Lords Sitting of 5 March 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Naval Frigate Order: Swan Hunter
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Mer Majesty's Government:
How many jobs will be secured by the order for three Type 23 anti-submarine frigates recently placed with Swan Hunter Shipbuilders on Tyneside.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, we have calculated that this order will sustain up to 10,000 jobs in the defence industry over the next four or five years.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging Answer. Can he assure the House that, in spite of the current détente, Her Majesty's Government will continue to maintain a viable naval force?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government are fully committed to the strong defence of the United Kingdom and to meeting NATO and out-of-area obligations. That therefore necessitates an effective and professional Royal Navy.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the Minister say how many Type 23 anti-submarine frigates have been ordered for the coming year? Bearing in mind the swiftly changing nature of the political scene throughout the world, not least in Eastern Europe, can he tell the House whether the Government have any plans to review their defence commitments? As one hopes that there is less need for defence jobs, can he confirm that the Government are considering alternative employment in those areas where defence jobs will be reduced?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, to take first the noble Lord's second question, as I have frequently made clear in your Lordships' House, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has always said that he will continue to examine the options for change. With regard to the number of Type 23 frigates now on order, I can tell the noble Lord that a total of nine are on order, five from Yarrow Shipbuilders and four from Swan Hunter Shipbuilders. Those are being built to a phased build programme, with the next two due for delivery in 1991 and the others following at approximately six-monthly intervals.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, can my noble friend give us an idea as to cost? Are those Type 23 frigates to cost more or less than the preceding Type 22 frigates?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards costs they are always treated as commercially in confidence.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, the award of the contract for three frigates to Swan Hunter is one thing, but can my noble friend say when the keel laying will start as that will produce the increase in employment at the yard?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not totally clear as to the point that my noble friend is trying to make.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, are we to understand that it is the Government's policy not only to increase defence expenditure but to increase manpower in the defence industries? Should not the Government have extensive contingency plans for a substantial cut in manpower in those industries?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, again I shall do my best to make clear to the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has always said, and continues to say, that as regards the future of the defence industry and the future of resources he is continuing to examine all options for change.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we welcome that slight move in the direction of the advice tendered to the Government from these Benches. But may I ask again whether the Government have contingency plans for a substantial drop in employment in the defence industries? They certainly should have.
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords, that is not the case.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is yet evidence of any decrease in the production of submarines from Soviet yards?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Soviet threat is not expected to diminish despite the Soviet Union's announced intentions to cut defence expenditure. The likely naval cuts are probably to be in the form of scrapping obsolete and aged combatants, with small net reductions in numbers, but there will be an improvement in capability due to their replacement by modern and better equipped units.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the noble Earl must be unique and alone in thinking that the Soviet threat has in no way diminished since last year. But does he agree that the negotiations for naval disarmament have not gone ahead because the United States has refused to engage in them?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the reason why they have not gone ahead was that it was agreed before the CFE talks by the two superpowers that talks concerning the possibility of naval reductions would not be among the CFE negotiations.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend noted that the Question on the Order Paper relates to a single type of frigate in a single shipyard? Does he agree that this is hardly the occasion to embark upon a general discussion?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend, but at the same time I am trying to be helpful to your Lordships, even though we may have strayed slightly off the Question.

Commonwealth Day: Celebrations
2.42 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have in mind to celebrate Commonwealth Day on 12th March.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Ministers will attend the observance in Westminster Abbey and the Commonwealth Secretary-General's reception, both in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen. Many of our diplomatic missions around the world will be involved in events to mark the occasion. The principal focus will, however, be on children, in schools and at a major event in the Commonwealth Institute.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and informative Answer. Is he aware that I am the vice-president of New Zealand in Britain 1990? That committee includes at least a dozen very distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, including, I believe, at least two former Prime Ministers. Arising from that, is my noble friend aware that the Commonwealth Games in a city not unknown to me were a great success? Following the celebrations of 12th March, can my noble friend say what plans there are to increase trade with the Commonwealth, particularly in agricultural products? While the European Community is very vital, does he agree that the Commonwealth also has a very important part to play in the future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend's last remarks about the importance of the Commonwealth. I was aware of my noble friend's involvement in New Zealand in Britain 1990, having seen him at various events in connection with it. I also endorse that the Commonwealth Games were a great success in the city of Auckland.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in another place an Early Day Motion has been moved to celebrate Commonwealth Day? Can your Lordships' House be associated with those sentiments?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure about having an Early Day Motion in your Lordships' House. We do not have such procedure. However, I am sure that the remarks made during Questions in this House today will endorse your Lordships' support for the Commonwealth.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is particular reason for celebrating Commonwealth Day because of the
966
return of Pakistan to the Commonwealth, which is most welcome?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I endorse that remark. It will be the first Commonwealth Day that has occurred since Pakistan rejoined the Commonwealth, I think last October.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the Minister and Members of the House know, the Commonwealth Institutes in London and Edinburgh have done excellent work. Can the Minister say what plans are afoot to establish a Commonwealth Institute in Cardiff? Will he be good enough to consult on that matter with Mr. Peter Walker without delay?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition on once again bringing Wales to the forefront of our attention and also the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I am sure that due consideration will be given to what the noble Lord said. I shall pass his remarks on to the present Secretary of State.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Commonwealth Day, 12th March, I shall be addressing a seminar of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on the subject of the role of a Second Chamber? Does he consider that useful?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware that my noble friend was giving such an address. However, I am sure that it will be most useful to all those who are able to listen to it.

Veterinary Schools: Resources
2.46 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures will be taken, and when, following the Page Report, by the Universities Funding Council on resources for veterinary colleges.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Dr. Page's committee was commissioned by the Government to assess the future need for veterinarians and the implications for the intake of veterinary schools. We have accepted all the main recommendations of the Page Report by removing the ceiling on the intake to veterinary schools and discontinuing associated manpower reviews.
The report has been passed to the Universitites Funding Council for its attention. The UFC has already set aside the previous recommendations concerning the Glasgow and Cambridge veterinary schools. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is considering the recommendations directed to his ministry.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her detailed reply. Is she aware that the veterinary profession realises that the Page Report on

967
veterinary education removes the threat of further closures of veterinary colleges and veterinary schools for which the profession is very grateful? However, can the Universities Funding Council remove the threat of lack of sufficient funding? The recommendations of the Page Report can be a huge success provided that the funds are available.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his first comment. It is appropriate to thank all noble Lords in this House who assisted in that process, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
The recommendations of the Page Report advocate moving from 335 to 370 places by using the flexibility of staff/student ratios and then increasing the number of places to 400 by extending UFC funding. It recommends that there should then be added flexibility through the universities themselves considering top-up fees to students.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the difficulties in the agricultural industry at the moment caused by various diseases, in particular mad cow disease? Any cutting of veterinary services would be a major mistake in view of such difficulties.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the case for extension of places in the schools has been well made. The flexibility of the recommendations of the Page Report will make it possible for the schools themselves to respond to the need for an increased number of vets in that area.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I also welcome the decision not to close the schools in Glasgow and Cambridge and to retain the six existing university schools. Was not one of the findings of the Page Committee that there will be a serious shortfall of vets over the next decade? Can the noble Baroness say what steps are to be taken by her department in concert with the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure that there will be no shortage? Or are the Government relying on the immigration of vets from overseas?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point that was established by the Page Committee. In addition to overseas vets coming into the country and the speeding up of the processing of those applicants, measures that may help in the short term are flexibility in encouraging part-time workers, the encouragement of people to work beyond the age of retirement, and a possibly increased role for the veterinary nurse. The extension of places will help in the longer term.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College hope that there will be no discrimination in fees? Will the Government also note that the threatened closure of the Glasgow and Cambridge schools caused a blight on the veterinary profession resulting in great anxiety and that it is hoped that that situation will never occur again?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are pleased that the threat which hung over the two schools has been lifted. There is no intention to discriminate as regards fees. However, if the intention is to introduce top-up fees, that will be across the board, with mechanisms to meet the particular hardships of individual students.
Lord Annan: My Lords, was not one of the reasons for the shortage of veterinary students the fact that the University of Cambridge was unable to fill the places in its veterinary school because the colleges did not admit a sufficient number of students to fill that school?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important question about the flexibility of access to our institutions which was fully discussed last week. Perhaps that point will also be taken on board.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the matter to which she has just referred will be strongly challenged and denied by the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College?
Noble Lords: Order, order!

"St. Columba": Fire on Board
2.51 p.m.
Lord Blyth Lord Blyth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have determined what caused the fire which left the British Ferries-Sealink vessel "St. Columba" adrift without power in the Irish Sea on Wednesday, 31st January.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the fire on the "St. Columba" occurred when fuel oil escaped from a pipe and sprayed on to a hot exhaust manifold causing the oil to ignite.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he say what fire precautions are taken, and are regular fire drills carried out? Furthermore, are the Government satisfied with the situation?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes, the Government are satisfied with the situation. This type of vessel is required to carry out a fire drill once a week. That involves only the crew and not the passengers. However, on every voyage there is an announcement to passengers before they set off relaying instructions about what to do in case of emergency or fire.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to Captain Bakewell and the crew of the "St. Columba" in Holyhead for the prompt and skilful way in which they dealt with the unfortunate accident? Their actions ensured that the passengers were not placed at risk. Is it the case that the marine accident investigation branch is looking at the matter carefully? Can the Minister say whether its findings

969
have been sent to his department and, if so, what are the results?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and praise the captain and his crew. I also wish to inform your Lordships that the co-ordination of the rescue services, including preparation for a fullscale evacuation, was carried out by coastguards and that great efficiency was shown by all the organisations involved. The principal inspector has submitted his report to the department, and there was good co-operation between the inspector and Sealink. I understand that Sealink has already responded to the inspector's preliminary recommendations.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, without detracting from my noble friend's question and the Minister's reply, does not the incident justify the concern expressed by the officers' organisation, NUMAST, about proposals to reduce various manning levels? Is it not the case that last year Sealink proposed abolishing the rank of fourth engineer, whose responsibility is the maintenance and checking of engines? Is it also not the case that ferry operators have suggested applying to the Department of Transport for exemption from the necessity of carrying a radio operator on their ferries? If that is so, will the Minister do his utmost to ensure that those two changes do not occur?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Department of Transport is not aware of any suggestions to dispose of either an engineer or a radio operator. There is a minimum requirement as to the number of crew on board which each owner must obey. It is for the owner to decide whether to employ more than that requirement.

British Railways Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Coal Industry Bill
2.55 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [Repayment of loans to British Coal Corporation]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert ("and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "but any other sums received by him in respect of a sum lent by virtue of this section may be applied by him under subsection (1) above as money provided by Parliament."").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I explained on Second Reading, Clause 3 of the Bill is a technical provision which ensures that temporary deposits from British Coal will not have to be paid into the Consolidated Fund but can instead be re-advanced as required. Since the Coal Industry Bill was
970
published, further consideration has been given in the context of the Government Trading Bill, introduced to your Lordships' House on 22nd February, to ways in which loans advanced by Ministers of the Crown may be repaid and subsequently re-advanced.
Clause 3 as presently drafted will enable the corporation to place surplus funds on deposit with the Secretary of State for Energy provided that ownership of such funds remains with the corporation. But some uncertainty remains over whether, if these sums were regarded as loan repayments rather than deposits, they might be classified as non-statutory receipts of the Crown and have to be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. The proposed amendment addresses this uncertainty and ensures that the corporation is able to use any funds it may have available, even on an overnight basis, to reduce its outstanding voted loans. It enables these loans to be re-advanced if the corporation's borrowing requirements subsequently rise.
The proposed amendment will, therefore, enable the Secretary of State to offer what will effectively be a commercial overdraft facility, as well as term loans, and will allow the corporation to minimise its outstanding borrowings at any point in time. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for advising me of the amendment and sending me a background briefing. We have no objection to the procedures. I am hopeful that even at this later stage the Government will have an open mind as regards ways in which the Bill can be improved. I shall later move amendments tabled in my name on the Marshalled List and I hope that, now that the noble Viscount has thought fit to move his amendment, they will have a better prospect of being accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Licensing: conservation requirements]:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new clause:
("Opencast coal working: conservation requirements
For section 3 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 (preservation of amenity) there shall be substituted—
Preservation of amenity.
3. In formulating any proposals as to the working of coal by opencast operations or the carrying out of operations incidental to such working or the restoration of land affected by such working or by such incidental operations, the British Coal Corporation (in this Act referred to as "the Corporation") or any person who holds or is applying for a licence under section 36(2) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946—

(a) shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and

(b) shall so far as possible ensure that the proposals include measures to mitigate any adverse effect which the proposed activities may have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Last week the Committee accepted Amendment No. 2 after a Division. It has now been redrafted with the help of the Government and I am therefore confident that it will be approved today. It will require a consequential amendment to the Long Title and that is tabled as Amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 2 refines and improves on the new clause which I moved last week and which the Committee accepted. It fulfils the major purpose of my previous amendment in extending to the private sector the environmental duty of the British Coal Corporation in respect of its coal operations. However, it does so more neatly and effectively than my previous amendment because it replaces and updates the previous duty of the BCC, bringing the two together in one piece of legislation. I am sure that that is helpful because it emphasises that both the BCC and the private sector must fulfil the environmental duty in all their operations and from the earliest stages in any proposal.
The amendment also ensures, so far as is possible, that measures will be taken by both the BCC and the private sector to mitigate adverse impacts of their operations. I understand from the parliamentary draftsman that the words "so far as possible" are necessary to make the new duty enforceable. I hope and trust that that will not be used as an escape route by operators anxious to skimp on this important new duty.
Your Lordships will see from the drafting that one feature of my previous amendment is not included; that is, the extension of the duty to cover deep mines. True to my word and following a very valuable meeting with my noble friend, I have thought carefully about that question and I have been persuaded that it is perhaps premature to press that point at this stage. However, I hope that there will be an opportunity to address that the next time that legislation affecting deep mines is proposed.
I have been very heartened by the Government's positive response to this amendment following your Lordships' decision last week to include it in the Bill. That must reflect the concern shown from all sides of this House for improved environmental duties in the Bill. I am sure that as a result the Coal Industry Bill will leave this House a better and greener Bill than when it entered. The amendment to the Bill's Long Title is an important signal to that effect. It seems to me that the success of this amendment is also a clear sign that when good environmental sense prevails, everyone benefits. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie deserves congratulation on his initiative in moving the amendment in Committee which was supported by a substantial majority, in spite of the advice then given by my noble friend Lord Ullswater on the Front Bench. He was afraid—and his reasoning was understandable—that as there were already planning and licensing procedures for
972
opencast mining, to put in something along the lines of the amendment might cause confusion.
However, my noble friend Lord Ullswater is to be congratulated on applying his mind further to this matter and reaching an agreement with my noble friend Lord Norrie. I hope that he and your Lordships will feel that as a result both the licensing and planning procedures will be strengthened by what your Lordships are now being invited to write into the Bill. I am sure that that is right and is an excellent solution to what appeared to be quite a problem.
Baroness David: My Lords, I add my pleasure to the fact that the Government have decided to accept the decision of the Committee last week that the substance of the amendment, which was passed by, as the noble Lord said, a considerable majority, should be accepted and the worth of it understood. I am grateful—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will be—for the opportunity to meet the Minister so that the matter could be thrashed out.
I believe that we shall have to return to the question of deep mines. In the Minister's speech last week I noticed that he said:
"I accept that deep mining can be just as much an eyesore as opencast operations, not least because of the much greater life of deep-mined operations". [Official Report,26/2/90; col 562.]
I hope he will agree that in a future Bill we can perhaps return to that matter. In the meantime, I express my great pleasure that this amendment is tabled today.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Viscount for the courtesy which he showed us when we met him the other day and for his willingness to consider the reframing of this amendment. I am sure that the amendment which we now have is acceptable to all sides of the House.
I also hope that the negotiations which are taking place at present with the National Coal Board on the question of royalties for opencast mining will perhaps mean that there will be some relaxation in the size of the royalties which private operators must pay in order that they may have an incentive to go even further with the "greening" over of the sites. In the meantime, I associate myself with all the remarks about the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and with the way in which it has been received by the Minister.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, a week is certainly a long time in politics because only last Monday the Minister was strenuously but politely and firmly telling us that there was no need for the amendment which is substantially the amendment before us today. Of course, it is remarkably chastening for there to be a vote against the Government. That indicates that the Committee and those Members of the Committee who listened to the arguments and followed the matter closely wanted to lay an obligation of some sort on the Government, the coal board or the opencast operators. It was felt that something had to be done.

973
I associate myself with all the kind words said to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who persisted in this matter. He could easily have accepted assurances but he wanted to see something written on the face of the Bill. I say, "so far, so good". However, can the Minister tell us exactly what the words on the face of the Bill mean in respect of obligations? What will now have to happen physically when the Bill, as amended, becomes an Act compared to the situation prevailing before last Monday? What have the Government now accepted which is additional to that which they resisted before? Can the Minister tell us what has now been laid as a physical or financial duty upon the opencast coal operators which was not a duty before last Monday?
I noted the noises which were made about "so far so good". We do need to come back and look at the detrimental environmental impact on areas not only around opencast mines but also around deep mining. Therefore, my comments are as generous and as warm as those of other noble Lords but I am practical. I do not wish us to be approached in three years' time by those interested in this matter saying that the words on the face of the Bill do not mean anything. I would like the Minister to tell us what he and his colleagues accept as the physical and financial consequences of the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton and the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Stedman, on the persuasiveness and sincerity with which they successfully proposed their amendment in Committee last week. I also wish to thank them for the revised amendment which has now been tabled and which fully takes into account all difficulties which I mentioned last week.
As I said in Committee, there is no real difference between the Government's aims and those of the movers of the amendment. All opencast operators should have full regard to the environment whether they are in the public or private sector. The difference was simply in the way in which that aim could best be achieved.
As my noble friend Lord Norrie said, the revised amendment extends to licensed opencast operators a statutory amenity duty imposed on British Coal by Section 3 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958, as substituted by Schedule 8 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986. It does that by restating the duty in the form of a completely new clause and by extending the duty so that it applies in the same terms to both British Coal and licensed operators. That meets our criteria of fairness as between British Coal and private sector operators.
The duty itself has been expressed in very much the terms of my noble friend's successful amendment. It includes a reference to the need to have regard to archaeological sites which is not at present part of the amenity duty imposed on British Coal. It requires that British Coal and licensed operators shall, so far as possible, ensure that the proposals include measures to mitigate. That is more positive than the formulation, "shall take into account any effect", which features in the 1986 Act.
974
My noble friend Lord Renton made the powerful point in Committee that the amenity duty on licensees needs to bite at an early stage in the planning process. I should here like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, what the new amendment would do. It imposes an amenity duty on the licensed operator from the time he is preparing his licence application. All that represents a useful strengthening of the amenity duty set out in the 1986 Act and the Government welcome this.
The revised amendment does not impose upon British Coal as licensor the duty to vet the environmental aspects of the licensee's proposals, which was the major difficulty for us in the amendment passed last week. That does not, however, mean that British Coal has no licensing responsibilities in this area. The corporation has given a firm assurance that it will not issue a licence unless planning permission has been given. And we have been considering whether there are other aspects in its licensing function which could be more conducive to improving environmental standards. One of the excuses that operators use for shortfalls in environmental performance is that the royalties charged by British Coal mean that they cannot afford high standards of working and restoration. Certainly British Coal's royalties are very high, and the Government will ask British Coal to ensure that royalties are set at a level which will allow licensed operators to meet the cost of rising environmental standards.
I hope that those words will be of some comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. The Government fully support this amendment. It sends a strong signal to the licensed opencast sector on the importance of high environmental standards, and the signal is all the stronger because it is fully supported by the Government and, I hope, by all sides of your Lordships' House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put it to him that he has not quite answered the question of my noble friend Lord Graham, and I certainly think that there is a point which needs to be cleared up.
It seems to me that there are two crucial phrases. The first, "shall have regard to", is in Section 3(a) and the second, "shall so far as possible", is in Section 3(d). I think the Minister will probably agree that in these days, when there is so much concern—and rightly so—about what happens to the countryside generally, the green issues and so on, local authorities keep a close eye on those matters but so also do what might be called citizens' groups; people who also have concern about these matters.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister, therefore, what will happen if, at the end of the day, what is proposed does not meet the criteria I mentioned, that is to say that they:
"have regard to the desirability",
and,
"so far as possible ensure".
If those criteria are not met either by local authorities or interested people, what happens then? I hope he

