 164 local authorities at the moment are applying one ban; the ban on buying South African goods—and if those people believe that they should not, and their children should not, be purchasing South African goods and that their money should not be used to purchase South African goods, surely they have the right through their representatives to take that decision.
No government can say whether there is in any local authority a majority in favour of banning South African goods. One must accept that there may well be a majority. Will that majority then be prevented from doing what it believes in because central government says, "Oh, but you are not a central government and this is an international issue. This is a matter for commerce and it has nothing to do with morals or what you believe in. We are not going to allow you, through your elected local authority, to put what you believe into practice"? That, surely, is the central issue.
Are we to have a country in which central government takes all the major decisions for all the people on all issues whatever the people in a local authority believe in? Irrespective of the question of sanctions, I submit that that is the central issue on which this amendment is based. Do we believe in big government or do we believe in the rights of people in their localities to have their views expressed and acted upon according to the way in which they have elected their own representatives.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for the moderate and reasoned way in which he introduced this amendment. He was right to say that this issue was debated at length in Commitee and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was absolutely right to say that we divided on it.
I remind the House that the issue at the heart of the debate on this amendment is whether public authorities should be able to refuse to have any dealings with certain contractors or their subsidiary companies solely because their supplies emanate from a particular country. Although the nub of the debate is the question raised more extensively in Committee about South Africa, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is absolutely right in that Clause 17(5)(e), to which this amendment is addressed, is intended to stop authorities taking a sudden dislike to any country or territory and refusing to deal with those contractors who have links with it. We do not consider that authorities should abuse the contractual process by refusing to employ contractors on solely ideological grounds or on grounds unrelated to competitiveness or competence to carry out the works or supply the goods or services required.
We believe in fair competition and in obtaining the best value for ratepayers' money. Neither would be obtained if authorities were allowed to discriminate against companies purely on the basis that they did not agree with the politics or any other aspect of the country from which those companies obtained their supplies. We believe that it is not for local government to decide to have its own foreign policy independent of the Government and to pay more than is necessary for goods or services as a result of that policy.
I give an example of the extra cost to ratepayers of such a policy; and here I rise to the bait offered by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who keeps on challenging me to give an example, so I shall now give one. This was a policy highlighted by an article in the Guardian last December. A street cleaning contract in Milton Keynes worth £2.7 million was removed from the company which had previously carried it out because that company had connections with South Africa. A new contract was awarded to another firm at a level 38.5 per cent. dearer, adding 2.4p to the rates. Yet the Milton Keynes authority admitted that it had had no complaints about the service provided by the previous company. That was the cost to Milton Keynes ratepayers as a result of such discrimination.
I respect the feelings of the noble Lord. Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who would doubtless agree with the Milton Keynes decision. I hope that he will respect my feelings, and I profoundly disagree with him because the cost of this amendment is one that the ratepayers should not have to bear.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether this Government believe that if a local authority is elected on a policy which gives it a mandate to boycott South African goods or the goods of any other country, this Government have the right to say, despite that election, that that authority shall not be allowed to do what the electors have elected it to do?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I specifically answered that earlier.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it sounds as if the Minister's answer to my noble friend Lord Hatch is, yes, that it is the Government's intention and is claimed to be the Government's right to override the wishes of local people. I cannot see any other interpretation to put on his failure to answer my noble friend's question or his silence now.
In all these matters there are of course possibilities for abuse; there is no doubt about that. It is possible for a local authority to extend its judgments and decisions too far into the areas of national politics. I do not deny that. However, I wonder whether the Government have in any way taken account of the real force of the argument against the subsection and in favour of this amendment.
We are trying to say—and I cannot say it as effectively as my noble friend Lord Pitt—that there are cases, when we are talking about physical supplies bought by local authorities to be consumed by the users of local authorities' services (welfare services, school meal services, or whatever it may be) when those who have strong feelings about this are forced to consume goods or to use equipment which they would never dream of using or buying in their own private life, which is in effect force feeding. I feel very strongly about not buying South African goods. There is a whole period in the year when I do not eat oranges, much as I depend on an orange for breakfast every morning, because I cannot buy anything other than South African oranges.
However, if I rely on local authority services—there are many noble Lords here who might qualify for meals on wheels, though I am sure very few would actually use them—and I am forced to eat South African goods because my only source of nourishment is meals on wheels, that is deeply offensive to me and I believe it is deeply offensive to the people concerned.
I do not believe that the Government have understood the force of that point and I do not believe that they have understood the degree of feeling that there is about this matter. It has now been raised and has been dealt with most effectively by my noble friend. In view of the vote that was taken last time I do not believe it is desirable to test the opinion of the House again. However, we do not in any way withdraw the strength of our feelings on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 16, line 48. at end insert ("with the exception of any body or organisation whose primary purpose is the safety of the public").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment concerns the status of the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting, which I shall refer to as N IC for short. Under Clause 17(8) of the Bill, the council is concerned with the safety of electrical installations. It is a non-profit-making trust which was set up in 1957 by the concerted action of electrical installation contractors, the electric supply industry, electrical trade unions

553
and others who saw the need for an independent inspectorate to protect the users of electricity from unsafe electrical installations.
The NIC maintains a register of approved electrical contractors. For a contractor to qualify for the register, a searching preliminary inspection of his work and resources is made and is followed up by subsequent regular inspections. All work must conform with the wiring regulations published by the Institute of Electrical Engineers and there is an effective complaints procedure under which substandard work has to be rectified at the contractor's expense.
There are now 10,000 approved contractors on the register, including electricity boards. Most local authorities and high street names can find tenders for electrical installation work by contractors on the NIC register. The Minister has assured me that, like CORGI, NIC is not affected by this clause in the Bill. However, neither I nor the legally qualified people I have consulted are clear as to how that is achieved. The drafting of this part of the Bill is therefore obscure, to say the least. It seems possible that if the question arose in the courts they might take a different view from that of the draftsmen. I therefore ask the Minister to accept this amendment or consider some other way of making the clause clearer. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on finding yet another possible way of defining bodies which in his view should not be caught by the provisions of Clause 7(5)(f). That subsection, as further defined in Clause 17(8), provides that authorities should not take account of a contractor's membership or non-membership of an organisation when deciding whether to put him on an approved list or award him a contract. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, moved an amendment which would have exempted bodies which were designed to promote a particular standard of expertise, and that has again appeared on the Marshalled List as the next amendment. Now we have this particular amendment, which tries to exempt bodies whose primary purpose is the safety of the public.
I must first repeat that while I accept that a contractor's membership of a reputable trade association is often used by authorities as an indication of certain professional standards or competence, it is not the only method by which authorities should evaluate the merits of a company with whom they are considering doing business. Far more relevant is the contractor's previous work record and financial standing. What is at issue here is whether an authority can decide, solely on the basis of a contractor's membership of a particular body, whether or not to do business with that contractor. Such membership, or non-membership, would become a valid reason for an authority not to do business with a particular company, and we do not think that that should be the case.
However, I am happy to confirm to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that Clause 17(5)(f), as
554
defined in Clause 17(8), does not embrace regulatory bodies such as the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting. I confess that the reason I did not refer specifically to that body at Committee stage, when I mentioned CORGI, their equivalent in the gas industry, was that I did not feel their acronym very easy to pronounce! I therefore referred to
"inspection bodies in the electrical industry who test contractors' equipment",
but I can confirm that I did indeed have the NICEIC in mind. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Viscount will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that assurance. However, he has not taken the point that this Bill is badly drafted and obscure in this clause. I asked whether it could be made clearer. Surely we want Bills that can be understood, certainly by the legal profession and preferably by somebody who is not legally trained. This paragraph which affects the NIC is obscure, to say the least. Nevertheless, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 16, line 48, at end insert ("with the exception of bodies, associations or employers' associations of any sort which are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State. designed to promote a particular standard of expertise").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, appropriately, this amendment follows on from the point that has just been raised. I hope that the Minister can say something as kind in respect of this amendment as he has done in respect of the one moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth.
The Minister is aware that we cantered over this course at the previous stage of the Bill. I know that his ministerial colleagues in another place have expressed their worry about taking merely the membership of a trade association ipso facto as being proof of a standard. We accept that there are all kinds of weird and wonderful new bodies and that one has to be wary about accepting letters after a name. That might be an initial mistake. One has to make inquiries about the boner fides of the body. If the Minister reads the amendment carefully, as I am sure he has, he will see that in the middle of it we say,
"in the opinion of the Secretary of State, designed to promote a particular standard of expertise".
In other words, the ball is in the court of the Minister.
We know that the amendment appears in a part of the Bill which deals with terms. Here we define terms which exclude,
"political, industrial or sectarian affiliations or interests".
We have no objection to those kinds of bodies being excluded in this matter. But again I repeat the phrase "the baby with the bath water". We genuinely think that there will be some eminently respectable bodies. The noble Earl mentioned the electrical industry and there are others too. It is invidious to mention them, but the building industry has some fine standards, as have many other industries. The Minister must assure people outside the House that they are not wasting their time in setting up their own codes of

555
practice and their own measuring rods and yardsticks to try to lift the standards of the members of their trade associations. Membership of such bodies should not be the sole criterion but it should be capable of being used as a credential. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that the Government are as concerned over standards as he is, and I accept that a contractor's membership of a reputable trade association is often used by authorities as an indication of certain professional standards or competence. But, as I said on the last amendment, it is not the only method by which authorities should evaluate the merits of a company with which it is considering doing business. It would indeed be foolish to use such membership as the sole yardstick against which to judge a contractor's suitability for inclusion in an approved list or for the award of a contract. Far more relevant is the contractor's previous work record and financial standing.
As I pointed out in respect of the previous amendment, Clause 17(5)(f) does not embrace regulatory bodies like CORGI or the NICEIC. Furthermore, the Bill does not prevent authorities insisting that electrical work, or any other work, is covered by appropriate guarantees. Nor does it stop authorities specifying appropriate standards in contract documentation. Indeed, the reverse is the position. We would expect local authorities to insist on the same standards for contractors as they do for their own DLOs. If those standards are not up to scratch, it is time local authorities woke up to some of the important matters which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has brought to the attention of the House.
This amendment would involve the Secretary of State in deciding whether or not a particular organisation was in the business of promoting a particular standard of expertise. Such a definition would cover a multitude of different bodies—it would be difficult to claim, for example, that employers' associations were uninterested in standards—and we do not believe that authorities should be allowed to decide the award of contracts on that basis.
I go back to where I started. Our concern for standards is just the same and I am sure that every noble Lord has that concern. Where we differ is over how we implement that concern. I fear that we shall continue to differ but I hope that at the end of the day we both achieve what we want, which is continuing and increasingly high standards.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He said that the standard of expertise being offered by virtue of membership of an association should not be the only criterion. Of course the Minister is correct. He then said that the previous work record was equally important. It is; but what about those businesses that have no previous work record? What about new businesses? A company's previous work record may be thin because it is new and so it will not comply with that precondition. What about long-standing businesses which change ownership? What about long-standing
556
businesses which do not change ownership but change practices?
The Minister's yardstick is as fraught with uncertainty as the one I have used. However, he is right in saying that we shall have to wait and see. There are those outside the House who believe in promoting their codes of practice and encouraging their members to reach a certain standard.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I may make one point from my own experience in regard to new companies doing work for local authorities. When I set up my own business and took the first contract from a local authority I remember that the very questions that the noble Lord has just mentioned were the type of questions that the local authority asked me. I was able to convince the local authority that I could meet the high standards, notwithstanding the fact that I had no track record at that stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, so in effect the previous work record is not so important, because the noble Earl has told the House that he had no previous work record. However, he had an ability to convey confidence to the authority by virtue of what he was able to say to it.
The debate has served a useful purpose. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Race relations matters]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 48B:
Page 17, line 14, after ("authority") insert ("or public authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not take up much of your Lordships' time. I should like to congratulate the Government on recognising that contract compliance has an absolutely essential and crucial role to play in securing the elimination of racial discrimination and in promoting genuine equality of opportunity, irrespective of race, colour and so on. I only wish that this belief in the effectiveness of contract compliance were also to apply to women.
However, that having been said, why should this obligation be confined to local authorities? There are other public authorities which are involved in purchasing from private companies, and other services. Why should they not share in the obligation to serve the public interest in securing equality of opportunity, irrespective of race, colour and so on?
This is a simple point which can be remedied by the amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Seear. I suggest that, for example, those public authorities listed in Schedule 2 should be able to avail themselves of the right afforded to local authorities in this matter. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these amendments are an attempt to extend the provisions of Clause 18 to all the public bodies listed in Schedule 2. However, Clause 18 deals with the way in which the duty under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act

557
1976 should be carried out. That duty applies only to local authorities. Therefore, in that respect these amendments would have no effect.
The principle behind the amendments is to extend the provisions of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. In all our discussions on Part II of the Bill, I have often made the point that the provisions dealing with the contractual process have been drafted to reflect the present statutory position. Just as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not contain a Section 71-type duty, Section 71 itself does not place a duty on bodies other than local authorities.
The Section 71 duty applies to local authorities when exercising all their functions, but I do not regard it as appropriate that this Bill should be amended to place a duty on other public authorities in this one narrow area.
Clearly any proposals to extend the coverage of the Race Relations legislation are, as I said to my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle a matter for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I do not consider it appropriate that such provisions should be contained in a local government Bill.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, those public authorities are the creation of Parliament. There is no reason why Parliament cannot say that those public authorities should observe certain regulations. All that the Government are being asked to do is to say to those public authorities that they too should observe Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. We do not need to pass any law to do that. When they are created to do certain things they should observe certain conditions. What is so difficult about that?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the response of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to my amendments is hardly surprising, although naturally disappointing. Of course it was my intention to extend the arm of the Race Relations Act to a rather wider field. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, in that I do not see that this is something dreadful. After all, these are matters to which all of us are committed on both sides of the House and in all parties. By making this simple change in the Bill, we could make the battle for securing equality of opportunity, irrespective of' race, more effective. I regret that we received that rather negative reply. I am sorry, but not surprised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 17, line 19, leave out ("approved").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 to 55. Recent experience has proved what some of us suspected: that the Government's commitment to include this clause on race relations is far from complete and perfect. The Government included the clause only because they
558
were required to do so under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. The Government have resisted, not always successfully, attempts by the House to extend the principle of decent and fair trading to the privatisation of local authority services. We thought that when it came to the implementation of the Race Relations Act, the Government had no real scope to weaken the intention of the clause, but we were wrong. The Government have now issued—I am grateful to the noble Earl for sending me a copy of the consultation paper—the questions that they propose should be authorised and approved—that is the significance of the amendment—for use by local authorities when asking about race relations matters.
I have been in the business of asking questions as a survey researcher for the past 30 years. I can only say to your Lordships that this is the most pathetic little list of questions that I have ever seen in my professional experience. I doubt whether it is intended to elicit any significant information. The first question is:
"Is it your policy as an employer to comply with your statutory obligations under the Race Relations Act?"
If I answer no, do I say it with handcuffs on? The second question says:
"Is it your practice, in relation to decisions to recruit, train or promote employees, not to treat one group of people more favourably than others",—
and so on. Recruitment, training and promotion are different. It is possible for someone to say, "Yes, because I am fair about training, I can conceal the fact that I am not fair about recruitment or promotion". Because the document asks three questions at the same time, it is technically grossly deficient. The third question asks:
"Has your firm in the last three years been taken to court or to an industrial tribunal",
and what was the result? Again, those matters are matters of public record. They do not go far into the exploration of' a contractor's racial equality programmes.
The document continues and asks whether the policy on race relations is set out in instructions, documents or recruitment advertisements, and
"If so, can you provide examples?"
I accept that those are fair questions.
Then:
"Do you observe as far as is appropriate and reasonably practicable the Commission for Racial Equality's Code of Practice"?
What is fair and reasonably practicable is a matter of opinion. I cannot imagine any contractor who wants a contract failing to interpret "fair, appropriate and reasonably practicable" in a way which suits his own purposes. The defect in all those questions is that they are about the theory of equal opportunities in racial terms; they are not about what actually happens.
Until we have questions about what contractors do, we shall not get away from the grotesque racial discrimination which exists in employment. It exists in part in the public sector, but even more conspicuously and frequently in the private sector. Those questions are inadequate. I move the amendment now to give fair warning that the responses to the questions will not be favourable and that the Government are trying to evade their responsibilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I ask the noble Earl who drew up those questions? I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh, has said. If a student doing a survey had produced those type of questions one would have failed him.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in recognising that the provisions of this Bill should not prevent local authorities from carrying out their statutory duties under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, we have had to consider how the provisions could be drafted in a way that does not permit abuse of that duty and does not place too excessive a burden on contractors.
By providing that the Secretary of State should specify the questions to be asked of contractors (that point answers the noble Baroness, Lady Seear) and specify the evidence to be supplied in respect of race relations matters, we consider that uniformity and order will be brought into an area where, at present, contractors face a plethora of different questionnaires, some of inordinate length. We also consider that the questions to be asked should be asked in writing, in order to prevent unscrupulous authorities from pestering certain contractors about their race relations policy in interminable meetings or by frequent telephone calls.
My Lords, we believe that Clause 18 as drafted strikes a sensible balance between allowing authorities too much or too little latitude in the way they exercise their duty under Section 71. We propose that the questions to be specified should be drawn up after consultation with industry, the Commission for Racial Equality and the local authority associations. Those consultations are at present taking place and we need to have views by 29th February so that authorities can take account of the approved questions once the Bill is enacted. Indeed, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is looking forward to receiving comments from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Clause 18 received considerable support in the other place as a reasonable way of dealing with local authorities' duties under Section 71, and acceptance of these amendments would, we believe, reintroduce uncertainty and confusion into an area where we are seeking uniformity and sensible practice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think the noble Earl will recognise that he has already had the comments which he is looking for from the noble Baroness. Lady Seear, and myself. The matter is not closed, the consultation is not finished. There is evidence that the Government are entering these consultations in a spirit of Indeed, I am afraid so, otherwise they would not have put in such grossly inadequate questions. However, because the matter is not closed it is appropriate that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 55 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Questions relevant to Code of Good Practice on Employment of Disabled.
.—(1) Nothing in section 17 above shall preclude a local authority from—

(a) asking questions seeking information relating to workforce matters and considering responses to them. or

(b) referring prospective contractors to relevant agencies.

if, as the case may be, consideration of the information, is reasonbly necessary to ensure that contractors have due regard to the Manpower Services Commission Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People.
(2) In this section "relevant agencies" shall be defined as those bodies with statutory responsibility for the promotion of disabled people's employment and the Manpower Services Commission Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which has already been spoken to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Provisions supplementary to or consequential on section 17]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Transitional duty of public authorities as regards existing lists]:
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 65 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
7.15 p.m
Clause 27 [Local authority publicity]:
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 28, line 18. at end insert—
("( )After section 2 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section.
"2A. Nothing in section 2 above shall prevent a voluntary organisation which is not a political party or associated with a political party publishing material which appears to be designed to promote the aims or objectives of the voluntary organisation." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, yesterday a colleague of the noble Earl said in the House that he liked paving amendments. This is not even a paving amendment: it is an amendment tabled in a spirit of inquiry. But my concern is what I think we all agree are the legitimate publicity activities of charities and voluntary organisations.
I can best describe exactly what we are after by reading out to the House the wording of this amendment:
"Nothing in section 2 above shall prevent a voluntary organisation which is not a political party or associated with a political party publishing material which appears to be designed to promote the aims or objectives of the voluntary organisation."
The Government have argued both here and in another place that the amendments to Section 2 of the 1986 Act contained in Clause 27 are intended to clarify and not strengthen the prohibition of political publicity. But, as I said in Committee, I believe that, far from clarifying the position, the clause makes it all the more confusing. Confusion leads to uncertainty, which in turn leads to the danger of over-zealous self-censorship.
So I should like to use this amendment to clarify the position: in other words, to clarify the Government's clarification. To do this, I want to outline two fictitious but plausible and, I think, legitimate examples of the sort of publicity that voluntary organisations may want to put out. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate in his reply to the amendment whether or not he thinks they would be caught by the Act. Then we shall know where we stand. I would stress that in both cases which I am inventing, the style and content of the material are careful and responsible. Also, in particular the voluntary organisations have taken the advice previously issued by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. That advice suggests that voluntary organisations should:
"not mention…a political party: not mention or picture a leading politician: avoid intemperate language—"
That sounds rather a good one—
"and abide by the NCVO's code of practice on relations with the statutory sector, which broadly speaking encourages a healthy independence, and asserts the primacy of the voluntary organisations' freely chosen aims and objectives".
I am speaking in part on behalf of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and there are over 700 organisations associated with that body, including many small organisations. But it also includes some which are very well known to all your Lordships, like the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Council of Voluntary Services and Age Concern. They are almost all very worried about the position as it stands at the moment.
Let me get on to my first case: perhaps we may look at a local tenants' association which receives a small grant from the local authority to produce a newsletter. The tenants' association, perhaps supported by information from a national organisation concerned with housing, publishes in its council-funded newsletter an article about the current housing Bill. The article spells out what the proposals in the Bill are and offers some criticisms. The article does not rely on simple slogans and the language is reasonable. But of course the article roundly opposes some of the Bill and finishes with a call for local people to write to their MP pointing out the arguments made and urging him to vote against the Bill. The article is throughout motivated by concern about what will be the effects of the provisions of the Bill on the members of the association. Publication does not take place particularly close to a national or local election.
So in this case the article certainly,
"promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another".
The House will remember that that is the phraseology incorporated in this Bill. It also "refers to a political party" to the extent that it refers to the Government as the promotors of the housing Bill. I should like to ask what the Minister thinks about that one.
For my second case, let us assume that one of the extremist racist political parties suddenly becomes active in a local authority area which includes a substantial number of people from the ethnic minorities. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has tabled an amendment
562
which also deals with this issue later on. But it is not on the same point as the one which I am taking.
The extremist party starts distributing leaflets, selling publications and putting up posters and stickers. This activity leads to a heightening of racial tension in the area which perhaps appears to include an increase in racial harassment and assault. So the local community relations council, although it is partly funded by the local authority and partly by the Government through the Commission for Racial Equality, decides that to promote its aim of achieving good race relations it must combat the arguments. To do this, it distributes its own leaflets and sends a press release to the local newspaper. The leaflets and the press release do not refer to the extremist party by name, but they counter its arguments. Again, they do not rely on slogans or over-simplification and the tone of the publicity material is level-headed, but it does robustly condemn the message which the extremists are trying to spread. It draws attention to the consequences of their policies.
In this case there has been no direct reference to a political party, although the material,
"promotes or opposes a point of view".
Again I am quoting from the Bill. In addition, if the publicity of the community relations council is successful, it could well be that the,
"likely effect on those to whom it is directed,"
to quote again from the clause, is that there will be a diminution of support for the extremist political party.
It should be clear that the point of these two cases is that the voluntary organisations are not producing material which,
"appears to be designed to affect support for a political party."
Again I am quoting from the clause. The material does, however, fall foul of one or other of the items listed in Clause 27 as being matters which the local authority and the voluntary group should "have regard to". That is another phrase out of the clause.
During our debate in Committee the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said on 1st February at col. 853 of the Official Report:
"The purpose of Clause 27(1) is to provide a comprehensive statement of the range of matters to which regard must be given".
If that is so then it follows that it is possible that failure on some, most or even conceivably all of the matters does not of itself lead one to infer that the basic test of apparent design has been failed. It is that message which above all needs to be got across if Clause 27 is not, possibly accidentally, to lead to unwarranted interference in the public activities of voluntary groups.
Just recently politicians have found fault with religious leaders, but sometimes religious leaders find fault with politicians. The voluntary organisations go calmly on with their work picking up the pieces that are left from the quarrel. I say "calmly" but that is not really true because at this moment—I know that the Minister will compliment me on the fact that I am always sincere—those organisations are very worried about this problem.
I still believe that the legislation would have been better if it had been left alone. If the Minister were to accept my amendment I should be delighted but if he could endorse what I have said tonight and agree that

