Sitting of 4 July 1985

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS (TROWSE BRIDGE) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 9 July.
BERKSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 11 July.
SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL (OMNIBUS SERVICES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    European Court of Human Rights
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to state whether Her Majesty's Government intend to renew in January 1986 the right of individual citizens to petition the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): The Government are currently considering the matter.
    Mr. Maclennan: Why are the Government not of a final mind on this matter? Why are they seeking to put in doubt the protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the convention, which have been protected by the right of individual petition since 1965? Does the Secretary of State accept that that right was intended to supplement the protection of those fundamental rights and freedoms in our domestic courts? Will he consider incorporating the convention and allow that to come to fruition?
    Mr. Brittan: The Government are not putting anything in jeopardy. The due date for renewal is January 1986. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a decision will be taken well before then.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the European Court has stretched the convention to a quite unreasonable degree by interfering
    508
    with domestic matters—for example, corporal punishment in our school and the sanctity of our immigration laws? Will my right hon. and learned Friend not close his mind to our withdrawing from that rather ridiculous convention, whereby British issues are being decided by foreign judges who have no knowledge of our domestic affairs?
    Mr. Brittan: It is certainly true that the jurisprudence of the Court is extended more broadly than was anticipated 20 years ago. However, the fact is that we are bound by the convention. The question of the right of individual petition is one that must be decided from time to time, and a decision on that will be taken before January 1986.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is it the Government's view that this decision should be debated by the House?
    Mr. Brittan: I understand the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question to be that he thinks that it should be decided by this House. I shall communicate that view to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Instead of accepting the pious platitudes which are so beloved of continental lawyers who know nothing about our system, would it not be desirable for my right hon. and learned Friend to consider a review of all our existing legislation and an examination of whether our machinery for the redress of grievances is adequate? If our legislation could be overhauled so that there was no real criticism of it, there would be no need for individual petition.
    Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend seeks to set me a Herculean task. I am not sure that I would respond to that challenge in a positive way.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Home Secretary confirm that he fully accepts the last decision of the European Court of Human Rights regarding sexual discrimination in our immigration rules? When does he propose to respond to that decision?
    Mr. Brittan: I made it clear at the time of the decision that we would take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that we were complying with the convention as interpreted by the Court. I hope to announce our plans for doing so shortly.

    Voluntary Service Unit
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had on the level of funding allocated to the voluntary service unit.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): None, Sir.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that there is a great need for co-operation between Departments, and especially with the Department of the Environment, about the urban programme, so that voluntary bodies concerned about the effects of the Government's policies on capital and revenue spending on local voluntary bodies can be taken into account?
    Is it not difficult for voluntary bodies to find their way through the maze of differing grants from Departments — for example, section 64 grants from the DHSS as well as the voluntary service unit. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take the lead in bringing together the

    509
    various Departments to assist voluntary bodies to find the best way of obtaining grants for their capital and revenue needs?
    Mr. Waddington: The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman in his supplementary question go far wider than the main question. I take his point, but there is an inter-ministerial committee, which I head, which discusses how we can best deal with and respond to the needs of voluntary organisations. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind.

    Police Car Accidents
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the deaths and serious accidents resulting from police car accidents.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): A road accident involving serious injury or loss of life, whether to police officers, members of the public, suspects or criminals being pursued, is always tragic and a matter for great regret. Police drivers are trained to a high standard, and it is a basic tenet of training that no emergency is so urgent as to justify an accident.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that there is a conflict about the number of accidents that have occurred, in that there have been between 20 and 30 deaths in the past 12 months as a result of accidents within the terms of the question? They are all tragic. Is it not time for a full inquiry into police processes to ascertain whether they always follow the rules which they are given and must observe in chases? Can other measures be taken, such as making the public more willing to secure their cars, to try to prevent many of these accidents happening?
    Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the co-operation of the public, which I fully endorse. The central statistics cover all accidents from the slightest to those involving injury or death. In 1983 there were 17,000 accidents, from the slightest to the most important. I have asked that we maintain central records of accidents involving serious injury or death. The Metropolitan police figures show that in 1984 there were no accidents following emergency calls, and I suspect that that is an improvement.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are relieved to hear him say that the same laws apply to the police and to the fire brigade as to anyone else? Is he further aware that in my constituency last weekend four people's lives were written off by the fire brigade going to a fire in a warehouse and not to them? Surely it is not fair to leave these decisions to the drivers of police or fire brigade vehicles. They tend to do what they are told, as they should. Should not the police and the fire brigade adopt the view that drunks, break-ins and warehouse fires are not as important as saving the lives of innocent people? Surely the time has come for the police not to speed just to stop a drunk, when innocent lives are often lost.
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is straying a little far in assuming that the police have such precision of knowledge in relation to the person they are pursuing and that fire brigades have similar knowledge about the incidents to which they are called. I accept that the House—my hon. Friend is not alone in being concerned—recognizes
    510
    that in any pursuits, whether the police are pursuing a vehicle which may have been stolen or which may or may not be driven by a drunken person, they have a hazardous task. It is our duty and their duty to ensure that they do not hazard life.
    Mr. Soley: I welcome the Minister's commitment to more accurate figures in future. Many people are deeply disturbed about the numbers of accidents, and the Policy Studies Institute has much to say about the possible reasons for them. The police training manual states that no accident and no call is so urgent as to justify an accident. Is the Minister saying that that manual is to be reconsidered and rewritten? Will he give a commitment to the House that the manual will be maintained, that an inquiry will be made into accidents which take place, and that the Government will tell the House what they intend to do in the light of the inquiry?
    Mr. Shaw: No hon. Member, least of all myself, would be able to act as a judge in relation to the many incidents to which the police are required to respond. Many which are thought to be in the emergency category turn out in due course not to be of that nature. However, all the police respond to a given call. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to maintain the highest possible standards in training and execution, and that must mean taking better note of the statistics to which we have been referring.

    Litter
    Mr. Favellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of convictions for offences under the Litter Acts for each year since 1983; and if he will indicate separately the number of convictions which resulted from the institution of proceedings by the police.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): In 1983, the last year for which figures are available, there were 1,685 convictions under the Litter Acts, of which 1,640 followed prosecutions by the police.
    Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is up to the police to enforce these Acts? One cannot expect a refuse collector or street cleaner to effect a citizen's arrest of someone throwing litter around. Does he also agree that there ought to be many more prosecutions of and stinging fines on people who are making our country one of the dirtiest in Europe? We are in danger of winning that award. The sooner we do something about it the better, because many people are fed up to the back teeth with wading ankle-deep through beer cans, fish and chips wrappers, newspapers and the like.
    Mr. Mellor: From what my hon. Friend has said, I appreciate that there is a great deal of support for the proposition that we would do well to become a much cleaner country. The Government share that view, and the Department of the Environment supports the Keep Britain Tidy group and others whose aspirations are entirely in line with what my hon. Friend has said.
    The use of the police must be a matter for the priorities drawn up by chief constables. It would be quite wrong for us to insist upon the police taking a higher profile on litter

    511
    if it was done at the expense of burglaries and other street crimes which cause equal—I suspect greater—concern at the present time.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Do community service orders cover the collection of litter?
    Mr. Mellor: I cannot say whether there is a community service scheme that does. I suspect not, because the collection of litter is part of the duties of local authorities. Perhaps my hon. Friend has some ideas to that effect. The aim of the community service scheme is to provide useful community work, and that would seem to be a candidate.

    Crime
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any further proposals to reduce the incidence of crime.
    Mr. Brittan: The various preventive and other measures which we are taking under my crime strategy hold out the best prospect of reducing crime. We shall continue to pursue them vigorously. In particular, I am encouraged by the 11 per cent. fall in domestic burglaries in January to March this year, compared with the same period last year, in the police areas covered by the "Magpies" crime prevention campaign. This compares with a 0·7 per cent. increase elsewhere.
    Mrs. Clywd: How many men compared with women received prison sentences in the last year for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has figures available? Can he explain why far heavier doses of behaviour-controlling drugs are given to women in Holloway than to men in any male prison.
    Mr. Brittan: I do not have the figures to hand, but I shall write to the hon. Lady and give them to her.
    Mr. Marlow: What would be the likely effect on the level of crime if the Miners' Amnesty (General Pardon) Bill in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) were to be passed, given that the burden of that Bill is that people will be entitled to commit murder provided it is in pursuit of objectives that are central to those of the national executive of the Labour party?
    Mr. Brittan: The passage of that Bill would totally undermine confidence in the rule of law. Indeed, its introduction casts severe doubt on the commitment to the rule of law of those who favour it.
    Mr. Janner: In his efforts to reduce crime, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman place importance on the presence on the roads of motorised vehicles, panda cars and motor cycles? If so, is it true, as I have heard, that instructions have this week gone out from the Metropolitan police to highway patrols and other motorised units to reduce the amount of mileage covered by each vehicle, other than in emergencies, by an enormous amount—in some cases as high as 20 per cent.? If that order has gone out, will the Home Secretary take steps to see that it is revoked?
    Mr. Brittan: Many people regard the move to have policemen on foot as opposed to being in panda cars as one to be encouraged. Of course cars have an important role, but I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should not be too anxious about reducing the number of cars in the
    512
    Metropolitan police area when he takes into account the fact that 50 million miles of car driving by the police took place last year.
    Mr. Spencer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that pilot schemes involving the interviewing of suspects being tape-recorded, such as we have in Leicester, have been very successful? Early police misgiving has been overcome. Does he also agree that this contributes to a reduction in the incidence of crime? Can he give the House an indication of when the pilot schemes will be extended?
    Mr. Brittan: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. I have not seen the Leicester scheme, but I have seen and spoken to those involved in a similar scheme in another part of the country. The schemes are extremely encouraging. I think that they will avoid damaging and untrue accusations being made against the police, save police and court time, and lead to more pleas of guilty. The knowledge that the criminal justice system will be improved in that way will be beneficial. I cannot give dates as to when the scheme will be extended, but of course my hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the commitment to do so in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does the Home Secretary expect crime rates to fall to the level at which they were when the Labour Government left office?
    Mr. Brittan: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the average annual increase in total recorded offences went up in the 10 years to 1984 by about 6 per cent. As there has been a steady increase in crime since the early years of this century, he will realise that the question is rhetorical.

    Licensing Laws
    Mr. Robert B. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received following his statement of 6 June on the licensing laws.
    Mr. Mellor: Since 6 June we have received four letters from hon. Members on behalf of constituents and six from members of the public. Of the 10, five supported relaxations in the law relating to permitted opening hours and five were against any change which extended the present closing time of public houses. Ministers have derived great benefit from this correspondence.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does that not confirm that constituents make representations direct to their Members of Parliament rather than to his Department? When can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the licensing privileges enjoyed by hon. Members will be applied to ordinary members of the public?
    Mr. Mellor: That matter has been under consideration for some time. I hope that it will be possible to make a decision on it when we have finally evaluated the report on the Scottish survey, which has considered the situation prevailing in Scotland where licensing hours are much more generous.
    Mr. Alexander: Does not the current tourist season emphasise the enormous need for a relaxation of the licensing laws? Would it not benefit not only tourists but

    513
    our wine industry and the British people themselves if we were to have a sensible relaxation? My hon. Friend has referred to the Scottish experiment. When will we have official figures about what is happening there?
    Mr. Mellor: I hope that the figures will become available by the autumn, although it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, not for me. There is a strong case for doing this. My hon. Friend has made the point compellingly. Other hon. Members feel equally strongly that the problems of alcohol abuse are such that any change in licensing hours should be the subject of the most careful evaluation. That was the view of the Expenditure Committee when it considered the matter in 1977. We shall try to make progress after we have had a chance to consider the Scottish report, which should shed light on what I regard as a difficult matter.
    Mr. Maclennan: Do the Government hope to legislate on the subject in this Parliament?
    Mr. Mellor: That is not a matter for me.