975
will agree that there is a wide field where there can be disagreement about whether flora and fauna are affected and whether buildings are sufficiently historic. We read every day in the newspapers of disagreement as to whether something ought to be protected or whether that which is done protects it.
I hope I am making myself clear, but it is a real concern and I hope the Minister can offer some explanation.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that I think the noble Lord is concerned about the restoration of the sites that are worked by opencast, because that is really what the amendment refers to.
We are talking about tackling such things as ponds and buildings, which are existing objects; if they have to be removed during the course of operations, which naturally may happen, it may not be possible to recreate them exactly. The recreation has to go as far as possible; buildings may have to be made of different materials, they cannot be replaced stone by stone. Those words are therefore required in the Bill to ensure that restoration creates as near as possible what was originally there.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:—
("Definition of accumulated group deficit
.For the purpose of this Act the "accumulated group deficit" shall include—

(i) sums owed by the Corporation to the Treasury or the Bank of England;

(ii) sums owed by the Corporation to banks and other financial institutions;

(iii) sufficient sums to cover all outstanding claims on the Corporation for compensation for coal mining subsidence damage; and

(iv) such additional sums as the Corporation would have been liable for if the recommendations contained in the Report of the Subsidence Compensation Review Committee on the Report and Compensation System for Coal Mining Subsidence Damage had been enacted before 30th March 1990.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, standing in my name. The Minister will understand that we on this side of the House are returning to a matter with which my noble friend Lord Williams was not fully satisfied when the Minister answered a week ago today. The prime element in Amendment No. 3 to which I should like the Minister to address his mind is subparagraph (iii), which reads:
"sufficient sums to cover all outstanding claims on the Corporation for compensation for coal mining subsidence damage".
The Minister will be aware that there has been considerable movement—that is not a play upon the word "subsidence"—in regard to that matter in recent months. He will also be aware that the Secretary of State, Mr. John Wakeham, made an announcement in January, six weeks ago, as to what the Government intend to do pending legislation.
I think there is common agreement in the House. I do not have a copy of the Official Report before me, but the noble Viscount said that it was the wish of the Government, as soon as parliamentary time can be found, to bring forward legislation. I should really like the Minister to address himself to the kind of legislation we can expect when it appears and to tell us what, in the meantime, the Minister and the ministry are doing.
The press release given by the department on 16th January does not say a great deal. We know the nature of the problem; we know the effect that it has on landowners large and small, farmers large and small, and particularly householders large and small. We are looking at the impact perhaps on their business, which is very important, but also on their lives.
The Minister told us, quite fairly, that the problem was not so great as it had been and that settlements had been made, but what he actually said was happening "pending legislation" was:
"Announcing the new measures Mr. Wakeham said the department was preparing an advisory leaflet prescribing new procedures dealing with claims. A report was expected shortly on the department's attitude survey, to assess public satisfaction with British Coal's notification procedures, and a review of the disputes procedure was under way. We will shortly be consulting widely".
We therefore have an advisory leaflet, a report that is expected shortly, an attitude survey and wider consultation. That might be summed up as meaning a great deal, but it does not sound much to me. It looks as though the department and the Minister want to be seen to be doing a lot, but I do not think they are doing very much.
I should like the Minister to tell us—not just myself, though I am deeply interested—when he believes it is likely that legislation will come forward. He will understand that we do not expect him to say that it will be in the next Queen's Speech—nobody can say that—but we should like some element of urgency injected into it. We should also like the Minister to tell us, when the legislation appears—not if, but when, it appears—what he and his colleagues have in mind should be or could be included in that legislation. For example, we certainly expect the legislation to contain provisions for local arbitration. I refer to individuals who have suffered a subsidence and disputes concerning private dwellings or involving damage of up to £50,000. I am quoting from a body which I do not normally quote in aid—the Country Landowners' Association.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, we know that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my colleagues sitting behind me are all fully paid up members because they have been landed in it more often than I have.
To be fair, the Country Landowners' Association—to which I am grateful—has been assiduous in pursuing this matter. I know from conversations with its officials that the association has in hand the interests of small as well as large landowners.

977
First, therefore, I should like the Minister to tell the House and people outside whether he believes that local arbitration is likely to be part of the legislation. I should like the Minister to tell the House what he can about standards of repair. We have dealt with the very important aspect of how opencast coal mine owners will be obliged to reinstate land that they have opened up, exploited and from which they have extracted coal. They will have an obligation. Can the Minister tell the House whether the legislation is likely to include a requirement to restore damaged property to its original condition as far as is reasonably practical?
That aspect is crucial. If it becomes legislatively obligatory to return land to its original state, that will minimise enormously the element of compensation. It may not be possible to compensate for the time lost in enjoying your land but if it is properly restored that would be a considerable advantage.
Will the legislation include provision for using one's own contractors? It must be clear that the sufferer of the hurt—the owner of the land—should, under the compensatory legislation, be able to employ a contractor to reinstate his land other than the contractor who may well be provided by the state, the government or the coal board. There are such costs as technical or professional assistance. That would be to the benefit of everyone, not just the landowner. We are not simply talking about reinstatement of the landowner's piece of land. There is the goodwill of the community which is at stake and also that of the national interest. In that respect I refer to areas of special beauty. That aspect, too, needs to be kept in mind.
Can the Minister also tell the House whether the onus of proof element will be dealt with? Legislation must not allow British Coal to continue to insist on individual sufferers first having to provide proof that any damage has been caused by subsidence. It is ironic that before a mining operation takes place everything is hunky-dory but when there is subsidence of some kind the landowner has to prove that the subsidence was caused by the mining operation—in fact, the only geological change in the land over a period of time is that mining has taken place in the area.
I should be grateful if the Minister would therefore use this amendment to tell the House what he and his colleagues have in mind. The Minister will not need me to remind him that my comments stem primarily from the main elements taken from the Waddilove Report, which has been before us for the past eight or nine years. That report has generally been received as a sound basis for changing legislation. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I explained in Committee, I am confident that the current definition of deficiency grant will make sufficient grant available to achieve its objective of enabling the Secretary of State properly to continue to advance loans. Perhaps I should initially deal briefly with the first two paragraphs of the amendment so
978
that noble Lords will be aware of the Government's response.
Let me explain how the deficiency grant will impact upon the corporation's level of debt. We hope to pay a substantial amount of deficiency grant this month in advance of the accounts being finalised. It cannot be more than the £3·45 billion which was sought in the Spring Supplementary Estimates. It is likely to be rather smaller than this because the Secretary of State will wish to ensure that the advance payment of deficiency grant in respect of the diminution in the value of the corporation's assets does not exceed the provision for this; that is actually reflected in the accounts when they are finalised around August.
Nevertheless, we expect that there will be a substantial payment of deficiency grant this month. This will allow British Coal to repay an equivalent amount of their borrowings. Further deficiency grant will be repaid once the accounts are finalised. This too will lead to the repayment of an equivalent amount of borrowings. Our expectation is that at that point British Coal's debt will be broadly in line with the written down value of its colliery assets.
On subsidence, I think I am able to satisfy the noble Lord that the proposed amendments to the Bill—specifically, paragraph (iii)—are not required. The corporation has for some time followed an accounting policy of providing in its accounts not only for actual claims received for subsidence damage but also for the latent claims that are expected to arise in future years as a result of past and current mining operations. The creation of this provision results in a charge to the corporation's profit and loss account each year. The provision included in the corporation's 1990 accounts will therefore be reflected in the corporation's accumulated group deficit and will be covered by deficiency grant as presently defined.
As regards changes in this liability due to the implementation of the Waddilove Report, the adequacy of the sums provided will automatically be reviewed by the corporation's auditors in the light of information obtained up to the date on which the corporation's accounts are signed as part of their work on those accounts. But it is not possible to make a complete assessment of any increase in the corporation's liability for subsidence damage that may result from further legislation until that legislation is finalised. However, the Secretary of State for Energy stated during Report stage on the Coal Industry Bill in another place that he did not expect this extra liability to be significant.
I now specifically refer to subsidence and the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy spelt out in some detail the Government's position on subsidence. Perhaps it would help noble Lords if I reiterated some of the key points. First, the position on the ground is quite encouraging. The number of new claims continues to fall. In 1988–89 British Coal received 9,600 new claims, some 2,300 fewer than the previous year. During this year British Coal settled about 10,000 claims at a cost of over £40 million. A further 4,600

979
claims were rejected with the result that the total number of cases outstanding fell by almost 5,000, compared with the previous year, to a little over 26,000. This compares with a backlog of 37,000 in 1986–87 and 52,000 in 1983–84, so there has been some considerable improvement.
It may be helpful to the House if I run through what has happened in this area since the Waddilove Committee on subsidence reported in 1984 and the Government's White Paper response was issued in 1987. The Waddilove Report on repair and compensation for coal mining damage made 65 recommendations, not all of which required legislation to be implemented. It is worth recalling that the report did not call for a radical overhaul of the existing system. In fact, it concluded that the thrust of the existing legislation was broadly right but needed strengthening in a number of areas.
Between the publication of the Waddilove Report and the Government's White Paper response, British Coal introduced a number of improvements to its management procedures. The result was that by the time our White Paper was published over half Waddilove's recommendations had been implemented wholly or in part. Most recently the Law Society and British Coal have agreed a new mining search form.
For example, British Coal is now acting in accordance with Waddilove's recommendation that the priority should be the repair of damage, and payments in lieu should only be made in exceptional circumstances. It also repairs all property to a good standard even though the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 only requires British Coal to make the property "reasonably fitted" for use. British Coal does not strictly apply the time limit in the 1957 Act which requires a claim to be made within two months of the damage becoming apparent and will generally accept any claims up to six years afterwards. I recognise that this has caused problems. That is why we propose a change in new legislation to make the position abundantly clear.
I am advised that claims will be allowed up to six years from when the claimant first had reasonable grounds to believe that damage had occurred. In other words, the time limit will run not from the date of mining, not necessarily from the date of damage occurring, but from the date when the damage should become apparent.
The noble Lord has suggested that more should be done in advance of legislation. We agree and we are actively looking to move things forward. That is why the Department of Energy is preparing a new version of its advisory leaflet often referred to in the industry as the Green Book. This will describe new procedures agreed between the department and British Coal for dealing with subsidence claims. These new procedures will as far as possible incorporate the best aspects of both the existing Acts and anticipate our proposals for legislation. I hope that this will be a helpful advance for claimants between now and the time that legislation is enacted.
The House may recall from the White Paper that we said that we would conduct an attitude survey to
980
assess public satisfaction with British Coal's notification procedures. If the existing arrangements are found to be unsatisfactory, British Coal will be required to notify individual households. The field-work for this survey is now complete. The department is considering the results and a report is expected shortly.
Because of the prospect of early legislation the Department of Energy has also brought forward the review of disputes procedures which Waddilove recommended should take place in 1990. This review is now under way and will look at a range of options. I hope that the outcome will be a simpler, quicker and cheaper way for claimants to resolve disputes with British Coal.
The options we are looking at include a better defined and more widely available form of independent adjudication, a lower-tier to the Lands Tribunal roughly similar to a small claims court, an ombudsman, a legal advice centre and a disputes procedure based on the rules of the Institute of Arbitrators. At this stage it is not possible to anticipate the outcome of this review or when and how its findings will be implemented. But it may be possible for a new system to be agreed and established without legislation.
I now wish to deal with one or two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. One was that a claimant should be entitled wherever possible to employ a contractor of his own choice to make good the damage. Under the present arrangements it is open to a claimant to use his own contractor at the discretion of British Coal. Under the legislation we have in mind that will become a statutory right.
The noble Lord also referred to the onus of proof. The fact sheet that he quoted from recommends that in all disputes as to whether damage is due to subsidence the onus should be on British Coal to demonstrate that it is not subsidence damage. We accept that the onus of proof should rest with British Coal to demonstate that the damage was not caused by mining subsidence. That is currently the position under the 1957 Act and that will be preserved in the new legislation.
The Government remain committed to introducing a Bill on subsidence at the earliest opportunity, but subsidence is a complex area. The new subsidence legislation will be comprehensive, allowing the repeal of existing legislation and replacement with an Act which will cover all aspects of subsidence, including the proposals made by the Waddilove Committee, as modified in the subsequent consultative process.
There are two Acts which the noble Lord understands currently apply. We are not only introducing positive improvements; we are also consolidating those two Acts into one Bill. Some of the provisions of these Acts, while desirable, are not always as clear as they could be. Your Lordships will be aware of the uncertainties surrounding interpretation of the six-year rule to which I have drawn the attention of the House today. Unravelling these Acts and replacing them with a lucid and comprehensive new Bill will involve a great deal of

981
"lawyers' law" which will require careful drafting and careful scrutiny by both Houses and in Committee. Moreover, a great deal of work and further consultation are still going on and we will want the legislation to reflect the outcome of that.
I believe that for these reasons it would be neither practical nor desirable to tack subsidence provisions onto the present short, primarily financial Bill which is urgently required by the end of the financial year. I cannot predict when the legislation will be introduced. That is a matter for decision elsewhere; but I am sure that the Government in reaching their decision on the timing of a Bill will wish to take full account of the views expressed today, and I hope that on this basis the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for many people outside this House as well as those in it when I express my gratitude to the Minister and his advisers for taking this opportunity to speak so fully and helpfully to those concerned with this matter. I understand from him that we can look forward to early legislation though he cannot quantify it or say precisely when it will take place. I suppose that it will be as soon as possible and we shall have to settle for that.
Everything that the noble Viscount said is extremely helpful. I understand that the Government want to make all these matters abundantly clear in legislation. He also alluded very strongly to the fact that the main points I raised were likely to be dealt with in legislation or that they are already in train and will be taken account of before legislation is introduced. Therefore, I am certainly not going to press the amendment.
The Minister said that the number of outstanding claims had been reduced year after year. I think he said that the number had been reduced by 5,000 to a total of 26,000. If the rate is to continue at only 5,000 a year, some of the claims will take another five years to be dealt with. I blanch at the agony of the people who have been in dispute trying to get matters resolved. Some of them must have been waiting for three or four years. A number of people must have been in the process of having claims dealt with for a long period of time. But the noble Viscount is entitled to take credit for the fact that the backlog has come down from nearly 50,000 to 26,000. Quite clearly the movement is in the right direction.
I note from the tenor of the noble Viscount's remarks that my points will be incorporated into legislation and may be pre-empted by actions of the Government, the coal board and others. I believe that those outside the House have been done a service by this short debate today and I thank the noble Viscount for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Licensing of opencast operations: Compliance with air quality directive
No licences for opencast operations shall be awarded under section 4 of this Act unless—

(a)the licensing authority is satisfied that the proposed operations will comply with the European Community Directive 80/779/EEC on air quality; and

(b) such compliance is a condition of the licence.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we seek to secure a better understanding of the Government's reluctance to give full effect to European Community Directive 80/779/EEC on air quality, but more importantly we seek to ensure that it is acted upon by those who can do something about it.
Paragraph (a) seeks to ensure that when British Coal gives licences for opencast operations it must be satisfied that the operator will comply with the directive. The problem is that, if opencast operators make a mess, any action has to be taken against the licensing authority, which is British Coal. Paragraph (b) is needed to put the compliance conditions in the licence so that the onus will be firmly on the operator's contract. Although the directive is dated 1980, the Government gave effect to it in legislation only in 1989, in the air quality standards regulations. The Minister will know that there are 22 derogations—areas where the Government have special dispensation and under which they do not have to meet the level set in the directive until 1993. The noble Viscount will have to make a stout defence against the charge of being dilatory and also against the charge of being less than wholehearted in bringing this about.
I have the benefit of some evidence brought by a group of doctors in Wales to a public inquiry at Neath on opencast mining. At that stage they asked British Coal representatives whether they intended to comply with the directive. I am advised in my brief that British Coal was apparently unaware of the directive and asked the Secretary of State for Wales, who at this moment, though not for long, is Peter Walker, whether the directive applied to opencast operations. The Secretary of State assured British Coal that it did not and said that it applied only to smoke particles and so on. The evidence brought to the inquiry by Dr. Watkins, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Temple and Dr. Rees less than two years ago on the impact on the health of the people in their area is quite horrifying.
In mid-1986 British Coal indicated its intention to carry out opencast mining close to Glyn-neath. I am told by the doctors that the health implications of permitting such mining are horrific. The Glyn-neath medical practice felt obliged to write to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs of another place to inform it of some of the implications of opencast mining.
The doctors have set out the problems connected with air quality. Accepted medical authorities hold that airborne particulate pollution is associated with increased rates of lung disease, upper respiratory

983
tract disease, arthritis and cancer. The incidence of these pathologies in South Wales is notoriously high and is connected in this instance with the local industry. But more importantly, general psychological factors such as landscape and stress—for example, caused by unemployment—are important in the prevention of serious disease and affect the rate of recovery from illness. Those are important matters too. The doctors told the inquiry that their research confirmed an excess of disease known to be caused by airborne particulate pollution—dust—and further that their figures suggested a close link with opencast mining activity, from which dust pollution extends far more widely than has hitherto been realised.
I am concerned that the air pollution directive should be taken seriously by the coal industry. The Minister will do a service to communities in South Wales and in all coalfield areas if he accepts the amendment or sets their minds at rest by telling us why it is not needed. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am associated with a responsible opencast operator. I can assure noble Lords that it is much concerned that the amenity aspects of its operations are strictly observed.
I should like to ask the Minister about the status of the directive at the moment. Would its insertion into the Bill require its insertion into other Bills affecting mineral extraction? For example, is it applicable in other areas of mining or mineral extraction? Would the insertion of the amendment into the Bill mean another aspect of applying for licences in so far as it might be argued by some people that, as the local authority had agreed it and as the coal board had agreed it, they might have to take it to the European Court to find if decisions were consistent with the European directive? What is the status of this directive in relation to other industries as well as in relation to this industry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this amendment requires British Coal to satisfy itself as licensor that licensed opencast mining operations comply with air quality limits on sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates. I shall deal with the question of dust in a moment. Our basic objection to the amendment is, as elsewhere, that it puts the obligation on British Coal as licensor to satisfy itself whether the licensee has had adequate regard to the environmental implications of his operation, a point brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. In the Government's view that is a matter for the planning system, not for the licensee. I shall refer to that in more detail in a moment.
I referred at Second Reading to the strengthening of the environmental guidelines on all opencast mining, whether by British Coal or licensees, that took place in 1988 and was published as Mineral Planning Guidance note 3 (MPG3). MPG3 specifically addressed the question of dust and the ways in which the effects of dust from blasting can be minimised: careful planning operations, including the siting of boundaries and baffle banks, and by moving work away from residential areas quickly.
984
I know that your Lordships' House will be interested in the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the planning conditions set. Under the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act it is the employer's responsibility to ensure the health and safety of the employees. Also, under Section 3 of the Act employers are responsible for people other than employees. Responsibility for monitoring lies with the local mineral planning authority and also with the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive which has powers to set up its own gauges and to see that conditions are met. In the case of the larger sites operated under contract for British Coal, British Coal sets up its own gauges and monitors the situations closely through the local liaison committee: it is usual for an environmental health officer to participate on this liaison committee. As far as licensed sites are concerned, the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate treats them the same as British Coal contract sites: they are not monitored on a regular basis but when complaints arise they will be investigated and levels checked by an inspector.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, also asked about the application of the directive. It applies to industry generally. It lays down limits on the concentrations of sulphur dioxide and suspended particles which may exist in the atmosphere. I have sought to deal with the ways in which it affects opencast coal mining.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I should say that I am aware of the concerns that were expressed last year about coal dust from a particular site at Derlwyn in South Wales. At that time local doctors produced a report, to which the noble Lord referred, on the effect of dust emissions from opencast operations in the area. Because of those concerns the Welsh Office commissioned a doctor from the Medical Research Council's epidemiology unit at Cardiff to make an independent examination of the report's conclusions. They also led the Secretary of State to defer his decision on the inspector's report until the outcome of a re-opened inquiry which was held in June 1989 was known. The independent examination found that the original report contained unsubstantiated conclusions based on information which had not been confirmed.
After the re-opened inquiry, the Secretary of State for Wales decided that the Derlwyn site could go ahead. The Opencast Executive has received tenders from contractors and is about to let the contract. The matter should be decided by the end of the month. I think that I have dealt with all the points that were raised and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we take on board what the Minister said and have noted the concerns he expressed. However, Article 15 of the EC directive dated 15th July 1980 reads:
"Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive within 24 months of its notification and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof'.