563
the cases I have suggested do indeed constitute a legitimate use of publicity then we can hope to minimise the confusion and the uncertainty caused. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment to which I have added my name. We had a long and not always totally calm debate on this clause in Committee. We on these Benches expressed a great deal of concern about the wording of the clause and about the fact that the Government were reintroducing into the criteria as regards what local authority publicity was going to be acceptable not just the question which Widdicombe wanted to have considered, which is the content of the publicity, but also the question of the intention and the effect of the publicity.
We argued as strongly as we could that the resulting wording was not only badly intentioned in the sense that one cannot take account of all of those things in considering what publicity is acceptable from a local authority any more than one could from central government, but that it was also confused and did not always mean what it set out to mean.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, has drawn attention correctly to a particular example of that. Voluntary organisations which are funded in whole or in part by local authorities must, I presume, be subject to the provisions of the clause. If that were not the case it would presumably be very easy for local authorities to avoid the effects of the clause altogether by not issuing any publicity directly but doing it entirely through funded voluntary organisations. There would be no difficulty for an ingenious local authority doing that. But of course 99·s9 per cent. of voluntary organisations are not creatures of that kind; they are genuine voluntary organisations with their own real purposes in the community which no doubt gratefully accept local authority funding in order to achieve those purposes. But they maintain an independence of spirit, an independence of objectives and an independence in the way in which they go about their functions.
Those functions very frequently abut upon public debate and indeed upon political debate. When governments like this Government and all governments take an active part in legislation which affects communities and which may be about the rating system or about housing tenure or about social security benefits —all of those matters could well be within the remit of voluntary organisations —they will find that voluntary organisations are bound to be affected by government legislation and those organisations will want to say so.
The amendment refers only to genuine voluntary organisations which are not political parties or associated with political parties. It refers only to publicity designed to promote the aims or the objectives of voluntary organisations. so they cannot just shoot off their mouths about anything that takes their fancy. But if they are funded by local authorities and they are genuine voluntary organisations and they restrict their publicity to the aims as stated in the amendment then any publicity which they issue which chances to conflict with subsection (2)(a) shall not be made illegal by the provisions of this clause. I cannot see that that is unreasonable or in conflict with the Government's objectives.
564
I hope very much as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, suggested, that the Government will either say that the amendment in its present form is acceptable or if for drafting reasons that is not possible that they are willing to give effect to the objectives of the amendment in a more suitable form at Third Reading.
If the Government were willing to do that they would give a great deal of relief to individual voluntary organisations and to the associations representing voluntary organisations. If they are not willing to do either of those things I would say seriously to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, that he should press this amendment. I know he expressed it as a probing amendment but it is our last chance to get either concessions or a withdrawal from the Government.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the arguments advanced in support of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, have concentrated on just one of the factors identified in Clause 27(1)—that is, whether the material:
"promotes or opposes a point of view On a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another".
But that is only one of the factors to be weighed in the balance when assessing the apparent design of the publicity material. It is not a separate test. Any of the factors identified in Clause 27(1) may point to a publication being party political but equally any may be decisively outweighed and negated by other factors which point to the contrary. The question that has to be asked in each case is whether material appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party as opposed to some other legitimate purpose.
The noble Lord. Lord Hayter, has sought with his Amendment No. 67 to test the effect of the provisions of Clause 27(1) with two hypothetical examples of publicity issued by voluntary organisations in respect of local authority funding. With such examples any view requires knowing and examining all the relevant factors and considerations. These hypothetical examples do however provide a useful basis for debating the effects of Clause 27(1) on the voluntary sector and there are a number of points which I should like to make in reply to the noble Lord's portrayal of the examples.
The essential feature of the noble Lord's first hypothetical example was that the material issued by a tenants' association was critical of government legislation. Furthermore it sought to encourage the association's members to write to their MP urging him to vote against these proposals.
The essential question is: what is the material apparently designed to achieve? From the measured way in which the noble Lord described the hypothetical letter he almost seemed to be giving a description of exactly the way in which a tenants' association might conduct a campaign without creating any difficulty at all for a local authority which supported it. I can therefore assure the noble Lord that a hypothetical case limited to what he said and without any further evidence to suggest that there was an ulterior motive would not cause problems. But I must stress that additional factors could just change the

565
picture. If. for example, a tenants' association implied that its members should not vote for their MP at the next election if he supported the Government's proposals, there might clearly be a different and inappropriate apparent design.
The noble Lord's second example appears to be more straightforward. In the circumstances which he described, it seems clear that the apparent design of the community relations council publicity is not to affect political support for a political party but rather to promote better race relations, and as such it is entirely legitimate.
In short, the examples given by the noble Lord serve to demonstrate that his amendment is unnecessary. Although I appreciate and understand the concerns of the voluntary organisations, I firmly believe that they have nothing to fear from the clause, provided they are not seeking to use local authority assistance to affect support for a political party.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It was a comprehensive answer to the cases I mentioned and of which I think he had prior knowledge. In the circumstances, I believe that it would be unworthy of me not to withdraw the amendment, and I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments. Nos. 68 to 71 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh: My Lords. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until not earlier than 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1988
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which did not comment on it. The effect of the order will be to renew the 1984 Act for a further 12 months from 22nd March. This is the last occasion on which the Act can be renewed, and it will expire in a year's time on 21st March 1989.
It is a fact that more than three years have now elapsed since the last outrage was committed by Northern Irish terrorists on the mainland. That is a tribute to the vigilance of the police. But the sombre threat remains undiminished. It comes from any and all parts of the world. In Northern Ireland last year, the terrible catalogue of terrorist atrocities was augmented by a further 83 deaths resulting from internal terrorist activity. But the international threat is a real one. In 1987, six murders in Great Britain were attributed to international terrorism.
There have been successes against terrorism, both on the mainland and in the Province. Those successes were due in no small part to the existence of the
566
powers which are provided by the prevention of terrorism legislation which we are now considering. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said in the past that those powers are extraordinary. People are right to be concerned, both about the existence of the extraordinary powers and about their operation. It would be a victory for the terrorist if he were to force a government into exercising powers so draconian that he could claim, with credibility, that they were oppressive.
A difficult balance must be struck in which the powers are, on the one hand, effective in combating terrorism yet, and, on the other hand, result in the minimum curtailment of civil liberties. We believe that the Prevention of Terrorism Act powers strike that balance. The powers are necessary to protect the public against the very real threat of terrorism. While that threat persists, they will continue to be necessary.
Because of the exceptional nature of the powers, when it considered the Bill which became the 1984 Act, Parliament rightly pressed for it to be scrutinised annually by an independent person. Last year the task was undertaken for the first time by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross when he reviewed the operation of the Act in 1986. His review of the operation of the Act in 1987 was placed in the Library on 8th February. I apologise if some noble Lords have not been able to get a copy of the review. In his scrutiny my noble friend makes it clear that he is generally satisfied with the operation of the Act in 1987. He gave many figures and statistics with which I do not propose to weary your Lordships this evening but which illustrate the way in which the Act was operated last year.
As the 1984 Act will expire in March 1989, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary last year asked my noble friend Lord Colville to widen his brief. In addition to the scrutiny of the operation of the Act in 1987, my noble friend was asked to undertake a wider review of the effectiveness of the legislation. That was published as a Command Paper on 9th December 1987.
I wish to express the gratitude both of the House and of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to my noble friend for the considerable effort and care which has gone into both of the reports. In the course of his work, my noble friend has visited no fewer than 49 air, sea and hoverports around the United Kingdom. He has acquired a degree of knowledge about the working of the port controls in which he can have few rivals. He has had discussions with a wide range of individuals and organisations which have an interest in the legislation, and he has taken care to represent their views in his reports.
In his main review of the legislation my noble friend made a number of recommendations for changes in the legislation. The most significant recommendation is that the central provisions of the prevention of terrorism legislation should become permanent and that they should no longer be subject to annual renewal. As my noble friend says in his report, it would be foolish, although it is a disagreeable and sad prospect, to pretend that terrorism in some form will not continue to threaten lives and property in Western countries in the foreseeable

567
future. It would be equally foolish to pretend that we could contemplate dispensing with legislation against terrorism in the near future. It is realistic, therefore, that the powers should now be continued for as long as they are needed.
However, in recognition of the exceptional nature of the powers, we propose that the new legislation should be renewed and reviewed annually so that it will be the subject of regular scrutiny. It will require a deliberate decision by Parliament each year to retain it. It will remain possible to discontinue any part of it at any time. Since annual renewal is to be retained, we shall be going back to the position under the 1976 Act. The new legislation will not have a fixed life similar to the five-year term of the present Act. It will continue for as long as—but only as long as—Parliament decides.
The report of each annual independent scrutiny of the operation of the Act will continue to be published as at present so that Parliament can take an informed view of the way in which the Act is used. The Act will, as now, be renewable wholly or in part. My noble friend argues in his report that the provisions, which apply solely to terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland—proscription and exclusion—should be placed in a separate part of the Act and should be on a temporary basis. If the requirement for annual renewal and the power to discontinue any part of the Act are retained as proposed, Parliament will be able to drop those powers if and when it considers that they should be dropped.
The Government intend to accept my noble friend's recommendation that the port powers, which are now contained in the supplemental orders, should be enacted in primary legislation. The port powers include important provisions such as the examination, searching and detention of passengers, and we believe that it is right that they should become subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
The Government have considered very carefully my noble friend's recommendation that the police powers at ports should be extended to ports which handle traffic which comes from outside the common travel area as well. The police already have the crucial powers to examine and detain people at any port in the United Kingdom in order to establish whether they are involved in terrorism. There is a small number of police powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act which apply only at ports which are used by people travelling within the common travel area. Powers under the Immigration Act 1971 provide a substantial measure of control at ports which are not covered by the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and we are not at present convinced that there is a case for extending police powers at these ports.
We see merit also in my noble friend's proposal that the procedures which apply to people in police custody in England and Wales under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act should also apply to those who are detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We are considering how best this recommendation might be implemented without compromising police investigations.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already announced the Government's conclusion that they cannot accept my noble friend's recommendation that the exclusion power should not
568
be retained. The Government recognise that this is a severe power, restricting as it does the free movement of a person within his own country, and as such it is not used lightly. But until an alternative means is found of giving the public the degree of protection which is currently provided by exclusion, the Government believe that the power must stay.
My noble friend suggests that Section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act could usefully be extended to cover international terrorism, and that there should be further exploration of other means of acting against terrorist funds. The question of attacking the sources of terrorist finances is complex but the Government accept that they should look very carefully at how it might be possible to extend the existing provisions along the lines which are proposed.
The measures which I have outlined will form the basis of the Bill which the Government will introduce and which will replace the existing Act when it expires in March 1989. The contents of the Bill are subject to further consideration, but I thought that it was only right to give your Lordships an idea of the Government's thinking about the future of this legislation as your Lordships consider the renewal of the 1984 Act for the last time.
I hope that my noble friend's account of the use which was made of the powers under this Act will reassure your Lordships that they are exercised properly and with due regard to their special nature. The Government believe that this legislation should remain in force only if Parliament is satisfied that it continues to be necessary. I commend the draft order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
7.42 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I make no apology and I do not think that the House would expect one, for asking the House to give the gravest possible consideration to the annual renewal and continuance of the legislation asked for by the order before your Lordships.
Before I address myself to the very important elements of freedom of the subject and breaches of our constitutional law, perhaps I may make two points abundantly clear. The first is by way of a protest which I hope I can make courteously in regard to a matter to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has already referred. We are supposed to consider these matters in the light of the annual review. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who has already been thanked by the Minister for his work in the review of the operation of the Act itself. deserves thanks, I am sure, for the work he put in in regard to the annual review for 1987. The review arrived in the Printed Paper Office while I was waiting for it precisely five minutes ago. That matter ought to be looked into very closely. Those of your Lordships participating in this debate—and I am included in that number—have had to read through that report with a rapidity which quite obviously does not do it justice.
My second point is one that I wish to make very clearly from these Benches. I imagine that there is

569
nobody in your Lordships' House who, in any way at all, will wish to defend acts of terrorists or do anything but safeguard our citizens from such dreadful deeds and murderous enterprises. That is a matter on which there will be unanimity in your Lordships' House. However, we have to balance the threat to the security of our citizens and their homes against the invasion of our centuries-old liberties, which are dealt with most peculiarly and extraordinarily under the legislation we are now considering.
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to quote the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in regard to the effect of this legislation, for example, on our Irish fellow citizens in this country and Northern Ireland and on the Irish in southern Ireland. On page 36, at paragraph 7.2 of his scrutiny of the operation of this Act in 1986 he says:
"The Prevention of Terrorism Act is extremely unpopular with the Irish community in Great Britain and, as with all the emergency legislation, in Northern Ireland too".
He goes on to say:
"I heard from one staunch republican who denies the right of Westminster to legislate for the Province at all. Others denounce terrorism, whether domestic or international, but say the legislation has cast a blight over the Irish population in Great Britain and is counter-productive in Northern Ireland because amongst other things it alienates the population and discourages the public from any attempt to help in rooting out terrorism. It creates martyrs and tends to cause misplaced sympathy for people who on any rational view have committed terrible crimes. It is not for me to advise whether it would be possible to abolish all emergency legislation in Northern Ireland and rely on the ordinary criminal law, but it is a suggestion seriously made to me".
One comes to consider the situation in 1988 in the light of the report made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in respect of the operation of the Act during 1987 and indeed all previous years. When one comes to consider that report I should like to remind your Lordships of what I endeavoured to say in the debate in your Lordships' House on 19th February 1987. I introduced that matter by quoting what the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said when introducing a similar order to the one that we are now considering. He said:
"The Government welcome the opportunity provided by the annual review, and by the debates on the continuance order in this House and in another place, for a thorough scrutiny of this legislation. The Government believe it should only remain on the statute book if Parliament is satisfied both that the powers it gives continue to be necessary, and that they are being properly used".—[Official Report, 19;2/87; col. 1241.]
On that occasion, in regard to that remark, I said:
"Again on this occasion especially I ask the noble Earl to consult his right honourable friend and say whether, in their joint view, it is consistent with what is repeatedly said year by year, that we should consider these powers and pass them only if necessary, if we have no opportunity whatever of dealing with the powers separately". —[Official Report, 19/2/87; col 1242.]
That is extremely material on this occasion because the Government have accepted in their wisdom a recommendation to which I wish to refer in a moment; namely, that we should have a permanent Act on the statute book dealing with the powers of the Government and other authorities in regard to fighting terrorism.
In that selfsame report there were two recommendations in the main that the Government have seen fit not to accept. They are in regard to exclusion orders,
570
and Section 11 of the Act that deals with the offence of withholding information. Perhaps I may immediately refer to the passages of the report which deal with the question of exclusion orders. I am looking at the review of the operation. At page 37, paragraph 11.1.2, the report quotes what the Secretary of State can do by way of making an exclusion order. It states:
"The Secretary of State may make an exclusion order against any person who he is satisfied (a) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism: or (b) is attempting or may attempt to enter Great Britain or Northern Ireland with a view to being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism".
If noble Lords refer to page 38 they will see the statistics for new orders made in Great Britain. In 1985 there were seven; in 1986 there were nine; in 1987 to 30th June there were 12. The figures for Northern Ireland are at the bottom of that page. In 1985 no orders were made; in 1986 no orders were made; in 1987 to 30th June one order was made.
I turn to the case against exclusion, which is contained at page 39. I intend to quote only from the first part of paragraph 11.4.1, which states:
"Exclusion orders deprive certain people of the right to move freely around the United Kingdom and to live where they please. The evidence against them is not tested in a court of law nor made known to the person excluded and it is possible that some of it may be inaccurate".
At page 40 there is the assessment, from which I quote at paragraph 11.6.1. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, says:
"I renew my recommendation, made in the annual report on the Act for 1986, that Part II of the Act should not be renewed in 1988, or not replaced in the new Bill. The Home Secretary announced earlier this year that after careful consideration he had decided it would not now be wise to discontinue this power. I recognise that the alternative is a hard decision, but I express the view that it would be the correct one both in terms of civil rights in the United Kingdom and this country's reputation in that respect among the International Community".
I address myself to the Minister and ask him this. First, is it not regrettable that again this year we are in no position to say that we approve of the order continuing the terms of the Act but we disapprove, for example, of this right of internal exile, as it has been called? We have no such power to do so in this House in spite of the fact that we have called for such measures as would enable us to do so when the Act came up for renewal as it does under the order today. I again make that protest to the Minister. I also say this to him. Will he kindly tell the House the reason why—after two years of labours in looking at the situation in Northern Ireland, and in general in regard to terrorism—the Government are not accepting this recommendation.
I turn to another recommendation made in the report with regard to Section 11 of the Act. At page 50 of the report, after dealing with Section 11 of the Act, it describes the power under that Act as follows:
"if a person has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism or securing the arrest, prosecution or conviction of a person for a terrorist act, it is an offence for him to fail without reasonable excuse to disclose that information as soon as reasonably practicable to the police".
After dealing with previous objections to the inclusion of that offence in the Act, on page 51 at paragraph 15.1.3, the noble Viscount says this:
"There does not appear to me to be anything special in withholding information about terrorism. If the police seek to pre-empt a terrorist

571
attack, they can detain principal or subordinate personnel under Section 12 for questioning. The existence of an offence of withholding information provides at that stage no more than a point of pressure".
Later in that paragraph he states:
"I am recommending elsewhere that a core of anti-terrorist legislation should be made permanent. So long as the Act was 'temporary' there may have been justification for retaining Section 11. For any other purpose, the law should not make peculiar provisions for terrorism. It should apply to all serious crime, and particular regard should be had to any conflict with the common law in Scotland".
Again I say to the Minister what a shame it is—indeed, what a disgrace it is—that this House has no opportunity of saying to the Minister that this order should be continued but again Section 11 should disappear from the Act as an offence.
Perhaps I may make this general observation before I sit down. Parliament has the very treasured duty of safeguarding principles of our criminal law, the liberty of subject, and human rights that have been enshrined in our law for many a long day. Even in difficult times such as we have experienced with the acts of terrorism, both international and in Ireland, Parliament obviously has the duty of seeing that those rights, privileges and liberties are sustained if they possibly can be. They ought only to be infringed as a temporary measure where an emergency exists.
We on these Benches can see no reason at all why the annual review should not continue in the same way that it has done—except that procedural provision should be made for our being able to debate the various powers and offences under the Act, to see whether they should be reviewed. We believe it is a retrograde step to think in terms of any permanent legislation, especially at a time when tempers have been unnecessarily inflamed in Dublin, quite apart from Northern Ireland, by recent decisions of the Government that we on this side of the House have deprecated: namely, not to hold a public inquiry into the offences that were quite obviously committed by some minority members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
To make an announcement of permanent legislation at this time is—if one wants to be kind about it—an act of supreme tactlessness. If one wants to be unkind about it, then it is an act of supreme lack of diplomacy.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I totally disapprove of making the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act a permanent Act. I believe it will appear that we have given up and have actually thrown in the towel. It will be seen as a retreat; that we have failed and that will be a fillip to terrorism. I believe it would be far better to step up the anti-terrorist profile and show our people we are determined to root out terrorism.
Also, the timing of this announcement is a classic example of psychological silliness and insensitivity. I prefer the annual review as at present—a parliamentary debate that brings the Government to account. It also offers the hope that as we succeed against terrorism the provisions in the order will be eased and gradually removed from the statute book. That hope, which is the main aim of the annual debate, may well go. Permanency will overrule, and
572
the declared permanency of temporary provisions will be indicative of our failure to defeat the terrorists.
The renewal of the order dealing with the prevention of terrorism has my approval. The powers contained in the order will be required for at least the next 12 months, as the Government initially requested. We must not forget that the objective of terrorism is usually to bring about political change by means of terrorising peoples and governments and through intimidation by bomb and by bullet, hoping to weaken the democratic will and effect a ruthless, military-style takeover.
One method is to create such a backlash against the forces of law and order that the democratic government of the day appear to be so dictatorially oppressive that they help win support for the terrorist cause. That situation must be avoided, and that is why orders to help prevent terrorism must be subject to democratic scrutiny before approval.
I should like to deal with this order in the context of Northern Ireland, although it applies also to the activities of international terrorists. Members of the Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army visit Britain in their various guises. They are observed at the Irish exits and at the entry points to Britain; namely, ports and airports. They visit friends and relatives, mingle with football spectators at west coast football matches, attend boxing matches in London and other sporting occasions, and occasionally divert en route to leave a message at a covert drop, awaken a "sleeper" here and there, assemble an active service unit, collect and store bomb-making equipment, establish safe houses, and so on.
All the time there is in our midst some terrorist activity taking place by Irish terrorist groups and their friends in Great Britain. Constant surveillance is therefore absolutely necessary, and the maintenance of emergency provisions is an arm of the law that must be continued.
Our security and intelligence forces manning the airports and seaports of Northern Ireland and Great Britain must have the right, and the backing of Parliament, to watch all the faces, to track suspects' movements, and to recognise the "mug shots" of wanted men, especially those who manage to remain free after the mass escape from the Maze prison, that college of high learning in Irish nationalism, military discipline and terrorist activity. Yet even some of those men have escaped the net.
When we hear or read of some outcry concerning one or more persons being held at a port in Northern Ireland or Great Britain who protest their innocence (and they may well be innocent), we must recognise that the prevention orders in operation may cause some nuisance and inconvenience and that some libertarians may rise in anger at such intrusion into our peaceful and democratic way of life.
I do not complain when such people say our civil liberties are being breached again. I consider this: what if, among those persons that the Special Branch has held, there are a couple of people who wanted to effect a post drop, awaken a sleeper or activate an active service unit? In the time that those suspects can be held under the emergency provisions and