    Prison Medical Service
    Mr. Galleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operation of the prison medical service.
    Mr. Mellor: Yes, Sir, although we recognise the need for improvement in some areas.
    Mr. Galley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the growing evidence of the inadequacy of the treatment and facilities available to the prison medical service? Is he further aware of the great concern of the Select Committee on Social Services in its recent inquiry into the misuse of drugs, in which evidence was received that the only treatment available to many drug addicts in prison was cold turkey and that the clinical guidance to prison medical officers was not being implemented? Will he assure the House that further steps will be taken to include treatment for drug addicts and the implementation of the clinical guidance?
    Mr. Mellor: The basis upon which medical officers operate in prison is no different from the basis upon which doctors operate in the community. They use their clinical judgment. It is not for us to issue diktats to that effect. However, we wish to ensure that we have a properly resourced and highly competent and proficient prison medical service. As I acknowledged in my initial reply, there is always room for improvement. We shall look at the Select Committee's report and see whether it is on the right track. We shall make our response in due course.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the prison medical service refuses to pass on medical information about prisoners when they leave its care? The medical records of one of my constituents who committed suicide in a National Health Service hospital had not been transferred from the prison medical service. Does he agree that that is unacceptable, that it serves nobody's interests and that it can severely affect the care of patients?
    Mr. Mellor: It would be wrong of me to comment upon an individual case about which I had not heard until the hon. Gentleman raised it. If he cares to write to me about it, I shall look into it. The same rules apply to the
    514
    transfer of a prisoner from one doctor's list to another as apply to the generality of the community. If there is evidence that the normal rules are not being applied, I shall want to look at it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me know.
    Sir John Farr: I recognise the skill and expertise of the prison medical service, but can my hon. Friend confirm that in a special case where a certain skill is required from outside the service there is no hesitation about obtaining it?
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because it shows the care with which the prison medical service approaches its task. A panel of outside consultants is available to see prisoners. No fewer than 98,000 referrals to external consultants were made in the last year for which figures are available, 1983. That shows just how much care is exercised.
    Mrs. Renée Short: If the Under-Secretary of State is satisfied with the prison medical service, he must be about the only chap who is. Is he aware that the British Medical Association has received an enormous number of complaints from prisoners and former prisoners about the way that they have been treated in prison? The Select Committee intends to look at the prison medical service. I hope that we shall get a better response from him when it does.
    Mr. Mellor: I do not think I made the remark that has been attributed to me by the hon. Lady. However, I am satisfied that the prison medical service is provided with better resources and is better able to cope with the demands of the prison population than it was in the days when the Labour Government were in office.

    Peacock Committee
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Peacock committee intends to publish an interim report on the progress of its inquiry into the financing of the BBC.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Such questions are for the committee to decide, but my right hon. and learned Friend has not asked for an interim report; nor, I understand, does the committee at present anticipate producing one.
    Mr. Freud: Is the Minister of State aware of the damage that is done both to the BBC and to ITV by uncertainty about their future funding and markets? What makes him believe that Peacock will be able to reach a decision so very much more quickly than Annan on the same sort of problem? Will he assure the House that the committee has sufficient finance to allow it to look at the effects on public service broadcasting when it has to compete for commercial revenue?
    Mr. Shaw: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the committee has not been asked to make a decision. It is being asked to provide a range of options for my right hon. and learned Friend in relation to possible alternative sources of finance. In that respect the committee is quite unlike the Annan committee, which was required to take a broad view of broadcasting issues. The committee is on schedule to report by the beginning of next year. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's view that there is uncertainty, but I remind him that my right hon. and learned Friend recommended, and the the House accepted, a licence settlement which could have a three-year reign.
    Mr. Brinton: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, rather than contemplate interim reports from the Peacock committee, we should look ahead to the report that is to come to Parliament, with Parliament and the Government then evolving for the first time a complete policy for public service broadcasting?
    Mr. Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's view. He can rest assured that the options which are to be provided by the Peacock committee will undoubtedly lead to discussions. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will wish to involve the House at the appropriate stage.
    Mr. Faulds: Does the Minister of State understand that many hon. Members will have little regard for whatever may be the findings of the Peacock committee, in view of the poor quality and subtle loading of its membership, in contradistinction to the excellent membership of the Annan committee?
    Mr. Shaw: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's pre-emption of the quality of both the committee and its findings.
    Mr. Stokes: In considering the financing of the BBC, will the committee take into account the enormous libel damages which the BBC is able to stand, which in the end fall on the taxpayer, and which mean that the BBC can libel anyone it wants to its heart's content?
    Mr. Shaw: The point that my hon. Friend raises does not come within the terms of the committee's inquiry, which is confined to looking at options for financing, rather than at what the corporation might do with the money with which it is financed.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Why do the Government persist with this farce, when all the evidence shows clearly and convincingly that the introduction of even a small amount of advertising on the BBC would have serious financial consequences for the independent companies, could be potentially calamitous to independent local radio and regional newspapers and would lower programme standards both of the BBC and the independent companies? What is the ideological motivation for this vendetta on the part of the Government against the BBC?
    Mr. Shaw: It stems from a not unnatural reluctance to accept the word of the hon. Gentleman as really being the fact in this issue. We have appointed a distinguished body of people to examine the actuality of the case and to offer different opinions on the options provided. In that way we shall arrive at a considered judgment, which, I am sure, is not the way in which the hon. Gentleman would like to see things happen.

    London (Policing)
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent meetings he has held with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the likely impact of cash limits on policing in London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Brittan: I last met the Commissioner on 1 July, when we discussed recent developments in relation to terrorism and the Metropolitan police cash limit.
    Mr. Hunt: If, as we are told, the purpose of cash limits is to facilitate tax cuts in due course, will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me that the great majority of my constituents would much prefer even more resources being devoted to the Metropolitan police and even better protection for their homes and families than a penny off the standard rate of income tax?
    Mr. Brittan: The purpose of cash limits is not what my hon. Friend said it was. It is to ensure that people live within their means, whatever those means are. The question of the level of resources that should be made available is a different matter. As the House will know, the level of resources made available to the Metropolitan police is higher than it has ever been, and rightly so.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that when he last met the Commissioner he found that morale in the Metropolitan police was extremely high, despite the carping and anti-police behaviour of the GLC police committee, which spends £1 million a year knocking the police all the time? Is it not a fact that the achievements of the Metropolitan police against terrorism have come about solely as a result of the police supporting the Prevention of Terrorism. Act, a measure which the Labour party never seems to have supported?
    Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I do not believe that the police are put off their job for a single moment by the activities and antics of the GLC, which we discussed at some length last Friday. I welcome again the opportunity to congratulate the Metropolitan police and all the other police forces involved on their successes of the last couple of weeks in the campaign against terrorism. The Prevention of Terrorism Act has an important role and I hope that when these matters come to be considered again the Opposition will come to a wiser conclusion than has been the case in the last couple of years.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the persistent abuse, racial and obscene remarks and disruption levelled at speakers at Hyde Park, and clearly organised by some members of the Young Conservative movement in Greater London— [Interruption.]—will Ministers, and particularly the Prime Minister, make it clear to those Conservative activists who have only contempt for free speech and fair play that they should not act like storm troopers?
    Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman's observations are a classic example of diversionary tactics brought about by his dislike of the fact that the GLC has been exposed for what it is.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend will of course be aware by now of the considerable concern caused by the enunciation by a chief inspector at Heathrow of the rather strange doctrine that a jocular remark has now become a criminal offence. Has this matter been discussed with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, either previously or when my right hon. and learned Friend last met him?
    Mr. Brittan: I did not discuss this matter with the metropolitan Police Commissioner when I met him on 1 July, but I have to say to my hon. Friend and to the House that I do not think that jokes in relation to bombs and terrorism can or should be treated lightly.
    Mr. John David Taylor: When the Home Secretary discussed terrorism with the Commissioner, did he discuss the bomb that was found recently in the Rubens hotel, and was the Commissioner able to advise the Home Secretary from which country the detonators and explosive came?
    Mr. Brittan: The answer to the first question is that I did discuss that bomb. The answer to the second question is that I cannot say anything further without being in breach of the sub judice rule.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the Commissioner, will he thank him and all those who took part in the recent operations, and will he draw to his attention the fact that the Strathclyde police were able to——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Gentleman a warning. The question concerns London.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the police who were involved in all these operations. The point I am making is that the terrorists were arrested under powers contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.
    Mr. Brittan: I think that my hon. Friend has in mind the fact that the Metropolitan police, in their recent operation, were working in co-operation with many other police forces. I would certainly be happy to specify in particular the Strathclyde force as one that played an extremely important part in the operation.

    Miss Hilda Murrell
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a copy of the report of Assistant Chief Constable Peter Smith to the West Mercia police on the case of the late Miss Hilda Murrell; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Yes, Sir. Mr. Smith's findings, which he has now presented to the chief constable and to West Mercia police authority, confirm the unsubstantiated nature of the considerable speculation which has arisen in this case.
    Mr. Dalyell: In my recent Adjournment debate I asked careful questions about Sir Robert Armstrong and Mr. Gary Murray. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] What is the Cabinet Secretary's connection with Zeus Security, outlined in the Daily Star of 13 June? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does Zeus Security use subcontractors for Government work, and is there truth in Mr. Murray's claim that he was recruited for duties with a specialist Government intelligence department——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very experienced. He must not read his question.
    Mr. Dalyell: I am framing the question extremely carefully. Was Mr. Murray recruited for duties with a specialist Government intelligence department on a consultancy basis?
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The hon. Gentleman, in the course of the Adjournment debate on 26 June, asked me 73 questions. I am not impugning one bit any of the hon. Gentleman's motives, but one of the questions related to the involvement in any way of British intelligence security, and the hon. Gentleman would know that that
    518
    was an issue raised in the Adjournment debate on 19 December 1984 as well as in the Adjournment debate on 26 June this year. The hon. Gentleman received a categorical answer from me that in fact Sir Robert Armstrong had been involved in the investigations conducted by Assistant Chief Constable Smith, and I gave the categorical assurance, which Mr. Smith has now endorsed, that there was not a shred of evidence that British security operations were in any way involved in this affair.

    Immigration (Primary Purpose Rule)
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider amending the primary purpose rule.
    Mr. Waddington: The Government see at present no need to amend the primary purpose rule. This rule and the other requirements for men seeking entry on the basis of marriage are necessary safeguards against the use of marriage to secure admission by those who would not otherwise qualify to come.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that this rule probably causes more anguish and heartache than any other rule of immigration policy? Should not an immediate change be made to allow these husbands-to-be to come and join their prospective wives in this country?
    Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the vast majority of people in this country realise that it would be absurd, after having said that no young men should be able to come here without skills and go straight on to the labour market at a time of high unemployment, if we allowed the same young men to come here by using marriage as a device.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware that the difficulty with the primary purpose rule, which causes so much anguish, is that it is not an objective test? It depends upon how an immigration officer feels. People trying to enter this country cannot determine how to answer questions. I hope the Minister will accept that it is impossible for people trying to enter this country to prepare themselves for the kind of questions that might be asked. The rule is monstrously unfair because it does not take account of the different cultures and the genuine need that people have to come here to join their families, set up families and enjoy security.
    Mr. Waddington: If it is so difficult to satisfy an entry clearance officer that one is entitled to enter as a husband, is it not extraordinary that over half the husbands who apply for entry are granted permission to come here?
    Mr. Proctor: Has my hon. Friend noticed how the vast majority of the Opposition always want to increase immigration, when the vast majority of people in this country want to see it decreased?
    Mr. Waddington: I am sure my hon. Friend is correct when he says that the vast majority of people in this country know well that we must have firm immigration control. The Government stand by that, and I can imagine nothing more irresponsible than the statements that have been coming from the Opposition Front Bench that if they came into office they would repeal the Immigration Act 1971.
    Mr. Dubs: The Minister used the expression "marriage as a device." Will he make it clear that we are talking

    519
    about genuine marriages, where the primary purpose rule is used merely by Home Office and Foreign Office officials to pry into the motives for a marriage and make an arbitrary decision to exclude husbands? Will he confirm that we are talking about marriages which are, in all respects, genuine and proper?
    Mr. Waddington: We are talking about marriages where the primary purpose of the person applying is to get here. I repeat what I have said. It is an abuse of the institution of marriage if people enter into marriages merely to enter a country such as ours.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Later.

    Metropolitan Police (Expenditure)
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on the Metropolitan police in real terms in 1969, 1974, 1979 and 1984; what is the projected expenditure for 1985; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brittan: The force's provisional outturn for 1985–86 is £726·1 million. This compares in real terms with £382·5 million in 1969–70, £508·7 million in 1974–75 and £579·4 million in 1979–80. The force's cash limit for 1985–86 is £763·2 million.
    Mr. Greenway: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on those splendid figures? Does he agree that it is clear that it is Conservative Governments who put real resources into fighting crime, including terrorism, in the metropolis, but that it is the Labour party which always knocks the police and starves them of the resources necessary to do the job?
    Mr. Brittan: That is entirely true. The only addition I would make is that it is not just in the metropolis that we have provided the resources.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary explain, therefore, why, with all the additional resources being pumped into the Metropolitan police, the crime rate in London has continued to increase?
    Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the answer that I gave earlier about the trend over a long period of time. The lower increase recorded in the country as a whole in the first quarter — a small fall when normal seasonal variations are allowed for — is mildly encouraging.