985
It was not 24 months after the 15th July 1980; it was nine years before the Government took action. The Government pick and choose the aspects of EC legislation which they want to operate, to bring into force, to comply with and to pray in aid. I can assure the Minister that we are not concerned with the interests of opencast coal operators, of British Coal or of the Government. We are concerned with ordinary men and women, especially those who innocently work in the area and who find that, as a result of a dereliction of duty by the Government, the Coal Board, the opencast coal operator and even the local authority, they are suffering from the kind of diseases which the doctors at Glyn-neath drew to the inquiry's attention.
The Minister is correct to point out the history of the inquiry. But the EC directive is quite clear on the matter. It is also quite clear that the Minister, if I may use a polite term, has been dilatory in carrying out his responsibilities. Further, it gives an indication of the Government's reluctance in the matter. There are various reasons for that reluctance. The Minister said that it was up to the local mining planning authority to monitor such aspects. However, he surely knows that in health and safety, in environmental safety and in health generally there has been a chronic shortage for many years of men and women trained to carry out such duties.
The Minister said that such people will take action when complaints are made. Here again he knows that acting in response to complaints is no substitute for proper monitoring of the situation. I do not wish to be alarmist; I simply point out that the EC in 1980 would not have brought forward this substantial directive if it was not necessary. Article 1 says,
"The purpose of this Directive is to fix limit values … and guide values … for sulphur dioxide and suspended particles in the atmosphere and the conditions for their application in order to improve:

—the protection of human health,

—the protection of the environment".

I believe that this is a very reasonable amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, made a fair point on the subject. He argued that if this is spatchcocked into the legislation, would there not be implications in other legislation that opencast coal operators would have to take into account? That is not only a valid point; it is one that I accept.
This has been an opportunity for the Government and for the Minister to show sympathy for the fact that air pollution from dust from opencast operations poses a very serious threat to the health and happiness of thousands, if not millions, of people. The Government could have been a little more sympathetic. However, they have not been and I am most disappointed. I also believe that those outside the House who take a keen interest in such matters will feel as much disappointment as I do when they realise that the Minister and the Government are not prepared to do any more than they have done up until now. I see that the Minister wishes to intervene and I shall gladly allow him to do so.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am, most grateful. I think that I should point out that the COSHH (control of substances hazardous to health) regulations came into force last year. They place a further duty on employers to regulate their own areas. If there is a complaint from an employee the Health and Safety Executive and an inspector will investigate the matter and levels will be monitored by a medical division. In general cases if dust levels are found to be too high the cause will be stopped until remedied. In extreme cases the operations will be stopped on site. Levels are kept down by the seeding of topsoil, baffle banks and the use of road sprays.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is aware of such measures. However, I should like the House to be aware of the actions which are taken when such situations arise.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Title:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 5:
Line 5, at end insert ("and the preservation of amenity in connection with opencast coal working").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. However, I should point out that the amendment was consequential upon my earlier amendment being accepted. It simply ensures that the title accurately reflects the contents of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Today we are to debate a Bill to allow the privatisation of two parts of the Civil Service, the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers. However, before I introduce the Bill itself to the House I think it would be helpful if I set the scene by describing how it is that these privatisation proposals have come to the fore at this time.
The debate in another place revealed a good deal of misunderstanding of the existing policies and practices of government in the fields of work covered by these two bodies and unless the background is clear it is naturally more difficult for the House to form a view on the proposals which we are today to consider.
Let me describe first the major functions of the two agencies. The Property Services Agency was created in the early 1960s with the task of managing the government estate and of managing or undertaking directly the building construction and maintenance work which is required by central government. Although the PSA itself has evolved

987
over the years, in essence it has always combined two main functions: the role of a major property company, acting as a landlord to other government departments, and the role of a major professional and technical consultancy in the field of building and estate management.
As a consultancy it employs a large staff drawn from all the building and engineering professions, such as architects, civil and mechanical and electrical engineers, quantity surveyors and so on. In recent years the PSA has managed government building work amounting in expenditure terms to about £3.5 billion a year. The great bulk of the actual building work is undertaken by contractors employed by the PSA, although the PSA does have a direct labour force of its own which deals predominantly with maintenance and minor works projects. The PSA also employs external professional consultants extensively. About 70 per cent. of its design and project management work has been placed with the private sector in this way in recent years.
Although the PSA has undertaken the building work for the majority of government departments, some departments have had specialised teams of their own. For example the PSA does not undertake the hospital building programme for the Department of Health, or the building of embassies for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or work for the Department of Transport on road building. The Crown Suppliers is part of the PSA for management purposes but operates as an independent business with its own trading fund. It supplies a wide range of furniture, furnishings, floorcoverings, domestic appliances, and other products and equipment, to the public sector. It also operates a vehicle hire and document delivery service.
Early in the 1980s the Government decided that the method of working under which major central agencies like the PSA and the Crown Suppliers provided their services on an allied basis to other departments at no cost to departmental votes, needed to be radically rethought. In 1981 the Government had introduced a new principle into the management of government spending—the financial management initiative. In essence this involved placing responsibility for ensuring value for money with the end-user, not with some central watchdog department like the Treasury or the PSA.
Applying these principles to the fields of activity of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers implied that there had to be a clear separation of roles—a separation between the role of customer and the role of supplier. Under the new regime the customer departments would be given the budget for building works, just as they had a budget for staff costs or other purchases. When they needed some building works, they would, after commissioning appropriate professional advice, decide like any other client what they could afford and commission the supplier to provide it. Because the customer would now be the person responsible for ensuring value for money, he would need the freedom to shop around to obtain the best price. No shopper could guarantee that he had spent wisely if he was forced always to use the same store.
988
To provide this element of choice, the Government decided that departments must be given the freedom to choose whether or not to use the Crown Suppliers and the PSA. In the jargon of government, departments would be "untied". Thus although the PSA and the Crown Suppliers would be starting from a position in which they had a virtual monopoly of large areas of government work they would quickly face competition and would in future only retain work to the extent that their services were competitive with those offered by other companies or consultants.
These changes have been progressively introduced over the last two to three years, and will be completely in place by 1st April 1990. At that same date the PSA's main governmental functions will be separated out and put into a new command within the Department of the Environment to be called Property Holdings. This will be responsible primarily for the role of landlord for the Government's civil estate, but it will also provide a centre of expertise within the Government which will offer advice and assistance to other departments as they pick up their new responsibilities for becoming competent and intelligent customers for works services.
Once Property Holdings is removed, the remaining functions of the PSA—all things which are not inherently governmental in nature—will be provided on a competitive commercial service to clients. These commercial activities comprise the large majority of the existing activities of the PSA. It is these and these alone which will eventually be privatised. We are not privatising a "function of government", as some have tried to maintain.
With that brief background, I would first like to emphasise to the House what this Bill is not about. It is not about the process, or consequences, of untying. Those policies have been in train for several years and are now reaching fruition. It is not about the landlord function of government, or the management of the Government's large holdings of land. Those functions belong to the various departments of government, and particularly to Property Holdings for a large part of the civil estate and to the Ministry of Defence. It is not about arrangements for security of government establishments, or government employees, because those responsibilities lie now, and will lie in the future, with the respective departments of government. The role of the PSA—or of any other consultant that they choose to employ in place of the PSA—is to provide security systems that comply with what the customer departments decide they themselves need.
What then is the purpose of the Bill? It is simply to convert two public organisations which have been given purely commercial roles into organisations within the private sector. That is the place for commercial organisations.
As I have explained, the process of untying means that both the Crown Suppliers and the PSA already face increasing competition within their traditional market areas of providing services to government departments. If they were limited for the long term

989
to that market place, their organisations would inevitably decline. To avoid that, the Government have already agreed that as a prelude to privatisation they should be allowed to compete on fair and equal terms within wider markets outside government. But even that will not be sufficient to ensure their continuing health, because operating within the public sector inevitably imposes extra restraints on an organisation. They will only truly begin to have the freedom to compete on fair and equal terms when they are truly on the same commercial footing as their competitors.
The Crown Suppliers has been a highly successful public sector organisation, running as a trading fund since 1976. It has changed its structure over the last year to reflect and facilitate the coming privatisation and has begun to market its services to the private sector. The organisation has been largely untied since 1987 and so has extensive experience of competing for its business. It has become more marketing-led to respond to that challenge.
The Government intend to privatise the Crown Suppliers within the coming months, and the sale process is well under way. Potential bidders have been subject to a pre-qualifying review. Bids have now been received and are being considered against the Government's objectives for the sale. These objectives are threefold: to obtain a fair return to the taxpayer; to protect the interests of the staff; and to sell to purchasers who have the intention and the ability to develop the business to provide a continuing source of competitive supplies for the public sector.
The PSA cannot be privatised until it has been restructured from a government department into a commercial entity, with all the accounting and management information systems that that implies. The earliest practicable date for privatisation of the PSA is therefore the latter part of 1992. But in the case of both organizations—the PSA and the Crown Suppliers—the Government believe that the freedoms of the private sector should be made available just as soon as that is practicable for the business concerned.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. It is a short Bill, and the various provisions have been precedented in earlier privatisations. The first clause allows assets and liabilities to be transferred by means of a scheme, or schemes, from the Secretary of State to wholly-owned government companies. The process of privatisation will then involve the sale of the shares in these companies. A flotation on the Stock Market is not envisaged in either case, and the Government will seek tender bids from trade buyers, or possibly there may be bids from a management buy-out, or a management buy-out combined with employee participation.
Clause 2 is necessary to deal with an unusual feature of the Civil Service pension scheme. It will ensure that when staff are transferred with the company to the private sector and therefore leave the Civil Service pension scheme they are not thereby deemed to have been made redundant. That would clearly be nonsensical, since they will during the
990
transfer retain their jobs and terms and conditions of employment. Of course the clause does not remove any pension rights to which the staff are reasonably entitled. I shall return to that in a moment. Clause 3 deals with various financial provisions concerned with the government-owned companies that are to form the medium of the privatisation. The remaining clauses are fairly self-explanatory.
I should like to say something about the effects on staff. The consequences of the privatisations will be to transfer 20,000 or more people from the Civil Service to private sector employment, and the Government, as a good employer, and the employees themselves, are naturally very concerned to ensure that the various rights of the staff are preserved during and after the change. However, in practice, the staff rights are protected by both UK and European Community law. This is achieved in the United Kingdom through the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—the so-called "TUPE regulations". These require that all terms and conditions of employment, including severance entitlements, will be transferred as identically as is possible from the Government as employer to the new companies.
The TUPE regulations do not apply to pensions, for the very good reason that there are many different ways in which suitable pension entitlements can be provided. But the pensions are also protected by employment law, since unless the employee receives broadly comparable pension terms he could claim that he had been "constructively dismissed" by his employer. In practice the Government will deal with transferring pension entitlements by discussing with the buyers the pension arrangements that they propose to provide. The Government will have these examined by the Government actuary. If the pension terms are not broadly comparable, the Government will negotiate with the buyer to achieve an improvement, either in the pension itself, or in other terms and conditions of service. Finally, if all those avenues fail to achieve a satisfactory result, the Government would compensate the staff for any disadvantage.
It is not possible to be more precise about these arrangements at this stage. But that is only because they depend on having detailed proposals to look at from a buyer before they can be finalised. When the time comes there will be consultations with the trades unions about what is proposed. I can tell the House that staff have been given very firm assurances by Ministers in another place that the staff of PSA and the Crown Suppliers will not be disadvantaged as a result of privatisation.
In conclusion I have explained how, as a result of past government policies, the PSA and the Crown Suppliers now find themselves as commercial organisations operating within the confines of the public sector. The success of the Government's previous privatisations shows how companies can leap ahead when the burdens of public sector operation are removed. The PSA and the Crown Suppliers need, and deserve, these freedoms to compete on level terms with other consultancies

991
and companies. The Government are confident that, with their enormous range of skills and experience, both the PSA and the Crown Suppliers will be a powerful force to be reckoned with, and that they will flourish in the new world. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hesketh.)
4.13 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, while the House can be grateful to the Minister for the care and clarity with which he has introduced the Bill, I believe that the measure is a good example of the saying, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again". It is also, sadly, an example of a Government hell-bent on privatising a publicly-owned service for purely doctrinal purposes. To that end the Government have twisted and fiddled the facts, have kicked their public servants in a sensitive place and have ignored the security of the realm—all to achieve two shabby aims. First, they wish to be seen to reduce the number of civil servants, even if they are only moved sideways on to someone else's payroll or the dole. Secondly, they wish to place the business now undertaken by the Crown Suppliers into the hands of those who will be anxious to assist the Tory Party in return for help from the Tory Government.
This is as squalid an example of flogging off a public asset for political purposes as we shall see in many a long day. I intend to demonstrate why I hold that view. Without both of those government imperatives, it is certain that it is neither necessary nor desirable to transfer either of these successful public services to the private sector. It is claptrap for the Minister to tell the House that this so-called untying is all to do with freedom, decentralisation or giving state employees a share of the action. That is rich coming from a Government who have gathered powers from all round the life of the nation. The Government have grabbed and pinched those powers. They have bludgeoned and frightened opponents, bullied them and very often stamped them into the ground. It is a sham, a charade and a deceit to cloak their real intention, which is to give away a part of the public realm, with the laudable aim of assisting the nation towards a democratic solution.
There is a history to these matters. As I would have expected, the Minister has given a partial view. He has left out a number of matters. However, certain parts and periods of history deserve to have the spotlight shined upon them. Let us start with the reticence on the part of the Government to reveal details of land and buildings which can form part of a parcel sold to the highest bidder. Will the Minister explain what his ministerial colleague meant when he said in Standing Committee D at column 324 that he would not,
"wish to include in the Bill any measure that would be an unnecessary encumbrance upon a major purchaser, as it might have the effect of depressing the price and value of the assets"?
Will the Minister tell the House what his colleague meant by that remark? Will it, for instance, affect such matters as management agreements and SSSIs? There is not only the matter of failing to estimate
992
or make provision for unexploited potential. The Minister will know that I live in Enfield. The scandal of selling off land cheaply—for instance that attached to the small arms factory at Enfield—is very fresh in my mind. That land was sold off for pennies; it turned out to be worth millions of pounds. The Minister may well say that such matters do not concern us in this Bill. However, I believe that the taxpayer and the general public are now sensitive to the cavalier way in which this Government are hell-bent upon diminishing the public realm, even though it may mean that at the end of the day someone will become very rich.
There is now a history to show how the Government persuade the public that it is in their interests to buy something which they already own. The Minister has been coy about the precise manner in which this part of the public estate will be got rid of. However, if we look at the costs that have been garnered by the City, by public relations companies and by many others when other privatisations have taken place, we are entitled to be concerned. When British Telecom was privatised £263 million was spent by the Government. When British Gas was privatised £360 million was spent. In the case of British Airways £42 million was spent; on the Rolls Royce privatisation £29 million was spent. When the water industry was privatised £370 million was spent. Those are not the costs of the assets but the costs of selling the assets to the public. This may be a mini or minor privatisation: nevertheless, we are entitled to ask the Minister what provisions are made in the accounts or in the books as regards how much the public will pay to sell off their assets.
The Minister may hope that the public will believe that this is an exercise in creating many more small investors and that the taxpayer will be relieved. The Minister should tell us who will benefit. We know from previous privatisations that the people who have benefited most are stockbrokers, merchant banks, public relations companies, advertising and financial consultants and other such people. We want to know who the Minister expects to climb aboard this particular gravy train.
The Minister has told us that there is a road to privatisation. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that on 27th March 1985 when Mr. Patrick Jenkin, now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, announced a review, he said:
"The decision about the future of the organisation will take account of the views of the staff and their union representatives who will be fully consulted during the course of the review".—[Official Report, Commons. 27/3/85; col. 240.]
The Minister should know that not one trade union or staff association is happy with either the method or the outcome of the consultation. On 25th July 1986 the then Minister, Sir George Young, announced that the review team had concluded,
"On the information available to them that whilst privatisation would be possible, it would not in their view be in the public interest".
The Minister has told us nothing about that matter.
In December 1986 it was announced that the PSA had appointed a consortium comprising Coopers & Lybrand and Samuel Montagu to carry out a

993
feasibility study. In this House the noble Lord, Lord Belstead said:
"I agree with the noble Lord that the Crown Suppliers has met its financial targets and has generally performed satisfactorily'.—[Official Report, 7/12/87; col. 3.]
It is very sad that two attempts have failed to come up with what the Minister and his colleagues wanted.
What did they do? They simply announced that they would bring about the privatisation and seek somebody who was willing not to say whether or not it was desirable, but to indicate how it was to be done. That is a very shabby state of affairs.
The Government have made out a case but they have not convinced the employees. Once again taxpayers are to be invited to buy their own assets while employees will be affected adversely.
The PSA cannot be sold until the Government are able to assess the sale price accurately and so ensure good value for taxpayers' money. The Government will not be able to make an accurate assessment until the PSA has one full year's audited commercial accounts. The PSA cannot introduce a system of commercial accounts until 1st April 1991. Thus the PSA cannot be sold until mid-1992 at the earliest. In effect the Minister gave that timescale in his speech.
I should like to remind the Minister of what the National Union of Civil and Public Servants has called the "human factor". Many of the staff who are affected, particularly the 5,000 PSA staff in the executive, administrative and support grades, were recruited with the promise of a career in the Civil Service. They are in the PSA at this time purely as a matter of career progression. Many arrived from other parts of government and until recently all expected to continue their careers in another part of the Civil Service.
However, both the PSA Minister, Mr. Christopher Chope, and his newly appointed chief executive, Mr. Patrick Brown, have said that they will not allow all executive members of staff who wish to remain in the Civil Service to leave PSA before privatisation. In other words, many such staff will be forced into the private sector against their will and in flagrant disregard of the promise of a Civil Service career. Will the Minister answer that point in the course of his reply to the debate?
The union to which I referred says that the Minister has gone back on his word. Both he and Mr. Brown wish to enact one of the provisions of the Bill sooner rather than later. They wish to set PSA up as a government-owned company on 1st April next year. On that day, therefore, all PSA staff will cease to be civil servants and will become company employees. There will not be time over the next 12 months to relocate all of those who wish to leave the PSA for other Civil Service work. Even if there were, the PSA could not relocate them all and still manage its business.
Why do the Minister and Mr. Brown suddenly wish to rush through the formation of the Government-owned company and thus remove the PSA's workforce from the Civil Service? It is not for the purpose of introducing new pay, promotion and
994
other arrangements which are more suited to a building firm than a Civil Service agency. Mr. Brown—and I am told that he wishes to buy the PSA—will introduce new arrangements before the company is formed so that a transfer can take place under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE. This is a question of,
"To be, or not to be: that is the question".
That is the best that I can do on a Monday afternoon. The Minister ought to be very concerned about the matter.
I do not deny that the Government and the Minister believe that they are doing the right thing in applying the regulations. However, what steps will the Minister and his advisers take to ensure that the interests of the employees are protected? What steps can he take to ensure that the sensitivities and anxieties of good state civil servants are taken into account once the transfer has taken place?
The Minister wants neither to make surplus PSA staff redundant within the Civil Service nor to cause the Civil Service the administrative burden of relocating surplus staff. Mr. Brown—who, I repeat, wishes to lead a management buy out—does not want, as the eventual new owner, to be landed with a large redundancy bill. Thus the majority of the redundancies will be made in the period of the government-owned company. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to write off all debts and liabilities, including redundancy costs, before the sale. That is why a Member in another place, Mr. Tam Dalyell, was moved to refer to those intentions as "callous and barbarian". The Minister is called upon to justify to 20,000 civil servants why they are being very badly treated in this matter.
I turn now to the question of national security. Nothing that has been said by the Minister today or by his colleagues elsewhere properly addresses that question. The Minister knows that the PSA has been responsible for giving guidance and advice to a range of government departments. It is all very well for the Minister to say that that responsibility will continue to be within the purview of the separate departments. The Minister needs to justify his confidence that the work of the PSA over the years in ensuring that its design and architectural work was satisfactory from a security point of view and the vetting of all of its employees will be dealt with satisfactorily in future. The Minister needs to say a great deal more about the security aspect.
I am also an Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland and on defence. I was proud to serve in the Royal Marines during the war. Therefore, what happened at the Deal barracks less than a year ago is very much in my mind. The Minister must understand that when we talk of security we are not talking simply of somebody else doing the job and being able to board this particular gravy train. We are concerned about blood and flesh.
Can the Minister explain the reason for excluding all ministerial cars and private residences from the security arrangements? Apparently, security arrangements will be passed to the private realm, except in the case of ministerial cars and residences. We need to hear from the Minister the justification