573
prevention of terrorism legislation, it will become a failed mission. If there is insufficient evidence to prefer charges then, their return home or their objective having been frustrated their mission will have failed.
No doubt that has happened time and time again. There is no telling how many lives have been saved. Some completely innocent people may have been held with them, perhaps having been used as a shroud when only one in a group of travellers was a suspect. That is the price we must pay when terrorism and terrorists abound within our shores.
It is also important to understand that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and legislation extending detention have given police time to check forensic evidence they may have concerning fingerprints on guns or on bomb-making equipment and to match it in the time available. I ask your Lordships not to relax those laws this year. They are just as important now as at the time of their inception. There may be fewer terrorists in total but there are proportionately more hard-line, callous men.
In the light of all that I have said. I ask my colleagues also not to parley with Sinn Fein. That organisation and its councillors are the political agents of the Provo terrorists. I am aware that meetings have taken place, and still do. A number of Sinn Fein councillors are former Maze men. They are not ordinary criminals as we understand them. Having served a sentence and wiped the slate clean, they have been retrained, rested, refurbished, and are now more political too. Let us not be kidded by their political activity, with which they attempt to cloak their terrorism.
It is not just a ballot box and bullet policy now, frightening though that is. It is now the ballot box and mass slaughter—Enniskillen being the most recent example. Since the humiliation of Sinn Fein in the Republic elections it is clear that the hawks in the Provisional IRA have now been given a free rein; hence their attempts to import more sophisticated weapons of war and to raise the profile of terrorist activity. That is another particularly strong reason to maintain anti-terrorist provisions.
To defeat the terrorists there is a price to pay. There is the inconvenience, irritation, annoyance with police and Special Branch Officers, and the curtailment of our total freedom and civil liberties. But to combat evil men we must maintain the full legal armoury that Parliament has decreed should be available, and that is what I urge my party and this House to do.
From my experience as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for almost three years, and from the protected life I lead—I know what the loss of privacy really means—I am left in no doubt that active service units still operate and are activated within our shores. Therefore the utmost vigilance is absolutely essential. Our security forces must be backed to the hilt, without cavil or complaint, because I believe that our freedom and security are in their hands.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I apologise for failing to list my name as one of those wishing to take part in the debate. I have explained the position to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I should like to join with my noble friends who have already spoken in expressing appreciation of the difficult and extremely tortuous task undertaken by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. It was a difficult task to review this politically unsavoury legislation. I understand from his report, and from people from whom he received representations and views, that he made every effort to inform himself of the ramifications and implications arising from the operations of this PTA legislation. I am convinced that he did not put forward his report and proposals without giving considerable thought and care to the outcome for the community and to the possible political consequences.
The outcome of this renewal order and the proposed further legislation, and of the pending debate in another place, have received wide media coverage. That has not been unexpected. Throughout the United Kingdom there has been a growing public anxiety about the serious rise in organised terrorism, especially about the availability and use of sophisticated new technological weaponry and devices with lethal results for the security personnel and the general public. There is no doubt that in Northern Ireland there has been a build-up of such deadly equipment. It has been used with murderous intent against those responsible for the maintenance of law and order and to the imperilling of the life and safety of ordinary citizens going about their daily business.
I am concerned about the further enactment of this legislation, as are other noble Lords and responsible and peaceable citizens. I am unhappy about the territorial application of the inclusion orders. I am also concerned about some of the difficulties experienced by the overlap between the PTA and the emergency provisions Act, especially the difficulties as regards proscribed organisations.
I am pleased to learn from the Minister that the new arrangements for legislation will be considered in more detail and, it is hoped, will provide for a continuous scrutiny and review of the legislation. I hope that the provisions may allow for annual debate with amendments to the new legislation to be considered. I join with my noble friends Lord Mishcon, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, and Lord Mason in their general concern about the stamp of permanency on the legislation. I hope that any consideration will give the lie to the idea that this is a no-hope situation.
Finally, in considering the order and whatever may arise from the renewal arrangements, I am compelled to take into consideration the situation in Northern Ireland. I am well aware that this legislation is concerned not only with terrorism in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom and internationally. I should like to voice my agreement with the words spoken by Archbishop Eames at the memorial service held last Sunday in St. Anne's Cathedral in Belfast for the killed RUC officers and other security personnel. He said:

575
"There is no alternative to a police service answerable to the community it serves and protects. There is no substitute for a constitutional police force serving the whole community with integrity, courage and devotion. There is no alternative to a police service that is seen to have only one enemy—those who challenge law and order".
As with most people in Northern Ireland, my hopes are for a peaceable and prosperous community. Along with other law-abiding citizens, I fear not the police nor the rule of law but, sadly, I live in fear of the terrorist and a community dominated by ruthless paramilitaries. For those reasons I support my noble friend Lord Mishcon and I do not oppose the renewal of this 1988 PTA order.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am not sure that your Lordships should pass this order tonight. In previous years my noble friend Lord Henderson and I have complained about the delay in the provision of the annual report. I did not know that it was available—although I ought to have guessed—until my noble friend Lord Mishcon mentioned it. I then went to the Printed Paper Office, where I was told that it had been received a few minutes before. My noble friend Lord Henderson had not seen it either. It is a major failure and it is outrageous that this House should be asked to pass the order without having had the benefit of considering the report. However, I have read enough of it to say that the important subject for discussion is the main review carried out by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I should like to congratulate him.
It is worth recalling that governments in difficulty always carry out a review. I had to undertake that in the days of the Labour Government; the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, had to undertake that; now the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has done so. The noble Viscount's report is far and away the most thorough, far-reaching and valuable and we are grateful to him for it.
However, I am not satisfied. If noble Lords think that we should continue with the previous procedure I can say only that in my judgment it is very unsatisfactory. It is absurd that we are debating a major issue such as this, with all the points and recommendations in front of us, when we do not have time, when we cannot move effective amendments and when we devote only an hour late in the day.
I shall not enter into the arguments as regards the new permanent Act. It is not quite as bad as we were afraid it might be, because there will be an annual order. I assume that there will be an order and that it will be possible to discuss the workings of the Act in a way that has not been possible. Perhaps the noble Earl can comment on that in his reply.
I have supported this from the beginning and I still support it except with regard to one matter. I am not convinced about the question of exclusion. I should like to hear that issue properly debated, but we cannot do so. I appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about that matter. Incidentally, I should like to congratulate him on becoming Deputy Leader. In that capacity he has particular responsibility for the welfare of this House and for the conduct of its affairs. I hope he will take this matter seriously and
576
ensure that there will be reasonable opportunities for debate. We shall have the Act, which will be fully debated, and in future years we shall have an order. Will it be possible in that order to drop major provisions from the Act? As I understand it, we could be doing that today if the Government were inclined so to do.
I am amazed that the Government are still persevering with Section 11. I objected to it strongly in my first inquiry. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, accepted that it should continue. We now have this thorough investigation with more powerful reasons than I put forward. I merely said that the provisions stank and did not state the reasons as given by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I appeal to the Government seriously to consider dropping Section 11 and the provision of a penalty if one does not give information, which does not apply in Scotland, as we have been told, or in other parts of the criminal law.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. We need this or similar legislation. I hope that the Government will pay rather more attention to making provision for adequate discussion when the new legislation is introduced in future years. There is a great deal of concern. Those of us who have gone into the matter thoroughly are convinced that it is necessary, but many people are not convinced. It is for Parliament to discuss this, to hear the arguments and then to make a decision.
I wonder about the need for a permanent Act. I really do not see the argument for it. I fully accept that the legislation will have to go on for many years yet. As I understand it, we do not have a permanent army Act. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, could tell me that. I do not know whether the Government will have a permanent army Act in future. This is a little unwise, and I hope that the Government will think further when they bring in the new legislation. There should be clear provision for making changes so that we do not go through this farcical procedure again.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like briefly to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. on his fine report. We have all had the benefit of reading it. It was published before Christmas. I regret most bitterly, with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the report of the noble Viscount for 1987 was in our hands only about an hour ago. I note that the 1987 report is dated 2nd February so the noble Viscount cannot be blamed for this. Why it has taken from 2nd February to 7.30 p.m. on 16th February for the report to reach us, I am at a loss to understand.
In the letter introducing the report, the noble Viscount says to the Secretary of State in words that ring rather hollow:
"I hope that it will be useful to both Houses of Parliament when they debate the renewal order".
How useful can it be when one receives it after the Minister has moved the annual renewal?
I must say this also to the noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, whom I congratulate on becoming Deputy Leader of the House: when this quinquennial Act was passed,

577
an undertaking was given that there would be a full report on each year's activity under the Act in time for the annual debate. I had discussions, as I am sure did the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, with the then Leader of the House. We made representations that the annual report should be a Command Paper so that it should appear in time and properly printed in sequence with other important state papers. It was represented to us that it would not be possible to print It in time to be numbered in the command series if it was to deal properly with the year preceding the annual renewal. We therefore settled for a report in the kind of format that we now have in our hands, but only on the understanding that it would be available in plenty of time for the annual debate. That undertaking has clearly been breached. That is an important and regrettable breach of a parliamentary undertaking.
That said, I join other noble Lords in expressing my deep disappointment that it has not been possible to dispense with exclusion orders and. for that matter, with the offence of withholding information. I remember that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his report said that he found consideration of the system of exclusion to be the most difficult part of his work and that exclusion was in many ways the most extreme of the Act's powers. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, recommended its discontinuance, and the Home Secretary has turned down the suggestion that it should be dispensed with, no doubt for very good reasons. I cannot help but say that in future one must have the opportunity to question the Government each year and to propose in Parliament the discontinuation of exclusion orders. If not, the annual debates will have no reality.
I ask the noble Earl whether he will convey to the Secretary of State the feeling of the House that we are very anxious about the proposal permanently to renew these important provisions. I say this for two reasons. One has already been well covered by the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, and other noble Lords. There is no need for me to dilate upon it. However, now seems to me to be not the opportune moment, to say the least, to make such an announcement.
Secondly, and for just as important reasons, I would say that for parliamentary and constitutional propriety this should not be done. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, I strongly support these terrorist regulations. Of course they are necessary. I would not wish them to be dispensed with for one moment. But are they to have parliamentary control? After all, the constitutional settlement, which is now 300 years old, determined that the army Act should be annual. If the army Acts are to be annual—they were until shortly after the last war, when they were made quinquennial, although annually renewable—surely important legislation such as this, which infringes civil liberties to a very dire extent, should also be quinquennial and subject to annual renewal.
Those were the proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. In the report he suggested—and the Government agreed—assimilating the parliamentary provisions of the Armed Forces Act and the parliamentary provisions of the terrorism legislation.
578
That seemed to me exactly right and just. Quite recently the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in an article in The Times drew attention to the importance in a parliamentary democracy of the Government's duty to observe parliamentary decencies and procedures. If Parliament requires the Armed Forces Act to exist only for a quinquennium, surely Parliament's view, which should be respected, is that the terrorism legislation should be considered likewise and not on a permanent basis.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I must express concern about the renewal of the Act and the proposals to enshrine it in permanent legislation. I should like to pick out what I believe to be two of its most obnoxious provisions. The first, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, is the exclusion order. It is a fundamental interference with human rights. We are trying to set an example. Our Foreign Secretary is in Moscow talking to people who are not allowed to leave their home country, yet we are approving continuation of a provision preventing citizens of this country from travelling freely round it, and we are doing so in the face of a recommendation from the Government's own adviser that the exclusion order is no longer required.
The second objectionable provision to which I wish to draw attention is the provision for detention for up to seven days under Section 12 of the Act. We now have one and a half years' experience—certainly over a year—of the workings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which allows detention of suspects up to 96 hours subject to particular safeguards, including the appearance before a magistrate. However, subject to a magistrate's approval there can be detention for up to 96 hours.
Reading the provisions, people have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act but they can only be detained because they are suspected of being involved in crime; that is, acts of terrorism. Very few have been detained for more than 48 hours. The figures for 1987 total 19. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, does not specify how many were detained for more than 96 hours. I wonder whether he and the Government inquired as to what proportion of those detained could properly and legally have been detained under existing legislation without the need for the much more draconian provisions of the Act. The powers are not needed and if it had been possible to amend the order to have the exclusion of those two objectionable provisions I would have wished to do so.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, may I say at the outset that, to put it as politely as possible, he has slightly overstated the case when he makes a comparison between the exclusion orders under this Act and the way in which political detainees are treated in the Soviet Union. His case is not strengthened by overstatements of that nature. I do not believe that that part of his contribution deserves a great deal of respect in the House.

579
However, on one issue I think we are probably all agreed; that is, that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has perfomed an outstanding service to the House and to the Home Office in carrying out this very thorough review. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and nearly everyone else, in expressing my substantial disquiet that this report was not made available until only a few moments before this debate commenced. After someone has worked as thoroughly as the noble Viscount, travelling to all parts of the United Kingdom conducting, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, probably the most thorough review possible of this legislation that has ever taken place, it seems little short of astonishing that these documents did not appear until just before we commenced this debate. If I did not know the Home Office to be a department which—and the noble Viscount will agree with me as we both served in it—does its best always to be courteous one would assume it was almost a studied act of discourtesy. I very much hope that following the observations made by a number of noble Lords we will receive an absolute guarantee that this problem will not arise on any future occasion.
This year's debate is taking place in a very different atmosphere from those which we have had on previous occasions. There are perhaps two reasons for that. The first is undoubtedly the suggestion made on television last night and in some of this morning's newspapers that the Government were proposing to make this temporary provisions Act permanent legislation. Admittedly it is clear that some of the worst fears that exercised some of us last evening and this morning have not been realised, because it is now obvious that we are at least to have the opportunity of a debate on the annual renewal order. However, I still question the desirability of making this permanent legislation.
I speak as one who broadly supports the general attitude of the Government on this whole question. But when there is serious disquiet expressed in many parts of' the House about particular features of this legislation, the idea that we shall be deprived of the opportunity of having detailed discussion of this legislation every four or five years seems to me unacceptable and I very much hope that the Home Secretary, his advisers and his colleagues in the Government will review the matter. If they do not they will, I believe, stir up a true hornets' nest.
The second reason why I believe that this debate is taking place in a very different atmosphere is the apparent impact of the announcement last night, repeated in this morning's newspapers, on Anglo-Irish relations. Following the whole series of problems created by the Stalker affair and at a time when it appears that serious problems are being encountered by the Attorney-General in obtaining the agreement of the Irish authorities to extradition arrangements it seems to me, to put it as mildly as possible, a very strange day to make an announcement of this character.
I do not want make heavy weather of the issue because the timing of policy announcements is a matter of considerable sensitivity and there may be more plausible arguments for the Government's
580
decision than appear obvious to us. Nevertheless, I find it odd and, coming after a whole series of other problems in relation to Ireland, a most unfortunate business.
The issues involved in this order raise questions involving the safety of the public at a time when there is a continuing threat of Irish-related terrorism (and as the noble Viscount's report makes clear, international terrorism too) and also our civil liberties. The first issue before us is obviously whether this order should be renewed and it is clear from the speeches made that it will be. I agree with that. The House will recall that the legislation of 1974 on which this order is broadly based received Royal Assent only eight days after the Birmingham public house bombings in November of that year. At that time I was Minister of State at the Home Office and my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was Home Secretary. Certainly we had no doubt that the legislation would have an effect on the civil liberties of a number of our fellow citizens. Indeed, we said so during the passage of the legislation. However, we believed that its enactment was vital if we were to protect the lives of many of our fellow citizens; and so it proved.
I dealt at that time with some of the first applications for exclusion orders. There were many in the first months after the enactment of that legislation. I had no doubt, nor did my noble friend, that on the evidence before us, had those exclusion order powers not been included in that legislation many people in this country would have died. There is no doubt that at that time we cleared out of this country a number of extremely dangerous men and women who were involved in the organisation of terrorism in this country. When serious concern is expressed about the exclusion order powers it is necessary to realise what the consequences would have been if we had not had them.
I now turn to the issue of port controls, dealt with in paragraph 3.1.5. of the noble Viscount's report. Only a few days after the passage of that legislation 1974—indeed the day after it received Royal Assent—I remember going to Liverpool to watch the Merseyside police bringing those port controls into effect and for the first time cross-examining a significant number of passengers disembarking from ships in Liverpool. I do not doubt, and I did not doubt at the time, that many of those people bitterly resented the fact that they were questioned. I have no doubt that when they were delayed, as some were for a significant period, they were even more angry. However, in view of the terrorist threat I believe we were right to do it and like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I believe that those controls at our airports and seaports remain absolutely vital.
The terrorist threat to this country remains substantial. I believe it would be foolish to remove those controls, which act as a significant deterrent to the travelling terrorist. That is a view held by all the senior police officers who deal with our counterterrorist arrangements in this country and, again, I agree with them.
I close with one important and sensitive issue. The Home Secretary has decided not to implement or adopt a very important recommendation of the noble

581
Viscount which relates to exclusions. As I have indicated, I believe that when they were introduced they were vital. The noble Viscount has reviewed the matter and, in the light of the different situation which now faces us, has come to a different conclusion. He adopted the same attitude in the last report that he submitted to the Home Secretary and was equally unsuccessful on that occasion. The noble Viscount has accepted in his report that there was unanimous police opposition to his proposal both by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by the Association of Scottish Chief Police Officers. He also accepted that recommendations for exclusion orders were processed with the greatest care by the Home Office, and I am sure that that remains the situation.
I am sure that many of my noble friends agree with the noble Viscount. I found it exceedingly difficult to come to a conclusion on this matter but on balance, speaking for myself, I came down on the same side as the Home Secretary. For the moment I believe the power is desirable but I would be deepy concerned were we not to have the opportunity of regular debate on this issue at a time when many responsible Members of this House and Members of another place take a contrary view. That is the case for regular review by Parliament and I hope the noble Earl will take account of that view and the whole range of issues involved in the idea of having permanent legislation. I believe I have made my position and the position of my colleagues clear. We believe the present order should be renewed, which is essential given the terrorist threat facing this country. I am sure that the House will agree with that conclusion.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships who have spoken for the general support which has been given to this draft order. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was kind enough to congratulate me on becoming Deputy Leader of the House of Lords and to say that it was part of my business to ensure that your Lordships are happy.
I detect—one does not have to be very clever to detect—that your Lordships were not particularly happy with one aspect of this matter this evening. I am sorry that a matter as sensitive as the one we are discussing tonight should have had the jolt which it has had by noble Lords not having to hand the report of my noble friend Lord Colville. In fact, the Command Paper was in the Printed Paper Office on 9th December and the report was placed in the Library on 8th February, so it has been available. I realise it was not available in the Printed Paper Office. Inquiries I have made indicate that 25 copies which were sent over by my department to the Printed Paper Office were for some reason not there. I will conduct inquiries to discover what went wrong.
Nevertheless, the fact is that they were in the Library. I even answered a Written Parliamentary Question on 8th February from my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux in which I said:
"My right honourable friend has received the report from Viscount Colville of Culross on the operation of the Act in 1987 and copies have been placed in the Library".— [Official Report, 8/2/88; col. 94.]
582
Therefore, they have been in your Lordships' House but I realise that they were not where your Lordships expected them to be and can only apologise profusely for the fact that something has gone astray. I shall endeavour to find out why and to ensure that that does not happen again.
It is unfortunate that a matter as sensitive as this should have had such an unhappy start. However, I am grateful to your Lordships for what has been said. I should like to take up the main point at issue and the main point of concern; that is, this matter being described as permanent legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the timing, and I think his words were that at best it was tactlessness and at worst a supreme lack of diplomacy.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, who was himself a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland — I was glad to hear him say this—said that we should not relax against the terrorists now, but on referring to the timing of this said it was silliness and insensitivity. Other noble Lords have also been concerned about that. I want to make this perfectly clear because there is a slight dilemma and a sense of misunderstanding. This is a law which at present requires renewal every year and is under an Act which lasts for five years. Next year it is intended that there should be a similar Act. The Act itself may be of a more permanent nature — in other words, it does not have a specific end to it —but the content of that Act will be subject to parliamentary approval each year.
The dilemma is this. Either one produces a Bill for consideration every year or one has a Bill, like most Bills, which is in operation until Parliament decides to repeal the law. We have tried a third alternative, which is to have a Bill which becomes an Act of Parliament but which is renewable every year. We have tried to do that in view of the fact that this is a particularly sensitive issue.
Therefore when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the way that he has of being extremely courteous but firing an Exocet at the same time, refers to this as a supreme lack of diplomacy, I can only say that if we are going to have Parliament approve an order every year, it means that there is a timescale. The timescale is that the new order has to be in by 22nd March. The undertaking given by the Government was that Parliament should have a month in advance of that time to discuss it. Therefore along come the Government. They produce a draft order for discussion by your Lordships and they are described as being insensitive, silly and lacking in diplomacy.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister, who is extremely courteous but is also extremely able in debate, remembers what is in fact the complaint. The complaint was not that the order was coming before the House at this moment but was about the announcement that temporary legislation was to be replaced by permanent legislation. In case he believes that I am peculiarly unkind from this Front Bench, which of course is quite inaccurate, I refer him to today's article on the front page of The Times which states:
"It is a move that will further exacerbate relations between Dublin and London which have already been severely strained in recent weeks by the Stalker affair and the failure of the appeal of the Birmingham public house bombers".

583
I do not think that The Times is unfair to the Government, but that was its reaction to the announcement about the permanent legislation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is as usual courteous. In fact the newspapers and indeed the BBC got it wrong. What will happen is precisely what is happening now. There will be legislation as there is now, a similar kind of legislation, but that legislation will be renewable every single year as it is now. When the Bill comes before your Lordships then the whole panoply of the contents of the Bill can be considered. I really think that it is misrepresenting what is happening when the inference is that this legislation will be permanent and immutable. Even my noble friend Lord Colville—I say "even"; I should leave that word out. My noble friend Lord Colville has said that it is unreasonable to assume that the problem of terrorism will go away. If the problem of terrorism does not go away the Government have a right and a duty to bring in legislation to protect citizens against it.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked whether we could discuss the workings of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made this point clearly too. He wanted to be able to discuss various aspects of the Act. It is possible to discuss all aspects of the Act under a regulation, but the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, knows full well what the parliamentary procedures are. If an Act requires renewal, it is done by order. My understanding is that it is proper and usual for there to be one order. If there is concern about the contents of the Act the Government can remove various aspects of the Act in the order which they lay.
It is true that it is more difficult for noble Lords to remove parts of the Act by the order because the order has to be accepted as a whole or not at all. Of course if the worst were to happen the House would be perfectly justified in saying that it would not accept the order as it was. It could be renewed on another occasion. I am not inviting the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has suddenly perked up with interest at that prospect, to follow that course, but I am saying that Parliament has the right to say, "We will not accept the order as it is at the moment. Take it away and bring it back in a different form". Parliament has that capacity.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, a second and I hope a final intervention which the noble Earl has so politely allowed me to make: he knows as well as I do that there is a convention that the Opposition do not oppose orders that are brought in this way. If that were not the convention, I might, with some of my noble friends, have had to take a certain course tonight. I do not want our attitude to be misunderstood. We are obeying the convention.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that and for obeying, as he puts it, the convention. I would rather have said that he was following the convention. I shall certainly take account of the real points of concern which have come from all parts of the House this evening.
584
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also referred to the effects of the order on the Irish population. I hope that the Irish population will understand that the Act is not aimed at law-abiding citizens in Ireland or in Britain. It is aimed at protecting us all from the scourge of terrorism, wherever it comes from, whether it be from Irish terrorists or international terrorists.
The noble Lords, Lord Gifford and Lord Mishcon, referred to the problems of exclusion, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I was glad that he said that, recognising the problems, he nevertheless felt that on balance the Government were right to include the exclusion provisions. I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, because it is a tough measure and views differ. Exclusion is a severe power, but, as my noble friend Lord Colville acknowledges in his main review, there is at present no alternative means of giving the public the same degree of protection which the existence of this power provides. The Government have accepted a number of recommendations which will improve the administrative arrangements for exclusion in a number of respects. I hope that that will be of advantage.
The noble Lords, Lord Shackleton, Lord Gifford and Lord Mishcon, were concerned about Section 11. The Government have considered this proposal very carefully. In the exceptional case of terrorism, where lives may be at stake if a person does not disclose a vital piece of information, it seems to the Government right that it should be an offence to withhold information. The police believe that the power has value and it is proposed that that provision should be retained. Under Section 11 it is not an offence to fail to disclose information about one's own activities. The offence is to fail to disclose information about the activities of other people.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to the powers of the police. The police may become aware of plans for a terrorist attack but the information may be insufficient to link it to a specific offence or an attempted offence, and to let events unfold until the point at which it is possible to make an arrest under the ordinary criminal law would be to risk a bomb going off or possibly even an individual being shot. The police must have the power to detain on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism in order to thwart a terrorist attack.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, surely in those circumstances the police would have reasonable suspicion of the existence of a conspiracy to commit an explosion. They have the powers under the existing law. I hope that before we debate it next year the noble Earl will look into that aspect of the matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly look into it because it is a very important matter and these penalties are severe. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is that we realise these particular difficulties. We believe that it is right to continue these powers for the safety of the people as a whole, but I realise that there are drawbacks to which the noble Lord has reasonably referred.