    Scotland (Licensing Laws)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the implications for policy towards changes in the licensing laws in England and Wales of the recent Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' report on drinking habits in Scotland.
    Mr. Mellor: We have received no representations relating to the recent OPCS report.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware of the high level of satisfaction among Scottish people with their present licensing laws? Does he think that there is a similar level of satisfaction in England and Wales, and how can he justify the fact that the licensing laws are more liberal in Scotland?
    Mr. Mellor: All the opinion polls have been so busy in Brecon that it is hard to give a conclusive view, but I am aware that there is a case for changing the law and we have it under very active consideration.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hirstasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that seven new production records have recently been established by the steel workers at Ravenscraig and that this plant has achieved a British Steel Corporation productivity record of 3·14 man hours per tonne? Will she join me in welcoming those achievements by a management and work force which, despite all the difficulties of the past 15 months, have steadfastly concentrated on improving the productivity of that plant?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the workers of Ravenscraig on that magnificent record and on the way in which they kept going during the miners' strike.
    Mr. Faulds: Will the Prime Minister take time today to consider a matter that has already been discussed at Question Time? That is the Prime Purpose rule. Does she accept that the prime purpose of marriage is procreation? That being so, does she agree that it is utterly iniquitous that men, who have produced babies by women entitled to live in this country, and have gone through the marital rites, are not allowed to join their wives and families in this country and become British citizens?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has a very limited idea of marriage.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that small, new and growing firms have played a significant role in the improved unemployment figures announced today, but that they still face many obstacles and burdens despite the Government's valiant efforts to remove them? Will she do all that she can to speed up the review of those burdens so that they can be removed?
    The Prime Minister: Small firms have an excellent record, especially in creating new jobs. We are looking at the regulations which still obtain and I hope that the results of that scrutiny will be published before the summer recess.
    Mr. Kinnock: I welcome the downturn in unemployment trends, small though it is, but does the Prime Minister recall saying five weeks ago that she was
    "concerned, mystified and very disappointed"
    that unemployment was still so high? In view of that feeling on her part, has she any new policies to announce today which will ensure that the small fall in unemployment is accelerated and greatly increased in the coming months?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the small downturn. He will be

    521
    aware that a major new policy was announced in the Budget, and further details were given this week, of the extension of the youth training scheme to two years. It is a matter of great regret that the Opposition carped and criticised instead of welcoming that great help to our young people.
    Mr. Kinnock: That does not change the fact that today's fall in the unemployment figures is rather small and shaky. We should not have to wait until the Budget takes full effect, as there is so much else that the Prime Minister could do. There is plenty of work to do and plenty of people who want to do it. Why does the right hon. Lady not do the sensible thing and bring them together? If she wants to start a real recovery, why does she not listen to the managers and business men, who are telling her to stop getting rid of the investment allowances, to sponsor new public investment and to get interest rates down?
    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman is recommending is reflation. On another occasion, he would be criticising the level of inflation. He really must make up his mind.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: I join the whole-hearted welcome for the fall in unemployment. Is my right hon. Friend aware that only 499,000 of those currently unemployed have taken the trouble to register at a jobcentre? Will she take urgent steps to reform the unemployment accounting system and the statistics so that only those who are genuinely seeking work figure in the statistics?
    The Prime Minister: These unemployment statistics are compiled on exactly the same basis as previous unemployment statistics. The last change in the way in which the statistics were compiled was made in 1981, for reasons which were given then. We are anxious to secure employment for those on the unemployment register who are genuinely seeking work.
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dobson: Is the Prime Minister proud or ashamed of the fact that at the end of the United Nations Decade for Women no fewer than 93,000 women in England and Wales are awaiting gynaecological operations in hospital and that more than 18,000 of them have been waiting for treatment for more than a year?
    The Prime Minister: There has been a tremendous improvement in the National Health Service under this Government. I will gladly compare our record with that of the last Labour Government, who, when they were in financial difficulty, had to cut the NHS and cut capital expenditure on it.
    Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read this month's Country Landowner, in which full details are given of a proposed ten-minute Bill to be introduced by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) which would nationalise four fifths of agricultural land? In view of the fact that, at Brecon and Radnor at the weekend the Leader of the Opposition said that there was no prospect of Labour nationalising agricultural land, is not the so-called unity of the Labour party about which we are told a sham and purely for the electors?
    The Prime Minister: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I have not had time to read that journal. I join him in believing that the Labour party will never have a chance to put those policies into operation.
    Mr. John Morris: Has the message reached the Prime Minister that the number of people who admire her in the constituency of Brecon and Radnor are of a somewhat endangered species? Is she now minded, at this late hour, to send a message of cheer to the hapless Conservative candidate by announcing her resignation?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman forgets that we often have Bills to protect endangered species.
    Mr. Freemanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Freeman: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the statement from the National Coal Board confirming investment in new pits and the creation of 7,000 new jobs? Is that not the constructive way to proceed in the industry, rather than with the threats of a massive pay claim that are coming out of Sheffield?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Government's policy has been to build a profitable coal industry by making excellent investment in profitable pits. That is the way to provide security of jobs in a future profitable industry, and that way is firmly endorsed by the majority of our people.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the recent report from Companies House showing that more than 300,000 companies out of an active list of about 800,000 are disobeying the law by failing to return their annual accounts? Since the Prime Minister is so fond of preaching about the rule of law and its observance by us all, what is she doing about those companies?
    The Prime Minister: That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for enforcement. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that trade unions are not quick to return their accounts.
    Mr. Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend seen the policy of the Leader of the Opposition for reducing unemployment, in which he said that he would keep children at school for much longer and retire people much earlier, without producing one extra new job? Does that not show that the Labour party's policies are an absolute farce?
    The Prime Minister: The Labour party's policies consist of spending more money but not knowing where it will come from. I note that in the book "Inside the Treasury", published after the election, Lord Barnett, then Joel Barnett, said:
    "The Labour Government of 74–79 had a financial task rendered impossible by pledges foolishly made without any serious thought as to where the money would come from… You name it, we were pledged to increase it."
    Mr. Gouldasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gould: Does the Prime Minister recognise that each 1 per cent. reduction in the inflation rate since she came to office has been bought at the cost of 750,000 jobs destroyed? However unlikely her target of 3 per cent. inflation now appears to be, can she tell us how many more jobs she would be prepared to sacrifice to reach that target?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must know that there is no such trade-off — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is no such trade-off in the longer run. If he is seeking to increase inflation to the Labour Government's record of 27 per cent., let him say so now.
    Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend close the loophole in the Trade Union Act 1984, which allows Mr. Arthur Scargill to preserve his life presidency of the NUM by dint of depriving himself of his casting vote? Will she thus stop this petty dictator treating democracy with a contempt more reminiscent of ancient Rome than of modern Britain? Let there be a ballot now in the NUM. Let it be statutorily enforced and let it be conducted preferably by secret postal ballot, which the militants fear most of all.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point very vigorously, and I have taken note of it. I hope that others will, too.
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments go.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no independent action by British Airways to boycott Beirut airport without concerted action by the seven states meeting next week to discuss ways of preventing hijacking by terrorists?
    The Prime Minister: British Airways does not fly into Beirut. We agree with the Bonn convention, which called
    524
    for a suspension of air services to countries which fail to take action against hijackers. We are now considering whether we should boycott Beirut airport completely by refusing to take aircraft that have come from Beirut. We shall seek to do so in the first place through the Bonn meeting next week.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Prime Minister aware that, earlier today, a group of Liverpool parents protested outside the offices of Liverpool education authority about the cynical manipulation of their children? Is she aware that last night children as young as six years were given political propaganda to take home advocating defiance of the law? Does she agree that the misuse of children in that way——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this the Prime Minister's responsibility?
    Mr. Alton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because the breaking of the law in Liverpool and the making of an illegal rate in defiance of Government legislation must damage the interests of local people and Liverpool ratepayers.
    The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's grave concern about the misuse of children. I understand that many complaints have been made. Such activity will come within the remit of the Widdecombe inquiry. I hope that the matter has been referred to it.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Lady ignore the utter rubbish and nonsense from the Liberal Benches in this connection?
    What contribution does the right hon. Lady think she made when she went on Mexican TV, which was well reported in Liverpool and elsewhere following the Brussels tragedy, and said that the people of Liverpool were violent and that Liverpool was a violent city, and had been for a long time? How can denigrating our people attract industry to Merseyside?
    The Prime Minister: I hope the hon. Gentleman can explain how the behaviour of the present local authority can attract industry to the area — [Interruption.] The urban development corporation is attracting help for Merseyside, but the difficult local authority is doing nothing to help the creation of jobs there.

Teachers' Dispute
3.31 pm
Mr. Giles Radice(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' dispute following the failure of the management panel of the Burnham committee to put any proposal to the teachers' panel.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): We are all surely very unhappy that this long dispute continues. I intensely want to see pupils receiving uninterrupted education, but the Government have wide economic obligations and are not willing to make extra resources available for teachers' pay unless those extra resources would be used to make progress towards our objectives for improving educational standards. That means improving promotion prospects and giving better rewards to good quality teachers.
Last July—a year ago—I made plain my willingness to help progress in this area. On 21 May this year I made plain the Government's willingness to provide extra resources for teachers' pay next year for this purpose. I repeated that offer in meetings with the employers' associations on 24 June and 1 July and in a letter to the teachers on 2 July.
Both employers and teachers were well aware of the Government's position before yesterday's requisitioned meeting. They also know that I stand ready to join in discussions to make the progress which is so urgent and necessary—given the October deadline for decisions on the rate support grant settlement—if we are not again to miss the chance of reforming the pay structure.
Mr. Radice: Why did the Secretary of State instruct his officials to wreck yesterday's Burnham committee meeting? Why did he use his 15 block votes against a peace proposal supported by 19 of the 24 elected representatives?
Does he understand that his high-handed behaviour has so angered local authority associations that the Burnham machinery is on the point of collapse? Will he admit that the only constructive talks that are now taking place are outside Burnham — those between the Labour-led employers and the teachers' representatives — and that that is no thanks to him? Is he aware that he is starving schools of resources, has demoralised teachers and is doing his best to undermine any chance of ending the turmoil in our schools? Why is the Secretary of State such a wrecker? For the sake of our children, he should resign before he does any more damage.
Sir Keith Joseph: These are very strong words. The hon. Gentleman is speaking as if my representatives voted down some substantive offer. It was not like that at all. The House should know that what was being discussed was whether a joint meeting of teachers and employers with me should be sought. Both sides have known very well for months that I am intensely willing to see them. My representatives opposed the addition to the request for a meeting of words which run utterly contrary to what I have repeated time and again to be the Government's objectives and decisions. No joint request to meet me was being voted upon. What was being voted upon was
526
whether certain words should be added to a request for a meeting. The House knows that I stand eagerly ready to meet both sides of Burnham should they wish to talk to me.
Mr. David Madel: As the Government have said that they will make additional resources available for 1986–87, including an expanded network of in-service training, should not the teacher unions accept the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service's offer of informal talks to reach the goal of an improved and new salary structure and an improved education service?
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is surely on the right constructive lines, but I must emphasise that the teachers, led by the National Union of Teachers, have refused to negotiate the offer to make extra funds available to meet the Government's objectives of better promotion prospects and better standards in schools since last year. They are still refusing to consider at all, let alone seriously, the renewed and repeated offer that I made in my letter of 21 May and which I repeated to the employers' association last week and to the teachers a couple of days ago by letter.
There is ample opportunity for teachers to secure the improved career prospects that they understandably want, if only they will get down to serious discussion of the 21 May letter—and in time to catch the October deadline, if extra money is to be put for that purpose in to the rate support grant settlement this year for next year.
Mr. Clement Freud: For how much longer will teachers be expected to put up with pay rises below the rate of inflation when their job is getting increasingly difficult and everybody is expecting more? If the press leak of a 2 per cent. availability is untrue, how much money, on agreement with the teachers, will be available?
Sir Keith Joseph: I accept that, in many places and under many conditions, the teaching job these days is extremely difficult. I have accepted that for a long time. However, I ask the House to realise that universal indexing is the road to further inflation and thus to more unemployment.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time for restructuring Burnham has come as it is no longer capable of handling the affairs of the great teaching profession? Is he aware that there are schools where there have been no parental meetings and no reports for perhaps three years? Is it not disgraceful that strikes are so damaging children's education? They will never recover. Worse, Labour party spokesmen go all over the country encouraging the strike and damaging children.
Sir Keith Joseph: I am willing to be convinced that there is a better method than Burnham to arrange these affairs, but even if the Government were so convinced, legislation would be needed and there would inevitably be a delay before legislation could be introduced. While my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was asking his question, I heard the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) talking about the use of the veto from a sedentary position. I must remind the House that the veto was not used yesterday and that it was introduced when a Labour Government were in office. The hon. Gentleman ought to bear that in mind.
Mr. Ken Weetch: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the Burnham negotiating machinery has