995
for that proposal. We shall return to the security aspect in Committee.
The Bill is a further example of the triumph of ideology over plain common sense. The services have been scrutinised, not once but twice, by independent scrutineers neither of whom recommended the action proposed in the Bill. The Bill is the product of a further set of consultants who did not recommend the action taken in the Bill but who were asked to deliver a scheme of what, when and how but not why. That question was pre-empted by the Government who merely asked for a scheme which would fit in with their ideology.
People outside the House will agree with me that it is a mad, bad and sad Bill. It will bring trouble to many quarters, not least to fine public servants, and worries in respect of our national security. However the Minister rests content on the fact that it will bring cash to Tory supporters and the Tory Party, which is why we condemn it and will seek to improve it when we have the chance to do so in Committee. I feel better now!
4.31 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the House or the Minister that we on these Benches do not feel as vehemently about the Bill's basic proposals as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton; nevertheless, we have some misgivings about parts of the Bill. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reactions to those misgivings.
The Government propose that some of the business of the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency shall be transferred to a division of the Department of the Environment called Property Holdings, and remain in the public sector. The remainder will be formed into private sector companies whose shares will be subsequently available on the market.
The source of our misgivings lies primarily with which business is to move into the private sector and which is to be retained. We need to be clear about which criteria will be considered when that decision is made. The Government, perhaps carried away by their enthusiasm to privatise, have put too much weight on one of those criteria and neglected others. I do not doubt the benefits of giving the financial responsiblity to the user departments, but there are other criteria by which to judge the potential benefits of privatisation which do not throw such a rosy light on the Government's proposals.
Today I should like to concentrate on the two most important criteria. We are told that one of the aims of privatisation is to reduce costs to the taxpayer. However, may it not have the opposite effect? Once the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are privatised their duty will be to do the best for their shareholders, whereas their duty now is to do their best for the taxpayer. User departments will therefore be unable to rely on them acting in their best interests and will have to establish within their departments what were described in another place as mini PSAs. They will evaluate and supervise services being offered by the new privatised PSA
996
and its competitors and carry out some of the work currently done by the PSA.
The Ministry of Defence alone is said to be taking on a further 700 to 800 staff. Other Government departments will no doubt find that they will have to take on extra accountants, consultants, engineers, architects, supervisory staff and so forth. We are concerned that those areas of the PSA's work which are more efficiently run as a central public service to departments should remain in the public sector. It is easy to imagine that with procurement, for example, one body buying for all Government departments could arrange a better deal with a supplier because of the advantage of bulk buying and because otherwise there may be an unnecessary duplication of work in finding the best supplier and arranging the ultimate deal. Privatisation to the extent proposed will not necessarily lead to the most efficient use of taxpayers' money. We shall be interested to hear the Minister's views on that point.
Secondly—and this is the area touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—there is the security criterion. The majority of the PSA's work is security sensitive. The Minister assured members of my party in another place that privatisation would not affect security and yet failed to provide a sufficient answer as to why, if that is the case, security work on Minister's homes and cars is not to be privatised for security reasons while work on military and married quarters will be privatised.
Many of us in your Lordships' House have an interest in servicemen and their families through sons or other relatives who are in Her Majesty's Services. There is no doubt that they will be targets for terrorist attack if security is not strong. They deserve to have their security regarded as highly as that of Ministers. That is a part of the Bill upon which we would welcome the Minister's reassurance. Either privatisation jeopardises security, in which case no security work should be privatised, or it does not, in which case why are not the Government privatising it all?
As the Bill passes through your Lordships' House we must carefully consider the security implications, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham said. Where prudence dictates that we amend the Bill we must do so to restrict the privatisation of security-related services.
Finally, although it is not a point which is basically against privatisation but rather deals with how it is carried out, we must ensure that the current staff of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are treated fairly. That point was dealt with at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. We agree with the thrust of his arguments, although our fears may not be as great as those that he expressed. It seems proper that if the staff are to retain their jobs they should not receive redundancy pay just because the department moves from the public to the private sector. However, we must ensure that once they are in the private sector their current redundancy entitlements and pensions are guaranteed against any detrimental change by the new owner.
Perhaps the Treasury could underwrite the terms, as it did with the privatisation of the Royal Ordnance

997
factories and the dockyards. That matter is important because we have no doubt that many employees will lose their jobs. Whether that is the result of privatisation or untying is not the point. The point is that many employees may lose their jobs once they are in the private sector. They should not be treated worse than if they had lost them before the company was privatised.
It was not good enough for the Minister in another place to say that this case is different from that of the docks because he expected the PSA and the Crown Suppliers to succeed commercially. What if they do not succeed? There is no law written from on high which says that they will succeed. We hope that they will. What harm can there be in providing a safety net for the staff in case of failure? Those are the issues which concern us. If they are resolved satisfactorily, we would have no qualms in supporting the Bill.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I welcome the Bill as part of the steady progress which the Government have achieved over the years in moving activities from the public to the private sector. We now have great experience of the practical results of that movement. There is no doubt on the evidence that that move has been greatly to the public benefit. I shall quote only—I could quote many examples—by way of example the extraordinary change in Cable and Wireless, whose profit earning has multiplied by five since it moved from the public to the private sector, although it is excelled in that respect by the National Freight Corporation, whose profit earning has multiplied six times during that process. Therefore it is not enough for the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to say that a proposal for a further step in that direction can be dismissed as doctrinaire. Of course what he means by "doctrinaire" is a policy with which he happens to disagree. As a good and loyal member of the Labour Party he believes in public ownership. That is an exercise of faith which one cannot but admire. Noble Lords will know that faith has been defined as believing in what you know is not true.
Every possible factual demonstration over the years has shown that public ownership is much less efficient, gives less good service and costs more than operation in the private sector. The reasons are perfectly obvious. In the public sector competition is barred. There is no stimulus to efficiency, to delivering the goods and to keeping costs to the level of competition in the knowledge that if you do not compete you will lose the work and you and your staff will lose their jobs. That is the enormously effective stimulus of competition in the private sector.
There is also the fact that in the public sector for any investment that you wish to make you have to join the queue with other government departments in respect of rights to that public investment. I know a little about this matter because, as noble Lords may recall. I had two stints at the Treasury and had to deal with identical matters. It is undoubtedly the
998
case that in the public sector an enterprise has not only to judge whether it wants to make an investment—whether that investment will be profitable and produce returns—but also to judge how it will stand in the public queue.
Once it is in private hands, the enterprise makes its own judgment as to the sense or otherwise of an investment and then seeks the judgment of the market as to whether and on what terms it can raise the funds. There is an enormous advantage—we have seen this in other directions, such as the British Airports Authority—in leaving decisions as to investment to the body itself rather than tying it down to the queue for investment in the public sector.
Therefore I reject all the adjectives which the noble Lord used, and which I jotted down as quickly as I could, such as "squalid". "hell bent", "pinched", "bludgeoned", "given away" and even that wonderful phrase "the spotlight to be shone on them". The only light that he shone on them, if I may say so, was a red light. Of course it is quite clear that with the noble Lord what we are up against is not a quiet consideration of the merits of these proposals but—I throw the phrase back at him—a doctrinaire belief in public ownership whatever the circumstances and whatever the experience.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I followed closely what the Minister—the noble Lord—said. Will he not take on board that, after two independent inquiries into viability, profitability and performance, they were given a clean bill of health not only by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, but also by Ministers in another place? Is that not an indication that, when there has been a cool, hard look at the performance of these bodies, they have passed the test with flying colours?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has misled himself but he must not mislead the House. As I understand it, those reports related only to Crown Suppliers and not to the major activity of the PSA. Therefore it is quite wrong to say, as he has been saying to the House, that the PSA was given such a clean bill of health as he ventured to suggest. That is really not the case. That relates simply to the Crown Suppliers.
It darkens counsel to indulge in such extremes of emotion and excitement as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was very happy to wallow in during the course of his speech. I often wonder whether he has in fact had to deal with the PSA. I have had to deal with it over the years in a variety of jobs. Indeed, I have had a very recent experience of it. The presence of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, reminds me that the refreshment sub-committee of this House has had the problem of dealing with it. Discretion prevents me from going into any detail of that, but, if the noble Lord would like a private conversation on the subject, he will discover that I have a supply of adjectives which are nearly as comprehensive and almost as violent as his own.
The fact is—I make no reflection on the people who now run the PSA—that a publicly-owned body such as the PSA, sheltered over the years from

999
competition, simply does not give the service, have the competitive edge, keep prices down and, above all, give the speed of action and delivery which one receives in the private sector.
Lord Somers: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will enable me to interrupt him for one moment. He mentioned the element of competition in privatisation. When I first heard of the idea of privatising, I must say that it appealed to me very much. But why have the Government privatised all those industries in which there can be no competition—industries such as gas, electricity, water and various others? In those industries there cannot possibly be any competition. They will all be simple private monopolies instead of public ones. I wonder when they will privatise the Cabinet.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if I were to enter into debate with the noble Lord on the gas and electricity Bills, among other things, I should detain your Lordships until a rather late hour this evening. In point of fact if he looks at those Bills and reads the speeches made about them, the noble Lord will see that very considerable efforts have been made in respect of both those activities to introduce elements of competition. He will find that the Government share his concern to see an element of competition there.
I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to come back to the Bill that we are discussing at present. Here it is proposed that each government department which has work to do instead of being tied to the PSA—tied to the PSA's timetable and its prices—will be able to go out and look at various bids and offers from the building and construction industry generally. Faced with that stimulus, it may be that the PSA in its new form will be able to compete effectively. I do not dismiss that possibility for a moment. However, if it does do that work for any of the departments, it will be subject to the wholesome element of competition. Equally those departments will be able to go out and select whichever contractor, builder or operator they think appropriate to their needs and whichever provides the most economical, sensible and practical offer.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will again give way. Does he believe that instead of having one central organisation—the PSA—to have, for instance, 12 mini-PSAs within each department is the best use of resources and is likely to be in the best interests of the taxpayer at the end of the day? Is he really saying that?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am so glad that the noble Lord keeps re-promoting me to Minister. I am not sure whether or not from him that is intended as a compliment but it is a little distracting. Of course his question is utterly irrelevant. No one is proposing to have 12 mini-PSAs in every department. Each department will have its own section which goes out to contract. There will be one section in each department and not 12 sections.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: No, my Lords, twelve departments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord is now putting forward a totally different point. It is very difficult to pin him down because his mental and physical agility are such that when he has made a thoroughly bad point he leaps away in order to make another, from a different angle. He in fact said that each department would have 12 mini-PSAs. Now that I have drawn his attention to that blatant error, he tries to ride off in some other direction.
I come back to the point that I was making. I do not think that the noble Lord has had any experience of dealing with the PSA. If he had, his unqualified enthusiasm for it might not be so manifest.
I have only one other point. The noble Lord made a great issue about security. Everybody shares his concern about security in this day and age. However, his was an extraordinary reference to the tragedy at Deal. That had nothing to do with this issue and happened during the operation of the present system. Sadly enough, the present system did not prevent it. Is the noble Lord rising again?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the ex-Minister agree with me that the relevance of Deal was that a private security firm was being used? The Government are keen on putting out contracts to the private sector. In my view what happened at Deal arose in part through a dereliction by the private sector.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. The Bill has nothing to do with the operation of the private sector except in the building and construction area of the PSA. That is what we are concerned with here. That is the only matter on which noble Lords will be deciding. To speak of other issues—with which one could deal if time permitted—is to distract the House from the main point. The noble Lord has now admitted that in the context of the PSA's work and the putting out of that work to contract the events at Deal are wholly irrelevant.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome the fact that many members of the staff, for whom the noble Lord expressed concern, will have the opportunity of becoming shareholders in the new company. That is a thoroughly wholesome development. Your Lordships know that companies or activities in which the workers have the opportunity to be and are shareholders have generally a spirit, morale and keenness that is perhaps less noticeable elsewhere. This Bill gives such an opportunity. It is perhaps worth remembering that one of the results of the Government's privatisation policy has been to increase enormously the number of shareholders. Indeed, since 1979—not solely, but in part as a result of that policy—the number of shareholders in this country has trebled from 3 million to 9 million. That is one of the most wholesome economic and social developments of our time. The Bill will make its own further contribution in that direction. I hope that noble Lords will give it not only a Second Reading but also enthusiastic support through all its stages.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, follow that! I think that the present Government must have a death wish. Just at the present time they are suffering from severe economic and political problems. The Government have the political problem of dealing with the public outcry against the poll tax. Interest rates are at a record level. Mortgage rates are at a record level. The balance of payments problem is the worst ever on record and running at £20 billion; and over the weekend Mr. Peter Walker resigned. Amid all that, the Government bring forward in this Chamber this silly, unnecessary Bill. Bearing in mind the real problems that the Government face, one would have thought that they would have wanted to clear the decks of the nonsense of these silly privatisations and to have dealt with the real problems that face the nation at the present time. We can only conclude that, like Nero who is reputed to have fiddled while Rome burned, the Government are fiddling while the economy and the political life of the country collapses.
In a very structured speech of his usual high quality, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, sought to show that it would be a very good thing if these organisations were privatised because all the privatisations so far had been successful. But let us consider the basis on which they were successful. Let us consider the electricity industry, for example, at the present time. I worked for it for 19 years. It has been under public ownership for a very long period of time. During that period it provided security of supply to electricity consumers up and down the country, having extended electricity supplies to the rural areas as well as the urban areas, and consistently having turned out high profits since it was nationalised in 1951.
It is an industry that has been highly successful under public ownership. But the noble Lord says that because there should be competition it is to be privatised. How on earth we shall have real competition in the electricity supply industry I do not know, neither does the noble Lord, and neither do the Government. It seems to me that as in the case of these two organisations, the Government are privatising simply and solely because they dogmatically believe that the industry should be privatised.
The electricity supply industry will make higher profits under private ownership because the Government have decreed that it shall make higher profits under private ownership. They have decreed that because, first, prices were increased by 15 per cent., and it is intended to increase them further this year in line with the cost of living. What is more, as in the case of other organisations, in particular the water industry, huge amounts of capital will be written off so that the new, privatised companies will not have to bear the same burden of debt that the publicly-owned organisations had to bear. Again in the case of the electricity supply industry, the part of the industry which cannot make a profit—the nuclear side—has been taken out of the privatised business and will remain in the public sector. I do not know how the noble Lord can justify his faith in
1002
privitisation when the Government are not providing a proper and even playing field.
We all accept the fact that competition is a guide, and we know that it enables the market to be tested. However, I suggest that, if the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, imagines that all private industries are efficient while all public industries are inefficient, he does not live in the real world. Anyone who has recently tried to deal with a private builder knows perfectly well how efficient that section of private industry is. One can go through a long list of privately-owned industries and organisations which are highly costly and inefficient. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear no more nonsense about industries being inefficient solely and simply because they are in the public sector.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made the case for the retention of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers organisation within the public sector. I wonder whether ICI has an organisation similar to the PSA. It would be odd if it did not because that is the case in the CEGB and other industries. It would be odd if a company as large as ICI did not have an organisation such as the PSA to undertake major construction and maintenance works. It would also be most odd if ICI allowed every department to tender for the purchase of all its commodities. That certainly did not happen within the CEGB where I worked. It would be madness in a company with the buying power of ICI or in a government organisation. Therefore, there is a good case for maintaining organisations such as the PSA and the Crown Agents within the public sector. Even at this late stage, and bearing in mind the problems that they face, I hope that the Government will have second thoughts.
The reason that I wished to speak in the debate was to draw attention to the staff and the safeguard of their interests. I am a member of the EETPU; that is the electricians' and plumbers' trade union. It is held in high regard by Her Majesty's Government; so much so that the Prime Minister recommended the elevation of its general secretary to this House and the Queen agreed. However, I assure the noble Lord that the EETPU does not agree with the privatisation.
It is most concerned about the interests of its members and about their jobs and conditions of service. It does not appear to the union, nor to me, that they will be properly safeguarded. I understand that at the Teddington National Physical Laboratory, where 1,000 electricians and plumbers are employed, 50 jobs have already been lost due to maintenance work being transferred from the PSA to the private sector. Therefore, jobs are already being lost as a result of the Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was right in saying that when people join the Civil Service they expect to remain in the Civil Service. Perhaps at a difficult time in their lives they do not expect to be transferred to the private sector. They are entitled to expect that their conditions of service will be maintained. They are also entitled to expect that those conditions will be no worse after transfer. Yet there are no real guarantees what the pension scheme

1003
in the private organisation will be, and that it will remain as good as that in the Civil Service.
The noble Lord will know that trade unions, including mine, are concerned about the redundancy payment scheme which at present is included in the pension scheme. There is no doubt that it must have been included in the scheme for good reasons; probably because it will assist redundancy arrangements for the staff and the employers. It will assist the better administration of the scheme and provide a better deal for employees who may be made redundant.
The position of people within the service should be safeguarded to a better extent than is provided for in the Bill. I hope that before the Bill reaches the statute book the Government will have further discussions with the trade unions in order to ascertain whether proper agreements can be reached. However, as I have already said, it would be far better if the Government dropped the Bill and carried on with the real business of governing the country properly.
5.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speeches which your Lordships have made during this wide-ranging and interesting debate. As I explained at the start of these proceedings, the Bill now before your Lordships' House is short and its provisions have been precedented in earlier privatisations. Nevertheless, despite its brevity, it is an important Bill, forming a logical extension to the Government's privatisation policy.
The activities of the PSA and Crown Suppliers are essentially of a commercial nature and we believe that they can be carried out more efficiently in the private sector. Departments are already exercising freedoms to test the market and the effects of untying will be felt as the process is extended during 1990 and beyond. In order to compensate for any loss of government business, both organisations must have the freedom to compete in wider markets. It is wrong to imply, as the trade unions have done, that the new arrangements of devolved responsibility will be more costly for the taxpayer and less effective. Substantial advantages will flow from pinning increased financial responsibility upon the clients and placing competitive pressure on the service providers. We believe that the existing successes of PSA and the Crown Suppliers can improve only when they are free from the confines of the public sector.
I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate statements made in another place about the effects of these privatisations on security arrangments. They were raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and I shall return to the specific points. The Government have stated categorically that nothing will be done under the Bill against security advice and that privatisation will not put security at risk.
The level and nature of security risks faced by client departments is for them to assess, as are the requirements that flow from their assessments.
1004
However, I hope that your Lordships will accept that the public sector has no monopoly of people who can be relied upon to protect national security or the security of particular locations. The private sector already handles a greater proportion of sensitive work than the proportion which is carried out in-house by government.
I should also like to clarify the position on staffing issues; in particular, a misunderstanding appears to have arisen among the staff about the purpose of Clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 2 contains standard provisions which have appeared in all recent legislation dealing with the privatisation of undertakings whose employees were members of the principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The Government do not believe that it would be justifiable to pay redundancy compensation to staff who will be transferred with their jobs to the private sector. I shall refer to the matter specifically later and I am certain that we shall return to it at some length in Committee.
Staff and their trade unions have referred to severance entitlements and to guarantees from public funds. On the terms themselves the staff of TCS have been given assurances that the purchasers will be required to provide redundancy terms which are, as far as possible, identical to those they have at present. Representation from trade unions about guarantees are of course being considered. However, we believe that fears about the security of redundancy entitlements are greatly exaggerated. During the sale competition we shall be giving preference to potential purchasers who demonstrate a willingness and ability to run the businesses as going concerns and who also have the necessary financial robustness to do so. One of the criteria for selecting the purchaser will be an assessment of his ability to finance any redundancies which become necessary after privatisation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I appreciate that the Government will negotiate with these firms and I understand the desirability of doing so. But what happens if the firms go bankrupt? All the assurances in the world will not then protect the former civil servants from the results of the bankruptcy of their firm.
Lord Hesketh: I was going to come to that specifically when dealing with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. However, the essential reason why we are taking so much trouble at the start is to choose the right firms because at the end of the day there is always a remote possibility that there could be a financial failure. The reason we are going to such enormous trouble at the start is to select a firm or firms where that possibility is reduced to an absolute minimum. However, I shall return to that later.
On pensions, there have already been made in another place during the passage of the Bill statements designed to give staff as much reassurance as possible at this stage of the privatisation. We hope that as the sale proceeds we shall be able to give firmer assurances.