585
Some noble Lords have referred to various points which I have not answered. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, referred to a no-hope situation in regard to this new legislation. It is not a question of a no-hope situation. It is a question of a reality. Terrorism is the use of violence to instil fear and thereby to extract concessions. Terrorists seek to achieve a political goal by intimidation, wherever that terrorism comes from. A principal means to this end is to demonstrate that the state cannot guarantee the safety of ordinary people. A secondary aim is to provoke the Government and the security forces into over-reacting. It is a difficult and delicate balance and the trap must be avoided. The measures that are taken must be effective but they must not be so severe that they risk losing the confidence and support of the public. I hope that we have the prevention of terrorism legislation correct and that it meets both these criteria. I realise that it is sensitive and I shall certainly stake into account all that your Lordships have said this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
9 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 28 [Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 72, I should say that if this amendment were to be agreed, I could not call Amendments Nos. 75, 77 and 78.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 28, leave out lines 29 and 30.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment would restrict the operation of Clause 28 to schools. Most Members of the House will have their own views, perhaps very individual views, about this difficult problem, which arouses such poignant feelings. I shall quickly state my own background. For many years I have been haunted by the problem, which will not go away whatever is decided tonight, of being kind, tolerant and fair to homosexuals without actively encouraging homosexuality among the young. That remains a basic problem. No one can get around it, but we must try to cope with it in an enlightened way.
Thirty years ago I opened a debate in the House in favour of the Wolfenden report, which at that time, I am sorry to say, another place would not touch with a bargepole because it was far too sensitive a matter. However, I opened that debate. I still think that I was on the right lines because 10 years later legislation followed, although not as a result of my efforts.
>At the end of 1986, I spoke in favour of a Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in an attempt to curb the excesses of some local authorities. At that time — I do not mean to recriminate — the Government were indifferent and somewhat hostile, or at any rate unfriendly, to that Bill. Now, for
586
whatever reason — no doubt the coming of AIDS and the unpopularity in the community attaching to homosexuals has been a factor; I do not say that it is the only factor—the Government's attitude is totally different compared to what it was at the end of 1986. So much, therefore, for the past.
I am bringing forward an amendment which, despite some evidence to the contrary, I hope will command the support of the majority of your Lordships. After long debates on Second Reading and in Committee, I suppose that most Members of the House feel that something must be done to cope with the excesses of a few local authorities which have been referred to. "Something must be done" is a dangerous phrase. Such a phrase got the Duke of Windsor into trouble and led to his abdication some years ago. However, the general idea was that something had to be done.
On the other hand, even when they voted for the Bill many noble Lords, to my certain knowledge, did so with a heavy heart or a perplexed mind, because they recognised that there were possible dangers to the arts, to education and to the rights which at present are accorded under the law to male and female homosexuals. Many who voted for that measure would undoubtedly have liked to see something slightly different, but they felt that something had to be done.
I speak only for myself. I do not ask anyone else to agree with me. I think that all homosexual activity, as distinct from homosexual feelings, is morally wrong. However, I say the same of adultery, but no one suggests that we should launch a mass campaign against adultery; or at least I have not not heard anyone do so. If there is anyone, perhaps he would stand up and say so. I say that homosexuality is as wrong as it was in 1957 when I supported the Wolfenden report. To say that homosexuality is wrong is not an argument for saying that we must stamp it out by legislative action. Of course there are some who may think that that is not such a bad idea. Even those extremists may feel that this almost incidental clause which crept into a local government Bill is hardly the place to initiate a mass campaign against homosexuals.
Again, I speak only for myself when I say that I sympathise with the aims of Clause 28 in so far as they are for the protection of children. On Second Reading, I could not convince myself that the clause, as drafted, could be confined to that purpose. I could see a distinct and troubling possibility of danger to the culture, to education and to a minority of homosexuals. Therefore when it came to the vote I did something that I have not done for 40 years: I abstained. That course is usually regarded as cowardly. I do not know whether anyone has mentioned my abstention, but it was the only thing I could do compatible with my conscience. One can only resolve to try to suggest something better.
Today, I come forward in a moderately optimistic spirit. I would be more optimistic if the noble Earl had supplied me with any reason for optimism. I cannot pretend that he has encouraged me in any way. My optimism is therefore not quite what it was when I prepared my speech. I hope that the Government will agree—I shall press the noble Earl

587
on this issue— that the basic object of Clause 28 is the protection of children. Either it is or it is not. I must ask him whether that is the basic object of Clause 28; or is it something else? Is it a general queer-bashing campaign?
So far as I can make out, many of those who voted for the clause at the last stage were under the impression that the protection of children was the basic object. I spoke to one of the most highly respected members of the Conservative Party, who cannot be here tonight, soon after the vote. I told him that I intended to move an amendment which would confine the operation of the clause to schools. He implied, "I thought that was the situation already", or words to that effect. Heaven knows how many people who voted for the clause thought it was in fact a clause to protect children.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his resolute defence of the clause, laid his main emphasis on the danger to children. In his final speech before the vote the other day he picked out a particular brochure as epitomising the menace. I have not told him that I intended to quote his words but he will not be surprised if I do so. This is what he said:
"Most worrying of all the items on the brochure is a display of press cuttings, commentary and photographs of the battle for positive images of lesbians and gays in schools".—[Official Report, 2/2/88; col. 1018.]
That was where the emphasis was laid by the noble Earl in his final speech in favour of the clause.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, in a speech which made a considerable impression not only on his and my co-religionists but more widely, laid a similar emphasis. The noble Duke, who cannot be here tonight, said that,
"some local authorities have been promoting homosexuality by teaching it in state maintained schools. This is a gross abuse of their duties and a breach of trust to the parents whose children are put in their charge".—[Official Report, 2/2/88; col 996.]
That was where the emphasis lay in the speech of the noble Duke. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff— I mentioned to him that I might be quoting him — said something to the same effect. He said:
"We on this side of the Committee care first and foremost about children".—[Official Report, 2/2/88; col. 1014.]
That is what the people who voted for this clause supposed themselves to be caring about— children. I cannot see how anyone taking that point of view can possibly object to what I am putting forward. It seems to me to be simple enough for anyone to understand. Certainly, on the face of it, it goes a long way towards protecting the children of our country. That can be achieved if this amendment is agreed to. The clause can go forward without any threat to the arts or human rights of any section of the adult community.
I am bound to say— I hope this is not too provocative— that anybody who votes against this amendment is saying that they have some wider purpose than the protection of children. I hope that in the course of the debate we shall know what it is. I hope that that view will not prevail. I beg to move the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I intervene at this stage solely to try and help the House. There are a
588
number of amendments on this subject and I understand that a form of grouping has been agreed. I hope that if your Lordships are agreeable we should take the amendments of the noble Earl, Amendments Nos. 72, 86 and 88. Then we should take Amendments Nos. 73 to 75, 78, 80, 81 and possibly 104, depending on the views of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Then we should take Amendment No. 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, followed by the government Amendments Nos. 77 and 85 and Amendment No. 87, then Amendments Nos. 79, 82 and 83 as a group. Then we should take Amendments Nos. 84, 89, 90 and 91 on their own. It is in order to be helpful that I mention that at this stage.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I intervene to make sure that I have understood. The noble Earl is suggesting that we should take my main amendment and one or two subsidiary amendments first on their own. I would not agree to anything else; I believe I have my rights.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is exactly as I understood the situation, because the noble Earl, Lord Longford, wished to take his amendment separately. I gather that his Amendments Nos. 86 and 88 are consequential on Amendment No. 72 which he has just moved.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not think this proposed grouping could be said to have been agreed because I certainly was not consulted. I did not receive my copy of the groupings until half-past seven tonight. I would have wished to reserve my right to move any amendments I deem suitable to be moved separately rather than have them grouped as the noble Earl has proposed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I think that the proposed grouping is sensible. I should like to support it. If the House is agreeable, I should like to say a word in support of the amendment of my noble friend.
I must begin by saying that I am in favour of the amendments to which I have added my name rather than the whole of the speech which my noble friend made in support of those amendments. He and I frequently disagree on some measures; but in spite of that we form a rather exclusive mutual admiration society of two because even when either of us is doing things with which the other one profoundly disagrees, we rather like the way that the other does it. Therefore we manage to get along all right. But as regards this matter, at this stage as we see it— or rather as I see it, because I must only speak for myself— we are at the damage limitation stage.
For myself I dislike the clause as a whole but at this stage in the development of the Bill we have already discussed the clause as a whole. Therefore, as I see it, what these two clauses seek to achieve and what I am now seeking to achieve is precisely that— damage limitation. It seems to me that, although I dislike the clause as a whole, I should nonetheless support this amendment and I have made that clear by putting my name to it.

589
I believe that my noble friend is right and that a lot of people may very well have supported this clause under the misapprehension which was so clearly explained to the House. Under these circumstances it seems to me to be entirely right and entirely proper that two amendments which seek to rectify that particular point should come before the House. Without any further ado or explanation or reasons why, I wish to say that it is my fervent wish that the House will decide by supporting this amendment to limit the provision to what I think many of us would support although I would not necessarily include myself among them. I hope that the provision will be limited and therefore that the Government will implement a clause which many of us thought was limited already in that respect.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Earl and to say that Amendments Nos. 86, 87 and 88 could I think be taken with this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney; I regard this amendment as a damage limitation exercise.
I gather from what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said in Committee that it was not the intention of the Government that Clause 28 should, for instance, impose censorship by the back door. The noble Earl was at pains to say that in his belief the fears expressed were unfounded. However a number of us were not persuaded and pointed to the ways in which we thought censorship could creep in.
I do not propose to rehearse those arguments but I do believe that the only effective way of allaying our fears about censorship is for the House to accept this amendment which, as the noble Earl said when he moved it, confines the clause to schools. That also is I believe the purpose of Amendment No. 73 on the Marshalled List which is due to be moved later.
I should at this stage say what I understood to be the fundamental purpose of the Bill which was introduced into this House by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. But even the limited objectives of that Bill were not acceptable to the Government. The Government's response to that Bill was to my mind exactly right. I cannot understand what has made them change that advice which they gave to the House. They said that his Bill was unnecessary and inappropriate. Those words were used both by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who were speaking advisedly and on behalf of the Government. I ask the noble Earl specifically what has caused the Government to change their mind.
I find it interesting to examine the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. I wish to quote what was said on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said:
"This Bill seeks to add a new section to Part II of the Local Government Act 1986, a part which…is concerned with the regulation of local authority publicity…provisions to stop local authorities promoting homosexuality do not sit easily alongside the existing party political prohibition".—[Official Report, 18/12/86; col. 333].
590
If that was said only a year ago why is it considered that a clause providing for the prohibition of the promotion of homosexuality should sit easily alongside Clause 27 which is about the prohibition of party political publications'? There has been a change of mind within one year. The Bill contains exactly the matters which were considered to be inappropriate a year ago. To quote further:
"It is by no means clear to me"—
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was speaking—
"that local authorities are empowered to promote homsexuality in their publicity, as opposed to providing some forms of information".
That was clear to the noble Lord, who was speaking from the Front Bench only one year ago. Why is it not clear to noble Lords now? What has caused the change of mind on the part of the Government?
Section 4 of the Education Act 1986 is relevant. It could be of direct assistance to the objectives of the noble Earl. That section enables his 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. He went to to say:
"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 we are debating today".—[Official Report, 18/12/86; col. 334.]
Why has it not been possible to proceed by way of a code of practice which has been incorporated in legislation and which has been given clear legal force and effect in the Bill now before us? That was announced by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on Second Reading. It was contained in the Explanatory Memorandum and it is plainly stated in Clause 27 of the Bill. Why cannot those provisions be used, as the Government said they could only a year ago'?
I think that we are entitled to know what has made the Government change their mind. Why are the matters which were then thought to be sufficient now found to be insufficient? It is important for the Government to state clearly the mischiefs which the subsection is designed to catch. Why add to the panoply already available and why place the clause immediately following Clause 27 when, in the Government's own words, it does not sit easily alongside that previous clause?
In my view, it is the duty of the Government to come clean and state openly why they are extending the scope of the Halsbury Bill to prohibit or inhibit local authority contributions to adult homosexual clubs, for instance, so that in effect they can only have their money if they refrain from promoting homosexuality— whatever that may mean, and it is the subject of a later amendment standing in my name.
I have not quoted all the arguments which were adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. Perhaps it would strain the patience of the House if I did so. It will suffice to say that they both said that legislation was unnecessary and inappropriate. They gave their reasons for saying that. I should like to add one more reason. Some of the objectionable material which has been brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord

591
Halsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, could easily be amenable to prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act. With those powers available, what is the justification for bringing the clause and, in particular, the subsection before the House? I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose the amendment, which seeks to excise the first limb of Clause 28 notwithstanding that in principle Clause 28 stood part by a very substantial majority in that form.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton — always persuasive and ever convincing— rehearses all the same arguments that your Lordships heard at Committee stage; not so the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose contributions are always refreshing and individual and always sincerely made. The noble Earl expressly recognised the interaction between paragraphs (a) and (b) which are the first and second limbs of Clause 28. During the passage of the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, he made a most courageous and memorable contribution. Of course anyone is free to change his mind but he accepted then that (a), the first limb, which by his amendment he now seeks to excise, was of general application and included within the scope of its prohibitions the intentional promotion of homosexuality in schools other than the kind expressly prohibited by (b), the second limb. That interaction, which we shall come to presently, is emphasised by the recognition of the government amendment, Amendment No. 85.
In the friendliest possible way, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that there was no question of "queer-bashing" in the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, which he supported. There is no question of "queer-bashing" today; nor indeed has there ever been.
We are concerned, and always have been concerned, with an abuse of rates by this type of conduct generally and in schools. It is not a question of bashing anybody; it is a question of protecting the ratepayer. At least that is how we see it. We see it sincerely, without emotion and, one hopes, without any unkindness or want of objectivity.
One must always examine the arguments. What are the objections to the first limb? The first category of objection is that it is dangerous and unnecessary. That was the view expressed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York whom I do not see in his place. He was expressing a view for which he rightly claimed the support of many noble Lords, including expressly the noble Lords, Lord Hatch of Lusby and Lord Graham of Edmonton and, up to a point, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Hutchinson of Lullington.
The second category of objection is that the first part of the clause is "totally unnecessary". Those words are taken from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on the Arts Council amendment.
The third objection— and there is only one more, having combed Hansard for the highest common factor of objections— was that this limb uses the word "promotion"— the subject matter of the subsequent amendment on drafting of the noble Lord, Lord
592
Henderson of Brompton— in relation to the abstract concept of homosexuality not in conjunction with concrete objects or objectives. I am referring to the objection in Hansard.
The last objection is that the incidence of this clause will adversely affect theatrical productions, voluntary bodies, counselling services and so forth, as those fears were expressed on the Arts Council amendment. If we examine the first head of objection with total objectivity, the most reverend Primate conceded very fairly that Clause 28 deals with a very serious problem— the promotion of homosexuality by a local authority. He went on to say that this justified the introduction of legislation.
Yet against those concessions he stigmatised Clause 28 as dangerous and unnecessary. This was by a process of reasoning akin to that which could condemn the keeping of a house dog as dangerous and unnecessary because when the dog is attacked by intruders it defends itself. By some curious process of logic, he would prefer to leave the house unguarded against further intrusions. Surely this stands the whole argument on its head, because but for the motivated attack upon the traditions of local government which raised this very serious problem, the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, would never have seen the light of day to pass in your Lordships' House. If it had not, Clause 28 would never have found its way into this Bill.
The most reverend Primate, using the terms "evil"— it was he who used it, albeit in a relative context— said in terms that the clause had the support of certain noble Lords. He preferred to countenance the continuance of the activities sought to be proscribed by Clause 28— that is to say the local authority going over the top— as a lesser evil to the greater evil of government interference in the affairs of local government. Those are two sides of the argument. I hope that I have stated them fairly. Surely it is wrong on that ground to have any real or sane objection to the clause.
The second and third categories of objection can be dealt with together. They emanate from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Is he going to deal at all with my amendment?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the essence of the noble Lord's amendment is to excise the first part of Clause 28, contrary to the principle established by the agreement that the clause stand part. Furthermore, that would be contrary to his own support for the interaction between these two clauses on the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
If I am not mistaken, the noble Earl's amendment is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. If I am right in saying that, then the noble Lord is rehearsing many of the arguments already rehearsed at Committee stage and surely it is reasonable to deal with them. Those arguments go to the essence of the noble Earl's amendment. All I have to say, having dealt with the first ground of objection, is that the second and third grounds are totally

593
unnecessary and that the objection that Clause 28 seeks to proscribe an abstract concept of homosexuality is equally ill-founded. Words must of course be construed in their true context—and so construed, any intentional conduct by any local authority to promote homosexuality is no more abstract or separated from matter or practice within that or any other dictionary definition.
The last objection is that concerning the fears of the Arts Council and voluntary bodies. As regards that, it has been emphasised over and over again by many Members on all sides— including my noble friends the Minister and Lord Boyd-Carpenter; the noble Lady. Lady Saltoun; and even myself —that nothing in this first limb prohibits any local authority from giving financial assistance for any of the purposes that have been called into question; namely, theatrical productions, art exhibitions, books in public libraries, counselling and advisory services, and the work of voluntary bodies.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord is telling the House about all the things that the clause does not do. Since I understand that he is at least part author and probably the main author of this clause, can he not answer the noble Earl's question: what does it do beyond protecting children? If it only protects children, then why is the second part not sufficient?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord ask me to answer that question? The second part is not sufficient because, as I have sought to explain, the first part applies generally to abuse of responsbiility in the promotion of homosexuality, and it applies to the type of situation envisaged by my noble friend Lady Cox, who widened the second limb to teaching. It would cover that—teaching in schools — and the first limb can cover conduct in schools as well as the general application outside schools. The second limb is concerned only with the specific type of conduct in schools. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, time goes on and if I have not done so then the House must judge. On examination of all the objections, there is no reason whatever for the excision of the first limb, and to do so would defeat the general efficacy of the prohibition and would run counter to the decision of the House on clause stand part.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I think that I can help the House by reminding the noble Earl that he does not have a monopoly in going back to the days of the Wolfenden report; I too was there. One of the findings of that report was that people's sexual orientation was not fixed at any particular age but that it more or less stabilised around the middle 20s. If one confines that fact solely to the protection of those whom the noble Earl has called "children", they could leave school at the age of 16 and still be open to seduction by those enlisted by local authorities on the grounds that it was a perfectly
594
legitimate exercise because it was not being conducted in school. I believe that that is wrong and it is why the two limbs—as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway— are needed. This should be stopped both inside and outside school.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Henderson, but I largely agree with my noble friend Lord Halsbury. I contend that Amendment No. 72 would give us the worst of all worlds. It would confine the restrictions which are to be imposed by Clause 28 solely to the question of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship, whatever that curious phrase may mean. Thereby it implies that promiscuous homosexual relationships—such as those which, until recently, were said to be found in the bathhouses of San Francisco and New York in which men were said to have sexual relations with 200 or 300 different men every year—are in some way preferable to stable, quasi-family homosexual relationships. Given the AIDS epidemic, that must appear to most people to be quite insane.
Surely it is the case that Clause 28 has two quite distinct objectives. The first and more important objective is to prevent the corruption of children and adolescents. The well-drafted Amendment No. 73, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, goes a long way towards achieving the first objective, though perhaps not the whole way. However, it does nothing to help in achieving the second, albeit perhaps less important, objective of preventing unwilling ratepayers from having to subsidise one specific form of sexual deviation, and one only. After all, if one is to have gay pride weeks on the rates, why not bondage pride weeks? The possible permutations are endless.
Amendment No. 72 does not achieve the second objective, and there may be noble Lords who consider that to be a good thing. I do not mind too much about that. However, it does not achieve to any extent the first and more important objective, as my noble friend Lord Halsbury has pointed out—that of protecting young people and adolescents.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Longford. I should be happy if its acceptance meant that it was not necessary for me to move Amendment No. 76, which I regard to be second best. Surely it is the case that the one new serious threat to society which has necessitated new legislation, whether tabled by my noble kinsman, Lord Halsbury, or by the Government, was that the practise of homosexuality was being encouraged and condoned in schools. That is the one case for which legislative action is necessary. If my noble friend's amendment were accepted it would mean that the prohibition was confined only to that teaching in schools, as I believe many noble Lords thought it to be; and that is what we should see.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I find myself in considerable difficulty. I hope that your Lordships will think it sensible if I briefly share that difficulty. I do not suppose that I can be alone in finding this cat's