527
been creaking at the joints for years? Does he further agree that instead of being a negotiating body it now resembles a Gilbert and Sullivan opera? Will he use his influence to ensure that the realities of the position appear in the negotiating machinery, in that the Government are the paymasters? It should reflect just that.
Sir Keith Joseph: But that is precisely what was intended to be reflected by the veto arrangements introduced when the Labour Government were in office.
Mr. Roy Galley: No doubt my right hon. Friend will disregard the extravagant words of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). As we say in Yorkshire, he rattles like a "can o' mabs" and there is nowt much inside.
While acknowledging the difficulty of persuading the teachers' unions to negotiate seriously about teacher assessment and improving standards, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider going further, as a long-term objective, and offer the union a little more money and a pay review body system in return for a no-disruption agreement?
Sir Keith Joseph: Those are propositions which, in the right context and circumstances, might deserve consideration. However, at the moment the teachers are unwilling even to address themselves to the serious offer made in my letter of 21 May. I would have thought that the whole House was united in seeking the better promotion and career prospects for teachers of quality and better schooling for our children.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even Conservative-controlled authorities are now so worried about the damage being done to children's education and the morale of the teaching profession that they have urged that negotiations take place within Burnham leading to an adequate salary increase for teachers? An example of that is the Conservative-controlled borough of Trafford. Those authorities look to the Secretary of State as the only person who can break the deadlock by accepting the need for a pay increase and by agreeing to fund it when it comes.
Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is repeating a request that, time and again, I have refused. The Government are not willing to make more money
528
available, except to make progress towards the Government's objectives of better promotion prospects, a better career structure for teachers and more effective education in our schools.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My right hon. Friend has fallen into the inadvertent error of referring to teachers when he means the teachers' union representative on the Burnham committee. Will he write to individual teachers and governors of schools — as the Secretary of State for Social Services did in the recent dispute over prescriptions — so that the teachers and governors know what my right hon. Friend is offering, which is a very fair offer?
Sir Keith Joseph: As is often the case, I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I do fall — especially when trying to speak briefly in the House — into the error of assuming that all teachers agree with teachers' asssociation leaders. On my hon. Friend's suggestion of a letter to all teachers, I have seriously considered that possibility, but I am not the employer of the teachers. However, I take my hon. Friend's idea seriously.
Mr. James Callaghan: While the Minister's sincerity is obvious, as he has utterly failed to secure the co-operation of school teachers, should he not consider making way for a successor?
Sir Keith Joseph: It is all very well the right hon. Gentleman courteously and gently putting that proposition, but I am convinced that the country and most teachers accept the Government's purpose of better education in our schools. I have taken the steps that should enable teachers and employers to get down to negotiations, to secure the additional public funding that is on offer for next year.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with me that it would be a tragedy if the impasse were to continue any longer. Is not the only answer for the teachers to put to the test what my right hon. Friend has said and agree to discuss salaries together with future prospects in teaching as a possible way out?
Sir Keith Joseph: I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend.

Business of the House
3.45 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill.
TUESDAY 9 JULY — Progress on Report stage of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY Jo JuLY—Completion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY II JULY — Estimates Day (3rd Allotted Day). The Estimates for consideration will appear in the Official Report. It is proposed that there will be a debate on Estimates relating to housing and environmental matters followed by a debate on Estimates relating to community care and the mentally ill and handicapped.
FRIDAY I2 JULY — There will be a debate on the reports of the House of Commons (Services) Committee 1984–85 on "Members' Staff: Pressure on Accommodation and Facilities", House of Commons Paper 195 and "Information Technology: Members' Requirements", House of Commons Paper 97. The debate will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 15 JULY—Opposition Day (18th Allotted Day) (Second Part). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on a motion in the name of the leader of the Liberal party; subject of debate to be announced.
Remaining stages of the Oil and Pipelines Bill.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Trustee Savings Banks Bill.
[Estimates to be considered:
Class VII, Vote 1 (Housing, England (Department of the Environment)).
Class VII, Vote 2 (Housing Corporation, Rent Acts and Miscellaneous Administration (Department of the Environment)).
Class VIII, Vote 2 (Central Environmental Services, etc.)
Class VIII, Vote 3 (Derelict Land Reclamation, Urban Programme and Urban Development Corporations, England).
Class VIII, Vote 5 (Central Administration and Environmental Research (Department of the Environment)).
Class XIV, Vote 1 (Civil Accommodation Services (PSA of the Department of the Environment)).
Class XI, Vote I (Hospital, Community Health and Other Services, England):
Subhead A1 (Current Advances to and Payments on Behalf of Health Authorities) so far as it relates to community care, with special reference to adult mentally ill and mentally handicapped people.]
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We deeply resent the haste with which the Government propose to rush through the consideration of the Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill. The fact that the supplementary guillotine is to be used is strong evidence of the Government's disarray on the issue both in the House and elsewhere. The Bill is an affront to the democratic rights of millions in the metropolitan counties
530
and the Greater London area. Surely it justifies much longer time for consideration in this place. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that further.
I have asked on a number of occasions for a debate during Government time on the so-called star wars initiative. In the light of Vice-President Bush's visit this week and the welcome news of an East-West summit in the autumn, I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to ensure that we have time to give consideration to the strategic defence initiative before the House rises for the summer recess.
When the debate takes place on Thursday on the Estimates on community care, the mentally ill and handicapped, will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that the Minister makes a statement suspending the changes in the board and lodging allowances, which will impoverish and endanger the old and chronically disabled who have gone into private residential homes since 30 April?
Finally, I asked two months ago why we needed to wait until the autumn for a debate on televising the proceedings of the House. I reinforce my demand that we should have that debate before the summer recess so that the televising of our proceedings could commence with the Queen's Speech next Session.
Mr. Biffen: I shall start with the right hon. Gentleman's last question, which was almost enough in itself. The issue of the House resolving whether it wants to sanction an experimental period of television is one which requires a good deal of delicate touch. I do not believe that it would be prudent to try to secure a judgment to enable the opening of Parliament and the Queen's Speech to be the subject of television. It would be very much better if this matter continued to be discussed in the manner in which it has been hitherto. I hope the matter will be available for a Commons decision early in the new Session.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the board and lodging allowances went before the House earlier this week, but I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services the right hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter.
On the matter of a debate on the star wars initiative, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the House had a chance to make its views known on this topic during the two days recently devoted to the defence Estimates. I am quite happy that this matter should be considered further through the usual channels.
I am sorry to be mildly unhelpful over this next point, but it was claimed that precipitate haste had been shown by the Government over the Local Government Bill, and that inadequate attention had been given to it. I have to point out that in this House and in another place almost 350 hours will have been devoted it. The Lords amendments were notified to the House yesterday and the present arrangements are a reasonable and equitable means of trying to secure further consideration of the measure.
Mr. Robert Key: Could my right hon. Friend help with an important constitutional problem? This House will not be able to debate the possible withdrawal of the United Kingdom from UNESCO. The United Kingdom National Commission is the only one whose chairman is a Minister in the Government. This precludes the tabling of parliamentary questions on the

531
subject because the Minister will be presenting evidence to a Select Committee of the House. Can my right hon. Friend help us?
Mr. Biffen: I will most certainly look into that matter and I will be in touch with my hon. Friend.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Can the Minister give an assurance that the motion tabled by my hon. and right hon. Friends on the immigration rules affecting Tamils will be debated before we rise for the summer recess?
Mr. Biffen: That is certainly my intention.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the immense constitutional importance of the European Communities (Finance) Bill, will the Leader of the House make a statement next week indicating whether he considers that this Bill should be considered in the other place, and could he give us some indication of how these things are decided and what considerations are taken into account?
Mr. Biffen: The Bill was left in such a state that its Committee stage has not yet been concluded, and I am sure that points might arise on that.
Mrs. Renée Short: Can the Minister confirm that the second debate to take place on Thursday which arises from the Select Committee report on the care of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, for which I understand additional time has been allowed, is likely to start by about 6.30 in the evening?
Mr. Biffen: That is my understanding, but perhaps I could get in touch with the hon. Lady when I can ascertain it with more certainty.
Mr. Richard Holt: Would my right hon. Friend comment upon the fact that during Opposition Supply Days there has been virtually nobody on the Opposition Benches, front or back. In the light of that, will he consider revising the parliamentary timetable so as to afford more opportunity for Back Benchers on the Conservative side who are here in numbers on those occasions? Perhaps he could give us a debate on law and order, for which many of us have been asking for a long time.
Mr. Biffen: If I were to answer those enticing questions, it could only be in such a way as to exacerbate tempers which are already somewhat fragile in this month of July.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange next week for a statement to be made on how much the Government will dole out as a result of the top people's pay review board for judges and others? Will he affirm that the estimate is likely to be twice the Government's going rate for the rest of the country? These people are already earning more than £50,000 a year. So that there can be fair treatment, will he ensure that there will be another statement by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to follow the one on the top people's pay review board so that a proper comparison can be made about how the Government are treating those at the very top of our society in relation to those who are trying their level best to motivate kids at school, many of whom will not have the chance of a job when they leave?
Mr. Biffen: It is the job of the Leader of the House never to excite too much expectation of statements, but I shall nevertheless refer the hon. Gentleman's interest in such a statement to my relevant right hon. Friends.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that star wars is such an important and large subject that it cannot be covered by a general defence debate? As the Leader of the Opposition has suggested this as a subject for debate, would not it be more suitable to hold it in Opposition time?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will have noted that interesting proposition. As I have said, the opportunity to pursue it through the usual channels is available.
Mr. Don Dixon: Bearing in mind that the Government have refused to give time to debate the Select Committee report on the Transport Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for a debate on the Government's White Paper in response to that report? If we go along this dangerous road, we shall be conducting parliamentary business by correspondence course. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate, or is he afraid that the Secretary of State for Transport is so imcompetent that he could not justify the Bill?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that no provision has been made in next week's business for a debate on transport, and I cannot hold out hope of art early debate as we now enter the most congested period in the parliamentary year. None the less, I shall refer his anxieties and strictures to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read early-day motion 835?
[That this House notes with grave concern that the bankers, Morgan Grenfell and Company Limited were acting for both Arthur Bell and Sons plc and Guinness plc in the period immediately prior to the current takeover being launched; is further concerned at the consequence this may have for the Scottish financial institutions, the investors in Arthur Bell and Company plc and for the workers employed by that company; and believes this takeover should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.]
If so, is my right hon. Friend aware that the bankers mentioned in that motion have been working for one of the companies involved in the take-over of Arthur Bell and Sons? They have also been advising on that company's corporate and financial structure and other sensitive areas that would be invaluable to anyone else who wished to take it over. Sadly, this cast doubt on how self-regulatory bodies, such as the one operating in the City, work. That must be bad for the benefits that have accrued from the sound financial system that operates in this country. May we please have an early debate on this matter?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The City panel considered this potential conflict of interest, and we must assume that it was satisfied. I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, but this could well be a possible candidate for an Adjournment debate. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate in Government time.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Friday a High Court judge directed that the Home Secretary should reconsider the