1005
In the case of TCS, those who have been invited to bid are aware that we shall expect them to offer pension terms comparable to the Civil Service scheme. The Government Actuary will be analysing the terms offered and if necessary we shall seek negotiations with prospective purchasers to improve the pension terms or other terms and conditions of employment. A payment to the staff to compensate them for any remaining disadvantage will be seen very much as a last resort.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the sale of the PSA is still some way off. However, it is quite likely that the PSA will be established as a wholly-owned government company which will trade for a period before privatisation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I take on board the noble Lord's point that he will deal with specific matters later. Does the Minister not understand that he and his colleagues may take every precaution and be satisfied that the new employer intends to do all sorts of things? However, after day one of the TUPE arrangements the employees are wholly at the mercy of the new employers. If those new employers decide to change their methods and tactics, what recourse is there after the employee has ceased to be protected by the state? What protection does he have from a new employer who decides to change his conditions?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall come to that later. I have received the message loud and clear from both noble Lords.
If what I described earlier happens, the new pension scheme will have to be provided anyway when the PSA begins to trade as a government-owned company. Thus, the issue of comparability will be settled at that stage rather than at the privatisation itself.
I turn now to individual points made by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, initially referred to environmental matters. There was some uncertainty at an earlier stage about the amount of land involved. That issue has now been resolved. The land included in the privatisations will be the land occupied by the PSA services and TCS for operational reasons. There are four freehold buildings in the sole occupation of TCS and, for the PSA, the exact operational accommodation requirements will not be entirely settled until nearer the point of sale. There are 17 freehold properties which are in the sole occupation of the PSA, amounting in total to a building area of some 30,000 square metres and a total site area of less than 12 hectares. Only three sites exceed one hectare individually. I have inquired whether any of the sites might have unusual environmental significance but none is thought to do so because most of the sites are in built-up areas.
Security was mentioned by many noble Lords. The Government have stated categorically that under this Bill nothing will be done which will in any way compromise security. However, it is important to remember that already a great deal of security is carried out privately and, more important than that, that the departments are responsible for
1006
setting the standards of security that they require. That is the important feature. It is not the PSA but the departments which are responsible as clients for stipulating the level of security required for a specific site or for a specific group of individuals.
The matter of the government car service was drawn to your Lordships' attention by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Of course, most of the armed forces are resident on military installations. To date most government ministers are not required to be accommodated in barrack-like accommodation and live in perfectly ordinary houses and flats distributed throughout the capital. Because of those security considerations, it was thought appropriate to keep the government car service intact as it is at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to the clean bill of health. The question of whether or not to privatise the Crown Suppliers service is a complex one which we considered very carefully, taking full account not only of what the two reports said but also of the likely impact of untying on government departments' own procurement practices and on TCS's business. Transferring out the TCS activities which are not suitable for privatisation and restructuring the remainder, we believe will leave us with a commercial organisation which will be able to operate more efficiently in the private sector. Privatisation will secure on a continuing basis competitive supplies for the public sector and the best prospects for the majority of TC'S staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, was concerned about inadequate consultations with the trade unions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be under an obligation arising from Regulation 10 of TUPE to consult the unions about the proposed privatisation. I assure your Lordships that that obligation is taken very seriously by the Government and that sufficient time will be allowed for proper consultation. It is difficult to know at this stage how long will be required as that will depend upon the nature and complexity of the issues being discussed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the case to which I have returned more than once—that is, the behaviour of a new employer after TUPE becomes operable—will the Government not concede that no change should be made in the terms under which an employee is transferred out of the public sector into the private sector without proper consultation and agreement with the trade unions?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is what I have just said. We shall consult very fully with the trade unions on this. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will never feel that consultations which the Government believe to be fair and reasonable are, from his point of view, fair and reasonable. It is fair to say that we shall disagree on that throughout this Bill whether we like it or not.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and other noble Lords referred to the possibility of creating mini-PSAs as a result of privatising the major PSA. Departments will be closely aware that they must

1007
achieve value for money and will not expect to find Secretaries of State creating mini-PSAs. I am sure that the National Audit Office and, even more importantly, the Select Committee in another place will be keeping a very close eye on that possibility.
The matter of compulsory transfer was raised. I am sure that your Lordships will be aware that the PSA will be inquiring of all its employees whether they wish to make a transfer and, where it is possible to do that, that will take place. However, it is also important that the PSA shall be a sustainable organisation as it becomes a new entity. Obviously every effort will be made, to provide, if it is possible, for the avoidance of compulsory transfer for those who do not wish to go across.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, gave a very interesting and comprehensive rendition of his feelings with regard to privatisation generally. I am sure, however, that your Lordships would not require, request, expect or in any way desire me to reply to the very broad and great issues to which he referred; for I fear that if I did so many noble Lords who feel they have important matters to come after this Bill would be extremely upset. However, as always, I listened with great interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, was concerned about the selling of the business on the cheap. In a way I think there is a slight dichotomy here, because he is caught between accusing the Government of selling on the cheap and at the same time saying that the Government could consider accepting a lower offer to provide better protection for the employees.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I certainly did not pose that one way in which one could adequately protect the interests of employees is for the Government to accept a lower offer, unless the Minister is saying that by that device it would be possible for the new employer to accept conditions and liabilities that are acceptable to employees. That would be right. However, the Minister has failed to answer the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that, when the dockyards and ordnance factories were privatised, the Government, with Treasury approval, guaranteed comparable pensions, whereas they have not only failed but have refused to give comparable guarantees in this instance. Why?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, every privatisation is different. I always feel that there is a slight misunderstanding on the Benches opposite—a belief that privatisation is either a fixed plan or some form of ideology. It is not. It is a developing process and that is why each privatisation is slightly different.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, along with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised a point with regard to the terms and conditions of an ex-civil servant in his new position. In fact the trade unions have suggested that an employer can impose any new terms and conditions on his employees with impunity. They are particularly concerned that that could be done in respect of redundancy terms. However, an employer could not do that. The general principle of law is that fundamental terms and
1008
conditions, which include rights to severance payments, cannot be altered without the agreement of the employee.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, and others drew attention to the publicity relating to the sale of these two organisations. First, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, reeled off a considerable number of facts and figures with regard to the publicity costs of previous privatisations. The important point to remember is that we are not talking of a stock market listing; we are talking of a private sale. We are not talking about the public needing to be informed on a wide and great scale about the potential privatisation that lies ahead. We are talking of very simple arrangements that do not require tremendous organisations of disposal to be erected. That matter therefore does not arise.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to stockbrokers as being the only beneficiaries of privatisation. There are many shareholders who are beneficiaries. I referred in my opening remarks to the possibility of management buy-outs, in which case the beneficiaries would be those civil servants who were moving into a new world, the result of the privatisation that this new Bill introduces. Those who will benefit in that case will be the employees themselves. I need only draw your Lordships' attention to the extraordinary success of the National Freight Consortium since its privatisation to show where employees have benefited on an enormous scale as a result of being given rein to show what they can do.
Finally, I should like to repeat to your Lordships' House the assurances which were given in another place to the staff of the PSA and TCS with regard to conditions of service—assurances that staff will not be disadvantaged as a result of the privatisation. I look forward strongly but at the same time with a certain sensitivity to a lively Committee stage with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, putting his case volubly, and I strongly commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1990
5.25 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships may wish to note that these regulations supersede the draft laid on 14th February and take into account two minor technical changes which in no way affect the substance of the draft regulations.
The regulations are made under the provisions of Section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. They amend and consolidate the existing scheme of fees for planning applications introduced in April 1981.
Before I describe the changes to the fees scheme to be made by the regulations which we have under consideration today, your Lordships may find it helpful to be given a brief outline of the purpose of the scheme and the way in which it works. Under the scheme, any applicant who seeks planning permission must pay a fee to the planning authority, usually the district council. That reflects our policy that local authority expenditure should, in appropriate cases, be offset by reasonable fees for the services provided. The fee must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the regulations and it cannot be waived, although the regulations make provision for circumstances in which no fee or a reduced fee is payable. Otherwise, applications attract a fee determined in accordance with the type of development proposed and its size, where that is relevant.
The scheme is designed to ensure that there is a broadly uniform scale of fees throughout Scotland, England and Wales; that there is a fair balance between the categories of development; that fees do not discourage serious planning applications; that the scheme is easily understood and that its operation does not impose any excessive administrative burden on developers or on planning authorities.
The Government's policy is that fees should be set at a level which enables planning authorities to recover half the costs of operating the development control system. The intention behind this is that the cost of operating the development control system should be shared in broadly equal proportions between developers and the community at large. At present fees recover only around 40 per cent. of authorities' costs. If we were to proceed to 50 per cent. recovery in one step, a very substantial increase in the level of fees would be required. We have concluded that a staged approach should be adopted, the proposed increase now put forward being restricted to the increase required to cover the effects of inflation since the current scales were introduced on 22nd August 1985.
The new regulations therefore provide for an increase of approximately 20 per cent. in the level of fees across the board. That will result in the two basic fee units rising from £53 to £64, and from £27 to £32. Thus, an application for planning permission for the erection of houses will, for example, be charged at £64 per house in the case of a full application, and £64 per 0·1 hectare of site area in the case of an outline application.
Apart from the increase in the level of fees, the new consolidated regulations provide for a number of other changes which generally mirror those made in the Department of the Environment regulations since the last Scottish regulations in 1985. There are two main changes. First, we have made provision for a special category of fee for oil and gas exploration applications. At present these applications are charged at the rate of £27 for each 0·1 hectgare of site area, subject to a maximum charge of £270. The new charge will be £64 for each 0·1 hectare of the site area, subject to a maximum fee of £4,800. A similar change has been made in England and Wales.
Secondly, we intend to make provision for an exemption from a fee for applications to consolidate existing minerals working permissions. Again, that was introduced in England and Wales as a result of representations from English local authority associations. The remaining proposals in the new regulations make provision for changes of a minor and technical nature. Overall, the changes proposed in the new regulations bring a uniformity of approach to the question of development control cost recovery on both sides of the Border. I commend the consolidated regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the House is grateful for the clarity with which the Minister outlined the purpose of this instrument. The Minister stressed more than once that we are bringing Scotland into line with England and Wales. One of his last remarks was that it ensures uniformity of approach. If they are all of a piece, can the Minister tell the House why there needs to be two separate sets of regulations—one set for England and Wales and another for Scotland? We are not arguing on the principle of charges but on the means of giving effect to the principle. Perhaps the Minister can give a reason for having two sets of regulations.
I was involved in another place when the principle was established. It was a matter of some heat. The Minister will acknowledge that it was simply one way of reducing the costs of local authorities and thereby reducing the need for rate support grant from the centre. Can the Minister tell the House how much is raised at present by the current level of charges, and how much is expected to be raised by the increase?
I take the point fairly made by the Minister that it is almost five years since the last review. I believe the Minister said that this means an increase of 20 per cent., or thereabouts, across the board to bring the position up to date. Can the Minister say how much, globally, this will mean? For example, he referred to a figure of £52 increasing to £64, and I know that that is an increase of £9. However, there must be some evidence in the department to show the likely yield to local authorities of such an increase.
Similarly, in the other categories there is an increase of £27 to £32—an uplift of £5. Again, can the Minister tell the House what that means globally? It is the global impact on, not the rate support grant but the subvention, which will assist the community charge payer that is of concern to us.
The Minister said that the Government believed that the charges should be set at a level which broadly reflects 50 per cent. of the administrative cost to local authorities. The Minister should know that planning departments in local authorities are likely to be under the most pressure these days—not least because there is a shortage of qualified planners and because there seems to be a plethora of applications which call for development control officers to consider them. Can the Minister say what is the

1011
nature of the consultations that have taken place with the local authority associations to ascertain whether they agree with the Minister that these increases are required? I know that the Minister and his colleagues will have access to the relevant intelligence. They may of course have arrived at precisely the right level. However, can the Minister tell the House whether there has been any pressure one way or the other from the local authority associations that they wanted a higher or lower uplift than the increase from £57 to £64?
It is all very well the Government saying to the House and to local authorities, "We believe that it is in your interests to have the increase" but do the local authorities feel that this is right and proper? Has any consultation taken place with officers of the local authorities who are affected in this matter? Democratically-elected lay members are represented by COSLA, in this instance, but the AMA, the ADC, the ACC and the ALA in the rest of Britain are also interested.
The Minister has decided to make the changes in Scotland, leaving England and Wales separate. He also states that the Government are seeking uniformity of approach. However, is there a common consensus among local authority associations for Scotland as well as in England and Wales? I make no comment whatever on the desirability of the charges. It is a device dreamt up by the Government some years ago to reduce the need for rate support grant, and in effect they are making sure yet again that the consumer pays. I would be interested to hear of any statistics relating to individual developers. I am not referring to individuals but developers of a major kind where an increase from £53 to £64 for a new house is acceptable.
Does the Minister understand that there is grave concern about refusal of appeal and costs of appeal? There is a growing awareness that the whole nexus of the cost of the development control system needs to be examined. I can give the Minister illustrations from my own borough of Enfield. Residents who strongly object to a development are prevailed upon to reconsider by councillors in control of the authority. Although the councillors agree that planning permission should not be given, the protestors are told to bear in mind that if the planning application is refused and an appeal is successful there could well be costs visited upon the authority which, in effect, would not be in the interests of the local residents.
I hope the Minister can be of assistance. I have no objection to the order, but we have too few opportunities to discuss the nitty-gritty of planning matters. In my view, the matters that I have raised are entitled to have some observations made on them at this time.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we have had a useful short debate on the relatively minor changes to the fees scheme made by these regulations. I am glad to note that the principle of sharing the cost of the development control system between developers and the community at large has become more widely accepted since the fees scheme
1012
was introduced in 1981. The arrangements for charging fees have been shown to be working well and it is clear that the scheme has not caused the damage to the relationship between developers and planning authorities which its opponents anticipated when it was introduced. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that the fees scheme has acted as a deterrent to development proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised a number of points. I shall endeavour to answer two of them but I will write to the noble Lord in regard to his questions on statistics. The noble Lord first asked about the differences between Scottish and English regulations. There is only one substantive difference between the two sets of regulations. The regulations for England and Wales provide that where a fee for a deemed application is to be paid to the Secretary of State, that fee shall be paid when the applicant or appellant concerned is asked to do so by the Secretary of State instead of at the time the relevant appeal is made or the relevant application is referred to the Secretary of State. This provision is required principally as a matter of administrative convenience. The arrangements in Scotland for the payment of fees for deemed applications to the Secretary of State are different and no comparable provision is required in the Scottish regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked about the 50 per cent. recovery target. The operation of the planning system represents a substantial cost to the taxpayer and the Government's belief remains that it is a sound principle that those who use and potentially benefit from specific administrative processes should meet the cost of providing that service. Last year we issued a consultation document to some 300 bodies and organisations with an interest in the development control system which asked for their views on, among other things, a proposal to increase planning fees so that 100 per cent. of the planning authorities' costs in the processing of applications could be recovered. There was a range of responses to the consultation and these are still under consideration.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord touched very fairly on the raison d'être for the charges and says that the costs should be borne by those who benefit from them. Does not the Minister understand that the greatest beneficiary from a i properly controlled development control system is the community itself? The reason for planning legislation is not to give the individual a benefit but for the avoidance of detriment to the community by careless, haphazard development. Our case has always been, though it may have been superseded by time, that the reason that the community should bear the cost of applying a proper development control system is that it is the community itself which is the greatest beneficiary from the system.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, given that the income from fees has proved to be considerably less relative to overall development control cost than was originally anticipated, as I have explained, we believe that an increase of this order is necessary. Our current aim of a 50 per cent.