595
cradle of amendments before the House exceedingly confusing. I have gone far enough to understand that there are two later amendments which are consequential upon this amendment. I have also gone so far as to understand that if this amendment were to be agreed the next five amendments, or thereabouts, would not be applicable because the words that they seek to amend would by then have disappeared. Further than that, I am in a state of confusion because among the amendments which would disappear if this amendment were to be passed are matters which I rather like. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that to abstain on such a Motion is usually regarded as cowardice. Occasionally one can abstain not simply because one is cowardly but because one is flummoxed. However, it is not simply that I am flummoxed.
As I understand it—I sat through every word of the debate in Committee—two elements united all parts of the Chamber. One was that the wilder shores of local government behaviour should somehow be controlled and that no one wished to see local government proselytising for, commending or advocating homosexuality, particularly to the young. For my own part I do not particularly wish to see local government advocating it to any age. I do not particularly wish to see it advocating any form of sexuality. It seems to me that it is not its business. That I imagine was felt in general by most Members of the Committee.
What I sensed that almost all the Committee felt was that the Bill must not to be allowed to erode the reputation for ordinary tolerance and compassion or indeed the rights of the individual on which the country so prides itself. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, frequently reassured the Committee that the intention of the Bill was in no way to do so. Those two elements, I sensed, were uniting the Committee in spite of a very complicated and often hard-fought debate.
However, when I look at the Bill, it seems to me that it does very well for the former but not so well for the latter. I think that for one precise reason. The entire force of the Bill, particularly in the first two clauses, which are the important ones, depends upon the word "promoting" or "promotion". With the greatest deference to the learning of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I still find that that single word is too vague. I looked down the list of amendments with some interest. I noted, for example, in Amendment No. 74, which would disappear if Amendment No. 72 should be agreed to, the word "commend". Suddenly I begin to see that the word "commend" had a force in it that "promote" does not. It is more precise. I should have quite liked to see the word "adocate", which seems precise.
It is therefore upon grounds of precision that I find myself in difficulty about the clause. I know not whether to support the amendment to leave out the clause or not to support it so as to be able to speak to amendments which contain other solutions that I prefer.
That is probably the most inconclusive speech that noble Lords will have to suffer this evening. I hope that at least it puts before the House a difficulty that I am sure that I am not alone in experiencing.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is of course right in saying that he may move any of his amendments singly or in a group. I was only trying to be helpful. Indeed, I took no part in the grouping that was going on while we were in discussion on the Bill. I know that those who were trying to put some order into this rather convoluted mass of amendments tried to contact the noble Lord: they sought him here, they sought him there, but they did not find him. This was put forward in a spirit of co-operation. Of course the noble Lord is right in what he has said.
Perhaps I may put to bed a myth that the noble Lord tried to perpetuate—namely, that the Government's views on this matter have changed. Of course they have not. They have been consistent throughout. Both my noble friends made it clear at an earlier stage that the Government entirely supported the purpose of the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, as indeed did my right honourable and honourable friend, in another place when it was discussed before the last election.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was right to point out in opening the debate that there are many individual approaches to homosexuality. The question raises some sensitive issues and I know that many of your Lordships have given long and serious thought to the drafting of Clause 28. The Government share the noble Earl's objective of ensuring that the legislation is drafted in a clear way. We have common cause in wanting to get it right. Amendments Nos. 77 and 85, tabled in my name, which we shall be debating later, are evidence of the Government's wish to meet legitimate concerns.
The Government begin from the proposition that it has not and never has been the role of local authorities to promote homosexuality. In recent years there has been evidence that some councils—a small minority of councils, it is true, but nevertheless an active and committed group—have decided that it is appropriate to use ratepayers' and taxpayers' money to attempt to influence public attitudes towards homosexuality and homosexuals.
No one is denying that homosexuals are entitled to council services on the same basis as all other electors and ratepayers. There is no case for any public authority discriminating against anyone solely on the grounds of either sexual orientation, or seeking to persuade others to do so. However, this clause is designed to deal with the other side of that particular coin —that it is not right, either, for a local authority to favour particular persons or groups on the grounds of their sexual orientation or to promote that sexual orientation at the public expense. There seems to be a wide consensus that there is a problem to deal with. This is borne out by the fact that the concerns about the provision relate more to its possible unintended effects than to its basic objective. It is generally agreed, therefore, that something must be done.
The Government have naturally considered very carefully the views that have been put to us from both outside and inside Parliament. We have looked with care at each of the suggestions that have been made for approaching the problem from a different angle, for clarifying the drafting and for putting it beyond

597
doubt that legitimate activities will not be affected. We have made some important amendments which remove any question that we are concerned with anything but the intention of a local authority in carrying out any activity. I will respond to the detailed provisions as we come to them, but I can say now that we believe that the terms of prohibition are properly focused and clearly set out.
The issue raised by the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is whether it would be right to limit the prohibition to certain activities of local authorities in relation to schools. Let me please explain why the Government believe that this would not do. We are clear that the most acute public concern arises from the policies of some local education authorities for presenting positive images of homosexuality in the classroom. Those policies have bred understandable fear and resentment in parents whose children's education is in the hands of these councils. That was one of the reasons why the Government took steps under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to remove responsibility for sex education from local authorities. The Act gave that responsibility to governing bodies of schools, on which parents now have a substantial representation.
Local education authorities have a general responsibility under the 1986 Act to state their policy on the secular curriculum and this may include reference to sex education. Governors must have regard to the authority's statement in deciding what sex education their schools provide, but they are in no way bound by it. The 1986 Act also places a duty on local education authorities, the governors and head teachers to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that any sex education is given,
"in such manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life''.
In practice, therefore, a prohibition limited to what local authorities may do in relation to schools would have very little additional effect except perhaps of a presentational kind. Action to stop the real damage that might be done through sex education in schools on the instruction of the local education authority has already been substantially taken.
There is a further argument against the noble Earl's approach. The proposed Section 2A(1)(b) alone has an extremely narrow effect. On its own it is inadequate to achieve the basic objective of stopping local authorities encouraging teachers to promote homosexuality. As my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out in Committee, the proposed section deals only with one very narrow aspect of promoting homosexuality: promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. It is only an emphasis to one aspect of the general prohibition in paragraph (a), not a general substitute for it.
However, there is a further reason for refusing to accept the noble Earl's proposal which rests on a matter of fundamental principle. It is quite clear to us that the problem of local authorities promoting homosexuality is not one confined to schools. I entirely accept that much of the concern expressed in our debates on this issue is related to schools and the effect of local authorities' policies on pupils in the
598
classroom. This is certainly the aspect of the problem that has led to widespread public resentment.
However, although public concern has been understandably heightened by the education policies of some councils we believe that the public in general shares our view that young people are susceptible to these intolerable influences in many other contexts. Public money has been used in a number of other ways which target on young people in an apparent endeavour to glamorise homosexuality; for example, general local authority support for homosexual youth groups. One of these, the South London Gay and Lesbian Group, caters for the leisure, social and personal needs of young lesbian and gay people in the age range 16 to 21, which of course is the age range, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, of those who have left school. It does so by organising discos, discussion groups and social events which bring gay young people together. Activities such as a lesbian and gay strength and pride week are, in the Government's view, as least as likely to achieve the aim of glamorising homosexuality in the minds of impressionable young people as anything a teacher might do in the classroom.
The Government therefore do not accept the argument that this clause should be limited to schools. That would be tantamount to saying that activities designed to promote homosexuality in the classroom are wrong but it is perfectly legitimate for the same purpose to finance at public expense promotion in an informal social setting. I have children coming up to a particularly impressionable age. I do not want them to be exposed to such situations, and I hope that on reflection neither will the noble Earl.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise for following the Minister. I confess that I was taken aback because I did not realise that he was going to rise to his feet so early. I shall not abuse my position by asking him further questions or commenting on what he said. However, I believe it is incumbent on me to say something from the Front Bench, even in a personal capacity; because, as is well known, we have no Whip on this matter.
The Minister will recall that immediately after the debate two weeks ago I went to see him and expressed the view that a number of people in the House were unhappy about the way in which Clause 28 had to be debated in Committee. I believe that I reflected views on many sides of the Chamber when I said that many people felt that the two choices that we had—the first one being the valiant attempt by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, to redraft the whole clause, and the second one being to fall back on a vote on clause stand part—did not really reflect the variety of views that had been expressed in the Committee. A number of people—I am not talking particularly about people on the Opposition Benches—were left with a feeling that there must be further attempts to refine, elucidate and improve the wording of the clause. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Longford has done just that, and I am surprised that he should be attacked for repeating previous arguments. I thought he did exactly the contrary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I did not do that. I only said that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, had repeated previous arguments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am surprised that supporters of the amendment should be accused of repeating previous arguments, particularly when they were accused in a speech of such length which exactly repeated the arguments made at Second Reading and in Committee.
If one looks back at the debate which took place in Committee, two matters are quite striking. The first is that 99 per cent. of the defence of Clause 28 was a defence of the clause as it relates to schools and school children, and to some extent to young people out of school. I believe that is an important qualification which it would be wrong for me to omit. However, when it came to the point of giving examples of wrongdoing by local authorities and when it came to hard evidence being put forward of something that needed to be corrected, nearly everything that was said was about schools.
Yet when one looks at the complaints about the clause—and not just those from this side of the House—I would say that 75 per cent. of them relate not to how the clause affects school children but to how it affects adults. I suggest that a great deal of the concern was about the knock-on effect of the clause on the other services of local authorities—on the libraries, on the arts, on counselling services and on attempts to overcome discrimination against homosexuals; services which were not particularly attacked by noble Lords who were in favour of the clause.
Under those circumstances, although I still have grave doubts about what is left in the clause if my noble friend's amendment is accepted, I would urge my noble friends to support the amendment. I suggest that it is a damage limitation exercise. I do not suggest that it deals with all of the problems but I suggest that what results from this is very much better than what is available at the moment.
The Minister said a moment ago that something must be done. Here I depart from my undertaking, for which I apologise, although I do not think it is unhelpful. When he said that something must be done what he meant on this occasion was that something must be done about the wording of the clause, and not that something Must be done about the problem which gives rise to the original drafting of the clause. He is right. The wording "intentionally promote homosexuality" has, under intensive scrutiny from your Lordships, proved to be far too wide and far too vague. One major benefit of the amendment is that it takes that out and leaves a specific and reasonably well defined attempt to counter an evil which can be identified and which is of proper concern to your Lordships. Under those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will pursue this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he permit me to ask a question? Does he agree that heterosexism awareness courses or anti heterosexism training are a good use of ratepayers' money?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is a supporter of the clause I ask her whether she thinks that they can be defined as promoting homosexuality. It has never been suggested that they are covered by the clause.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it seeks to suggest that one lifestyle is desirable over another. Anti heterosexism is certainly promoting lesbian or gay existences.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think it would be improper for me to pursue this but I do not think that any of the phrases which the noble Baroness uses can be found in the clause.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the House will not wish for another speech from me. After that long address from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I thought that I would be allowed to run for another quarter of an hour. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has done a wonderful job for the Government in this House in recent months and I hope that he will go on to greatness and one day become the Leader here. Tonight I hope that he will blot out his speech as an unhappy memory. It was no good at all. I wish to press the amendment.
10.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 90.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey. L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Parry, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth). B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs. B. [Teller.]

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gifford, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney. L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Kilbracken, L.

E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Caldecote, V.

Blatch, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Borthwick, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

601

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Goold, L.

Carnock, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Colvillc of Culross, V.

Greenway, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Halsbury, E.

Crathorne, L.

Hanson, L.

Croft, L.

Harvington, L.

Davidson. V. [Teller.]

Havers, L.

Denham. L. [Teller.]

Hesketh, L.

Dormer, L.

Hives, L.

Dundee, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Joseph, L.

Ely, Bp.

Kimball, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon. E.

Ferrers, E.

Long, V.

Fitt, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Fortescuc, E.

Lyell, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Glenarlhur, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

602

Macleod of Borve, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Margadale, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Marley, L.

Sandford, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mersey, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strange, B.

Monson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Swinton, E.

Morris, L.

Teviot, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Moyne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Nelson, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wolfson, L.

Pym, L.

Wynford, L.

Rodney, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.10 p.m.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if Amendment No. 74 is agreed to, I cannot call 'Amendments Nos. 75 to 88.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 28, leave out lines 29 to 37 and insert—

("(a) permit the teaching or use in any maintained school of any material which commends sexual activity between persons of the same sex:

(b) permit the publication of any material for such use.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to keep your Lordships here a moment longer than I need to. I shall not say anything about paragraph (a)—the first limb of the amendment—because I feel that enough has already been said by those with much abler, subtler and more sophisticated minds than mine, notably the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I agree with what they said. However, since we began to debate this clause, which must have been debated more than most clauses in most Bills, we have been saying that certain terms in it are vague and too generalised. They are namely the words "promote" and "homosexuality" and the expression "pretended family relationships". Yet, although we have been saying this since we began the debate, nobody has yet really attempted to suggest anything else. This is what the amendment attempts to do. The word "promote" in my view is vague because, just to bring it down to brass tacks, one of the meanings given in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary for example, is "to put forth into notice or publish". There is no harm done there. It may be that a local authority, in offering services or in offering counselling to homosexuals, might be putting it forth into notice or publishing it. But it is not promoting it in the bad sense, in the sense of encouraging it or suggesting that it is a good idea.
The word "homosexuality" is a vague abstraction. This has been said a number of times, but here again nobody has suggested an alternative. Is the fact of two men living together or two women living together an example of homosexuality? Some people would say so. Is a creation by a male artist which obviously shows admiration for the male anatomy an example of homosexuality? Nobody could say that Shakespeare's sonnets were a very interesting example of homosexuality. Your Lordships all know that the earlier and finest ones were written to a young man. Are they entirely platonic? Noble Lords will find it very interesting, when they have a spare moment, to study Sonnet No. XX in detail. In it the poet said that the loved one should have been a girl but at the last minute nature made an addition which changed that, prevented this young man from being his loved one and reserved him for the ladies. Does that show that Shakespeare was passing through a homosexual phase or not? It is completely in the air. We know in fact that the Bard was only too heterosexual for most of his life. But, as I say, that is an example of the vagueness of the expression. "Pretended family relationship" is better left out entirely, and that is what this amendment does.
We are dealing with a subject in which there are deep divides. Very roughly I would say that we divide ourselves into three groups. There are those who believe that any form of homosexuality is wicked and unnatural. I would say that perhaps they are a minority. There are those who think that it is a regrettable deviation from normality and a thing towards which they must show tolerance. They appreciate that homosexuals have much to offer but, as I say, they regard it as a regrettable deviation from normality. They, I would say, are the majority. And finally there are those who regard it as nothing more than a genetic variant, comparable almost to being left-handed, which is totally acceptable.
It is this group which is really causing the trouble. They have some influence in a small minority of local authorities and those authorities have considered it part of their duty to offer assistance to people who are suffering—I am using the wrong word—to people, I should say, who have this predilection by offering them counselling and facilities and protecting them from discrimination and harassment. Such activities on the part of local authorities are easily misinterpreted. I am not exactly defending those local authorities, but one must appreciate how easily the protection of what might be or what has been a disadvantaged minority could be interpreted as promoting its interests.
In these circumstances, when so much vagueness hangs around these expressions, I think it is better to do without the whole of the first part of this clause and to concentrate on protecting school children from what we might call inappropriate reading matter.
I might say in passing that very little proof has been produced as yet that any of this has actually happened in schools. A certain amount of it has been discussed, debated and proposed by certain authorities but there is very little evidence that anything we have spoken about has actually taken place in the classroom.
Let us protect children and let us allow adults to make up their own minds and to use their votes to dispense with councillors who, they think, are pursuing policies that they disapprove of or disagree with. That is a process, I might say in passing, which would be much easier if we had proportional representation. Let us not commit adult human beings to a written law which in its vagueness may do more to spread confusion, fear and prejudice than it will ever do to uphold public morality. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should not have thought that even a Liberal Peer would find it possible to introduce the doctrine of proportional representation into a debate dealing with the problems of homosexuality.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry. I am not giving way for the moment. Will the noble Baroness resume her seat?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I shall give way, but not in the middle of a sentence. I therefore continue to say that I suppose that it may be, although it is not obvious to me, that there is some connection between the two doctrines. I now give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord has made it plain, as we have always known, that he enjoys a jibe at proportional representation and does not understand its significance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I did not hear most of what the noble Baroness said. As it apparently was not intended as a compliment, I shall not worry myself too much about it. I suggest to your Lordships that the amendment is basically a waste of time. By proposing to delete lines 29 to 37, it virtually removes the clause.
Your Lordships spent a great deal of time at Committee stage discussing whether or not the clause should stand part. We had one major wrecking amendment and one debate on clause stand part. Your Lordships decided on both occasions by substantial majorities that the clause should remain. It therefore seems a pity, if I can put it that way, that on Report the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, should produce an amendment which virtually involves the elimination of the clause and the substitution in part of some other phraseology which he appears to prefer.
The other great weakness of the amendment is that it appears to limit the prohibition of the promotion of homosexuality to schools. It has been pointed out again and again in the course of our earlier debates today that there are equally dangerous situations outside schools. I think that one noble Lord referred earlier to discos. There is also the promotion of a number of gay and lesbian clubs by local authorities. Those are aimed basically at young people. It is self-delusion to believe that if we confine the protection given to young people to schools, we shall protect them from those who seek to corrupt them in those other ways. I shall of course give way to the noble Lord, although I was about to conclude.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply wanted to learn whether or not the noble Lord was willing to recognise the rather important distinction between activities in schools and in discos. School children are obliged to go to school. Therefore, they might be thought to be the victims, if you like, or the unwilling recipients of any propoganda. Discos are entirely voluntary. No one can force anyone—least of all me—to go to a disco.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Many of us are thankful that there is no compulsion to go to discos. I accept at once that there is a distinction. I do not know whether the noble Lord is arguing that it is wrong to corrupt children in schools and that it is all right to corrupt them in discos. I do not know if that is his argument. But the fact remains—I shall give way to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am of course not arguing that it is all right to corrupt children at a disco. I am saying that there are many voluntary activities which take place all over the country which are designed for adults and there are many at which most of us would not wish to he present. It is not possible for a local authority to corrupt someone who goes to a disco unless it can force that person to go to that disco or any other comparable activity.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not agree. If a local authority promotes homosexual ideas at public expense, with attractive trimmings and music that a great many people like, then, whether or not the noble Lord is right in calling that "compelling" such persons to listen to such things, I do not know. But I do not think that even the noble Lord can deny that that is promotion of homosexual ideas and that if you promote homosexuality by attracting people to a function, that is just as much promoting it as if you promoted it by compelling them to go to school. Therefore, though they are different activities, and properly dealt with by different paragraphs in the original clause, they are both evils which I suggest to your Lordships it should be the purpose of public policy to avoid. While offering what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, believes—I think wrongly—to be some protection in schools, this amendment offers no protection whatever to young people against activities promoted out of school. I hope that, without wasting much time on it, your Lordships will reject this amendment.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I have a difficulty with the amendment of the noble Lord. We have to recognise that, particularly in view of the vote in the last Division, the House has accepted paragraph (a) of the new clause as a provision that it wants to be included in the Bill. In so far as the amendment deletes the whole of the clause it goes over the same ground which we have already covered and it would perhaps be wrong to press it to a Division.
Given the amendments which the Government are about to promote, I believe that the single outstanding difficulty about this clause, with which we have not really grappled, is the wording of paragraph (b):
"promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
I rise to speak on this amendment because of all the proposed tinkerings with paragraph (b) which are to follow and which do not really get to the root of the problem as does the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. In so far as the words in the first three lines of his amendment could be used to replace paragraph (b), they would seem to be far more specific, clear and acceptable. As we shall obviously be returning to this topic, I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to look at alternative wordings on the lines of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for paragraph (b) in particular.
No doubt an argument can be raised on a later amendment, but I shall argue that the whole of

607
paragraph (b) is unnecessary because once one has enacted a general clause against the promotion of homosexuality, a particular example of that promotion which is meant to be contained in paragraph (b) is no longer necessary. The fact of the matter is that paragraph (b), which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, is looking at in his new wording, is fraught with terrible difficulties for those who have to teach in schools. Paragraph (b) says that one is not allowed as a teacher to say to a child that a homosexual relationship may be acceptable. That is going much further than the general prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality.
The Guardian of 10th February carried a very eloquent letter by Angela Mason which exactly illustrates the point that I have in mind. She says:
"I have a 3½-year-old daughter. She lives with myself and the woman with whom I have lived for 15 years. We have a wide circle of friends and relations who totally accept her circumstances.…
Soon she will be starting primary school. We are aware that as she grows older she will have to deal with anti-homosexual prejudice. We had hoped that if such prejudice is expressed by her peers at school her teachers would be in a position to challenge it and perhaps even to create an atmosphere of greater tolerance and understanding within the school. The effect of Clause 28 will be to make it unlawful for the teachers to offer any support to children in my daughter's situation, i.e. to stop bullying. It will be a licence for bigots to torment a child because her parents are 'queer'. I believe my child has as much right as any other to have her home and family respected and not to be tormented or harassed because of her family circumstances. I hope that in coming to their decisions on the proposed legislation the members of both Houses of Parliament will actually think about what is actually going to become of children such as mine (and there are many of them) and what kind of bigoted and vengeful world they are creating for her to live in".
The concern expressed in that letter is well founded. Where the child of a homosexual relationship was being bullied at school, any teacher who was trying to introduce tolerance, to help the child and to give it support, would be in terrible difficulty. Once the teacher sought to say. "Don't worry. Your parents' relationship is one of many kinds of relationships in the world. There is nothing wrong with it. It is just different from other poeple's and you should not be bullied because of it", then that teacher would be raising in the classroom the,
"acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
Unless the local authority upon, let us say, a complaint received by another parent—and one knows how such complaints can be made and can be distorted—takes some kind of action against that teacher for raising the question of the acceptability of those parents' relationship, the authority will be in danger of being said to promote the teaching of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
I raise the matter at this stage because I hope the noble Earl can tell us that he is prepared to have some further thoughts. I do not think that we can accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. However, the words on the lines of those it embodies as a substitute for paragraph (b) would go a long way towards allaying people's fears that this very wide paragraph, with its extremely generalised phrasing, will cause the kind of difficulties I have described.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is an inherent defect in this clause which renders it quite
608
unacceptable. The local authority cannot "permit" the teaching, or "permit" the publication, because, since the Education (No. 2) Act 1986–1 think it is Section 18–it has no control. All the local authority can do is to promote, which, according to the Oxford Dictionary definition, means active support or encouragement. Promote is totally apt; permit is impermissible.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has just said, I feel that it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak now to the amendment standing my name, and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rea—Amendment No. 76. That amendment omits all words after "intentionally promote homosexuality". As my noble friend said, what follows after those words are nothing more than examples of promoting homosexuality, which would already be prohibited by the words that I would leave in. Under my amendment the clause would simply state that,
"A local authority shall not intentionally promote homosexuality".
All the other matters that are provided under either (a) or (b) are merely examples of promoting homosexuality—two words that I do not like, but we are stuck with them. It is clear that publishing material intended to promote homosexuality is promoting homosexuality, as is,
"promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
—whatever that means.
I like the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. However, if that is not acceptable I see no reason for going into all the detail that is in the Bill at present. If my amendment were accepted it would mean the deletion of eight or 10 lines of the Bill without weakening it in any way.
Lord McNair: My Lords, perhaps it would be better if we returned to Amendment No. 74. Otherwise we shall get into a terrible confusion.
I should like to follow the very eloquent plea from the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, to the noble Earl, to think again. From all our discussions in Committee and tonight it is perfectly clear that this word "promote" will never be acceptable to majority opinion. I say that fully recognising that the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Alloway, who may have discovered it in the first place, is not going to agree with me.
I spent quite a long time trying to define the word "promote" in order to produce an amendment in the form of a definition. I started in an obvious way, by consulting Roget's Thesaurus. If one looks up the word "promote" in the index of Roget's Thesaurus, one finds it refers to no fewer than seven different sections, and there are very few other words having so many references.
Incidentally, upon reading through all seven, one finds that they are not very helpful so far as concerns this Bill, because I do not really think that "promote" is the word for which your Lordships are looking. We hit upon the words "commend" and "advocate", which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has also mentioned this evening. But we did not get them by looking up "promote" in Roget's Thesaurus.