533
case of a Tamil asylum-seeker whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to remove from this country? In his judgment, the judge described as inhuman the Government's policy towards Tamil asylum-seekers. At the very least, should not the Leader of the House insist on the Home Secretary making a statement about whether the Government will appeal against that decision or review their inhuman policy towards Tamil asylum-seekers? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that the matter is fully and urgently debated in the House so that the fear from which Tamils in this country, and those who wish to leave Sri Lanka suffer, can be properly discussed in the open?
Mr. Biffen: The best way to help the hon. Gentleman is to refer him to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Considering how unrepresentative the other place is when dealing with matters of this kind, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will adopt a very robust attitude to its amendments to the Local Government Bill?
Mr. Biffen: I think that the Government have behaved with commendable balance and judgment, and I do not think that my hon. Friend will be disappointed.
Mr. James Lamond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we were very pleased that the Secretary of State for Defence was able to find time to attend defence Question Time this week, contrary to his practice in the past? However, the Secretary of State's answers were so arrogant and gratuitously insulting that many Opposition Members expect him to come back to the House and to apologise for his lack of politeness.
Mr. Biffen: I have to accuse the hon. Gentleman of being unduly sensitive, which is about the worst accusation one can make in this House.
Mr. Michael Fallon: May we have an early debate on public expenditure to allow my right hon. Friends to reaffirm their commitment to reducing as well as controlling the proportion it consumes of our national wealth?
Mr. Biffen: I feel uncomfortable that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is breathing down my neck as the surrogate Leader of the House. As my hon. Friend observes, we will take the Finance Bill next week and if my hon. Friend cannot make all his speeches on that occasion I know of none other which can be so accommodating.
Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Secretary of State for Social Services make a statement next week about further cuts in housing benefit as reported in today's press? If so, will he be telling the House why such a statement was not included in his statement two weeks ago and how he can conceivably justify further cuts on the poor?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot enter into the merits of the argument contained in his premise. It would be a very unhappy day if we based
534
our business on what was contained in newspaper comment and speculation. I will of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point he makes.
Mr. James Couchman: In view of recent events in the middle east, and particularly the upsurge in international terrorism, and in order to give credence to the reports in today's press that there is to be a concerted effort against international terrorism, will my right hon. Friend grant a debate, perhaps on the Adjournment of the House, on the subject of terrorism?
Mr. Biffen: I note my hon. Friend's point. The subject is one of the most profound in topical importance, but I can see little prospect of a debate in Government time, although there are still opportunities left to Members to seek private debates in the weeks that remain.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman determine to delay as interminably as he can manage any consideration of the televising of the proceedings of this House, because if we were to proceed to televise the conduct of the House it would do enormous damage by the performance of some Members and would give a very bad impression of how Members conduct hours of responsible debate.
Mr. Biffen: I have no wish to enter into the controversy whether the House should or should not be televised. I have no wish to rescue the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition from the strictures of his hon. Friend. All I will say is that it has just the appropriate rate of expedition.
Mr. William O'Brien: Is the Leader of the House aware of the situation that has developed in some of our hospitals because of stress upon the nursing staff and the effect that that stress is having on some of the patients, caused in the main because of lack of staff and lack of resources for the National Health Service? Will he assure the House that there will be time to discuss the serious situation which is developing because of stress on nurses? Will he prevail upon the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services to make a statement that an inquiry will be held as to the causes of stress on nurses? Will he assure the House that something will be done to relieve that stress?
Mr. Biffen: I will pass the request for an inquiry to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As for the more general issue of a debate, on Thursday we will debate the mentally ill. Since mental health forms a very substantial fraction of the total Health Service, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his speech on that occasion.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 817.
[That this House, aware of the deep concern of the Merseyside Equal Opportunities Project, the Women's Education Centre, the Community Relations Council and the Liverpool Black Sisters, at the proposed deportation of Mrs. Mabel Achinihu with her two children, one aged four years and the other aged two months who were both born in England, notes that Mrs. Achinihu has worked in England since 1976, and on a return to Nigeria her husband was tragically killed in a road accident; and calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to show compassion by allowing this young family to remain in the United Kingdom.]

535
The motion is supported by more than 90 hon. Members. It deals with the proposed deportation of a young mother with two young babies, both born in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to receive a deputation to discuss this diabolical decision?
Mr. Biffen: I understand that the case is being reviewed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I shall bring to his attention the points which have just been raised.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As I intend to table an early-day motion on the subject, will the Leader of the House provide time next week to enable the Minister with responsibility for the disabled to explain to this House how the statement made to the Welsh Conservative party conference by the Secretary of State for Wales accords with the express desire of that Minister that public attitudes to the disabled should be altered by means of education, example and persuasion?
Mr. Biffen: It would be only courteous if I were to wait until I saw the terms of the early-day motion. Meanwhile, I will refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to the relevant Minister.
Mr. Max Madden: Has the Leader of the House seen the statement issued today by the House of Commons branch of the Association of Clerical, Technical and Supervisory Staffs which makes serious criticisms of the competence and impartiality of the inquiry into water contamination of the Norman Shaw South building? Will he seriously consider those criticisms and also the request for the early establishment of a wholly independent inquiry, which would involve trade union consultation?
Mr. Biffen: I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the inquiry, and I should like to make that amply clear, but I shall look at the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Leader of the House aware of the tremendous pressure which is building up in Strangeways prison in Manchester which now holds nearly twice as many people as it was originally designed for, including people on remand who are not guilty of any crime? Is he also aware that the prison officers there recently passed a motion of no confidence in the governor? Given that things have reached such a pitch, may we have an independent inquiry into events at the prison so that we can be assured that everything is satisfactory or, in the likely event that the prison officers still have some realistic grievances, that something is done to make things easier for them and for the inmates of the prison.
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that such an inquiry would be the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to whom I will refer the points which have just been made.

Business of the House

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That European Community Document No. 4519/85, On the discharge of certain dangerous substances into water, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.— [Mr. Newbert]
  Ordered,
  That European Community Documents Nos. 6707/85, concerning the examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues, and 4793/84, concerning sampling and analysis for the monitoring of foodstuffs for human consumption, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Neubert.]

OPPOSITION DAY
[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
OPPOSITION DAY

  Northern Ireland
  4.6 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I beg to move,
  That this House invites the Government, in view of the destabilizing effect in Northern Ireland of conflicting unofficial reports consistently circulating in the Press, to bring its current discussions with the Government of the Irish Republic to an early termination and publish a White Paper setting out the several matters discussed and the conclusions reached.
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The general concern of the motion is expressed in the caption,
  "Restoration of Stability in Northern Ireland."
  It is therefore useful at least to be clear-headed about what we are thinking. The dictionary defines "stability" as,
  "stable, firmly fixed, or established, not easily to be moved or changed or destroyed."
  We move the motion because it is the conviction and desire of the Ulster Unionist party and the people of Ulster at large that Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, as well as its institutions of government, should be stable. We recognise that Her Majesty's Government have tabled an amendment which raises the question whether the Government have contributed to stability.
  Only last week we debated the Interim Period Extension Order. Does the very title itself knock the concept of stability when we talk about something being stable and fixed as we bring forward an interim period extension order? That in itself suggests that the purpose of the Government is not stability. In that debate the Secretary of State said that the identity of the Protestant community must be respected by both Governments. That was in keeping with a conclusion reached by the two Heads of Government. Last week, the Secretary of State said:
  "This, as the two Heads of Government agreed at Chequers, must be respected, as must the wish of the majority in Northern Ireland to retain its British identity and to remain a part of the United Kingdom."— [Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81 c. 974.]
  In that same week the Secretary of State added to instability in Northern Ireland by being insensitive towards Loyalist aspirations by curtailing traditional Protestant marches which have been held in the Province for centuries.
  I want to put on record my own view, which reflects the view of my party and of many in the Province. We are not talking about restricting marches, like those which have taken place recently and which appear to be provocative. We are not saying that undisciplined parades should not be curtailed, but there should be a different judgment on marches that have taken place for at least a century and a half without the coat trailing that is so often referred to in these discussions.
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of our party, and my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), I met the Secretary of State. We emphasised the serious consequences of interfering with the expression of Loyalist regard for our place in the United Kingdom and our civil and religious liberty which we wish to uphold. We stressed the serious risks involved in banning or
  538
  curtailing traditional parades. We conveyed to the Secretary of State background information about certain localities. The Government did not seem to be fully aware of that information.
  During the past week it has been stated that there has been no involvement of Dublin in the banning of parades. We have been assured that banning involves only the Government and that the rerouteing of parades is strictly a matter for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, it is not what is, but what appears to be, that matters. In our country the statement that Dublin has not been involved falls on deaf ears.
  In a written answer to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said:
  "The Irish Government made representations about the control of a St. Patrick's Day parade in Portadown. Her Majesty's embassy in Dublin has explained that the control of parades is primarily a matter for the operational judgment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary."— [Official Report, 1 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 486.]
  Perhaps some hon. Members know that many people in the Province feel deeply about parades. By and large the Loyalist community has observed the law.
  A predecessor of mine, William Johnston of Ballykilbeg, was elected to Parliament in the late 1800s. Because the Orange men had abided by the law on party processions, which law was not being enforced impartially, on a July day in 1867 William Johnston led a march from Bangor to Newtownards. Subsequently he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for breach of the law. That is what is involved in cross-bearing — being prepared to take the consequences of following through one's conscientious actions. After his release from prison he was returned to this Chamber, and he continued to be a Member of Parliament for many years. In view of that background, I should have thought that any responsible Minister would think twice before curtailing or banning a parade that has taken place for 150 years. We have been told that one section of the Northern Ireland community is alienated, but growing numbers are being alienated by ham-fisted actions by Her Majesty's Government and by those who serve as Ministers.
  The Secretary of State fails to recognise our fears when he repeatedly invites spokesmen of a foreign country to weigh in on Northern Ireland affairs, as he did again in last week's debate when he said:
  "It is natural that Ministers in the south should, as they do from time to time, feel and express views about what happens in the north. My predecessors and I have differed from other hon. Members and some elected representatives in the Province on that point. However, I have already stated the conclusion that the Government have reached on it." — [Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 975.]
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that Dublin dialogues were no substitute for a solution within Northern Ireland. The Ulster Unionist party and I believe that the Northern Ireland Office has not tried to move forward within Northern Ireland and that it is busily engaged, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in undermining confidence and stability within Northern Ireland.
  What other interpretation can we put upon the lack of information from the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on their discussions with the Republic? It is the easiest thing in the world to laugh, but, as a psychiatrist or a psychologist would say, that is a cover-up, because there is no argument against

  539
  that inference. We have asked questions, but we find it difficult to get answers. Ministers from the Department of the Secretary of State and from other Departments have been meeting Ministers from the Republic about every two weeks since 1983. That is shown in a written answer in column 413 of the Official Report of 1 April. I do not think that there is any significance in the fact that the question was answered on 1 April.
  The range of Departments involved in the meetings has been wide — Education, Energy, Agriculture, Justice, Transport, Environment, Wales, Social Services, Employment. One can imagine the number of meetings that take place between officials of the Departments concerned in the United Kingdom and the Republic. I said, "One can imagine." One has to, because the right hon. Gentleman has refused to give information about meetings between officials. There is no information to disabuse us our ignorance or to confirm our views.
  Officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been attending conferences in Dublin on Irish culture, organised by a group funded by the British taxpayer to the tune of £24,000 in the current year. That was shown in the Supply Estimates, class II, vote 1. People in Northern Ireland wonder what is going on. It may be the promotion of Irish culture at the expense of our British identity. We should like to think that money was being spent also on our British identity.
  We are told that the two communities have to live together. We had a classic illustration of a name that brought the two communities together — Londonderry. "London" indicates the British tradition and "Derry" the Irish tradition. But the Government decided to do away with "London" in the name of the Council.
  There is a constant erosion of our British culture, but we spend fair sums of money upon promoting Irish culture. I can find no evidence of the Ulster identity being studied in schools. Can the Secretary of State find time to tell us whether those groups in Northern Ireland which seek to promote the concept of an Ulster identity will receive the same funds as those which promote what is glibly called the Irish identity?
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to a six or a nine-county Ulster identity?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am not unduly worried.
  The Secretary of State takes a constant interest in and regularly speaks about what is commonly called the Irish section. The Irish section joined Dean Swift in saying that everything English should be burnt, apart from English coal. I hope that the miners do not object to that quotation.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) represents those who constantly refer to the English imposition upon Ireland. The nine counties are historically an English imposition, but that was not the old Ulster. That is more akin to the Northern Ireland which we represent. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware that this is a debate about Ulster's identity.
  The report of the Anglo-Irish Encounter Group says:
  "It was hoped that Oxford university would establish a chair of Irish Studies. An Institute of Irish Studies, offering a BA in Irish Studies, was being established by Keele University, Crewe and Alsager College of Education and North Staffordshire Polytechnic. When a number of such degree courses existed, it
  540
  should be possible to get Irish Studies accepted at A level. It was surprising, she said, that options in American, French and many other studies existed, but not in Irish studies."
  I would add that they do riot exist for Ulster studies.
  It is too much of coincidence that the daughter of Garret FitzGerald teaches Irish studies at Crewe and Alsager college of education. I doubt whether, despite her father's proud boast of having an Ulster ancestor, she will be telling her students about the Unionist side of the argument. It is conveniently and regularly forgotten. We talk about the English imposition and English misrule instead of referring to the quality of life that has characterised the north-east of Ireland since long before the plantation.
  There is one stable factor which Ministers, the Opposition and others ignore and to which they seem determined to remain blind: the vote for the Unionist parties which has been signified at every election in Northern Ireland, whether by the strict first-past-the-post system or by the manipulation of proportional representation. The people of Northern Ireland vote consistently and clearly for the Union.
  Hon. Members refer to a head count, as though the British Government had drawn a frontier to protect the Union. An honourable agreement was reached between the three consenting parties on the best way forward, but that was not at the behest of the Ulster Unionists. In our heart of hearts, most of us would have preferred, instead of the secession of the 26 counties from the United Kingdom, the old Unionist position: that the best hope for the future is to be found in a relationship with the United Kingdom. If we want stability, that is the way forward.
  Those who gave evidence recently to the Northern Ireland Assembly's devolutionary committee made it plain that the community should have been given a voting opportunity which demonstrated that fewer than 50 per cent. of the Roman Catholic community was in favour of a United Ireland. This was done in the border referendum. No matter how one does the sums, even allowing for intimidation it showed clearly, as subsequent opinion polls have shown, that this is not simply a question of Roman Catholic versus Protestant, but a question that divides those who want to be in the Union and to live in a stable community and those who want to latch on to the United Kingdom, through Europe and other subventions, instead of taking their place within the overall structure.
  I need not deal in detail with the sorry tale of the Government's refusal to strike at Sinn Fein. Its entry into local government in Northern Ireland signified the renewal of genocidal war against both Protestant and Catholic policemen and prison officers.
  The Labour party has co-operated honourably with us, and this Opposition Supply day debate arises out of an agreement with it. I believe that I detected signs of an improvement in two recent speeches from the Front Bench of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I pay tribute to what he said in those speeches. Nevertheless, Brecon Beacon is probably calling many hon. Members to dance around it today. That may account for so few Opposition Members being in the House. The Conservative party may be fighting a battle there, too. However, little can be said about Labour party policy for our much maligned Province. Who speaks for the Labour party? Is it the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, or the various groups within the Labour