1013
recovery of development control costs is fair in our view and is unlikely to impose any hardship. To put the matter in perspective, your Lordships might consider the case of a person who wishes to build himself a new house and who requires first to obtain outline planning permission and subsequently is required to make a separate application for the approval of the details. The total which he will pay in fees for the two applications will be £128. Such a charge can hardly be regarded as being excessive when compared to the eventual value of the asset in question which will certainly run into tens of thousands of pounds.
I hope I have covered most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I shall write to him on the ones that I have not dealt with.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1990
5.41 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if the two orders are taken together. I therefore move that the first order be approved and I shall speak at the same time to the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1990.
The debate today takes place because any industrial training levy order which involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll must receive parliamentary approval under the Industrial Training Act 1982.
In the case of the Engineering Board, one part of the levy proposals—that covering site employees in the engineering construction sector—establishes a levy rate of 1.5 per cent. Similarly, the Construction Board proposals covering labour only subcontractors establish a levy rate of 2 per cent.
Your Lordships will not need reminding that both of these sectors are vital to the country's economy. The engineering industry employs nearly 2 million people in 21,600 firms. Its activities are wide ranging, including mechanical engineering, electrical and electronic engineering, vehicle and aircraft manufacture and engineering construction.
The construction industry is almost as large and employs around 1·8 million people, covering activities such as building, civil engineering, electrical contracting, heating and ventilating and plumbing. The engineering levy proposals are in two parts, the first applying to engineering manufacture, which comprises the vast majority of the industry and the second to the engineering construction industry, which employs approximately 40,000 workers.
I shall briefly outline the proposals in both sectors. For engineering manufacturing establishments the board proposes a total levy of 1 per cent. of an
1014
employer's payroll: 0·07 per cent. of that levy will be non-exemptible. These rates are the same as last year. The bulk of the levy is therefore exemptible; that is, employers who train satisfactorily will be given credit for this and will not be required to pay the maximum levy to the board. In addition, firms employing 40 workers or less will be excluded totally from paying levy. Almost 70 per cent. of firms will be excluded from levy because of their size.
In the engineering construction sector, for off-site employees, establishments with up to 30 employees will be excluded from the levy. This would mean that again almost 70 per cent. of establishments will not pay levy. Establishments with more than 30 employees will be levied at 1 per cent. of payroll. The non-exemptible element of this levy will be 0·15 per cent. These rates are also the same as those approved last year.
For site employees the levy has been increased by 0·38 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. of payroll in response to growing skill shortages in this part of the sector. No levy is payable on the first £50,000 of payroll which will exclude about 14 per cent. of establishments. The raising of a non-exemptible levy in excess of 0·2 per cent. in the non-site sector means that under the Industrial Training Act the board must demonstrate that there is consensus in the industry for the proposals.
Employer organisations representing 60 per cent. of leviable establishments and about 86 per cent. of the workforce have confirmed their agreement to the proposals, thus satisfying the conditions of the Act. The Engineering Industry Training Board anticipates that the levy proposals I have described will raise some £22 million. The levy will apply to those firms who fall within the scope of the board between the date the order comes into force and 31st August
I now turn to the construction levy proposals which are in the same form and at the same rates as approved by the House last year. The board estimates that the levy will raise £66 4 million and is proposed in three parts.
First there will be a per capita levy on directly employed construction workers in the main industry. The rates vary according to the type of person being trained and reflect the training costs for each occupation. The rates are subject to an overall limit of 1 per cent. of payroll.
Secondly, the board proposes to retain the 2 per cent. levy on payments made to labour only subcontractors. This rate has not changed since 1981 and reflects the board's judgment that sub contractors undertake too little training, relying instead on obtaining skilled manpower trained by other employers.
Companies covered by these two parts of the levy with payrolls of £15,000 or less are excluded from the payment of levy. Approximately 29 per cent. of firms are excluded by this provision. Thirdly, there is the levy for the brick manufacturing industry. The board proposes a rate of 0·05 per cent. of payroll with firms having a payroll of £100,000 or less being excluded.
As with engineering, the construction board is also required to demonstate that there is consensus within the industry for the proposals because the levy exceeds 0.2 per cent. of payroll without an exemption scheme. Support has been gained from employers' organisations representing 60 per cent. of employers liable to pay the levy and from 82 per cent. of employers who pay more than half of the total levy.
Turning to the future, in line with recommendations in the White Paper Employment for the 1990s, the EITB has put forward proposals for an independent training organisation representing engineering manufacture and the retention of statutory arrangements for engineering construction. These proposals were approved in November 1989.
Currently the board is working on the development of a plan and timetable for the management of this transition and it is anticipated that an independent engineering training authority covering engineering manufacturing will be fully operational by July 1991. This means that the levy proposed for collection in 1990–91 will be the last to be raised by the engineering manufacturing sector.
For engineering construction it is anticipated that its levy and grant arrangements will secure an adequate supply of skilled workers by rewarding those employers who train. It is expected that the exemption arrangements for this sector's off-site establishments will be replaced by a voluntary code of practice. In the construction industry the Government accept that because of the particular employment patterns—a highly mobile workforce and heavy reliance on labour only subcontracting—statutory arrangements will need to continue, with a thorough review in 1992.
In the meantime a number of sectors in the construction ITB, principally electrical contracting, plumbing, heating and ventilating, are developing independent arrangements. The proposals before the House tonight have received unanimous approval from the respective boards and will assist in sustaining their worthwhile activities within their industries. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Stathmore and Kinghorne.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this side of the House does not oppose these two orders, and I would like to thank the Minister for the clarity with which he has presented them. However, as he said, these are very important industries and I wish to take a little time to make a few points about them.
I am glad that the Construction Industry Training Board, which has a very good record in an extremely difficult industry, is to be allowed to continue for at least three years. However, I believe it is unfortunate that a three-year term has been imposed. It is bound to lead to a sense of insecurity among committed and trained staff who do not know what the eventual outcome will be. Needless to say, training in the construction industry is of the utmost importance. Whatever precautions are taken, and however highly
1016
trained are the people working in it, the industry is an inherently dangerous one. I regret to note that the latest figures appear to indicate that it is becoming more rather than less dangerous. It has more accidents, some of them fatal, than any other industry. Clearly, training may help to minimise these risks.
Moreover, it is an industry in which there are many small operators. In view of this I wonder whether it is altogether wise to exempt from the system the very small firms. I understand that about 29 per cent. of firms come into this category. They quite obviously benefit from training paid for by the larger firms. But representatives of the larger firms will invariably say that it is in the smaller firms, the cowboys in the industry, that safety standards are at their lowest. I wonder whether the arrangements for labour only subcontractors cope with this situation adquately.
The staff of the Construction Industry Training Board still do not know what the Government have in mind in relation to the restructuring of the board now taking place and how it will affect them. I wonder whether the Minister is yet in a position to let us know the score in that regard. At least the Government have recognised that this industry, with its many small firms and highly mobile workforce, needs to have a board and an organisation such as that provided by the CITB. A sense of stability is vital, but that seems to be lacking at the moment because of the policies that the Government have been following in the training arena.
With regard to the Engineering Industry Training Board, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I regret that this is apparently the last time a levy will be raised by the engineering manufacturing sector. I still believe that the EITB performed a very useful service in difficult circumstances, particularly during the manufacturing industry decline in the early years of the 1980s, when people simply did not see the manufacturing sector as providing any kind of job or career prospects. Now of course we need the skilled people we might have trained then. I do not believe that the voluntary system will work in this sector. I regret very much that the Government have chosen that path, in particular as I am concerned about the fate of special projects initiated by the EITB; for example, the special project for women. I do not see this being taken up on an industry-wide basis under the present arrangements.
Moreover, there is also the question of the money from the European Social Fund. I am informed by the EITB that it was managing to increase this year by year, with figures for 1989 of around £12 million. It is doubtful whether we shall be able to secure sums of this order, or indeed of any order at all, under the voluntary system. I understand that in order to qualify there has to be some input from public funds. I can only hope that the newly constituted independent Engineering Training Authority, to which the Minister made reference when introducing the order, will continue with the good work of the EITB and build upon it, not only for the benefit of women but for the benefit of the disadvantaged generally—for the disabled and for ethnic minority groups. I repeat that we on this side of the House do

1017
not oppose the orders, which we understand have the unanimous support of the members of both boards.
5.55 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, these industries need sound training arrangements. As I mentioned in my opening address, an independent engineering training authority covering engineering manufacturing has already been established and has secured an excellent level and balance of representation, with all of its employer members being chairmen, managing directors or directors of their respective companies.
The authority has already met twice. I understand that, at its second meeting held last week, the authority agreed that its major focus would be on setting standards across the whole engineering industry and identifying and reviewing the industry's skill requirements. The authority is also preparing a timetable for the transfer of other key functions to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements.
I am pleased that the new authority has started work so swiftly and the enthusiasm shown clearly demonstrates that, if offered responsibility, employers will not only take it but discharge it well. This is also evidenced by the new training and enterprise councils. In this respect, 62 groups of local employers have already been awarded development funding. The first TECs will become fully operational in the spring.
Since the White Paper Employment for the 1990s was published at the end of 1988, we have had many discussions with the construction industry, and in particular with its leading employer organisations. As a result we announced last November that the board would continue as a levy raising body. There was a unanimous view amongst employers that we should do that; and we agreed. There was also a clear view that the board needed to be a good deal smaller and that two-thirds of the membership of the new board should be chief executives and chairmen from the industry. We asked for nominations from the employer organisations and we now have them before us.
We have also consulted about the chairmanship of the board. The present chairman, Derek Gaulter, has given, and continues to give, loyal and committed service to the sector. I want here to place on record the Government's recognition of that and our gratitude to Mr. Gaulter for all that he has done, and continues to do, for the industry and for the board. We have agreed with Mr. Gaulter that the new board—the new start—will mean that, at the appropriate moment, a new chairman should take over. How soon that moment will come depends on the willingness of a leading individual from the industry to take up the responsibility and the date from which the individual is willing to do so. We hope to be making an early announcement about the chairmanship and the membership of CITB.
The noble Baroness referred to fatal accidents in the construction industry. In 1986–87 there were 139 fatal accidents; and in 1987–88 there were 158. Those are the only statistcs that I have at the moment.
1018
For both boards the time had come for change; the time had come to tackle new priorities in new ways with the wholehearted commitment of employers. It is now up to employers in both industries to deliver what they say they seek. In the meantime, the proposals before us tonight will allow the work of the boards to progress. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1990
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February by approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mr. Salman Rushdie: Death Threats
5.57 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further statement on the reasons for the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute those who have threatened the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am raising tonight the question of the threats directed at the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie, a British subject resident in the United Kingdom, and the rather surprising decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute those who within the jurisdiction of the British courts have called for him to be murdered.
The House will recall that this matter was initially raised on 19th February when a number of noble Lords joined me in expressing puzzlement at the director's decision. On 20th February it was raised again by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, when disquiet was again expressed by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I think it would be right to remind the House of the sequence of events in this case. On 26th September 1988 Penguin Viking published The Satanic Verses in London. Within weeks the book had been banned in many Moslem countries and in some countries where there were significant Moslem minorities. On 8th November 1988 The Satanic Verses won the Whitbread Prize for novels. Nine weeks later a group of Moslems in Bradford ritually burned a copy of the book. Then, on 14th February last year, the Ayatollah Khomeini pronounced his sentence of death on Mr. Rushdie. He said this:
"I inform the proud Moslem people of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses book which is against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran, and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death. I ask all the Moslems to execute them wherever they find them".
Within 24 hours Mr. Rushdie was removed to a safe house. Since then he has been under the protection of armed officers of the Metropolitan Police. On the same day as the Ayatollah's statement in Teheran, the first direct threat on the life of Mr. Rushdie was made in Britain. Sayed Abdul Quddus, the then secretary of the Bradford Council of Mosques, said that Mr. Rushdie had "tortured Islam" and deserved to pay the penalty by "hanging". He added:
"Muslims here would kill him and I would willingly sacrifice my own life and that of my children to carry out the Ayatollah's wishes should the opportunity arise. And if this man thinks bodyguards will be able to protect him, he is living in a fool's paradise".
That statement was reported in a number of newspapers, including The Times of 15th February last year. It was also mentioned on television and on the radio. On the same day, the vice-chairman of the Islamic Mission in Rochdale said that retribution was justified not only against the author but also against everyone involved in the publication of the book. Again, that statement was widely reported.
Since that time we have had repeated statements from a minority of Moslem leaders—and it is right to emphasise that it is a minority of Moslem leaders—in the United Kingdom calling for Mr. Rushdie's execution, not least by Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, the director of the Moslem Institute whose words have also been widely reported in the press, on television and on the radio. On the basis of that I wrote to the Attorney-General asking what action the director intended to take on yet another case of a threat on the life of Mr. Rushdie.
Since that time we have witnessed crowds carrying banners in public demonstrations which carry the words, "Kill Rushdie". Moreover, we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on 19th February of a newspaper report which stated that,
"… youngsters at the meeting—some under 10-years-old—gave their support to the death sentence". [Official Report, 19.2.90; col. 10.]
In the light of that clear evidence—that is, clear unambiguous evidence—of repeated threats to the life of Mr. Rushdie, what has been the response of the Director of Public Prosecutions? On 19th February (at col. 9 of Hansard) the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us that the director had,
"concluded in the light of all the evidence available to him … that it was not appropriate to institute criminal proceedings".
The noble and learned Lord later said:
"The director regards as a matter of extreme gravity any conduct on the part of any person within this jurisdiction which amounts to the offence of incitement to murder".
It would be truly remarkable if the director did not regard incitement to murder as a matter of extreme gravity. However, what puzzles many of us is why, despite the advice which we are told he has received from leading counsel, not a single prosecution has been brought against those in this country who have called for the murder of a British subject.
The offence of incitement to murder is, fortunately, relatively unusual in this country. I do not propose, for reasons to which I shall refer in a
1020
moment, to deal at any length with the law so far as concerns this offence. However, I should like to mention one authority to which my attention was drawn by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I refer to the case of Regina v. Most in 1881 7QBD 244 reported in the 12th edition of Russell on Crime. It says:
"The alleged encouragement and endeavour to persuade to murder was the publication and circulation by him"—
that is, Mr. Most—
"of an article written in German in a newspaper published in London exalting in the recent murder of the Emperor of Russia and commending it as an example. The jury were directed that if they thought he intended to, and did, encourage any person to murder any other person, whether a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether within her dominions or not, and that such encouragement was the natural effect of the article, they should find him guilty. It was held that such direction was correct, although the encouragement was not addressed to any person in particular".
Those who have directed their threats against Mr. Rushdie have not done so in the German language; their threats have been unambiguous and no one can have any doubt whatever as to what they intended. But, as I indicated a moment ago, the Government have not suggested for a moment that the director's decision is based upon any inadequacies in the present law on incitement to murder. When I put that precise point to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 19th February (at col. 11 of Hansard) he said:
"The law in relation to incitement to murder is the law set out in Section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I know of no proposal to change that section".
Therefore, the position is this: the Government are satisfied with the present state of criminal law. That being so, I think that we should ask ourselves a rather different question.
Let us assume a situation where other groups in our society were calling for the murder of other citizens. Let us suppose that we had large public meetings at which calls were made for the murder of people who were prominent in the public life of this country; for example, a prime minister, a High Court judge, a bishop, or a chief Rabbi. As a result of those threats such persons were advised by the police that the threats were of such a grave character that they should not fulfil any public engagements. That is precisely the advice given by the police to Mr. Rushdie on a recent occasion. Let us say that some of them—and I do not give Ministers as an example because they have a high level of personal protection—were told that they had to live at a secret address and be protected by armed police.
Further, let us assume that calls for the death of those people were accompanied by banner-waving crowds calling for their murder and that 10 year-olds were being encouraged to support those demands. Finally, let us assume that the Director of Public Prosecutions came to exactly the same decision as he did in the case of Mr. Rushdie; namely, that he would not prosecute. I think that we all know perfectly well what would happen in such a situation. There would be public uproar. There would certainly be demands that, because of presumed inadequacies in the law, the Government should be introducing legislation at once to strengthen the existing law. However, that is on the assumption that the present

1021
law is inadequate. I do not believe that it is and I know of no one in this House who believes that the present law is inadequate. We have here an altogether different situation—an entirely satisfactory law but an inexplicable decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to use it.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who will reply to the debate that I believe that the answers given by his colleague the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 19th February convinced remarkably few people in this Chamber. At the end of it all we wondered precisely what the director was prepared to do concerning the continuing threats to the life of Mr. Rushdie. Will there simply be more sad shaking of the head and a repetition of the statement that there is unfortunately not enough evidence to justify a prosecution; or does the director intend to obtain that evidence?
Perhaps I may give an example. Some years ago we were confronted in this country with the activities of a group of extremists calling themselves the Animal Liberation Front. They operated in the areas of different police forces and it was judged necessary to create a single desk which would co-ordinate the information and intelligence concerning their activities. As a result of that action a number of these people were arrested and brought before the courts.
My question to the noble Lord is this: is the director asking the special branches of the police forces concerned—and as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will know from his experience in the Home Office such branches exist in every police force in the country—to take co-ordinated action to secure evidence if there is an inadequacy regarding evidence on the matter?
I hope that the noble Lord will not rely on the argument that this is a matter for each chief officer who is operationally independent. We all know perfectly well that those officers are operationally independent. I am asking a different question: whether the director himself, on his own initiative, is endeavouring to ensure that he obtains adequate evidence to allow him to bring criminal proceedings against people who are constantly making these threats.
I shall only say in conclusion that I believe that the disinclination of the director to bring such proceedings is beginning to cause significant public disquiet. This gives rise to the belief—however unjust that belief may be—that if other British citizens behaved as a minority of Moslem extremists have behaved, they would be prosecuted. Nothing could do more damage to community relations in our country than for such a belief to persist, however unwarranted it may be. Good community relations can only be established if there is an overwhelming belief that there is in this country full equality before the law for all our citizens; laws which we all have to obey, whatever our religion may be, whether we were born in this country or are immigrants to it. We cannot allow anyone to believe the contrary. It is plainly unacceptable.
Tonight we are discussing the case of a British citizen who is a hunted man in his own country; a
1022
man unable to live at his secret address without the presence of armed police officers. He has committed no offence known to our law. All he has done is to exercise his right to free speech in a democracy. I believe that what has happened to Mr. Rushdie is a public outrage. It is time to let those who threaten his life know that they will face the full rigours of our law if they persist. Last March, just after the Ayatollah Khomeini's sentence of death on Mr. Rushdie, the French Prime Minister M. Rocard said:
"Any further calls for violence or murder will lead to immediate criminal prosecution".
I believe that it is about time that we heard those sentiments expressed in this country.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think that we should be grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter. It is appropriate that it should come before your Lordships' House because it concerns the liberty of the subject. It raises important legal and constitutional aspects of our life and I am sure that we are all deeply concerned about it.
What worries me deeply day after clay is what will happen if Rushdie is executed in Britain. Shall we see wildly jubilant demonstrations, glorifying the act of the person who did it? What is to be our reaction to an event of that kind? Are we prepared for it? Have the Government any plans to deal with it? Is it conceivable that, contrary to all the restraints put upon public demonstrations, crowds assemble to cheer the execution and death of this "dreadful man"? It is a deeply worrying possibility.
I take the threat of execution very seriously indeed. I do not know whether people think this is just wild talk, and that they do not mean it, it will not happen. I think that they do mean it and that it can happen. It is a year since this began. When it first happened one was sceptical of some of the statements that were made by opponents of Rushdie that, "This man will never go free again. He will live in constant and perpetual hiding". If he emerges and is seen by a faithful member of the Moslem fraternity he could be shot on sight and the man who did it be glorified among his own people. That is a sombre thought. We cannot have it far from our minds in dealing with the subject.
A case has been heard in the courts during the last two or three days which possibly has some bearing on aspects of the development of our law in this connection. I make no comment on it; I see that the judges have reserved judgment on the action against Penguin books for circulating something which might give rise to a breach of the peace and disorder.
However, I wish to deal particularly with this question: what do the Moslems want? One of the remarks we have heard frequently is that they want to be covered by the blasphemy law. The suggestion is that the law should be extended to cover other religions and that they should then enjoy the same safeguards against offensive statements of a blasphemous nature as the Christian Church in Britain. There is lurking not far away from this position a review of the charity law. Unless we are