609
There is something semantically very wrong with the phrase in question and I hope that the noble Earl will listen to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, before Third Reading and do something about it. Meanwhile, naturally I support the amendment that bears my name, and everything that my noble friend said
Lord Monson: My Lords, I understand everything which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, is aiming for with this amendment and I have a certain sympathy with it. I certainly agree with his criticism of the words "pretended family relationship". But I wonder whether the noble Lord has his wording quite right.
It is perfectly true that one can use material that commends sexual activity of one sort or another, but can one really teach such material? I think not. One can teach children, one can teach history, and one can even teach the Bible. But I do not think one can teach The Milkman's on his Way. Even if it were not for that grammatical fault, the amendment would leave the door open to teaching that makes no use of material, such as off-the-cuff praise of homosexual behaviour. For that reason alone I do not think the amendment will do. I much prefer that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I assure the House that I shall he very brief. One point that I was unable to raise at the Committee stage ought to be made, and it should run through our thinking in considering all these amendments. I hope that I may have some support from the spiritual Benches in this. In considering homosexuality in all its forms and in its various manifestations, one must realise that, basically, it undermines family life.
The Minister made that point briefly, but as far as I know—and I have listened carefully to all the speeches made—it has not been emphasised. That concept is endorsed by three organisations whom I am happy to support. One is the National Family Campaign, one is the Conservative Family Campaign, and the other is the Care Campaign. All of them, having considered this matter with the utmost sincerity and in great detail, support the original amendment. I submit to your Lordships that all the other amendments tending in any way at all to undermine the influence of the family should be resisted.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I want to echo the comments of the noble Viscount. There are some of us—call it prejudice if you like—who feel serious disquiet at the description of two females in a sexual relationship bringing up a small child. Clearly there is considerable support required for that child in the circumstances in which it finds itself and there are particular difficulties for the teacher in handling that situation. I should be seriously concerned if it were being advocated that such was any kind of a normal relationship and a desirable family relationship.
I believe that underlying much of our discussion is a strong conviction that the future of our society
610
depends upon the relationship between man and woman and the product of man and woman—the child. I feel particularly strongly about that matter.
I also believe that we must all exercise Christian tolerance about anything which deviates from what one would call a "normal family relationship". For that reason I believe that we are skirting around that in which we believe. We can talk about the precise meaning of the word "promote" but I suspect that that is not the real issue between those who wish to support the amendment and those who wish to stick by the intentions of the main clause.
I believe that the amendment leaves out the most fertile ground for activities of this kind—that is the age group from 16 years onwards who attend youth clubs and discos. There has been a great deal of scoffing about activities in discos but the most impressionable age is from the beginning of puberty until about 25 years, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I believe that we must do everything that we can to protect young people during that time, when they have a great deal of battling through that stage of their lives. We should encourage them to follow a lifestyle which is for the health and future of our society. There is no future for society in women with women and men with men. I am saying quite clearly that I do not believe that such a lifestyle should be advocated, promoted or condoned. In the light of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I shall settle for the word "promote". I do not think that we should be in the business of furthering and encouraging particularly as regards young children in school and those up to the age of 25.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I agree entirely with what has been said by my noble friend Lady Blatch. Although a great deal has been spoken on this subject, I should like to say a little more. It is a subject of great delicacy and anything I say will be like an Aberdeen Angus in a glass factory. However, I shall try to tread gently.
When there is a question of protecting the innocent, which this is, one has a plain duty to speak out. A baby comes into this world fresh, warm and safe from the loving confines of its mother's womb. For the first months of its life it is wrapped close and tight in swaddling bands of physical protection from the world. For the first years of their life children also need the close confines of the moral protection of right and wrong. Later, when they become teenagers and their bodies grow and develop, they question everything that they have been taught. Sometimes they have homosexual tendencies because that is part of growing up. Freud believed—and here I misquote W. S. Gilbert—that:
"Every little boy or gal
Born into this world today
Is either a heterosexual
Or a homosexual gay".
That I do not believe but I should like to concur with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on the misuse of the splendid word "gay". Some of my best friends are homosexuals but all my best friends are jolly and gay. Although human beings have different quantities of male and female hormones, I do not share Freud's

611
belief that sexuality is fixed at birth. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that circumstances and teaching have much to do with it.
I speak for parents everywhere. We want our children to have the best possible chance of happiness in this world. We want them to have the least possible chance of catching the dreaded disease AIDS and so dying prematurely. We hope that they will have children so that we can see our children's children and love them too. A human being is a gift of God created by the love of a father and a mother of a different sex. The basic principle is the family, on which all life and civilisation depend. We owe it to our forebears, to ourselves, to our children and to God, who created us, to keep it so.
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are two quick answers to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, as to why I cannot accept the amendment. First, we have just voted on the previous amendment, which confined the ambit of the clause to schools, and is very similar to what the noble Lord wants. Secondly, the amendment uses the word "permit" which, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, is totally wrong, as I explained in Committee, because of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. The permitting of teaching is a matter for the local authorities, while teaching is with the headmaster, the governors and the parents of the school.
The point that concerns the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, is the term "promoting homosexuality". That is another difficulty. A number of amendments are trying to get at that. Therefore, while dealing with Amendment No. 74, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 78 and 81 as they are all linked on the common theme. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, mentioned Amendment No. 76. I do not know whether he wants me to deal with that in detail now. It is a separate point.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, later.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall leave out that part.
The scope of what I shall say concerns whether the phrase "promoting homosexuality" is a sensible choice in its own right. To do so I must go back to the mischief with which we are all trying to deal. The local authorities concerned are, in the Government's opinion, trying to carry out some social engineering. In so doing, they are not doing anything so simple as encouraging people to undertake homosexual acts. Nor are they simply encouraging people to form homosexual relationships. That may be an outcome of what the local authorities concerned are doing, but it is not what the local authorities do.
What they arc doing is something rather more subtle. What we are seeing in some places is an attempt to sell homosexuality, to ensure that people see it in a favourable light. For this purpose we see all the techniques of modern public relations deployed—entertainments, exhibitions, campaigns, posters. Every local authority service that can possibly be used in some way to put over the message is twisted to serve the same purpose. We see gay
612
library collections, gay consciousness courses for local authority officers and homosexual material produced for children's playgroups. We have homosexual and lesbian units which comment on every report that is going to the council. Everything then is done to glamourise homosexuality, to make all aspects of homosexuality seem attractive.
It is this hard sell of homosexuality that is so worrying. As I said earlier, in many ways it is the more insidious approaches that cause more concern than anything that is done in the classroom. They allow young people uncertain of their sexual orientation to be brought into contact with people who have decided on a homosexual orientation for themselves. Such contacts can have great effects on impressionable young people. That is not a proper use of resources collected from the community as a whole through the power of taxation. I therefore argue that the core of the mischief that we are concerned with is something very akin to a public relations campaign in that it has little to do with the proper tasks of a local authority. I therefore think that it is correct to use the vocabulary of the advertising trade to describe it.
In this case, the product is the whole gamut of homosexuality, homosexual acts, homosexual relationships, even the abstract concept. All these are the subject of the promotional campaign which some local authorities are undertaking, and which the Government think they should not.
It is when we look at the matter in this way that we can see why it is that the formulation in the Bill does not give rise to the problems which have concerned so many noble Lords. While a local authority is going about its legitimate business there is no reason for it to be promoting homosexuality. It may well want to take steps to ensure that in providing services it caters for homosexuals as well as for the rest of the community. Provided that those steps are properly judged in relation to that problem and are not a disguised form of promotional campaign of the kind to which I have referred we can see no reason to object to them. Steps to ensure that homosexuals are effectively served by the local authority in the same way that other sections of the community are served are one thing; promotional campaigns are quite another. When an authority sets out to proselytise, to impose its views on homosexuality on the rest of the community, then matters have gone too far. We think that this distinction is well caught by the phrase,
"the intentional promotion of homosexuality"
to describe what local authorities are not permitted to do.
On a detailed point, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in his Amendment No. 81, suggested referring to the acceptability of homosexuality as "the basis of'' a family relationship rather than simply "as" a family relationship. That does not seem to alter the sense of what has been said. It simply adds three words to the paragraph which we believe are unnecessary to its sense. On that basis I cannot support that amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, supported by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked whether I would look at an alternative wording for paragraph (b). I believe that the noble Lord is mistaken in his reading

613
of paragaph (h). He suggests that it will prevent a teacher teaching in certain ways. It will not do so. The paragraph is directed solely at the local authorities, not at the teachers. The local authority's only function in this field is now to state its views in a statement under Section 17 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. As I have explained, the governing body is not bound by that statement. The teacher is answerable to the governing body and not to the local authority.
Lord Gifford: May I intervene on a very important point? If a teacher, whether in the course of a sex education lesson, a literature lesson, or in any other way, is heard to express a view or even discuss the acceptability of homosexuality and there is a complaint by a parent of a pupil who is upset by what that teacher has taught, surely the local authority must pursue or discipline that teacher. If it does not, it will he failing in its duty under the Act. It will be permitting or promoting the activities of that teacher. There is a real problem here because of the wording of paragraph (b). I hope the noble Earl will take that seriously.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed I take the matter seriously. That is why I have taken time to reply specifically to the noble Lord. I come back to what he said. It was, I confess, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in Committee that was largely responsible for the Government's amendment which we shall shortly deal with. However, what the teacher does is now the responsibility of the head teacher and the governing body, not the local authority. What we are talking about in the Bill is the attitude of the local authority. I hope that covers the point.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, that I am unable to accept his amendment. I hope I have explained to your Lordships why we believe the wording in the Bill is the right wording.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps I may point out that he gave his reasons for not wishing to accept my Amendment No. 81 although I have not yet moved that amendment. I cannot refer to my amendment while interrupting the noble Earl but I intend to move it when it is called.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, of course I understand that. However, as I said earlier, the difficulty that we are facing on this clause is that so many amendments are inter-related that when I was trying to define the Government's attitude to the words "promoting homosexuality" I had to touch upon the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, the noble Earl has made the point that no local authority could be taken to task for promoting homosexuality if a teacher made a wrong step or a suggestion in the classroom such as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to because that teacher is not answerable to the local authority. Are we to understand from that
614
that governing bodies and head teachers can promote homosexuality but local authorities may not? Since the teacher is answerable to the head teacher and to the governing body, presumably they could advance such matters but local authorities cannot. It does not make sense to me.
With regard to what the noble Earl said about the promotional campaign of local authorities, I can only revert to what I said originally—that it may well he according to the way one looks at it. On the one hand, a local authority may be trying to achieve equal opportunities which to certain people may appear to be a promotional campaign. There was a period in our last exchanges when I hoped we might be approaching a consensus and I hoped your Lordships might agree that even a slight rewording would clear up many difficulties.
In Committee and now we must have spent a great many hours debating this clause, and it would be nice to feel that something had been achieved. I would regard a more precise wording as a very satisfactory achievement. Unfortunately, that moment seems to have passed, and in those circumstances I am hound to withdraw the amendment. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government may think again and alter one word or words which may make a difference.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 75
Page 28, line 29, leave out ("homosexuality") and insert ("homosexual behaviour or activity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, and I shall speak also to Amendments No. 78 and 80. I am much obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, because he has—whether he knows it or not—answered the question which I asked in my opening speech, which was why a clause that was considered to be both unnecessary and inappropriate is now considered to be necessary and appropriate. I believe that the list of matters he read out about the promotion of homosexuality amounting to the hard sell of it, so to speak, may be the answer which he now gives to the House and which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, were unable to give.
My own problem is not with the word "promote" but with the word "homosexuality". A11 I have asked in the past and wish to ask again is: has the word "promote" ever been used before in a statute without a concrete object? I am perfectly happy with the use of it in Clause 27 and in the Education Reform Bill. I am not happy with its use here in conjunction with the word "homosexuality". In the Oxford Dictionary homosexuality is given as the quality of being homosexual. Can one promote a quality or its homosexual character? I do not think one can do that or promote homosexual nature. Instead of homosexuality, I propose two concrete things that can be promoted—homosexual behaviour or activity.
I have asked two questions. The first is why an abstract word is used when a concrete word will do. Secondly, has the word "promote" ever been used in a statute before with an abstract concept as its object. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, it is quite obvious that the noble Earl is agonising over some of the semantical problems in this clause. We started out originally with, if I recall correctly, "the promotion of homosexuality". That was amended by a government amendment to "intentionally promote". In Amendment No. 77 it is to be amended again at the behest of the Government to "intend to promote". This indicates to me that there is a certain difficulty and second thoughts on the part of the Government about the actual application of the words "promote" or "promotion".
I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Henderson because I think that the words "promote" or "promotion" and "homosexuality" have an effect upon each other being somewhat semantical. However, if one defines more narrowly, as the noble Lord suggests, homosexual behaviour or activity, instead of using the rather loose word "homosexuality", which may be taken in a very wide context, as we have been discussing at great length in the arts and in the whole education field, the problem of whether one uses in this clause "intentionally promote" or, as proposed by the noble Earl, "intend to promote" is solved at least to a large extent. Therefore I think that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Henderson is very well taken.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, it seems to me that as usual the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is absolutely and completely right and what he is saying cannot be disputed. The word "homosexuality" is described as an abstract concept, quality or state, or the condition of being homosexual. That is not something it is possible to promote; nor can it imaginably be a relationship. Homosexuality cannot be a relationship. That is the reason for my Amendment No. 81 in which I talk of homosexuality being the basis of a relationship. But a relationship it cannot be. Therefore I strongly support the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches in all of these amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, until just over 48 hours ago I thought that this amendment had everything to commend it. After all, it seemed a reasonable assumption that one could undoubtedly promote bisexuality—in other words, encourage people to "try it out" with those of the same sex so as to discover whether it was slightly more pleasurable or amusing than heterosexuality. But one could not promote pure homosexuality, if I may coin a phrase, which is something one is either born with or acquires at a very early age.
However, only two days ago the Sunday Telegraph published an extended interview with a very well known English author whose amusing novels many of your Lordships will have undoubtedly read. They are generally set in an imaginary Oxbridge college with frequent excursions to Greek islands where the pagan gods still hold sway. When asked by the Sunday Telegraph interviewer whether he had enjoyed his school days at Charterhouse the author replied:
616
"There were sports which I enjoyed; there was intrigue for power which I enjoyed; there was homosexuality which I enjoyed".
Mr. Raven, for it was he, did not mean by "homosexuality" some abstract, philosophical concept; nor did he mean some spiritual relationship of a totally celibate nature. What he meant by that word in that context was a homosexual relationship leading to physical homosexual activity. If such a master of the English language treats homosexuality an synonymous with homosexual activity and behaviour, one can only assume that many other people must do likewise. That being the case, my rather reluctant conclusion is that the word "homosexuality" ought to stand.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in about ten words. We do not legislate against abstract criminality; we legislate against criminal behaviour.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure that I can add much to what I previously said about these amendments when I spoke to the previous amendment. I endeavoured to explain that we are concerned about all aspects of homosexuality and not just homosexual acts. We wish to cover the sum of homosexuality—homosexual relationships and sexual orientation; in short, every aspect of the way homosexuality manifests itself. That is what the local authorities to which we take exception are trying to promote. Therefore, we believe that the wording in the Bill is appropriate.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, that the Government are not having second thoughts about the words "promoting homosexuality". If he waits until I move my amendments, he will see that we have confirmed what I said in Committee we were trying to do, which is to make it the intention of the local authority. The whole point in the Government's amendment of changing the wording is to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said in Committee, that where there is an ambiguity, there is no ambiguity, and that the clause focuses solely on the intentions of the local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is right to say that homosexual activity and homosexual behaviour are important. However, I believe that that misses out a vital ingredient: that local authorities are promoting—in some stages, as I said—the abstract concept which the noble Lord's amendment would not catch. It would expose children and young people at a vulnerable age to the powers of persuasion, using ratepayers' and taxpayers' money, and I think that the House would live to regret that if we were to accept the noble Lord's amendments.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him a question about the remarks he made about my intervention? I hope that I did not imply that the Government had any intention of promoting ambiguity. I suggested that the ambiguity of the subsection would be removed, or at least modified, by changing the abstract word "homosexuality" to the words proposed by my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think I can add very little, except to say that the two aspects which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, wishes to put into the Bill limit the ambit of the clause and will not catch a very great deal of the activity that the local authorities are promoting at the moment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, would the Minister care to answer my other question which I specifically put to him? It was whether the word "promote" had been used in a statute or legislation in conjunction with an abstract concept.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not reply to the noble Lord on that point. Perhaps I may look into the matter and check before I give him a definite answer on it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, it was a question which I raised in Committee so I had hoped that the noble Earl would have had an answer by the Report stage. I am very grateful to him, however, for giving me the opportunity of receiving a letter or some kind of communication from him in due course.
I am glad to have aired this subject. I think we know a great deal more about the Government's intentions as a result of having put down these amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 28, line 29, leave out from ("homosexuality") to end of line 37.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken because it gives us another opportunity to look at that odd phrase "pretended family relationship". I think that this wording has been questioned on both sides of the House and at the Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to it as an "invidious" phrase. I thought that the noble Earl on the Front Bench said he would do something about it, but perhaps I was wrong.
I personally find this phrase particularly offensive, for rather the same reasons as the lady who wrote that very eloquent letter which my noble friend Lord Gifford has just read out. I say this because from the age of seven, after my parents separated, I was brought up by two women, one of them my mother, in an actual family relationship. There was no pretence there. Quite frankly, I cannot see why this should be considered in any way objectionable. It was a good family, and I maintain that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a homosexual couple bringing up a child. I consider that I had as rich and as happy a childhood as most children who are reared by heterosexual couples, and far better than many I see in my daily practice as a doctor. I do not think any of the defects in my character, of which I have an average number, have arisen from my being brought up by two women. My sexual orientation is, I am told, also pretty average and so is that of my children.
Let us look at what has now become a rather famous book, Jenny lives with Eric and Martin. It has
618
been mentioned several times already at the Committee stage of this Bill. Apart from being a monumentally boring little book, it is now enjoying considerable and probably undeserved fame. However, it was not produced to promote homosexuality, either intentionally or otherwise, but, I submit, to protect those children who were being brought up by single sex couples, whether male or female—and most schools contain a few of these, sometimes quite a few—to protect them from the intolerance of their schoolfellows. Many of those, I am afraid, are brought up to believe that homosexuals are perverts or have AIDS and are generally an unacceptable and inferior branch of the human race.
Hence, I am sorry to say—and here I borrow a phrase from my noble friend Lord Longford—gay-bashing expeditions by some of the less pleasant youth in our schools are now becoming more common. This is not mere conjecture on my part. I have evidence of it. Only the other day, a teacher came in to see us, badly beaten up because he had been suspected of being gay. He was a male dance teacher in a local secondary school and he had been beaten up by the children in the school. It so happened that he was not gay, but they thought he was.
This book which I have mentioned was intended to rebut this misinformation that gays are despicable. It was meant to show that a pair of gay men can be as caring, as affectionate and also as humdrum as any orthodox couple. There is a picture of a small girl in the same bed as two men who are presumed gay. Some might find that shocking. I would suggest that the small girl was actually a lot safer in a bed with two gay men than some small girls are in the same bed with their own heterosexual father. The paediatricians of Cleveland may have been a bit trigger happy in diagnosing childhood sexual abuse. But there is now no doubt that it is far more common than has been publicly admitted. In the great majority of cases the guilty parent is living in a heterosexual relationship.
As has been said by other noble Lords, a sizeable minority of human beings—it is often estimated at 10 per cent.—by some jinx of crossed wires or programming, prefer to live in the intimate company of their own sex. And nothing that we pass in this clause will change that. People living in these relationships often wish that they did not feel more comfortable that way. It would be far easier for them to conform, and some deny their homosexual tendencies and live unhappily in heterosexual marriages which produce children.
When those marriages break down, it is sometimes the case that the homosexually inclined partner is the more stable of the pair and takes on the care of the children. Are these good citizens who are making a good home for their children to be denied the chance to have a loving adult relationship while rearing their children even when the heterosexual parent may be unstable, an alcoholic or a drug user as I have known is the case from my own personal experience as a doctor? Surely, the need now is for greater tolerance of the homosexually-inclined minority in our midst