  541
  party who lean over his shoulder and trot out their various half-baked and dangerous schemes? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "If there is ever to be an end to divisions in Northern Ireland, if people are ever to live in peace with their neighbours, and if there is to be any end of the tribalism, the violence, the waste and the tragedy of it all, there must be some arrangement about how people can live together in one island and manage their business and administer their affairs. There is no hope of that unless they can seek agreement through conversations and constitutional processes with those with whom they do not already agree." — [Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 985.]
  On that occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman was long in criticism of the Unionists and the Government but short on what he himself would do. We are still awaiting real proposals, rather than colonial style visits that lead to some Members of his party being in dialogue with Sinn Fein, who are proxies for murder.
  I prefer to look beyond the Front Bench of the Labour party, where a responsible attitude has been shown at conferences and at other levels, to the activists who have hijacked what was once a great party. In a recent reference to the Sinn Fein vote in the local government elections in Northern Ireland, the magazine of the Labour Committee on Ireland, New Labour and Ireland, said:
  "This must mark the end of normalisation. The six local councils where Sinn Fein hold the balance of power is proof enough."
  Speaking of the efforts of Unionists to stand up to Republicanism on local councils, it says:
  "Labour activists in Britain will have to campaign against this arrogance, through mutual delegations, links between councillors and pressure on party leaders to make their position clear."
  Incidentally, the same issue of that publication carried a lengthy article by the Sinn Fein abstentionist from west Belfast about May day. The Labour Committee on Ireland is the Sinn Fein wing of the Labour party, and the attitude of the Labour party to that committee and to Northern Ireland has not contributed to stability, but has undermined good government and good relations in Northern Ireland.
  Lest I am told that all I do is criticise and do not put forward views, I shall put forward something of the view that we on this Bench take, though, as many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall be brief. We have attempted to bring a lasting, stable, durable state of affairs to Northern Ireland. As I criticise types of discussion—for example, relationships with the Irish Republic — I am reminded of the famous "Tell Scotland" campaign in church circles, when an elder of the Church of Scotland said, "I do not mind them telling Scotland. It is what they are telling Scotland that I am not so sure about."
  As one who has been prepared to argue our corner and event to go to the deep south of Ireland to present the Unionist viewpoint, I am not against presenting our case to or having proper relationships with a friendly neighbour. However, I must ask that neighbour to start being friendly. A man who wants friends must show himself to be friendly. One way immediately to start on that process would be to get rid of the arrogant 1935 constitution, which would never have been brought in had there been a desire on the part of the southern Irish people to have one-ness with Ulster.
  In considering our position, it is clear that we have counselled caution and calmness, although Conservative Members may not wish to give us credit for having done
  542
  that. We have preached caution when stories of summits and sell-outs have filled the pages of the newspapers. We have preached responsible responses to provocation from the IRA and INLA and on local councils.
  We also acted responsibly when the Secretary of State set his face against our culture and religious freedom in respect of Londonderry and our legitimate right to hold a peaceful march, especially a march to a church service which had gone on annually for 150 years. That attitude of responsibility was summed up well last week by our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, when, talking of speculation in the media, he said:
  "Because of all this suspicion, because of all the kite-flying and because of all the projections, all the rumour-mongering and all the deliberate leaks, they can hardly blame Loyalists for being a bit suspicious and, if it comes to that, they can hardly blame the IRA for imagining that, if it gets in on the act, it will expedite affairs along the road that it would wish to choose". — [Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 990.]
  We have tried hard to formulate a lasting system of government for Northern Ireland. That is why I was prepared to enter the Northern Ireland constitutional convention, which this House did not debate because a section refused to take part in any such debate, and thereby did not have the opportunity to vote for many parts of the convention report with which Members of that section would have agree. I refer, of course, to the SDLP. Its Members took that view because they were not given a cast iron guarantee of a place in office, no matter how the people voted. We were prepared to provide the structure in which all could participate. However, they wanted a structure in which they could say, "We are in, no matter who else is out." Having given that convention a job to do, this House did not bother properly to examine what it said in its report. Thank heavens that a few of the recommendations of the convention have subsequently been developed, despite the attitude of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member who represents a Leeds constituency, the proper name of which escapes me.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the way in which some people in Northern Ireland object when their names are not known, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman should be told that my constituency is Morley and Leeds, South.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making that clear. He will recall that at the time when we were lobbying about the report of the convention in respect of extra seats at Westminister, he said, "Never." I reminded him then that his Leader had said that seven days was a long time in politics. "Never" is a word that one should not use in politics. That is the view I take of the convention report. Little by little the light may dawn on people.
  We have acted within the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was set up by this Chamber, to perform an impossible task on impossible terms, for it was certain from the beginning that one of the parties would stay out. We said that the system would have to be changed, and subsequently the Assembly has been looking at the whole matter through its devolution committee.
  I need not remind the House of the invitations that have been extended to the absenting party, which is represented in this Chamber by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—who is absent again today — and of our attempt to persuade the Roman Catholic hierarchy, Dr. Cahil

  543
  Daly, to come before us to give his views on the alienation of the community so that we might at least have the opportunity to speak to somebody with a point of view to express.
  Having said that, let us consider the view of my party, as expressed in "The Way Forward", in which we said:
  "The time is now ripe for both communities in Northern Ireland to realise that, essentially, their problems will have to be solved in Northern Ireland by their political representatives and that any future prospect for them and their children is best provided for within the Northern Ireland context. This will require a mutual recognition of each other's hopes and fears. Only rights can be guaranteed, not aspirations, but it is the responsibility of the majority to persuade the minority that the Province is also theirs."
  Some of us have been doing our best to get that across. It is a hard task, especially when some stay out of the ring. While the metaphor may not be altogether apt, it is nevertheless real.
  In that document, we recognised the problems and conflicts in Ulster. We also pointed out that present arrangements were shackled by impossible conditions, which demanded that those who wished to wreck the system should be handed the levers of power. Instead, we asked that limited powers over basic local government functions be devolved to Stormont, so that perhaps at that level a degree of trust and a working relationship could be built up.
  I admit, frankly, that the time to act on the issue may have gone and that a good opportunity was lost in the welter of bitterness generated by Sinn Fein and the IRA since 15 May. However, we are asking the Government, the Labour party and all parties in this House to look again at the whole issue and to recognise that the conditions imposed by the current system in Northern Ireland must be changed to allow direct accountability by politicians and public servants for their actions.
  An aspect that has caused tremendous unrest is the fact that the self-appointed protector of the minority in Northern Ireland has never properly defined that minority. The definition alters according to whom one is debating the matter with. It is normally defined by Mr. Barry as "Nationalist", though on some occasions he defines it as "Roman Catholic".
  544
  When a person from outside our country appoints himself as the protector of minorities, we must be careful how we deal with that person. History recalls that an individual named Hitler appointed himself as the protector of minority interests. The concept of power-sharing was introduced into Austria to preserve the interest of the minority, and that ultimately led to the anschluss of 1938.
  We would deny the right of any Ministers or Government to set themselves up as the protecting power within Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the lamentable spectacle of the terror and the tears caused by the then Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, who ordered the troops to the border at an earlier time.
  In closing, I wish to take up one point that was made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) in winding-up the debate on 26 June. He assured us then that, if we had not been talking to the Government of the Irish Republic, there would, for example, have been no arms find on the Marita Anne. I may be an innocent abroad, I may be naive, and I may be getting my information from the wrong sources, but I understood that the arms for the Marita Anne were discovered in the United States and that it was through NATO shadowing operations that they were traced being transferred to the Marita Anne. As a result, the southern security forces could have done very little but get them. Perhaps it was because there was no conversation going on in the last week or so when the Marita Anne was at sea again and an Irish fisheries protection boat challenged it, because it suspected the Marita Anne of doing some illegal salmon fishing, that masked gunmen on the Marita Anne repelled an attempt to board her. The sea-to-shore communications were so excellent that the Marita Anne was able to dock and the crew to scarper before anybody could come to see who was on board. If that is the sort of security co-operation that has been going on between the north and south, between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, some of us would say that we need a little bit more to bring stability to Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland
4.41 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'invites the Government to continue to promote measures which encourage peace, stability and good relations between the two communities in Northern Ireland; invites both communities to work to these ends; recognises the contribution which improved relations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland can make in furthering these objectives; and recognises the need to maintain a firm security policy under the law.'.
Hon. Members on the Unionist Opposition Benches have, I think, chosen an admirable theme for their Supply day, and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) moved the motion in a clear and calm way. I think that it is an admirable theme because stability under the law is the first need of any society. It is not always present in Northern Ireland, and that is certainly the main shortcoming in Northern Ireland today. We discussed last week in two debates the details of this, and therefore I need today only to set out again, briefly, how we, the Government, work to achieve the stability which the Opposition and the hon. Member for Belfast, South rightly wish to see.
The motion that the Unionists have tabled selects one particular matter as destabilising, to use their phrase, and that is the talks between the British and Irish Governments, so I ought to deal with that first.
I cannot advise the House to accept the unamended motion that the Unionist party has tabled, but I notice that it is couched in moderate terms. It does not ask us to refuse discussions with the Irish Republic but to bring them to an early termination. It does not ask us to reject any agreement with the Irish Government but to publish any conclusions in a White Paper.
The origins of this round of discussions between the two Governments have been often discussed in the House. The House knows that they originated in the Chequers summit communiqué, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach issued after that summit, in which they reaffirmed the constitutional guarantee of the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and went on to say that they wanted to find ways of reflecting the identity of both communities in Northern Ireland.
Speaking to the United States Congress on 20 February, my right hon. Friend said:
"Garret FitzGerald and I will continue to consult together in the quest for stability"—
note the same word as in the motion—
"in Northern Ireland and hope we will have your continued support for our joint efforts to find a way forward."
Both my right hon. Friend and I have made it clear on numerous occasions that there is no intention on the Government's part either to transfer or to share with others outside Northern Ireland in some scheme for joint authority the exercise of executive power in the Province.
The discussions with the Irish Government are, I think I can safely say, reasonably well advanced. I cannot say this afternoon exactly when they will come to a conclusion, nor can I say whether that conclusion will be a successful agreement. There is work still to be done. I
546
suspect that it will not be all that long now before we know one way or another, but we do not know, I do not know, no one knows, this afternoon.
I recognise the point made in the motion that in this period there are press reports that confuse and that can create anxiety. I think many Opposition Members will recognise that there are in the Province people who are anxious that there should be anxiety. There are people whose aim is not stability, but rather keeping the temperature high.
However, I recognise that there is also genuine anxiety in the majority community born out of many sufferings and the strong feelings of a community that has often felt beleaguered and threatened. I ask them to accept that, if discussions are to be serious, they do sometimes have to be in confidence until they are concluded. I think that it is almost implicit in the motion that they do accept this. This is true in many walks of life, and often in transactions between Governments.
I must tell the House that it would be rather easier for me personally in the job that I have if I were able to break confidences and deal faithfully with the rumours that have been circulating, but I am not so free at present. All that I can give the hon. Member for Belfast, South this afternoon is the assurance that, as soon as the present round of talks comes to an end, whether they succeed or fail, the outcome will be fully and openly announced. Obviously, if they result in any agreement, the House will have an opportunity to discuss and take a view on that agreement.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When the Prime Minister in the last few days entered into discussions on behalf of this country with the representatives of other nations, she set out clearly to the House what the objectives were, what she wanted, what she was prepared to accept and what she was not prepared to accept. Would it not be helpful if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would do that in the relations between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, which are much more tense and which concern much more directly the stability of the Province?
Mr. Hurd: If the right hon. Gentleman would look up the account that my right hon. Friend gave to the House after the Chequers summit, he will see there set out exactly the same sort of explanation and analysis of objectives as my right hon. Friend gave the other day after the Milan summit. The aim of the talks, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks up that reference, the aim of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and of our colleagues, is increased stability, to take place within the framework of the assurances that we have been given and to which I have referred.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South, as I expected, made a connection between the subject which he raised — the talks — and the tradition of parades and marches, which is part of the summer scene in Northern Ireland. At its best, that tradition is cheerful and festive, and both communities organise such events. Last year 2,200 parades took place in Northern Ireland of which the police knew, and no doubt there were many of which they did not know. I happened to ask how many there were three days ago, and the answer was 41 on one day alone.
Of course, the parades in themselves are a display of solidarity, but it is a display that can be made without any