1023
careful we may become involved in a controversial and complicated debate as regards what constitutes religion. What are the conditions that have to be satisfied by a body for it to be called a religion? That matter certainly arises in connection with charity law because there is a feeling abroad that some cults or quasi-religious sects are covered by the charity law which should not be and they are indulging in practices which are inconsistent with our concept of a religious body and which should somehow or other be removed from the facilities, the protection and the benefits of charity registration. This is a difficult matter.
When charities are mentioned the subject of the Moonies particularly crops up, as does mention of other bodies of that kind. We have heard the subject of the Moonies discussed in your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on more than one occasion. However, that has a bearing on the extension of the blasphemy law. Should we be specific or should we be general in our description of what we regard as a religion for the purpose of the law in question?
I am bound to say that this matter encompasses some difficult questions. If there is anything approaching a definition of the charity law, it would leave some bodies outside the protection of the blasphemy law. I shall not pursue the matter further, but it is more than a simple question of extending the law of blasphemy to cover other religions. They must either be specified or they must be defined in such terms that the law can state which of them constitute religions. The ultimate purpose of the charity law must be for the advancement of religion. A religion requires the existence of a supernatural force of overriding authority and control. Unless therefore a body has a personal God whose purposes are to be advanced by religious activity, that particular body is not considered to be religious. One can think of a number of estimable bodies in society which would not qualify as religious bodies and yet at the same time have noble purposes and ideals which are every bit as notable and desirable as those of recognised religious bodies.
I have another point to make in connection with blasphemy. An article in The Times of 9th February written by Professor Raymond Plant stated that:
"Jesus … died convicted of blasphemy, a charge made by a religious élite claiming to speak for the whole of the community which had supposedly been offended by the blasphemy".
That is one aspect of the matter which we are bound to think about.
All in all, I do not think there is any easy solution to the problems of the Moslem community and its difficulties with our concept of freedom of speech as regards extending the law of blasphemy to cover the Moslem religion and other religions. I think that as a matter of principle some of us would have to object to the extension of the protection given to religious activities, thought and teaching if that is given without regard to the interests of other bodies of a more secular nature. I happen to be a humanist. I believe that the ideals of a humanist society are every bit as noble and as lofty as those of the Christian religion. What we lack is a belief in a
1024
personal God. That absence disqualifies us from being treated as if we were a religious body.
A humanist society has a claim upon the attention and the understanding of the community. There are other bodies too which in their own ways perform an important duty in society in trying to establish a basis for human relationships, human compassion and social responsibility. So what else is left now? I regret to say that I feel that this situation has been played down through fear of upsetting the Moslem community. I do not say that that is reprehensible as I think this situation has to be handled with great care and understanding. However, at the same time, I think it requires firmness. We should be in no doubt at all that there are some things that we cannot stand for. We are a tolerant people. We accept a good deal of behaviour that we disagree with without becoming unduly roused and entering into conflict, but some things will go beyond a point of public endurance. If that happens, it will be a serious matter.
What are the Government doing to try to contain this situation? How can we get this threat removed? As long as the threat exists, a citizen in this country lives in fear of death. He has to remain in hiding at great expense to the community in order to protect him from harm. Are we willing to see that situation go on and on? Is it something that will hang over him and us indefinitely? What will be the end of it? Unless we can see an end to it, it will be extremely difficult to feel settled in our minds about our relationship with an important and growing part of our society.
There are other aspects of the Moslem community which I shall not deal with tonight but which affect our attitude towards other cultures and other people who come to settle here who may press their own desires to have their own way of life, to make their own laws, and to have our laws adjusted to their wishes. This matter requires compromise and tolerance on both sides. But how long will we be tolerant in the face of extremists? That is the point.
This is the time for this House to express itself clearly on the matter. We are free of the pressures of constituencies and we are free of the pressure of lobbies. We are able to look at the matter dispassionately, as wise and experienced members of society can do. I sincerely hope that we shall obtain a better and firmer response which comes closer to the problem from the Government this evening.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has displayed courage and responsibility in putting down this Question for debate. His case, as he made it, seemed to me to be overwhelming. It is no surprise that such a Question should emanate from these Benches. The plight of Mr. Rushdie, as has already been said, raises questions that extend beyond the pages of the Satanic Verses. They are questions which go directly to the maintenance of our democratic way of life.
I have no personal knowledge of the author or of the book. Its merits are not an issue tonight. However, I know that he is a citizen of this country.

1025
He has broken no law of this country. Yet he is currently undergoing a custodial sentence of mind and body of an indeterminate length. He was condemned and sentenced without trial by a júdge who has no jurisdiction within these shores. That sentence is maintained by threats issued by persons here and abroad so serious that the police must provide him with permanent protection.
How can such a situation be tolerated in this country of ours? Today all over the world there are people who look to us in recognition of our long struggle for human rights and civil liberties. We proclaim proudly to such people that here every citizen has the right to live in freedom under the law. We point to Article 5 of the European convention which guarantees the liberty and security of the person. We say, "We shall help you to create a society which will do the same for you".
When those people look at the reality here—as they now can with the communications revolution—they see suppression of freedom of expression. They see the victimisation of one man because he dared to express through the mouth of a character in a book an idea which deeply offends another section of the society in which he lives. How strong, how all-pervasive, remains the written word.
It is but the case of one man, yet the plight of one can epitomise the struggle of millions. We need look no further than South Africa to see that.
Mr. Rushdie's predicament publicly records each day a defeat for the Government, a defeat for the law and a defeat for our way of life. The irony of the situation is that it is freedom of speech, of thought and of expression which are the guarantee of the freedom of religion.
Are we to sit back, wring our hands and concede that we are powerless, impotent to deal with this form of terrorism? Are we yet again to practise the so-called wisdom and restraint of appeasement? Those of us who were young in the 1930s are only too familiar with that alibi. Of course there is a case for letting Mr. Rushdie rot. His accusers can be said to seek martyrdom. A failed prosecution would be worse than no prosecution at all. Behind the scenes we can apply pressure to achieve conciliation and withdrawal of the death threat. It is said that we must do nothing that could make the freeing of hostages more difficult. Surely we know now that weakness ultimately achieves nothing on any front.
When the threats were first issued, as my noble friend has already said, in France and in the United States official reaction was immediate and clear at a high level of government. The Moslem communities in both countries dissociated themselves from the message from Iran. It was not so in this country.
One is bound to ask how much this Government care. Their record on human rights and civil liberties has often been high on rhetoric but consistently low in fact. One could cite the Official Secrets Act, GCHQ, Clause 28, the illegal immigration procedures, the Security Service Bill, the Henry VIII clauses, the Public Order Act, the abolition of challenge, the long trail to the Court of Human Rights. The list goes on.
1026
As we have heard, on 14th February last year the fatwa was issued. Those words, which were read out by my noble friend Lord Harris, seem to be political rather than theological in content. On 1st April Dr. Siddiqui delivered a lecture, to which my noble friend did not refer. Among other things he said:
"Everywhere Muslim masses have endorsed the Imam's fatwa on Rushdie. The fatwa did not stop at the death sentence. It gave the reason so that no one ever again will dare insult the sanctity of the Muslims. It is the deterrent value of the fatwa that has sent the West into such a frenzy of anger".
In October the television showed us all that gentleman calling for the death sentence. He said:
"The author and his book have got to go".
On 23rd October a Mr. Quddus, president of another Islamic group, was reported as saying,
"I support Dr. Siddiqui with my sincerest heart. According to Islam Rushdie must be punished. I put Islamic law first, British law second".
How does the noble Lord the Leader of the House react to that statement? Then there were the marches and the banners—"Kill Rushdie"—and the shouting of all those we saw on our screens.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, as head of the Crown Prosecution Service, acts under the superintendence of the Attorney-General. Only last Thursday we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, speaking as a former law officer, that when matters of public policy arise—as they do in this case—it is inevitable that the Attorney-General should consult with the Cabinet. Will the Government stand up and be counted in this case?
We are told that there is insufficient evidence and that it is a matter of evidence and not public policy that has prevented prosecution. As my noble friend has already asked, will the Attorney-General advise the DPP to tell Special Branch to go out and monitor meetings and publications and collect the necessary evidence to found successful prosecutions? Incitement is a very broad element in a criminal offence. There is no need to specify a particular person as being the victim or potential victim. There is no need even for such a person to reside in this country. Threatening behaviour to put people in fear is enough under the Public Order Act. Anyone carrying a banner or shouting "Kill Rushdie" in the streets of this country can be brought before the court and, whether convicted or not, can be bound over to keep the peace for a lengthy period of time subject to recall in breach of his undertaking.
The Government acted with alacrity when it was a question of prosecuting pickets during the miners' strike. The Government pursued relentlessly another aspect of the written word, Spycatcher, through the courts at huge expense. The case of Salrnan Rushdie far exceeds Spycatcher in importance for the ordinary citizen. Each day he remains a prisoner is an affront to all of us. Each day the evil of racism and of censorship persists and grows as a direct result.
The Government should surely keep the case permanently before the world. They should seek international agreement to condemn that death threat. They should apply continuing pressure on
Q1

1027
the Moslem community here, the vast majority of whose members I am sure are law abiding, to disassociate itself from that threat. I fear that this Administration have neither the guts nor the inclination to do all that. I sincerely hope that the reply of the noble Lord the Leader of the House will prove me wrong.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we are all very much in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, not just for introducing this subject and for the nobility of his speech, but for giving us the full, factual background. Your Lordships have since heard two other notable speeches. I want to deal with certain constitutional aspects of the matter; but before I do so perhaps I may say that those threats are obviously to be taken seriously. The police take them seriously because they have provided an armed guard for the person who is the object of the threats. There again, we must bear in mind that Islam is a fighting creed. The Jihad (the Holy War) lies at the very heart of it. Every pious Moslem who dies in the course of the Jihad is a martyr who will go straight to paradise. It is in that context that we must judge the reality of the threats.
The other preliminary thing that I wanted to say—as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris—is that it has been emphasised that this was the decision of the DPP alone. The director is of course responsible to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General is responsible for the director, but it is inconceivable to my mind that on a matter such as this the director should not have consulted the Attorney. There are many matters upon which he does not, and rightly does not; but on a matter of grave public importance such as this he would be gravely culpable unless he consulted the Attorney and, apart from anything else, he would be extremely unfair to the Attorney if he did not do so.
I should like to refer to two matters that arose out of the replies of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 19th February. The first is that he emphasised that proceedings were not being brought because of the lack of sufficient evidence. He said that again and again. He was given the opportunity to broaden the matter by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, who asked if that were the sole reason. My noble and learned friend indicated that it was the sole reason. One heard, even in that debate, the testimony of the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and Lord Harris of Greenwich, and we have heard it again today from the latter noble Lord. It seems incontrovertible that there is evidence here. It puts the matter on a completely wrong footing to proceed on the basis that the decision is based solely on lack of evidence.
There are many cases where the director or the attorney can decline to prosecute, or continue a prosecution, if there is ample evidence. He may decide for one of many reasons that a prosecution would do more harm than good. It is strongly arguable in this case that it might well be concluded that a prosecution would do more harm than good. Some
1028
of the perpetrators who have been the subject of a complaint seem to be courting martyrdom. Again, I put that in the context of the general Islamic cult of martyrdom in the course of a holy war. They may well conclude that it would do good for them to be prosecuted and to pose as martyrs and if necessary go to prison, thus emphasising their faith and posing further as martyrs. It is that that causes me to doubt a suggestion that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, which I confess had occurred to me: why are people not brought before the court and bound over to keep the peace? That seems to me to be an obvious first step. Then one might think: what if they refuse to be bound over? They then go to prison or at any rate have to be prosecuted. They pose again as martyrs. That is not necessarily a conclusive argument.
The second matter to which I wish to refer is the basis of my noble and learned friend's reply that he was answering solely for the Attorney in a personal capacity; in other words, not as a member of the Government. He made that clear when he disclaimed any need to consider the fact that the Home Office and the police had considered protection to be necessary. He emphasised that he was speaking solely for the Attorney-General in his personal capacity. In many prosecutions, we leave it to the attorney to decide.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was good enough to quote me from the other night; but I do not believe that I said that the Attorney would consult the Cabinet. What he ought to do, and what he would be culpable in failing to do, would be to consult key members of the Cabinet, especially the Home Secretary and possibly the Prime Minister. However, on that basis the decision is not a Cabinet decision. I was arguing that in some cases it should be a Cabinet decision. I posed the question that was put by Lord Asquith of Bishopstone, then Cyril Asquith, at the time of the Campbell case when the 1924 Labour Government was being greatly criticised for having intervened to secure the withdrawal of a prosecution against the Communist temporary editor of the Daily Worker. Lord Asquith asked whether it was conceivable that the Cabinet in 1914 would not have been entitled to have some say in the prosecution of the Ulster leaders upon which the civil war in Ulster and the whole future of Ulster might depend.
I have never heard that question answered. It seems to me unquestionable that in that case the Cabinet would be entitled to decide on whether a prosecution is to be brought and would be entitled to take into its own hands the decision, making it clear that it is a Cabinet decision and not merely one of the Attorney's. That is quite apart from the collective responsibility of Ministers, which we do not ride too hard and which is quite impossible to reconcile with the idea that the decision is in every case that of the Attorney's and the Attorney's alone without consultation with others.
In this case the relevance is that this seems essentially to be the sort of case which has wide public interest and repercussions and where the Cabinet is under a duty itself to assume the

1029
responsibility of whether there shall be a prosecution.
The only other matter with which I want to deal arises out of the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby; namely, about blasphemy. I do not think that it helps to invoke the law of charities. That has been investigated on a number of occasions. The advancement of religion is only one of the heads of charity. On the whole the law has managed fairly well going from case to case. But blasphemy is a much more wide and difficult question. However, it has been investigated by the Law Commission which recommended unanimously that the present law of blasphemy, including the common law—and almost all of it is common law—should be abrogated.
But two members out of the five thought that there should be a statutory substitute, which would be to extend the protection of the blasphemy laws to religions other than Christianity and perhaps Judaism. As I said, that was only a minority, although it did include the chairman of the Law Commission and another very distinguished lawyer.
My own view is that the majority was correct and that all kinds of difficulties, which were examined by the Law Commission, arise if one tries to extend the law of blasphemy to cover other religions. Some were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—for example, some of the more exotic cults and whether they are to be protected.
Having said that, I end as I started by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for having raised this matter. It is erroneous and misleading to say that this is solely a matter of whether there is evidence of prosecution and that this is essentially a case in which the Cabinet and the Government as a whole should assume responsibility.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for bringing and having the courage to bring this matter on to our agenda tonight. I should like also to congratulate him on the manner in which he introduced this Question and for taking us through the sequence of events which have led to what I consider to be a considerable crisis within this country.
The original death threat was made by an aged ayatollah. It is quite true that he was on the point of death and it may very well be that people might think that his judgment was impaired at that stage and could have forgiven that particular threat. But since then the threat has been renewed, not by ageing ayatollahs but presumably by what is the responsible Government of Iran. So it is a very real and continuing threat that has to be dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is absolutely correct when he says that there is a growing impression in this country that there is one law for one section of the community and another for the rest of us. One has only to have a normal conversation in one's sitting room, in a club, a saloon or public bar to know that this is a topic of conversation. It is not something which is under the carpet. It is something
1030
which is being actively discussed. That is why the Government should take due heed of the very responsible speeches that have been made tonight and the responsible warnings that have been given to the effect that the Government will fail to deal with this matter at their peril.
There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of many other people that if another group in our society were to go around calling for the murder of an individual or waving flags which call for the murder of another individual those people would very quickly be brought before the courts and perhaps put in prison as well. I have to say that I am rather amazed at the muted nature of the protests from quarters from which one might have expected an explosion of protest. It is odd that in this country we can have a man imprisoned—because that is what it amounts to—without trial arid because of threat. It is amazing that there has not been an explosion of protest.
One must bear in mind that Mr. Rushdie is just as much a prisoner as was Mr. Mandela, although there are some differences. At least Nelson Mandela was accorded some kind of trial. Mr. Rushdie was condemned to death in absentia, not being heard. He is now condemned apparently to perpetual imprisonment unless the ayatollahs in Iran have second thoughts
I know that these are harsh words but they need to be spoken. The fact is that bigots are bigots whatever their colour or creed. We should remember that. It is not only Mr. Rushdie who has been affected. It is not only he who is condemned; it is his family as well. His wife dare not go to see him lest she put his life in peril. So the whole business goes rather wider than Mr.Rushdie himself.
These fanatics—they are a minority within the Moslem religion and let us make that point absolutely clear—must be told firmly and clearly by the Government that in this country we do not intend to give up freedom of speech, which has been fought for over the centuries by men of courage who were prepared to endure martyrdom for the right of free men to speak their minds without fear or favour. We have cause to remember in this country—and indeed in Europe and throughout the world—that book burning is usually followed by people burning. Do not forget that it was the book burners in Nazi Germany who were the predecessors of the horror camps of Auschwitz and Belsen. We should remember that when we appear to take a lenient view of what is happening at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, raised the question of the law of blasphemy. I shall not go into the issue in great detail but I agree that if there is any attempt to exend it there will be very grave difficulties indeed. Lawsuit after lawsuit will follow the refusal of the extension of the blasphemy law to one religious sect or another.
It is my opinion, and only my personal opinion, that there is only one answer to the law of blasphemy. It should be repealed forthwith. I hope that following the debate the Government will heed the call of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, to deal with the matter quickly. The Moslem community, and indeed every

1031
other person and every other sect in this country, must be made aware that it is not and never will be the law in Britain to allow any individual or any group to call for the death of another person. If we once lose hold of that, we are well on the road to perdition.
7.2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. We all agree that it is an immensely serious matter. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for introducing the debate. We look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply.
I was faced with a most embarrassing situation on a Saturday afternoon last year. I had been invited by the chairman of the Manchester Council of Mosques to give greetings on the Prophet's birthday on behalf of the Christian Churches to those who were assembled in Manchester City Hall. When I arrived at the town hall I discovered that Dr. Siddiqui was on the platform. When he spoke I had no doubt whatever of the nature of what was being said and the response that he was trying to elicit from some 300 Moslems who were present, virtually all men, and including a number of youngsters, whose banners were around the walls.
I was then faced with the decision of whether to walk out at that moment. I decided not to do so for two reasons. First, I had been invited to give greetings to the Moslem community of Manchester. I was anxious to do so because I believe passionately, as do all of us here, in good relationships between Moslems and others in our communities in Britain today. Those about whom we are speaking are British citizens and I wished to say something to them on that occasion. Secondly, I knew that I would have the opportunity of showing my disgust at what had been said from the platform and the way in which the audience was being manipulated. I was able to do that and I hope that the point was taken by those who were present.
I do not believe that anybody in the United Kingdom should be able to make such threats with inpugnity to a British citizen or anyone living in this country. That should be clearly understood in the future. It may be that what we are primarily concerned with now is the future rather than the past. It is the duty of government and the legal system, however it is done, to make it absolutely clear that such conduct is intolerable.
I should like to say a few words about the role of the Churches in the very difficult situation that has arisen since the publication of The Satanic Verses. With other leaders of the Churches, I have had meetings in my own diocese with Moslem leaders. I believe that they are representative of many in their communities. It is good that the point has been made by a number of noble Lords that the death threats that have been uttered have not been representative of the views of the majority in the Moslem community. That is important to understand because those who make the most noise do not necessarily represent the majority. We also need
1032
to understand that it demands very considerable courage for those in positions of leadership in the Moslem communities to stand up and be counted in going against the death threats. We know perfectly well of a Moslem leader in Belgium, I believe it was, who lost his life on that very issue. It is important for us to put ourselves in the shoes of those who are called upon to lead their communities when passions are running high and to realise what courage it takes.
What leaders of the Moslem communities want us to appreciate is the depth of offence that has been caused by the publication of The Satanic Verses. I have read the book with some care. It is not an easy book to read. Although I greatly admire Salman Rushdie as a writer and a master of the English language, I can understand something of the depth of offence that has been caused, although only those who speak from within that religious tradition would appreciate it. It is a pity that many other issues in the book have not been noticed. The hardest things that were said by Salman Rushdie have been directed at Britain and racism in British society. Things that are said about many of us do not bear repeating in this House. However, that is what free speech is all about.
The Moslem leaders have been asking for more support from the Christian community and I wish with all my heart that we had been able to give them that support. I took their request to the Northern Church Leaders Conference last year. We devoted three-quarters of an hour to discussion of what we were being asked to do—backing the campaign to withdraw the book from library shelves and from public display in book shops and stopping the printing of a paperback edition. I am afraid that there was no real support from the leaders of the Christian communities and I had to take that message to them. I believe that they were very disappointed.
It is important to appreciate why there was so little support from the Churches for these demands. Part of the reason is that we are all penitent in the Churches, or we should be. We know perfectly well that if one goes back in history we have burnt books and their authors. We have been on the side of repression and intolerance again and again. It is well catalogued. It is no good the Churches saying that other people have also done so. Even liberal humanists may perhaps have had their lapses. That is not good enough. We should be penitent about what has been experienced by the Church.
However, we may believe that God has been teaching us a better way in the sense of tolerance and of accepting a great deal of criticism and abuse and of not reacting by trying to persecute authors in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to a letter in The Times which I have not seen. A clergyman in my diocese has pointed to the obvious truth: that Jesus Christ was executed on a charge of blasphemy. It is good to remember that.
On the law of blasphemy, one of the demands of the Moslem leaders was that we should press for an extension of the blasphemy law to cover Islam among other religions. Many of us have felt unable to go down that road and have supported the majority recommendation of the Law Commission, although