619
and not for the increased intolerance which is already growing, I am afraid, and which this and all the other subsections of this clause will only encourage.
I wonder whether it will be at all possible for the noble Earl to think again on "pretended family relationship". I do not believe that many in this House or even the majority who voted in favour of the clause as a whole are entirely happy about it.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, may I suggest that the noble Lord who has just spoken, while rambling over many curious and peculiar arrangements which I did not understand, nonetheless was at times confusing friendship with homosexuality?
Lord Rea: My Lords, as the noble Lord actually asks me to reveal an extremely personal part of my life, I can say that the noble Lord is completely wrong. Also, it is possible for couples whether heterosexual or homosexual to be extremely discreet about their sexual relationships. How many noble Lords here have actually seen their parents indulging in a sexual act or knew even until they were perhaps adolescent what they did in bed together?
Lord Gifford: My Lords, the remarkable speech of my noble friend Lord Rea and the candour with which he has spoken should, I would have thought, commend itself to the whole House. What he has done by the graphic illustration of his own family is to illustrate what an insult the present wording of this clause is to so many people who are exercising their right to have a private life which, as I said in Committee, is enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is the right to have a particular form of private life. I return fortified by what my noble friend has said to the question that I was posing a while ago to the noble Earl. I was very interested in his statement that subparagraph (b) of the new subsection is not intended to affect the way in which teachers approach the difficult issues which they may have to encounter when discussion of gay and lesbian relationships arises in the classroom. I have looked up the Education Act to verify for myself that he is right.
If the clause is not meant to affect the behaviour of teachers in the classroom, one wonders what subparagraph (b) is intended to do, with its curious and, as I have submitted, offensive and insulting wording. If it is only designed to stop the activities of local authorities, in so far as they have a possible responsibility, from, for instance, putting into school libraries materials which the noble Earl believes to be offensive, then there is no need for it because the local authority will be caught by subparagraph (a). Subparagraph (a) is quite wide enough to cover all the possible actions which I can think of that might be envisaged in terms of subparagraph (b).
Having been reassured to some extent that subparagraph (b) is not intended to bring under the microscope of disciplinary proceedings the decision of a teacher to say that homosexual relationships may be acceptable, then that calls into question the purpose of subparagraph (b). Since it retains the very difficult and very offensive words, it is much better that we should delete it altogether.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise briefly to associate myself with all my heart as well as my mind with the moving words of my noble friend Lord Rea. I think that if we were to suffer the misfortune of going back to some of the moralising and lay preaching which we heard earlier on this evening, the House would be doing itself a disservice.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the amendment. As I said when speaking to Amendment No. 72, surely it is much better to encourage or, at any rate, to tolerate stable homosexual relationships than it is to encourage or tolerate promiscuous homosexual relationships, which can do so much harm if indulged in to excess, even leaving aside the question of AIDS and venereal disease. Yet subparagraph (b), as it stands, takes a diametrically opposed view. I cannot understand that. I hope that the noble Lord will press his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has made some persuasive arguments for deleting all the specific references in new subsection 2A(1), and for retaining only the simple prohibition that:
"A local authority shall not intentionally promote homosexuality".
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was quite correct to say, in connection with an earlier amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has just said, that the specific references to publishing material, to promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship and the giving of financial or other assistance to others with the intention of promoting homosexuality, would all be encompassed by the single phrase "intentionally promoting homosexuality".
There is therefore clearly a case for limiting the prohibition to that single phrase, Indeed, as I shall explain in due course when speaking to the amendments which are down in my name, the Government accept the case for deleting the reference in subparagraph 2A(1) (c) to the giving of financial or other assistance. We have come to the view that retention of that paragraph might cast doubt on whether it is the intention of the authority or the intention of the person receiving assistance that is at stake; and that, even if redrafted to clarify the point, a specific subsection would add nothing in practice to the overall ban on intentionally promoting homosexuality. It does not matter whether that promotion is direct or indirect, by the local authority or by a third party with assistance from the authority. If the intention is to promote homosexuality, it will be prohibited.
It is a sound legislative rule not to use six words where one will do. The Government do not, however, consider that that approach should lead us to delete the references in the latter part of subparagraph 2A(1)(a) and subparagraph (b) to publishing material and to promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. Perhaps I may explain the Government's view. We believe very strongly that it is necessary to encompass in Clause 28 all the possible ways in which

621
a local authority might promote homosexuality. That is why we have supported the sponsors of this clause in their proposal for a widely based prohibition, encompassing all forms of promotion and all aspects of homosexuality.
There is however no doubt that there are two particular aspects of a local authority's powers which, if used for promoting homosexuality, would give rise to particular concern. Those are its powers to issue publicity and, for a local education authority, the influence it has on teaching sex education in schools. It is on these two particular powers that the references to specific aspects of promoting homosexuality concentrate.
The first specific aspect is publicity. We have touched in our debates on Clause 27 on the potential, in terms of influencing public attitudes and opinion, of local authority publicity. Publicity at public expense is, because of this potential to colour people's views, always a highly sensitive matter. By its nature publicity can be instrusive and if it touches on controversial subjects it can cause public concern and resentment. For all those reasons, publicity whose purpose is to promote homosexuality gives rise to particular concern and in the Government's view deserves special mention.
It seems to us unarguable that many of the activities by local authorities to promote homosexuality would have but limited impact without accompanying publicity. For example, the views and policies of the GLC on positive images of homosexuals and homosexuality were given wide public circulation in a glossy pamphlet, Changing the World— A London Charter JOr Gay and Lesbian Rights. This public statement of policy has been adopted by a number of London boroughs. The policies it promotes underlie many of the activities by local authorities which have given rise to public concern.
Similarly, activities aimed at young people such as the "Lesbian Strength and Gay Pride Week" to which I referred earlier can themselves be promoted and thus attract susceptible participants through carefully targeted publicity material.
The sponsors of the clause considered that it was necessary to highlight publicity as a particular means of promoting homosexuality. The Government agree that publicity is, in many cases, a fundamental element of the problem that we are seeking to stop. We therefore believe that the reference should remain.
So far as teaching is concerned, we believe that there is a clear case for highlighting, on the face of this legislation, the particular matter which has caused most public concern and engendered parents' resentment. It has been said many times in your Lordships' debates on this issue that the effects of local authority policies on impressionable children are at the root of our concern. The policies of some councils for teaching that homosexuality is the norm and that homosexuality is acceptable as a pretended family relationship are a particularly undesirable development. The sponsors of the clause wished to underline this particular problem by a specific reference to it in the clause. There are many other ways in which a local authority might seek to
622
influence sex education teaching in schools. Books such as "Young Gay and Proud" and "The Milkman's on his Way", which contain explicit references to homosexual acts, and are recommended, notably by the ILEA, as suitable reading for 13- and 16-year-olds respectively, illustrate that very clearly. Nevertheless, the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship is a prospect which causes legitimate concern on the part of parents. We therefore support the inclusion of Section 2A(1)(b) in Clause 28.
I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who mentioned the fact that he would look up the Education Act, that teachers and governors of schools are already subject to Section 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 which requires that all sex education in schools should have regard to morality and the value of family life. It should be emphasised that all the evidence is of local authorities promoting homosexuality—not schools or school governors. That is why Clause 28 is aimed specifically at local authorities, which is where the mischief lies.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble Lord, Lord Rea, of the sound reasons why the Government believe that the clause should be extended to incorporate the two specific points that the sponsors of the original amendment thought were necessary. I believe that they give rise to matters of serious public concern. We should prefer to see those points remaining on the face of the Bill
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I spoke earlier to this amendment and do not intend to repeat the arguments that I put forward then. We shall have an opportunity on later amendments to discuss the phrase that my noble friend Lord Gifford found so objectionable, namely:
"the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
I prefer to leave that discussion until then.
I find myself completely unconvinced by what the noble Earl has said in speaking against my amendment. If only those words remain, the Bill is every bit as effective. I do not like the wording of the Bill. It simply means that certain ways of promoting homosexuality have been mentioned when many others could similarly have been raised.
Clearly there is no point in dividing the House at this hour of the night. At the same time I do not wish to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 77 to 88.
On Question, amendment negatived.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 28, line 30, leave out ("intended to promote") and insert ("with the intention of promoting").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 77 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 85 and 87. These government amendments in my name deal with the apparent

623
ambiguity in the existing drafting of Clause 28 referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, at Committee stage. Your Lordships will recall that, although I was clear that it was only the intention of the authority that was relevant to the construing of the clause, I agreed to consider whether it was possible to improve the drafting further and to remove any scope of possible misunderstanding of the kind referred to by the noble Lord.
The government amendments are therefore essentially of a technical nature. To the extent, however, that they improve the drafting, and thus make clear the Government's position, I think that they will also remove some of the concerns about the effects of the clause on the activities of persons in receipt of finance or other assistance from local authorities.
Amendment No. 77 replaces the present reference in the proposed Section 2A(1)(a) to,
"material intended to promote homosexuality".
so that a local authority will be prohibited from publishing material
"with the intention of promoting homosexuality",
With this new formulation, there can be no doubt of the kind raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. It is the intention of the local authority in publishing material, as in all other things, that is crucial to the decision whether it is promoting homosexuality.
Amendment No. 85 is consequential on this change. Its effect is two-fold. It makes an amendment to the proposed Section 2A(1)(b) to delete the reference to the promoting of the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship
"by the publication of such material or otherwise".
With the new formulation of the proposed Section 2A(1)(a) and the replacement of the adjectival phrase "intended to promote" by the adverbial phrase "with the intention of promoting" this reference is now meaningless. Although it would be possible in logic to redraft it, we decided after some consideration that the best way forward was to remove from the proposed new Section 2A(1)(b) all reference to the publication of material.
The second change, consequential upon the revised wording of the proposed new Section 2A(1)(a) is the deletion of paragraph (c). This paragraph prohibits a local authority giving financial or other assistance to any person for
"either of the purposes referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above".
If paragraph (c) were to remain, questions about intention would again arise. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, would be able to ask whether the purpose was that of a local authority or of a group receiving assistance. It could be argued that the effect of the reference in the paragraph to "purpose" would be to make relevant the intention of the person to whom assistance was given rather than the authority.
The Government have always made it clear that this was not their view of the clause, nor their purpose in supporting it. Its deletion will make it clear beyond doubt that any remaining allegations about the effect of the clause on the funding of voluntary
624
organisations, art groups, and other bodies by local authorities are without foundation.
On the other hand, I would stress that it does not weaken the impact of the clause on the local authority itself. Whether it sets out to promote homosexuality directly by doing things itself, or whether it sets out to do so indirectly by subsidising others to promote homosexuality, it will still be setting out to promote homosexuality and the clause will therefore intervene to stop it. The amendment makes it even clearer that where a local authority for a proper purpose, within its powers, decides to give assistance to a voluntary group it does not have to conduct an investigation into the motives of that group. It is sufficient that the local authority's own intention is unimpeachable.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for the point he raised. I hope that the amendments serve to clarify quite a lot of the misunderstanding and that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in particular will be pleased. I have heard that this amendment has settled a lot of doubts. Something that was always our intention is now made absolutely clear. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support these amendments. They clarify the true and original intendment of the draft as it came from the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. As to Amendment No. 77, the House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for having put forward the amendment that served as a vehicle for the expression of fears felt by various sides of the House about the incidence of the clause.
Those fears have been allayed, one would hope, by Amendment No. 77, which shows it is only the intention of the local authority that is relevant. I am grateful that the original intendment has been clarified in that way.
As to Amendment No. 85, it recognises the interaction between the first limb of general application and the second limb, to which reference has already been made. Recognising that interaction, it seeks to excise certain words from the second limb as otiose, the situation being covered by the first limb. That, again, shows the expertise of the parliamentary draftsman as distinct from the efforts of do-it-yourself lawyers. It is drafted in excellent form. I congratulate the Government and hope that both amendments commend themselves to your Lordships.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I am very happy to appreciate and recognise a concession when I see one, particularly one made so promptly and so fully in response to a suggestion I made. The wording of Amendment No. 77 meets the point I raised in Committee, and meets it beyond any doubt. As a perhaps unexpected bonus, the logic of my thinking has been followed by the noble Earl in paragraph (c), and I thoroughly support the outcome of that, which is Amendment No. 85. I welcome both amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I too welcome these amendments and reiterate the gratitude of these Benches and of my noble friend Lord Gifford for the Minister's prompt reaction to the fears earlier expressed. I should not like it to be thought, however, that in supporting these amendments we feel that what is left is satisfactory.

625
After all, the main points of objection to the clause—the use of the very wide phrase "promote homosexuality", and the use of the words "acceptability" and "pretended family relationship" —are still there. They are still capable of doing very substantial damage and on a false basis.
There is a false presumption behind the whole of this clause that any significant part of local authority activities with regard to homosexuals could possibly be construed in the ways that have been described. A great deal of local authority activity in that respect relates to the avoidance of discrimination against homosexuals, which I hope it is not the intention of the Government to overturn, and counselling those who find themselves perplexed at the prospect of understanding their homosexuality. I understand—I hope correctly— that it is not the intention of the Government to overturn those. All that is left is a small part of local government's activities with regard to homosexuality. And we still have wide, confusing, ambiguous wording which runs the severe risk of threatening the valuable activities of those authorities. However, we must give thanks for what has been achieved.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not wish to carp about the wording of paragraph (b). But even taking account of the changes that have been made and the fact that the wording now stops at the word "relationship", it is most confusing. The term "pretended family relationship" is still most unsatisfactory. I do not like the clause. However, if the Minister insists on saying what he intends to say, would he not agree that some such words as,
"promote the teaching of homosexuality in any maintained school as an acceptable basis for a family relationship"
leaving out the word "pretended" is much clearer and more acceptable? I do not like what the Government are trying to say, but if they are going to say it, it should be said in a way that is clear and makes sense. I suggest that my wording is better than the term "pretended family relationship".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that some of your Lordships have been able to give to the Government's amendments. I am sorry that there is still some confusion in the minds of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The Government have listened carefully to all the debates during the Committee stage and to representations made from outside the Chamber. I believe that we now have it right. As regards paragraph (b), mentioned by the noble Baroness, we return to some of the detail which has already been discussed tonight and some of which will continue to be discussed for the rest of the evening. I believe that the clause as now amended is a much better and more well understood piece of legislation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 28, line 32, leave out ("acceptability") and insert ("acceptance")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I welcome improvements to the Bill made by the Minister's Amendments Nos. 77 and 85. The Bill refers to a subjective word; namely "acceptability". It is a word which could occupy your Lordships in your judicial capacity for hour after hour. Those were precisely the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, speaking from the Government Front Bench and reported in Hansard at col. 334 on 18th December, 1986. Will the Minister say whether he agrees with his noble friend that the use of the word "acceptability" could occupy your Lordships sitting judicially for hour after hour? If he does, I am sure that he will agree that my more concrete, substituted word is better than the word in the Bill. He might consider taking this matter away and trying to find a word better than either.
Many people are puzzled by the concept of "acceptability". The question, "Acceptable to whom?" is the least of those which are asked, but it comes most readily to mind. With the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, ringing in the Minister's ears, I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I promise not to go on for hour after hour. Surely, the acceptability of homosexuality gives the impression of a subject for a debate on whether homosexuality is acceptable. I do not think that that is the intention. The intention is to prohibit teaching the acceptance of homosexuality.
11.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has proposed a series of amendments. I believe that he spoke also to Amendments Nos. 82 and 83.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords. no.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord has moved Amendment No. 79. I fear that I may have to stray on to the other amendments, as I have done previously.
The amendment to subparagraph 2A(1)(b) concerns the prohibition of local authorities promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. The purpose is to question some of the detailed aspects of the drafting. I am not persuaded that plucking out each element of the paragraph and questioning the inclusion of each word and phrase within it as opposed to some other similar words or phrase is necessarily a productive exercise. Subparagraph 2A(1)(b) is a combination of words devised to encapsulate a particular form of teaching that local authorities should not be promoting in schools. That is why I have to refer also to Amendments Nos. 82 and 83.
In regard to the individual words, each plays a part. Each contributes something to the sense of the whole. It is the phrase in total, not its individual component parts, that conveys the essential message of the paragraph. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, suggested that the first word,

627
"acceptability" should be replaced by the word "acceptance". In the Government's view that is not a desirable change. The word "acceptance" imparts a different flavour from the word "acceptability", which affects the nuance of the paragraph as a whole.
It is very largely a matter of nuance. In our view "acceptability" offers a better expression of the concept that a homosexual relationship is in some way to be welcomed. The word "acceptance" does not seem to have the element of subjectivity which is at the root of the mischief that the paragraph seeks to describe. Teaching acceptance of a situation which exists and which one should tolerate is a very different matter from teaching that the same situation is the norm or that it is something to be favoured or emulated.
This nuance is repeated throughout the paragraph. There is no attempt to deny that there exist relationships which have all the appearance of a normal family relationship but where two adults are of the same sex. The purpose of the phrase,
"teaching … the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship",
is to indicate that the local authorities should not be using their powers under Section 17 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to encourage the teaching that relationships between two people of the same sex can and should play the same role in society as the traditional family.
In our view the term "pretended family relationship" is preferable to the term "normal family relationship" because we do not wish to use the word "normal" for the one case to imply abnomality in the other. This seems to us to be irrelevant to the point at issue.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, would the Minister agree that he has now gone on to Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, which have not yet been moved? It is not normal in this Chamber for the Minister to comment on amendments that have not yet been moved.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that it is entirely relevant that I should comment because this is a combination of words devised to cover a particular form of teaching. One must look at this as a whole. That is what I said at the beginning. That is why I said I should have to look forward, as I had to on a previous occasion.
To summarise the Government's view of paragraph 2A(1)(b), we support its inclusion as a supplement to the general prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality. We believe it is important, in the light of developments in the education policies of some councils, to highlight the particular mischief which has led to real resentment among parents. We think it is right to make it clear on the face of the legislation that local authorities should not be using their limited powers to encourage teaching that portrays homosexual relationships which have the appearance of being family relationships, in most senses of that phrase, as being on those grounds a welcomed development or one to be emulated.
628
We believe that the wording of paragraph 2A(1)(b) expresses this mischief well, that it in no way prevents local authorities from advocating a tolerant and non-discriminatory approach to children living in such relationships and that it in no way interferes with the proper role of teachers.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. However, he has not answered my question as to whether he agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that "acceptability" is a word to occupy your Lordships, sitting in your judicial capacity, for hour after hour. Does the noble Earl agree or not agree with his noble friend Lord Skelmersdale? I see that the noble Earl is not prepared to answer that question and he has not answered other similar questions which I have asked throughout our proceedings today. That is indicative of the curious nature of this rather ugly clause. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 28, line 32, after ("as") insert ("the basis of")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I referred to this amendment earlier, but I wish to refer to it again because it goes back to the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that homosexuality is an abstract concept and that it is quite impossible for homosexuality to be a relationship.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to this point and suggested using the words "the basis of" in the amendment she tabled. My amendment, if accepted, would speak about promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as "the basis of" a relationship. That makes sense and it is English. The present language, I suggest, cannot be. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. It is picking at words to no profit at all. It makes not the slightest difference to the sense. It is all part and parcel of the idea that you pick one word "pretended" and another word "acceptability" and push in other words such as "on the basis". If the sense of the intention is clear, as the Minister says it is, what is the profit of this exercise?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am astonished to hear a lawyer say that it does not matter whether or not the words are precise. I thought that that was the whole purpose of legislation: to have precise wording so that it can be properly interpreted in the courts.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was not satisfied with my reasons for rejecting his Amendment No. 81. I wonder whether, like my noble friend, how far we are likely to get by playing at semantics in this way. It seems to me that adding the words "the basis of" if anything weakens the meaning of the phrase,
"as a pretended family relationship".

629
The phrase "the basis or is saying in a rather different way that someone is pretending. One does not need both. I believe that the present drafting is acceptable.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I can only say that I find the noble Earl's comments very extraordinary. The purpose of Committee and Report stages I have always supposed to be the consideration of legislation in detail, line by line and if necessary word by word. On one word or on one line there may be points which one wishes to raise and other points on words which come immediately afterwards. That is what both the noble Lord. Lord Henderson, and my noble friends have done in this case.
I do not believe that this is nitpicking. It is searching for the right words to put into an extremely important Bill. I believe that my proposals and those of other noble Lords have been important and worth considering. I believe that if my amendment were approved the language of this Bill would be greatly improved and at least it would be in correct English. However, I do not intend to divide the House at almost midnight and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 28, line 33, leave out ("pretended").
The noble Lord said: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, would rather that I moved this amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 82 and, for the convenience of the House, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 83. I should very much like to know the intended meaning of the word "pretended". I have been told that in legal jargon it means "claimed" but, of course, that is not the general understanding of the word "pretended".
I remind the House that the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation, of which I had the honour to be a member, asked the Government if, so far as possible, they would legislate using words that ordinary people can understand. This is an extremely obscure word to find in modern legislation. Nobody reading the amendment could possibly claim that they knew that the word did not mean "pretend" as it is used by children in the expression, "let's pretend". That is the commonly accepted usage of the word and it is baffling, to say the least, that it should be put into this Bill in an archaic sense. That is why I wish to leave out the word "pretended".
Apart from anything else, I wonder if it really weakens the wording of the Clause at all if it is left out. What is the significance of it and why is it necessary? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have not detained the House very much this evening and I do not intend to do so now, but I want to defend the right of my noble friend and other noble Lords to deal with this difficult — nay impossible — wording not only line by line and word by word but syllable by syllable if they want to.
Lord Gifford: I support this amendment. I believe that the inclusion of the word "pretended" is perhaps the main remaining outstanding blot upon this clause, if we must have this clause at all. First, it adds nothing to the sense of the clause. It would be exactly the same if it read:
"A local authority shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of acceptability of homosexuality as a family relationship".
That would be quite clear and the word "pretended" is surplus. It is surplus in terms of legal interpretation but is not surplus in terms of popular perception, which is what this clause is about.
The Minister has not yet answered the moving plea made by my noble friend Lord Rea and also by myself to avoid insulting certain types of real relationships which occur in this world by the addition of what is really a term of abuse in the clause. What Parliament is saying through the use of this word is that relationships such as the relationships of my noble friend's family are a sham and a pretence. By saying that and allowing such words to stay in the Bill, the Government must accept that they are encouraging bigotry.
The Minister has tried hard to say that this is not about encouraging bigotry and intolerance against gay people. However, as long as this type of word is in the Bill, adding nothing, we are entitled to assume that that is really what is intended by the promoters, to try to whip up or to encourage the continuation of prejudice against relationships of the kind my noble friend has described and of the kind which Miss Mason described in the letter that I read. If by the deletion of a single word, even at this hour of the night, we can remove a real reason for this clause to he regarded as an encouragement to bigotry, we are not wasting the time of the House.
12 midnight.
Lord Monson: My Lords I entirely support the amendment. It seems to me that the sponsors of Clause 28 and the Government will have scored an own goal if they insist upon retaining the word "pretended". What after all is the opposite of a pretended family relationship? It is a genuine family relationship. We shall be faced with the paradoxical situation if the word "pretended" is retained that it will be illegal for local authorities to teach the acceptability of a pretended family relationship but perfectly legal for them to teach the acceptability of homosexuality as a genuine family relationship. If that is what the Government want, so be it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, "pretended" is part of a single phrase which I have already tried to justify to your Lordships, although obviously not very successfully. I shall keep on trying because I am convinced that the clause as a whole is the right one. I therefore do not think that I can add very much to my explanation of the phrase as a whole.
The purpose of paragraph (1) is to give emphasis to a type of encouragement which some local authorities are giving and which is creating particular concern. The purpose is not, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, to whip up prejudice. It is to meet a point that has led to serious concern. Had

631
it not been for the concern that it generated, the phrase would not have been in the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
We do not believe that it would be preferable to delete the term "pretended", as is the case with the next amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, which substitutes the word "normal", because we do not wish, by using the word "normal" for the one case, to imply abnormality in the other. If one looks at the clause as a whole and at the combination of the words, they fit together very well to exemplify one particular point.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I do not think he has explained whether in this place the word "pretended" means "claimed", which we are told is what lawyers mean by "pretended", or "pretended" in the sense of "let's pretend" as used by children, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, once again I must say that I am extremely disappointed by the reply from the noble Earl. To begin with, we have been told that pretended here is used in some mediaeval sense to mean claimed. Why do we have to use a word in its mediaeval sense? When we talk about pretending we do not mean claimed. We all know what is meant by it, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has indicated.
Secondly, what no one has made clear is who is doing the pretending. When we have this statement "homosexuality as a pretended family relationship", who is pretending? Is it meant to suggest that the homosexual couple is pretending that it is a family relationship, or is it just a gratuitous insult on the part of the Government or the draftsman suggesting that it is not a real relationship; it is merely a pretended relationship.
My noble friend Lord Gifford made a most convincing speech in which he pointed out that the word is otiose. It has no function in that paragraph and if it were deleted the meaning would he exactly the same. Moreover, it removes the insult.
It is already tomorrow. Perhaps I should withdraw that remark and say that it is no longer yesterday. I wish to greet the new day by stating that I cannot withdraw the amendment.
12.6 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 82) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-contents, 43.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birkett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ely, Bp.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

Monson, L.