547
sense of insult or provocation to others. Neither the Chief Constable nor I have any desire to interfere with parades of this kind, let alone to impose a general ban such as was imposed in the last days of Stormont rule. Every evening at this time of year, dozens of such parades are taking place in every one of the six counties along routes agreed with the police without difficulty in calm and good-tempered circumstances, as I have seen for myself. The difficulty arises with a few of the proposed parades. Some of those, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South said, are not traditional but have sprung up in recent years in a deliberate attempt to provoke those who live in the streets through which they seek to pass.
One example is the parade at Castlewellan, which I banned last week. More than 90 per cent. of the citizens of Castlewellan are Catholics. The proposed parade was overwhelmingly an affair of outsiders, who wished to put the stamp of Protestant ascendancy upon a Catholic town. I had no difficulty in agreeing with the Chief Constable's recommendation that I should ban that parade in the interests of public order. It seemed to me that the organisers were playing into the hands of Sinn Fein and the IRA, and that if I had allowed the parade to take place I should have merely confirmed the untrue accusations of Sinn Fein and the IRA about the biased nature of direct rule. This year, or some year soon, there would probably have been a sectarian riot. The organisers of the parade, as the House will have noted, tried to defy the ban, and there were scenes of law breaking. Fortunately, the RUC was able to uphold the ban. Those who tried to overturn it did a bad service to Northern Ireland.
There are other parades — I am following the hon. Member's analysis — which are traditional but whose nature has changed over the years. In many cases, that is not the fault of the original organisers. In some cases, crude and provocative bands from miles away attach themselves to what used to be an orderly occasion. In other cases, a route which was once through green fields and passed friendly houses now runs through streets inhabited by the other community. A threat to public order can thus be feared, as at Portadown, in the next few weeks.
The correct answer in such cases—I repeat that they are a small minority — is for the organisers and the police to work out a different route that avoids the danger. I must stress that routes are not a matter for the Secretary of State. Under the law, they are rightly the responsibility of the police and the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable must choose place by place, parade by parade, how far he must insist on re-routeing if negotiations with the organisers break down.
Anyone who has experience of such matters will acknowledge that those are difficult decisions. I am sure that it is right that they should not be imposed from Stormont castle under some general policy. The decisions should be taken individually, as the law provides, by the Chief Constable, probably late in the day, in the light of his assessment of the needs of public order.
Sir John Hermon will have my full support in the decisions that he makes on the routeing of parades. I have heard it suggested — though diffidently by the hon. Gentleman today — that the Chief Constable's actions will be influenced by some form of interference or influence from Dublin. That is not so. The Irish Government's views about provocative parades are not hard to guess, but the Chief Constable's decisions on routes are taken on the ground of public order and stem
548
from the genuine anxieties which he has clearly and repeatedly set out in his annual reports. He follows a policy line that he has openly explained and justified on the ground of public order in Northern Ireland.
The abuse, for provocative purposes, of the parading tradition cannot be reconciled with the need for stability in Northern Ireland. The best way to maintain the good things in the tradition which Opposition Members rightly respect, is to eliminate the abuse.
Without wishing to bore the House with a repetition of the points that I made during our debate last week, I wish to describe what we mean by the search for stability and
"a firm security policy under the law"
as set out in the amendment. We mean eradicating terrorism by bringing those suspected of terrorist acts before the courts. We mean keeping the security forces one step ahead through a flexible policy, by overt and covert patrolling, gaining the co-operation of local people and maximising good intelligence.
In this country we have had an important success in the past week or so, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has reported to the House. That success is important for Northern Ireland as well as for the rest of the kingdom. It will bring relief on the other side of the water as well as here. The House will not expect me to say more about that because at present I plainly cannot. The House will have noticed, however, that one of those charged was an escaped prisoner from the Maze. The House will also have deduced that that success was the result of co-operation between police forces within the kingdom, but co-operation does not and should not stop short at the border with the Republic.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about border co-operation. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) sand when he gave us a long analysis of his views on that subject in our debate last week. He said that although Garda Siochana and RUC worked together up to a point because they shared a profession, no hope of wider cooperation existed because, to a large extent, the political aims of the Irish Government and the IRA converged, and were bound to converge. In his view, security co-operation in any depth was thus a myth. I hope that I have not distorted what the right hon. Gentleman said.
In the day-to-day world of trying to face the problems and trying to find the right answers which will save lives and eradicate terrorism, I do not believe that that negative analysis makes sense, partly because we see, as the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) pointed out, the Irish Government making major and successful efforts to combat terrorism. Those holding the positions that my hon. Friend I do must work as hard as they can to find a better and more systematic way of improving the cooperation that exists between the Irish Republic and the north. I believe that that is crucial to any sustained and remarkable improvement in the security position.
Anyone who has studied the facts and reports, for example, about home-made explosives, funds and the flow of weapons would, I think accept that cross-border security co-operation must be a prime aim if we are serious about the subject.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman so innocent that he is unaware that the Irish Republic lays on

549
finds and those operations when they fit the phase in which it finds itself in its negotiations with the British Government?
Mr. Hurd: I do not believe that I am innocent in those matters. I must take them seriously. I am not satisfied with the present level of co-operation. I should like to see it more sustained and systematic. I regard improving it as one of the essential aims of the Government and our security policy. Anyone who studies subject by subject the different sectors of security policy will be driven to that conclusion. I am not saying that that will be easy or that it will be achieved by a few sweet words or meetings. I am not denying the difficulties that plainly exist. I am saying that the aim is central——
Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State has made an important statement because in the past we have had nothing from the Government Front Bench but praise for the degree of security co-operation that comes from the Republic. Will he tell us in what areas co-operation needs to be more sustained and more systematic so that we can then judge the basis of his argument?
Mr. Hurd: The analysis that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have consistently given while I have been in this place is that security co-operation is good but that it could be improved. That work is essential to improve the protection available to the citizens of Northern Ireland.
I wish to discuss the role that the security forces play in working for stability, and I address myself, in particular, to Opposition Members.
The Opposition will accept that the security forces—the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment—are not present in Northern Ireland to impose the ascendancy of one community over another. That is emphatically not the purpose for which Parliament and United Kingdom taxpayers provide and sustain the security forces. The security forces are present to uphold the law even-handedly and to protect all law-abiding citizens from violence. There will be no stability in Northern Ireland unless that is true and seen to be true. I hope that Unionist Members will support that intention.
The decisions made by the security forces in attempting to exercise impartiality will sometimes be questioned or criticised. That is inevitable in a free society. I appreciate that there are fears of a slippery slope, that one step, one apparently reasonable concession, will lead to the exaction of another and that the slide will continue until the majority is eventually dragged unwillingly into a united Ireland. I can understand that fear because it has been explained to me cogently many times by people whose understanding of the majority community I respect, but I believe that it is an unreal fear.
The main evil in Northern Ireland is the calculated brutality of terrorism. Another evil, which feeds on that, is the inability in some places and in some sections of community life for the two communities to live in harmony. If Northern Ireland is to flourish there must be growth of co-operation across that boundary. There must be respect between the two communities. Whatever the outcome of the Anglo-Irish talks, we must seek to bring that harmony into existence. The Government will continue to work towards a form of devolution that will
550
command the acceptance and involvement of both communities and enable the elected representatives to play a better, more active part in the decisions that affect the daily life of the Province.
I was glad to hear my favourite sentence from "The Way Forward" quoted today even though it was qualified. We must all keep alive and develop the spirit in which the authors wrote that document. Responsible people need to support the security forces if we are to suceed in bringing about peace and greater stability in the Province. They must appreciate that detailed decisions must be taken in the interests of Northern Ireland as a whole. I have made this point in the past to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and I am sorry that he is not present for this important debate. I make the same appeal to all Unionist Members.
Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) told me the day before yesterday that he had an important engagement with the Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland, which he hoped might lead to further investment in the Province. That is the reason for his absence.
Mr. Hurd: I have clearly been unfair to the hon. Member for Foyle and I withdraw any criticism implied in my previous remarks about him.
In some respects what we ask is not easy. There is a large backlog of suspicions, incriminations, anxieties and feelings of insecurity that Unionist Members face when they return to Northern Ireland. The majority of people in Northern Ireland want peace and stability and regard them as great blessings, but those blessings are not the exclusive gift of Government. The Government have an essential part to play in creating these conditions but the responsibility lies not with us alone but with the elected representatives of the Province, with the community leaders and with the people.
I have tried to allay some of the anxieties that the hon. Member for Belfast, South raised in a calm manner when he opened the debate. I hope that I have shown some understanding of the anxieties that genuinely beset the people of the Province. The Government will not allow the greater stability — which is not yet perfect, but which has grown up in recent years and of which people in Northern Ireland are so proud—to be undone in a fit of midsummer frustration. That stability is too precious to be sacrificed in backlash and counter-reaction. We have seen in the past what lies down that road. That is why I commend the Government amendment to the House.
5.5 pm
Mr. Peter Archer: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) ventilated some interesting thoughts, which I intend to pursue. First, however, I shall venture some reflections, partly philosophical and partly severely practical, which I hope will not fall outside the terms of the motion. The solutions on how best to govern Northern Ireland fall into three categories. First, there are long-term solutions — I use that expression in the sense of the permanency of the proposals rather than the length of time that we need take to achieve them. Secondly, there are medium-term solutions — measures to initiate the process of resolution and reconciliation. Thirdly, there are short-term solutions — measures that can be taken immediately without awaiting agreement on any other questions. I propose to discuss an example of the third category.

551
Between the hours of 2.30 am and 4.30 am today the House embarked on consideration of two orders of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. The first embraced a wide range of powers available to local councils to improve the quality of life in their areas. I repeat now what I said then partly because the House was not then so tightly packed as it is now and also because at that hour it was unlikely that my remarks would receive much consideration from the media. I said that anyone who chose that late hour to concentrate his thoughts on future policy for a Chinese laundry would be inviting bankruptcy, yet the Government considered it an appropriate time to consider the future of Northern Ireland. I said that the order related to a wide diversity of powers, approval of one part not necessarily entailing approval of the others, and that there was room for argument about the extent of the powers and safeguards required. But the order was unamendable and the House was invited to take it or leave it in its entirety. There was no possibility of making improvements.
I suggested that it was not beyond our collective wisdom to devise a better way of considering Northern Ireland business, and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), in a kind reference to my remarks, made it clear that, whatever our differences on other issues, here we were in agreement. He suggested on behalf of his party that there might be talks between the Government, the official Opposition, the Official Unionist party and any other party which consented to participate to explore what could sensibly be done.
I mention this matter for two reasons. First, I was brought up in an area where forgings were an essential part of many industrial processes and the work was carried out by blacksmiths, so I learned quite literally what was meant by striking while the iron is hot. The Labour party would welcome discussions for the purpose outlined by the right hon. Member for South Down, and if there is any response we will do our best to contribute to their success. Secondly, what was suggested seems to illustrate the point which I have tried constantly to make, that talks for a limited purpose, with no preconditions that anyone should first embrace or renounce any specific opinion, may make a positive contribution to good government. We may find that we enjoy the process; it may become a habit.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Belfast, South would suggest channels for agreement whereby his party might contemplate making concessions—that he would recognise the anxieties on the other side and hold out a hand. I say to him in all friendship that I think that he has demonstrated that public speeches are not the best way of advancing these discussions. The hon. Gentleman said nothing that would carry the dialogue any further. He tempted me to reiterate the Labour party's policy but, if I had done so, I would have been repeating what I have said on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman was there on most of them—perhaps he was not listening—but, if it will help, I shall provide him with the references to all the reports.
The Labour party is not unanimous on all aspects of its attitude to Northern Ireland. We are deeply suspicious of parties which are so clear about what they believe that discussion has come to a standstill, that their minds are closed to any new ideas and that they will not consider it possible that they may be wrong. The Labour party is looking and listening to all parties in Northern Ireland to
552
see whether there is any sign among any of them of a new tolerance and a suggestion that, were they in a dominant position, they would be prepared to be generous.
It was right that the hon. Member for Belfast, South and his colleagues sought to use their Supply day for ventilating this issue. The people of Northern Ireland and the people on this side of the water are anxious to know what progress has been made in the talks between the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Republic, if only because none of us is content with the status quo. The condition of Northern Ireland bears witness to the fact that there must be a better way of administering its affairs than the present way.
In the debate on 26 June the Secretary of State reported that the Government had
"maintained a dialogue with the Irish Government."—Official Report. 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 974.]
He said that the details must remain confidential. I understand what the hon. Member for Belfast, South and the motion say—that secrecy breeds rumours and that people cannot resist making guesses, which are frequently bad guesses—but I am bound to say, being as objective as I can, that on this issue I come down on the side of the Government. There are two ways of conducting discussions—openly and publicly at each stage, so that we are all aware of what is happening, or they may proceed privately and, when agreement has been reached or when it is clear that no agreement is possible, the Government may announce the outcome. On many occasions, the open method is to be preferred. In a democracy the public should be provided with the maximum information about what is happening, unless there are good reasons for keeping the matter dark. It cannot be a good reason that it would be politically expedient for the Government to face us all with a fait accompli or that the Government would prefer not to answer awkward questions. Some of us entertain a suspicion that that may be their reason for keeping certain matters dark.
But where two sides are negotiating with a genuine hope of reaching understanding, where they have to explore possible ways of making progress — rejecting some proposals at the outset when it is clear that there is no advantage in pursuing them, and seeking to ascertain where there is already common ground and to find out which issues separate them—the negotiations are much more likely to be successful if they can be assured that a proposal will not be published out of context before the package is agreed, that a proposal which is not pursued will not bedevil progress, and that suggestions are not over-simplified or misunderstood before the details are worked out. In that situation, the two sides can be honest with each other, without having to watch every word because of the emotion that it might evoke. Being as fair as I usually try to be, on that issue I side with the Government.
I would be prepared for these discussions, as with some discussions between Ministers and right hon. Members, to take place privately in the hope that they would enable some progress to be made without public allegations and counter-allegations. What is important is not declamation and drama, but patient hard work on the debate. If I may say so without offence, if the Prime Minister defers calling another press conference until after some progress has been made and then handles the matter with sensitivity and restraint, we shall all breathe freely again. But the