1033
the Churches are divided about retention of the present blasphemy law. With other noble Lords, I hold the view strongly that it ought to be repealed.
In my understanding, God does not need that kind of protection. Perhaps if the Government were courageous enough to repeal the law—I do not believe that it would take much courage, but only the time to do so—it would be necessary to have a strengthening of community relations and public order legislation in order to provide protection.
We must all appreciate the fact that there is a difference between being shocked, offended and disgusted by writings which are published, perhaps against the founder of a religion, and actually taking action against such offence in legal terms. That is part of what toleration is about. We can say to our Moslem friends that we appreciate the depth of offence that has been caused to them.
I believe that many of us should give a little more of our time to studying why that depth of offence has been caused. For example, I recommend the book written by Dr. Shabir Akhtar entitled Be Careful with Mohammad. Dr. Akhtar is a lecturer at Bradford University and one of the leaders of the Moslem community. He has set out some of the grounds for the offence which has been caused. We need to hear those Moslem voices speaking to us about the issue.
The Rushdie controversy does not come from nowhere; it comes partly from Moslem experience in Britain. In many senses that has not been happy. How many times do we hear noble Lords in this House proclaim what a tolerant society Britain is? Yes and no; the experience of many people in the Moslem communities is not of tolerance but of gross intolerance. It takes the form of racial attacks and immigration laws which they believe discriminate against them. We need to hear those voices speaking to us.
It is sad that the Rushdie controversy has made matters worse. When one hears of gangs of white youths shouting the praises of Salman Rushdie in the streets and then attacking Asians, or when one hears that mosques are being daubed with pro-Rushdie slogans, one appreciates how much damage is being caused.
In addition to a proper care and concern for the man at the centre of the great row—the man who is suffering so much as a result—we must also have a care and concern for members of ethnic minorities in the Moslem communities in this country. We must try to ensure that the tragic episode does not damage further community relations. I stress the need for understanding and consultation.
When one looks around the Benches in this House one appreciates that there is not a single noble Lord of the Moslem faith; that is, not so far as I am aware, unless there has been a last-minute conversion of which I have not heard. The same comment applies to the other place; there are very few Moslems there. If this House were properly reformed, it may be possible to secure the representation of people who do not come through the normal electoral system. But perhaps I am straying too far from the subject.
1034
I regard the matter as being immensely serious. Somehow the threats must be checked and stopped in any possible way. However, at the same time we must stretch out our hands in understanding and listen to what is being said to us by members and leaders of the Moslem communities.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for enabling us to have a short debate upon a matter which has caused acute public concern in this country for well over 12 months. The noble Lord and others have covered the ground thoroughly and perhaps I may be allowed to summarise the matter briefly.
On 14th February 1989 the late Ayatollah Khomeini said:
"The author of The Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran, and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its contents, are sentenced to death".
All Moslems were urged to execute Mr. Rushdie and his publishers "wherever they find them".
Mr. Rushdie denied the blasphemy charge, but later on 18th February 1990 he made a statement expressing "profound regret" that the book had distressed Moslems. The apology was not accepted in Iran. Since then there have been acts of violence in many countries and a large number of people have been killed and injured.
In this country there have been strident public protests by the Moslem community and the call for Mr. Rushdie's death has been repeated here. It is fair to say that protests in this country have, on the whole, been peaceful although some leaders have repeated the call for execution. As the noble Lord reminded us, on 14th February 1989 The Times reported that Mr. Sayad Abdul Quddus, the Secretary of the Bradford Council of Mosques, said that Mr. Rushdie deserved to pay the penalty by "hanging".
Those and similar exhortations have been profoundly disturbing and disappointing because, subject to some resevations expressed by the right reverend Prelate, it had seemed to most of us that the Moslem community had settled down in this country and were accepting our laws. We recognise that they have their own religious observances, their own traditions and their own culture which we must respect. But I think they know that these must be practised within the laws of this country.
There is no alternative to that, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, those who break the law must take the consequences. We are fortunate to live in a free society, and we do not forget that it has taken centuries to achieve and develop such a society. Countless numbers have sacrificed and died to secure and preserve freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom under the law. People have come to this country over the years not for the sake of the weather but to enjoy the freedoms which have cost the British so dear. We rejoice to see the peoples of eastern Europe severing their bonds. It is a great yearning for freedom which inspires them.

1035
But we have been taught that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Those of our Moslem friends who take the command of religious leaders seriously must pause to consider the implications of carrying it out.
Mr. Rushdie, a British citizen, has been deprived of his freedom for over 12 months because his life is under threat. This is something new in our experience, and we do not like it. Personally, I am not attracted to Mr. Rushdie's book; I found The Satanic Verses turgid and hard going although the style may be good. It is not a bedside book. Regretfully he has also said some less than pleasant things about this country in his writings. But that does not begin to justify the arrogant, indefensible and wicked sentence of death pronounced on him in Iran.
Books which defame the Christian faith and its founder have been published in this country, and films which are offensive to many of us have been shown in cinemas. But there has been no violent public reaction here. Some may say that this is because we are no longer a Christian country and that people are indifferent. I do not share that view.
I believe that even if church attendance has declined there is a strong underlying respect for Christianity in this country, and also a deepseated belief in freedom of speech. It would be a profound mistake for anyone to underestimate the latent strength of that feeling in Britain.
My noble friend Lord Houghton has made some important points about the blasphemy law. It is argued that the blasphemy law protects the Christian religion and that it should be extended to other religions. It has certainly not been invoked extensively in recent times, apart from the Gay News trial in 1979. But the books that I have mentioned which are offensive to Christians of all denominations have been published here without legal action being taken under the blasphemy law. The case brought by the British Moslem Action Front, which seeks to have Mr. Rushdie and his publishers tried under our blasphemy laws, is now before the court and we must await the result of that application.
However, we need to think very carefully about our blasphemy laws. Like my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the right reverend Prelate, my personal reaction at this stage is that it would be preferable to repeal the blasphemy laws as they stand rather than to extend them to include other faiths. There are other laws to deal with violence and incitement to violence and relevant offences and, as the right reverend Prelate rightly said, we would need to consider new laws to deal with a new situation.
What is depressing and unacceptable is that the death threat has been reaffirmed by the spiritual leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini, on 9th February. He said that the fatwa or religious decree:
"remains in force and must be implemented".
Following that, the director of the Moslem Institute, upon his return from a visit to Iran to discuss the Rushdie affair, said:
"He is up for the high jump. We are a very, very angry people".
1036
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in reply to a Question on 19th February said that the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions had considered very carefully all the evidence relating to death threats, had taken the opinion of senior counsel and had come to the conclusion that it did not justify prosecution.
We take that very seriously coming as it does from the noble and learned Lord whom we all respect. However, a number of Moslem leaders have come very close to the brink with some very inflammatory speeches. In my view two at least have gone over the brink. I have already referred to Mr. Sayad Quddus of Bradford and to the director of the Moslem Institute. On 10th February, The Times reported Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, an articulate speaker who understands the meaning of words, saying of the latest fatwa:
"This is not a death threat, it is a death sentence and will be carried out by the political and judicial authority of Islam, not by private citizens".
Those are, to say the least, provocative words. I realise that there are sensitive political considerations in this case but care must always be taken not to put the law at risk for political reasons.
The death threats have been repeated in protests and demonstrations in various parts of the country. Young Moslems are especially susceptible to the words of their leaders. As the noble Lord said, it seems that there is significant evidence available, but I must repeat that there are moderate Moslem leaders who advocate respect for British law. On 20th February I suggested that they might be asked by one of Her Majesty's Ministers from the Home Office to join in a plea for moderation to the minority of Moslems in this country who have taken the death threat seriously.
As the right reverend Prelate said, there is a welcome in this country for the Moslem community and it has an important contribution to make to our economic and cultural life. However, I must say this—and I believe that I am speaking for every Member of this House, of all parties and of none—that there is no room in this country for extreme fundamentalism and all it implies. All political parties in this country have rightly condemned the death threats without reservation. They also uphold Mr. Rushdie's right to publish his book. Furthermore, we believe that Moslems who feel deeply about the book have the right to demonstrate peacefully about it. Finally, all of us support Mr. Rushdie's right to receive protection.
There remains the question: for how long must the protection continue? The answer must be that it must continue for as long as his life appears to be in danger; that is, until the death threats are withdrawn. Perhaps the noble Lord will say whether he agrees with that conclusion. Mr. Rafsanjani and his colleagues in Iran have their difficulties, as we know. However, he will wish to consider those matters very carefully. We in this country are not concerned to interfere with the internal affairs of Iran. However, let it be made plain that the people of this country, of all parties and of none, will not tolerate interference in our affairs. That must be understood in Iran and elsewhere. Nevertheless, our aim is to

1037
promote greater understanding between cultures in this country and to improve relations between Iran and ourselves. That is very much in the interests of both countries. Our partners in the Community and our allies share that objective and I hope that the Government will do all they can to press that home upon the Iranian Government.
They must also be left under no illusion that in this country British law comes first, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said. No one is above the law in this country. This crisis—and that was a word used by my noble friend Lord Stoddart—will only be resolved if that is clearly understood both here and in Iran.
7.25 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has asked your Lordships this evening is one of considerable gravity and importance. First, in replying to this short debate I should like to return to the terms of the noble Lord's Question for the Question seeks a further statement as to the reasons for the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute those who allegedly have threatened the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie.
It must, I know, be common ground that any conduct on the part of any person within this jurisdiction which amounts to the offence of incitement to murder must be regarded as a matter of extreme gravity. Perhaps I may say how very much I agreed with the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to the view which we must all take of disgust at the threat which comes from over the seas from Iran.
The fact that the offence of incitement to murder is of extreme gravity is, I assure your Lordships, the publicly declared view of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and it will remain his policy, with the full support of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, to deal accordingly with evidence establishing such conduct which may be placed before the director; the same would certainly apply to threats to kill.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to some other incidents, his own speech and this debate has really been concerned mainly with statements made by Dr. Kalim Siddiqui. Quite obviously many of your Lordships will have seen extracts on the television news from the speech made by Dr. Siddiqui at Manchester City Hall on 21st October 1989. Indeed this evening we have had the advantage of hearing the views of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester who was present on that occasion.
The Director of Public Prosecutions and leading counsel who advised him have had the benefit of viewing a video of the entire speech, a copy having been obtained from the BBC by court order. His judgment was that the evidence was not sufficient to justify the institution of criminal proceedings.
Perhaps I may say that the Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent public official, a
1038
lawyer of great distinction and experience and before he became director, he was the first senior Treasury counsel in criminal matters at the Old Bailey.
I go further. His decision that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution in this case was supported by the views of leading counsel and indeed all the other lawyers who considered the matter. That said, having listened to this evening's debate there is no denying the sense of outrage which has been caused by the remarks as they were presented on the television news. However, it is important that the process of arriving at a decision as to whether or not to bring a prosecution should be no different than in any other case.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, quite understandably spoke of the need for full equality before the law. Every citizen is entitled to expect consistency from the prosecuting authorities. The criteria to be applied when considering institution or continuation of criminal proceedings are set out in the code for Crown prosecutors which was issued pursuant to Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
The very first question to be determined—and I emphasise the importance of the sequence—is the sufficiency of the evidence. The code says that a prosecution should not be started or continued unless a crown prosecutor is satisfied that there is admissible, substantial and reliable evidence that a criminal offence known to the law has been committed by an identifiable person. The Crown Prosecution Service does not, and I venture to suggest should not, institute proceedings on the basis that a bare prima facie case is enough. Rather it will apply the test of whether there is a realistic prospect of a conviction. Where such a test is satisfied, the Crown Prosecution Service will then go on to consider whether the public interest, about which so many of your Lordships have spoken with great feeling, requires a prosecution.
The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedures, which led to the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service, considered in some detail the criteria which should be applied before a prosecution was begun. The commission reached this conclusion:
"Someone should not be put on trial if it can be predicted, with some confidence, that he is more likely than not to be acquitted, since it is both unfair to the accused and a waste of the restricted resources of the criminal justice system".
As your Lordships who are learned in the law know much better than I, the proper way to approach any criminal case is to begin by considering whether there is sufficient evidence to meet that test, and only if there is such evidence then to look to the public interest. If in any instance, through loud public clamour for a prosecution, however understandable, a prosecuting authority were to set aside that first requirement to identify sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction, then surely it would be betraying a most important principle of justice. That road could ultimately lead to political prosecutions.
The report also had this to say:
"a person should not be accused of an offence and brought before a court simply to allay public disquiet or to satisfy public demand or prejudice".

1039
I know that none of your Lordships will dissent from that statement of principle.
Inevitably, however, cases of great notoriety will from time to time arise—and no doubt this is one—where the degree of public distaste and even revulsion for what has been said or done is very great. Such cases place great demands on the integrity and courage of the prosecution authorities. It may well, therefore, be worth repeating that the director regards as a matter of extreme gravity any conduct on the part of any person within this jurisdiction which amounts to the offence of incitement to murder or to a threat to kill someone. He will deal accordingly with evidence establishing such conduct as may be placed before him. Having seen the whole of the video of the entire speech on 21st October it was plain to all who viewed it that there was insufficient evidence to show that Dr. Siddiqui was soliciting or proposing the murder of Mr. Rushdie.
I have concentrated on the decision not to prosecute Dr. Siddiqui because this has attracted the most interest and because it is an instance in which a police report has been received. There have been two other instances in which a police report has been received concerning death threats, neither of which produced sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. The Crown Prosecution Service's function is to consider such evidence as is brought to it, save that it may sometimes suggest a further line of inquiry.
I should add that although no prosecutions have been brought for incitement to murder Mr. Rushdie of for threats to kill, there have been a number of instances in which prosecutions for public order offences have followed scenes of public disorder that have arisen from demonstrations against Mr. Rushdie or Penguin Books. The evidence in those cases was sufficient to meet the proper test. There is accordingly no room at all for any suggestion that there is one set of standards applied to one group in this country and another to the majority of the population. But that charge might indeed be soundly based if for some invalid reason the normal and proper test for a prosecting decision were to be set aside in any particular type of case.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether the Director of Public Prosecutions had asked special branches of the police to take co-ordinated action in order to produce evidence. As he knows, the Director of Public Prosecutions does not have the power to control police investigations, but on 6th March 1989 all chief Crown prosecutors were instructed to forward to the Crown Prosecution Service headquarters any papers concerning allegations of incitement to murder or threats to kill Mr. Salman Rushdie and were told that matters previously dealt with should also be submitted. The Crown Prosecution Service instruction of that date was intended to ensure, first, that decision-making would be at an appropriately senior level. Your Lordships would be concerned if the decision now being debated had not been taken by the director personally. Secondly, the Crown Prosecution Service instruction of 6th March was also made to try to ensure consistency of decision-making.
1040
That said, it is of course for the police to take notice of and respond to local incidents arising out of The Satanic Verses controversy. As I said, the director himself does not and cannot investigate. However, perhaps I may say that the recent decision of the director does not preclude consideration of any further references alleged to constitute an incitement. Indeed, I should like to assure your Lordships that any material suggesting active steps to carry out the death threat would be investigated by the police, who are vigilant in their steps to protect Mr. Rushdie.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question. He has referred to a communication from the Director of Public Prosecutions to chief Crown prosecutors. Perhaps I could ask whether they were requested to draw this matter to the attention of each chief constable in the force areas concerned.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I confess that I do not know the answer to that question. But I must reiterate that as I understand it there is no power under the statute for the Director of Public Prosecutions in any way to direct police forces as to how they should investigate. Although in his speech the noble Lord said he felt that this was something I would say, nevertheless I have to say it because it is the case. If I may I will certainly write to the noble Lord in answer to the specific question.
Perhaps I may quickly turn to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who made a very interesting intervention about the constitutional aspects of this matter. First—I realise I am repeating this but I think it is wise to do so—there was unanimity of view by the Crown Prosecution Service lawyers, the Director of Public Prosecutions and independent counsel that the evidence was insufficient in the case of Dr. Siddiqui's speech of 21st October.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will deal with the point of whether the matter was brought to the attention of the Attorney-General personally, because that affects relations with his fellow Minister at the Home Office.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall answer the noble and learned Lord's question in a moment, if I may. Perhaps I may say, with respect, that remarks about bringing prosecutions on public interest grounds give the Government a little cause for anxiety. The converse should not and does not occur. In other words, prosecutions on public interest grounds, even though the evidence is insufficient, might occur.
It is one of the hallmarks of our system that prosecuting decisions are taken wholly independently of government and free from party political considerations. That said, the noble and learned Lord went on to talk about consultation by the Attorney-General with ministerial colleagues. Of course, Cabinet involvement in prosecution decision-making brought down the government in the case to which the noble and learned Lord referred in his speech; namely, the Campbell case. The

1041
Attorney-General may certainly consult colleagues about public interest issues—for example, the impact of a prosecution on relationships with a foreign country—and colleagues may inform the Attorney-General of matters of which he should be aware but may not tell him what, in their view, the decision should be.
The noble and learned Lord asked an absolutely direct question. Perhaps I may say that the Director of Public Prosecutions consulted my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General who concurred in the Director of Public Prosecution's decisions.
That brings me finally in answering questions to the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Stoddart, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. All three said that the blasphemy laws should go. I simply remind your Lordships that the Law Commission, in its 1985 report on offences against religion and public worship, considered this question and recommended by a majority that the offence of blasphemy should be abolished. However, a minority took the view that the existing common law offence should be repealed and replaced with a criminal offence which would apply to all religions.
That illustrates the fact that there was no agreement on the best way forward. The Government are keeping the matter under review but at present there are no plans to change the law. That said, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that Ministers have made clear on many occasions that while the Government understand the distress which Mr. Rushdie's book has caused to Moslems, death threats and threats of violence
1042
generally are wholly unacceptable. As I said, that has been made clear on many occasions.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester very well captured in his speech the dilemma which those concerned with a decision on this case must have faced. The right reverend Prelate felt affronted by the manner in which his presence at the meeting had been abused. We all share the right reverend Prelate's disgust at the bigoted and terrifying tactics of the Iranian leaders responsible for the issue of the fatwa but we must direct our wrath to such action as is open to Her Majesty's Government against those primarily responsible for the present circumstances. We cannot punish sincere and responsible Moslems for the extremes of their religious leaders in Iran. They wish to live in peace in this country and enjoy the freedoms that we cherish, including freedom of speech and a right to practise one's chosen religion free from fear.
Dr. Siddiqui's words offended our sense of freedom, justice and liberty. However, incitement to murder is a serious charge which can be preferred only when justified by objective assessment of the evidence. The fact is that each instance relating to this debate that has been presented to the Crown Prosecution Service has been examined at high level—in the case of Dr. Siddiqui by the Director of Public Prosecutions himself. In each instance there has been insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. For that reason alone the conclusion has been reached that a prosecution should not be commenced.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eight o'clock.