Gifford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L. [Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Seear, B.

Jeger, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

632

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harvington, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beloff, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caldecote, V.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnock, L.

Moyne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Dundee, E.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Teviot, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ullswater, V.

Goold, L.

Wynford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.15 a.m.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 28, line 33, leave out ("family").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must return for some more nit-picking. This time I propose very briefly to delete the word "family" from the clause. My point is that I do not think it can be disputed that there have to be children if there is to be a family. We talk about starting a family and so on. Of course it is possible, as my noble friend Lord Rea pointed out from his own experience, for there to be a homosexual relationship in which children are involved.
The two points that I wish to make arc these. First, such a relationship does not occur more than once in every thousand homosexual relationships. Therefore I do not see any point in introducing specially into this Bill a reference to a family relationship. Moreover if there is a family relationship involving two homosexuals I should have thought that that presented homosexuality in its most acceptable shape. We know that promiscuity is very often a feature of homosexual behaviour. That seems to me to be the face of homosexuality that should be specified and specifically condemned and not homosexuality when it constitutes a family relationship. Therefore I think it is wrong that that word should he included here. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, proposes the deletion of the word "family" from the phrase "pretended family relationship" in the proposed Section 2A (1) (b) of Clause 28. I attempted to explain in my comments on the previous amendments why the Government support the retention of the phrase chosen by the sponsors of the Bill as the best means of encapsulating the particular form of teaching that local authorities should not be promoting. The phrase teaching
"the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".

633
was devised as a means of indicating that local authorities should not be using their powers under Section 17 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to encourage the teaching that relationships between two persons of the same sex can and should play the same role in society as the traditional family.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, not for the first time the noble Earl has referred to the sponsors of the Bill as if they are not the Government. What is the distinction between the sponsors of the Bill and the sponsors of this clause which appears in a government Bill? What is the distinction between the sponsors and the Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is quite a big distinction in this case because as I think the noble Lord will be aware this was originally a Private Member's Bill in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. It was therefore he who promoted these particular words. What the Government have done is accept the wording. The word "family" is an essential element of the phrase we are discussing. We are not concerned with pretended relationships. There is no doubt that two people of the same sex living as part of the same household have a relationship. There is nothing pretended about it. The word "pretended" in the phrase relates more to the concept that such a relationship is a conventional family relationship or the portrayal of it is as equally valid as the traditional family relationship. Without the word "family" the proposed Section 2A(1)(b) would lose an essential part of its meaning.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, as my parentage has been referred to in the original draft I wish to say a few words. We all learnt at school—did we not?—of the Old Pretender and the Young Pretender? What does "pretender" mean in that context?—somebody who makes the pretence of claiming to the throne or whatever it may be? This is a claimed family relationship and that is the reason for the choice of the word "pretended" which seems to me to be fully justified by its dictionary meaning.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the noble Earl is speaking to the wrong amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, we have got on to "family" now. We left "pretended" behind.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I apologise to the House.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should not dream of again dividing the House on this, but I should like to point out one matter to the noble Earl. If two of my amendments are accepted, then what a local authority shall not do is promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a relationship—not as a pretended family relationship, but as a relationship. Does the insistence of the Minister that the words "pretended" and "family" should be included mean that the acceptability of homosexuality as a relationship can
634
perfectly well be a practice by local authorities? I do not think that he could possibly think that. Perhaps he does. If he does not feel inclined to respond to that matter, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 85 I must tell the House that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 86 to 88.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 85:
"Page 28, line 33, leave out from ("relationship") to end of line 37.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 not moved.]
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 28, line 40, at end insert ("or of providing information, counselling and advice in the interests of public health").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that we are now well into tomorrow. It was not my intention to address this matter at this time of night. However, we have not yet turned our attention forward to subsection (2) of Clause 28. That reads:
"Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease".
To that I propose to add:
"or of providing information, counselling and advice in the interests of public health".
The amendment stems from my intervention during the debate on 2nd February on whether or not Clause 28 should stand part. On the previous day the noble Earl had said, in response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh that the Government believe—"believe" was his word—that care, counselling and health education are fully covered by the present formulation in subsection (2). On the following day he replied to me at col. 1017 of the Official Report that,
"nothing in the clause need affect what a local authority does in this field".
The field being discussed was that of personal support and counselling services.
I raise the matter because I am still not convinced that the Government have thought it through. On the last occasion, I mentioned the Terrence Higgins Trust and its safer sex campaign for gay men which has been commended by the Department of Health and Social Security and by the Health Education Authority as well as by the Social Services Committee in another place. The trust receives a grant from central government which I think is in the region of £300,000 this year. The trust is seriously worried that Clause 28 could be used to censor a health education campaign that has worked outstandingly well so far.
Among other things, the trust runs what is called the Roadshow which is based at a disco in London. A disco is an establishment of which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, expressed some disapproval earlier this evening. The Roadshow tours the rest of the country, gives advice and information on safer sex and presents videos and provides counsellors to deal with individual inquiries. Much of that happens on premises at present licensed or provided by local authorities.
Surely it would be absurd if activities which are supported by central government have to be stopped because local government can no longer play its part. No doubt the noble Earl will repeat the assurances that I have already mentioned. His assurances are always of some comfort. But that comfort is necessarily limited because it will be the courts and not the noble Earl who interpret the statute. He may say, "Who on earth is going to invoke the courts against counselling and information in the interests of public health?". I have to tell your Lordships that there is little doubt in my mind that there are certain groups which will not hesitate to force a prosecution, as soon as the Bill is law, of certain material which they find distasteful that is an integral part of a safer sex campaign designed above all to limit the spread of HIV infection among the population at large.
Or, to follow another line of thought, if the words "promotion of homosexuality" and indeed "pretended family relationship-, which we have spent so much time discussing this evening, are to stand part of the Bill, as it seems that they are, even after the Government's amendments, what would their effect be on counselling whose object is to persuade homosexual people to reduce their partners to one, thereby in a sense simulating or approximating a family relationship or entering what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, called a stable quasi-permanent relationship, which is a highly desirable state of affairs one would have thought?
As a result of this clause, will we not be faced with the illogicality that it is meritorious to counsel a heterosexual person to be monogamous and faithful but that to counsel a homosexual to eliminate promiscuity and stick to one partner may be seen as promotion of homosexuality, and thus be illegal? Equally, may not material designed to inform about homosexuality and the dangers of certain practices, which is distributed in, say, a sixth-form college catering for young people between the ages of 16 and 19 and still maintained by a local education authority, be caught under Section 2A(1)(b), although it may form part of a sex education campaign?
I believe there is a distinct possibility that counselling and/or material designed to reduce the number of homosexual contacts may be caught under one or other of those formulations. On those grounds I seriously question whether the Government have thought through the implications of this clause for public health and welfare. It is not only the Terrence Higgins Trust which is perturbed. I have had a letter on this subject from the British Association of Counselling. I ought to declare an interest as I am a vice-president. I shall not read it out at this time of night for which I am sure that noble Lords will be grateful.
Some noble Lords will possibly also have heard from probation officers who feel that their work may be adversely affected in the process of counselling young offenders or homosexuals whom they frequently advise of the existence of voluntary groups which are supported by local authority funding and whose closure they would view with grave disquiet.
I do not want to be unconstructive. Obviously I shall not press this amendment tonight. However, I
636
want the noble Earl to say at least that he will have another look at subsection (2) in consultation with the AIDS unit of the DHSS, the Health Education Authority and any other relevant body in this field. It may well be that there is some more apposite wording than I have proposed which the noble Earl himself may bring forward at Third Reading.
If he is not able to help me in some way, I am afraid that it will be difficult for me not to revert to this matter at a later stage. Indeed, it would be an enormous "own goal" if Clause 28 of the Bill in any way interfered with the Government's very successful campaign to stem the spread of AIDS in this country.
Finally, I want to say that in this very specific amendment I am not addressing some of the wider issues of civil rights, tolerance, discrimination and so forth that have already been discussed—I think rightly—in your Lordships' House this evening. I am looking at this matter in a coldly objective light from the point of view of public health, and I am not at all convinced that the Government have yet got subsection (2) right. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the reason for subsection (2) of the Bill as it stands seems to me to be perfectly explicit. It states:
"Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease".
It is important not to say that twice, which is invited by accepting Amendment No. 89, but also to leave whoever are to be the judges of this matter—whether it be the courts or local authorities—free to make a judgment about the intention of the counselling or the production of the literature. I prefer to leave subsection (2) as it stands, simply saying that anything that is genuinely for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease is sufficient. I think that that subsumes the objectives of the noble Lord. I believe that some literature goes beyond the bounds of simply counselling or preaching safer sex to condoning and even promoting homosexuality.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, this seems a sensible amendment. I cannot understand the argument of the noble Baroness. Surely the phrase that precedes this amendment refers to AIDS. That is the way I have read it. It is about the spread of disease.
This amendment talks about counselling and advice. That is the first time they have been mentioned. It is not old ground that has been gone over time and again, either at Committee stage or in your Lordships' House tonight. It seems to be new. It seems to chime exactly with the Government's intention. It cannot possibly harm the Bill. Above all, it will reassure dozens of dedicated and admirable men and women who are providing counselling services and advice. There is no other mention of counselling and advice in the Bill. I cannot believe that it will do anything but good.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, surely the phrase in subsection (2), "preventing the spread of disease", must include
"providing information, counselling and advice in the interests of public health".
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, a great deal of good sense has been spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who moved this amendment and by my noble friend who has just spoken. I apologise—I am not referring to the noble Baroness, but to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who is sitting beside me.
The amendment would give reassurance to the voluntary societies and many others who do this work in good faith that this saving is additional to the saving which was put into the Bill, I believe by the Government, in Committee in another place.
There is yet one more argument which is of some importance. All of us wish to avoid busybodies or people taking actions against councils, perhaps out of spite, or as a result of misreading the Bill. It seems to me that it would save quite a number of possibly malicious actions being taken if this saving was spread a little more widely. It may well he that such actions would be legally aided. It would certainly be the case that the defence would have to come out of the rates. It is in all our interests that such actions are not promoted.
I believe that the extension of this saving would be a safeguard in that direction. That is an additional argument for the Government to take this proposal away and think about it. I have not heard a viable or valid argument against this amendment today. In that spirit, I hope that the noble Earl will consider the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it seems to me that this amendment is wholly reasonable and perfectly justified on a belts and braces argument. As someone who, unlike most of the Government's critics today, broadly supports the Government on Clause 28, perhaps I may make this point. Section 28—as it is to become—will get off to a very much better start if the Government could see fit to make just a few more concessions to those who, rightly or wrongly, are worried about this clause.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has proposed this amendment to the wording of Clause 28(2) specifically to exclude from the prohibition anything done for the purpose of providing information, advice and counselling in the interests of public health.
We consider this addition to be unnecessary. The existing subsection, which was introduced by way of a government amendment in another place, excludes from the prohibition the doing of anything for the purposes of treating or preventing the spread of disease. We consider that the existing wording already covers fully the activities referred to in the amendment of the noble Lord. It is difficult to think of anything that might be brought into the exclusion by the addition of the reference to
"providing information, counselling and advice in the interests of public health"
that would not be excluded by the present wording.
Public health is essentially the treatment of or preventing the spread of disease. I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that the clause will not stop local authorities from
"providing information, counselling and advice in the interests of public health".
638
The sole purpose of Clause 28 is to stop local authorities intentionally promoting homosexuality which is quite a different matter. In some of the remarks that the noble Lord made, I fear that he did not quite grasp the significance of the government amendments which the House has accepted. I hope that when he comes studiously to read the Official Report, as I know he will, he will see the effect of the Government's amendments.
I make it clear that subsection (2) puts beyond doubt that anything done to prevent the spread of disease is in no way affected by the clause. That of course includes matters such as the road show to which the noble Lord referred when moving his amendment. We cannot think of anything that would be clearer than subsection (2).
As to the noble Lord's point concerning counselling, that is one of the most sensible ways of preventing the spread of AIDS and is therefore covered by the exemption:
"the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease".
Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Blatch so rightly pointed out, subsection (2) puts anything done for those purposes completely outside the prohibition of subsection (1); and it is the word "anything" that I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, because if those people he mentioned who are concerned with the work will study the wording, particularly with reference to "anything", then I am sure their fears will be seen to be unfounded. The Government have gone all the way to meeting the concerns of the noble Lord.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords and Baronesses who have taken part in this very short debate. I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that I do not agree that the matter I am trying to introduce is subsumed in the clause as it is written. Noble Lords from the medical profession who are present in the Chamber would confirm that treatment is normally the province of a medical doctor. Prevention is also a function of the primary health care services. It can of course be promoted by public health campaigns but they usually take the form of television or leaflets and do not normally comprise counselling. After all, we are only talking about a matter of interpretation and we are not all that far apart.
I submit that the words I am striving to introduce to give greater clarity and coverage are not fully subsumed in the wording of the clause as it stands. I do not accept the noble Earl's view that the words proposed are unnecessary. I certainly did not try to introduce them lightly. The noble Earl, with all his responsibilities, does not have any at present in the field of health; he is not a health minister. I ask him, perfectly openly, whether he will consider consulting his right honourable friend Mr. Newton, who is obviously very much involved in the matter that I am trying to address in this amendment, to see whether that arm of the Government really are satisfied with the existing wording.
I made the point earlier that it is not the Government who will have to interpret the statute; it

639
is the courts. The Minister may well consider that he has covered a certain situation, but he or the Government may find out that that is not so. I invite the noble Earl to give me a little comfort on this score and say he will consult some of his colleagues, or at least think about this matter, and if necessary return to the subject at a later stage.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a little comfort: I can give him lots of comfort, because the DHSS has already been fully consulted.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that from the noble Earl. I shall read carefully what he has said and the assurances he has given. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 28, leave out lines 41 to 44.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 90 because it has been represented to me and it seems to me that the words in subsection (3) are unnecessary. I am advised that a court can draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as it sees fit without those words in the Bill. I am told that they are otiose. I should like to ask the Minister whether he agrees and for that purpose I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I believe that the most apt comment on this point made in Committee came from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he asked whether, without this subsection, the court would not be allowed to draw such inferences as it thought fit? I do not think that judges need to be told by an Act of Parliament that they may draw such inferences as they think fit. I think we owe a duty to the statute book not to fill it up with unnecessary clauses such as this.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, says that he has been disappointed to hear many of my replies and it is my turn to be disappointed that he has chosen to reopen the discussion on this government amendment which was agreed at the Committee stage. However, I am happy to explain once again the purpose of the subsection and to answer his queries.
Clause 28(3) provides that:
"In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as it sees fit".
The purpose of including the subsection was to make it quite clear that, in assessing the intention of an authority in any challenge that it had acted in breach of the Clause 28 prohibition, a court should be required to consider all the relevant circumstances of the case. It would not be sufficient for a local authority to deny that its intention had been to promote homosexuality nor, conversely, for a challenger to claim that its purpose had been to promote homosexuality when the evidence pointed to the contrary.
640
There is a view that the subsection is unnecessary because the court would be bound to take an objective view of the circumstances of the case. That point was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It would be unlikely to accept the authority's or the challenger's views of things without question. Nevertheless, the Government see great advantage in terms of' removing some of the unfounded fears that have been expressed about the effects of the prohibition in stating clearly that the court will draw such inferences as to the intention of the authority as it sees fit. This does not of course mean that the court is empowered to take an irrational view of matters. It will be obliged in the normal way to consider the facts of the case, to weigh the relevant factors and to come to an objective view about the authority's purpose on the basis of those factors.
The Government included this subsection as part of their clarificatory amendments to put it beyond doubt that activities by a local authority that were, on an objective view, free from any purpose of promoting homosexuality, would not be affected. We consider the subsection to be valuable in terms of removing the unfounded doubts of those who fear an irrational interpretation of the clause. I hope that the noble Lord will see the necessity for including this subsection.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, that amounts to the fact that the Government like to have belt and braces when concerned with their own amendments but wish to deny belt and braces to those of us who wish to reassure the public of other amendments. I am happier to have heard that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Willis Lord Willis moved Amendment N. 91:
Page 28, line 44, at end insert—
("(3A) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in this section shall—

(a) authorise a local authority to discriminate against a person by reason of the sexuality of that person, or to treat a person in a less favourable manner than other persons on that ground; or

(b) prevent a local authority from providing or supporting, otherwise than with the intention specified by subsection (1) above, activities or services the ground, or one of the grounds, for which a requirement or need of a person or persons connected with the sexuality of any person.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have carefully not intervened in the debate this evening but chose to save my time. If your Lordships will settle back, I promise not to keep the House for more than an hour or so on this final matter.
Speaking seriously, we now come to the broad sweep and, in a sense, the philosophy behind the Bill in this amendment which I do not pretend to be perfectly drawn. I think that in supporting this amendment the Government will now understand, as will the noble Lords opposite, that there is a sincere and genuine fear on the part of' those who have opposed the clause that it could lead to an increase in bigotry. All noble Lords who have supported the clause have disclaimed that intention. Successive

641
noble Lords, including the Minister, have said that that is not the intention of the Government. The intention is not to start queer-bashing or homosexual hunts, but merely to limit this and to protect the children. Those of us who have been against Clause 28 love our children just as much as those who love Clause 28. We yield to nobody in our desire to protect them. We believe, however, that certain aspects of the clause are dangerous.
Noble Lords in this Chamber are tolerant and kind. In fact, this evening the House has been awash with tolerance. Hardly a noble Lord who has spoken has not said, "I am not against homosexuals". But there are people who are against homosexuals. There are people who would take the slightest excuse to jump on the bandwagon of bigots.
Many noble Lords must know that where homosexual people gather in odd pubs or in odd clubs they get chased out, they get beaten up and they get pelted by louts and yobbos. The tone and content of the clause and the way in which it has been amended—it is now a bit of a dog's breakfast—continue to leave open that possibility. There is the use of such phrases as "pretended" relationship, which we discussed a short while ago. It is a dirty word; it is not a good word.
I move the amendment because, despite all the assurances from the Government, the truth is that kind and tolerant words do not have the force of law. Ministers' statements and assurances that this is not what the Government intend in the Bill do not have the force of law. The court has to decide on the basis of the wording of the Bill. On cannot get up in court and say, "Your Worship, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, when explaining the Bill said that in fact it meant this". The judge is perfectly entitled to say, "That may very well be, but my opinion of the wording is that it means something else". Assurances from the Government are therefore no good.
We need something similar to this amendment. The key words are, "for the avoidance of doubt". Noble Lords who have said that they are against anything that may increase bigotry cannot but agree to support the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, should be congratulated upon his assiduous attention to the debates on this part of the Bill. Indeed, he has set a fine example to other noble Lords by sitting through all the speeches waiting for his turn. I am grateful to him for having tabled the amendment.
I recognise the concern of the noble Lord to ensure that the clause cannot be used as a justification for discriminating against homosexuals in the provision of services simply on the grounds of sexual orientation. I am anxious therefore to reassure him once again that his fears are groundless.
The Government are against discrimination in any form. It is no part of our intention in supporting Clause 28 to remove the right of homosexuals to receive council services. As ratepayers and electors, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out in the debates, they are entitled to have access to those
642
services on the same basis that anyone else does. Nothing in Clause 28 interferes with that right. There is nothing in the clause that would
"authorise a local authority to discriminate against a person by reason of the sexuality of that person".
The clause limits what a local authority may do. It confers no powers or authority whatsoever. Any claim to the contrary is, quite simply, without foundation.
Neither is there anything in this clause which would stop a local authority undertaking any activity or service within its powers, or assisting anyone else to do so, simply and solely because that activity or service is aimed at meeting the particular needs of homosexuals. An authority might, for example, wish to finance a voluntary organisation providing counselling and advice services to homosexuals: it is entitled to contribute to the funds of non-profit making bodies providing a public service— under Section 137(3) of the Local Government Act 1972— if it thinks it appropriate to do so.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has written to me, and no doubt to other noble Lords, suggesting that this clause will prevent the funding in the future of a number of groups offering services for homosexuals. I can reassure it that there is no reason why this should be the case provided that the intention of the local authority is to provide or support a service and the funding is within their powers.
An argument to the contrary could not be sustained by reference to the wording of the clause. The fact that the existence of such services might encourage people to use them is irrelevant. What is relevant, and the only thing that is relevant, is the purpose of the local authority in funding the service, not any unpredicted or incidental effect of their doing so.
The government amendments at Committee stage, together with those agreed by the House earlier today and yesterday, put it beyond doubt that it is the local authority's intention which is crucial to deciding whether it has acted unlawfully. The fact that that service is provided for the benefit of homosexuals is not material, unless the local authority's purpose in funding the service is to promote homosexuality. For example, the question has been raised whether it will continue to be open to local authorities to fund Gay Bereavement, a counselling service for homosexuals whose partner has died. If a local authority perceives a genuine need for such a service on grounds relevant to one of its powers to support voluntary organisations, and, having weighed all its priorities, decides that it is right to offer assistance to the service at public expense, it is entitled to do so. A court could find the authority in breach of the prohibition only if, having looked at all the circumstances of the grant, it could reasonably be held that the authority had funded the service in order to promote homosexuality.
This does not, of course, mean that a local authority would not have to tread very carefully in taking a decision to fund a service designed exclusively for homosexuals. It would have to be satisfied that its action could in no way be construed

643
as promoting homosexuality. A court might well infer that an authority that gave assistance to Gay Bereavement but refused to give such assistance to CRUISE—the organisation that provides a similar support for widows—might have to face questions about its motives.
As I said at the beginning of this intervention, I have no doubt about the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in bringing forward amendments designed to make it clear that homosexuals need not, as a result of this clause, fear discrimination or the unreasonable revoking of local government services and support. The Government do not, however, believe his amendments to be necessary; our own amendments have made it quite clear that the unintended effects of council decisions and actions are not at issue.
Finally, I know that the noble Lord, and a number of other noble Lords, fear that the clause will have a negative effect; that it will encourage discrimination simply because it is concerned with stopping positive image policies. I have to tell him that we do not share that view. Indeed, we take the opposite view.
Clause 28 will deal with the activities of a few councils which have provoked considerable public disquiet and, regrettably, fuelled irrational prejudices. In the areas where problems have arisen, we believe that removing the source of this disquiet will go far to alleviate the resentment which was building up, particularly among parents. The prospects for increased tolerance and understanding will, we believe, be far better if the unacceptable activities of a few extremist councils can be stopped.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that statement. I return his compliment to me by saying how grateful I am for his courtesy and patience through these long debates, not only in Committee, but tonight. I am grateful, too, for the breadth and depth of the reply. As I said earlier, I do not think that it has the force of law but it will bring some comfort to many people who are worried. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report he now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

Hastings Borough Council Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before one o'clock.