553
Secretary of State must not assume that the patience of the public or of the House is unlimited. There comes a time when, understandably, people want to know what is happening and how long they must wait for a resolution of their problems. So I do not complain about the fact that the hon. Member for Belfast, South has asked these questions.
I should like the Government to discuss many matters with the Government of the Irish Republic. One activity, on which I believe all hon. Members would like the authorities on both sides of the border to co-operate more efficiently is the one mentioned by the Secretary of State — security. We would all like both police forces to operate as effectively, as fairly and as sensibly as possible. No one but a lawbreaker would derive any comfort from hearing that co-operation is impeded because of personal friction between senior officers in the respective forces. I hope that the two Governments are considering ways in which recruitment, the command structure and the nomenclature can be made to contribute to a situation in which the police are seen as protecting people of all traditions and are entitled in exchange to the co-operation of people of all traditions.
We should be moving towards a stage where the people of the nationalist tradition can believe that the police are objective and non-discriminating in the way that they discharge their duties so that, in the recent words of Mr. Peter Barry, a young nationalist may join the police without being any the less a nationalist. That objective will not be advanced if some Protestant politicians give the impression that they expect the police to make a distinction between their treatment of the two traditions. I know of no complaints from Loyalist sources when the police have rerouted nationalist marches. But when Loyalist marches have been affected, the police have been labelled as "traitors" and "puppets of the IRA", their actions have been ascribed to the long arm of the Republic acid it has become a question of the right of Ulster Protestants to walk on the roads in their own country.
Of course it is legitimate to ask whether a particular march is likely to be provocative or to endanger public order. Of course it makes sense to inquire as a matter of judgment whether police-public relations can best be improved in a particular way. I appreciate the restraint that hon. Members have shown in a difficult situation, and I hope that I am exercising similar restraint. It is easy to capture the headlines; it is harder to resist the temptation.
But those throughout the world who watch events in Northern Ireland have marvelled at the apparent expectation among some Protestant politicians that the police will apply double standards. They have been horrified at the remarks attributed to the Rev. Ivan Foster that he and his associates would identify every RUC man on duty in Castlewellan at the time of the march because
"Protestants are not prepared to have these policemen seeking refuge from the IRA in Protestant villages".
When Protestant politicians appear to expect the police to treat Protestant marches and Catholic marches differently, it is hardly surprising if the same expectation is entertained in some Catholic circles.
I should like to hear that the two Governments have been discussing how they can co-operate to make security measures more effective, but that is not the only aspect where co-operation makes sense. If it appeared that the
554
Government were interested in co-operation only in respect of security measures, that they were concerned only with what the Secretary of State called "stability" but that they preferred in other respects to keep the Government of the Republic at arm's length, that would confirm the view of those who suspect that the Government see Northern Ireland principally as a security problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked the Secretary of State what he thought of other areas in which there might be cooperation, but I did not detect an answer. I think that the Secretary of State simply reiterated what he said earlier —that security was one respect in which there might be co-operation. I believe that there are other areas where simple elementary common sense calls for more effective channels of co-operation.
Last week we saw an example of where it was demonstrably and manifestly absurd to have two district policies on one island. The Republic has access to natural gas at Kinsale which it regards as a saleable commodity. At the same time, United Kingdom Ministers are closing the gas industry in Northern Ireland, depriving consumers of an option available in every other country in Europe and depriving loyal and skilled employees of their jobs. Let me give another example. It is not for the convenience of travellers that the Republic relies largely on the railway system for its transport, while the north places emphasis on its roads. I have never understood how it could be conducive to securing investment from abroad to have two competing authorities charged with attracting overseas investment. There is much that the two Governments can sensibly discuss.
Last week, too, the Secretary of State told the House:
"The Irish Government have a legitimate interest in what goes on in Northern Ireland." — [Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 974.]
In reply to an intervention, he said that it was natural that Ministers in the south should have views about what happens in Northern Ireland. He said that there could be discussions about whether present channels for the expression of those views could be improved. We would like to have heard more about that today, but if the Minister judges that, if nothing is said publicly for the moment, prospects for progress will be better, I shall contain my curiosity a little longer.
I hope that the two Governments will not feel constrained in their discussions by any rigid definitions or text-book concepts in the vocabulary of constitutional lawyers. As a constitutional lawyer, I have tried to warn against being hypnotised by that vocabulary. Constitutional lawyers should be the servants of the people and not their masters.
In many ways, the problems of Northern Ireland are unique. We may need to find administrative arrangements which are original, in order to find widely acceptable ways of resolving the problems. I urge the Government to consider first how the affairs of the people can be sensibly administered and their aspirations met. Only then should they instruct the constitutional lawyers to devise the technical format. Words such as "sovereignty" and "citizenship" may not be the ideal tools for the job of initiating discussions. Indeed, they may impede the possibility of agreement.
To reach agreement will require goodwill and concessions on both sides. The Irish Government must demonstrate that the parties to the Forum report were

555
serious when they said that they recognised the anxieties of the Protestant people and that they would do what they reasonably could to set them at rest. People of each tradition fear the possibility of being at the mercy of the other tradition. The irony is that each tradition finds it difficult to understand what the other side fears. When our Labour party working group visited Northern Ireland a fortnight ago we met representatives of all the parties who would speak with us. It was very noticeable—I shall be interested to know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North can confirm this—that every delegation we met declared that they were not convinced that, if the other side were in a dominant position, they would be fairly treated. But every delegation declared that, if their side were in a dominant position, they would treat the other side fairly. Each side had doubts about the good faith of the other; neither side could understand why the other should have doubts about its own good faith.
It is not a simple matter of good intentions. It needs imagination-and sensitivity to traditions, customs and aspirations which one does not share. That entails two sorts of discussion which are interdependent and which must proceed together. It entails formal safeguards for whoever is the minority at a particular place and time. It means considering ways of sharing power which are not dependent upon the discretion of the majority party in a state or province, or on a council. It may mean considering electoral systems which offer representation to minorities. It may mean considering channels of complaint for individuals or communities if they believe that they have been victims of discrimination. It may mean discussing Bills of Rights and strengthening equal opportunities machinery. I have written to the Secretary of State on that matter.
I recall that Mr. Sean MacBride, in his submission to the New Ireland Forum, suggested a Bill of Rights, which would be subscribed to by both Governments, in cases where it would not be known which side on a specific occasion was the dominant majority, or which side would be invoking the rights of the minority. So each side would have an incentive to care about the rights of minorities. I do not put that forward as a literal suggestion for discussion, but it seems to me that he was on to something.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he is describing the parliamentary democracy of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Archer: I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, is so insensitive as not to recognise the distinction between an electoral majority that may change and an electoral majority that is firm, established and permanent.
Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman follow the analogy a little further and consider what would be the position if County Durham were treated as separate and self-governing in the same way as we view Northern Ireland? We would almost have a fixed majority and a fixed minority. A conclusion can be drawn from this.
Mr. Archer: I thought that we had established this morning the common ground between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. If we consider powers appropriate to a county council, certain considerations apply, but if we consider powers of a totally different order, other conclusions follow.
Mr. Powell rose——
Mr. Archer: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I discuss this matter with him later. If we turn this into a duologue, it will take an inordinate amount of time. However, obviously there is room for discussion between us and that gladdens my heart because it is what I have tried to establish.
All the devices that I have mentioned may be worth considering in the context of Northern Ireland, even though they are not appropriate elsewhere in the United Kingdom where the problems and needs are different.
A more difficult kind of discussion is about how the people of each tradition, and their leaders, may be helped to understand how it feels to belong to the other tradition. There is probably an urge in all of us to persecute those who are different, just because they are different, because their hair is longer or shorter than ours, or they dress differently, or worship in a different way, or eat a different meal on Fridays. They are different; not worse; not better; just different. If to that urge is added a feeling of insecurity, we have the ingredients of a 17th century witch hunt. It is not to the point to quote examples of people from the two traditions who get on together as good colleagues, or good neighbours or good workmates. Our behaviour as individuals is quite distinct from our political behaviour.
I am conscious that sermons preached about love and charity have little influence on events, especially when preached at a safe distance from the problem. But I have never understood why "do-gooders" is a term of opprobrium. As a personal predilection, I prefer sermons about love and charity to those in favour of hellfire. But if discussions about formal machinery are concurrent with discussions about the promotion of greater understanding, each may help the other.
Of course, the spearhead of the solutions must be talks within Northern Ireland and attempts by the groups and parties there to find a better future together. But I believe that Irish Ministers are anxious, in good faith, to contribute to that process. I do not believe that their overtures are part of a cold-blooded plot to deceive us about their real intentions. I do not believe that there is a calculated conspiracy between Irish Ministers, officials at Stormont castle and RUC officers to deliver the majority in Northern Ireland into serfdom. Those who invent such conspiracies perform no service to the Protestant people.
I believe that the good will expressed in the Forum report was genuine, and that the response in "The Way Forward" was genuine. Questions of whether any good will expressed in the past was genuine do not arise, because until recently nobody expressed any. That is the new factor. A further new factor could be if each side considered the possibility that there might be a genuine desire to find a solution on the other side.
5.30 pm
Rev. William McCrea: Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the freely expressed wish of the people. The right of any country to self-determination and to choose its own destiny is a fundamental constitutional and democratic principle enshrined in international law. The majority of the people of Northern Ireland have consistently declared through the ballot box their unalterable desire to remain within the United Kingdom.

557
Every right hon. and hon. Member is aware of that fact. Some hon. Members may not like it, but it is an established and firm fact.
Recognition and support for the right of self-determination for the people of Northern Ireland is an inescapable obligation for those who have respect for the ballot box. It is not the British troops in the street who keep Ulster British and our people within the United Kingdom, but such overwhelming declarations in favour of that union with Great Britain as emerged from the 1973 referendum and from every election since that occasion.
I must state in unmistakable terms that any attempt at any time to force the Ulster people out of the United Kingdom and into an all-Ireland republic will be fiercely resisted with the same grim determination that was displayed in the House by our forefathers many years ago. Historically, culturally, economically — and therefore politically — the six counties which form Northern Ireland have been and still are utterly different from the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, Irish unification could occur only by the suppression of Northern Ireland's democratic right to and exercise of self-determination.
The leader who dominated southern politics for many years—De Valera—once described Unionists as "a rock on the road" to Irish unification. That same politician said that if necessary that rock must be blasted out of the path. For many years the IRA has sought to do just that. It has sought to blast the Unionists out of existence and those that would be left into an all-Ireland republic. The Ulster Loyalists have never yielded to bombing or to murder. Indeed, their courage and determination has defied every bomb and every bullet.
Alas, Ulster has suffered not only from those who have attacked with the bomb and the bullet, but from some who should be our friends. For many years Ulster prospered. Stability was enjoyed by the Northern Ireland people until plans and schemes began to be laid by those who thought that the best way to achieve the Irish solution was in the United Ireland context. Some even thought that the best way to achieve peace was through a policy of appeasement; a policy of giving in here, there and everywhere to appease the terrorists.
The proposed restructuring of Stormont was admitted by Lord Carrington to be a modification of the principle of pure democracy. That would never have been contemplated but for the savagery of the cruel IRA campaign launched against the Province. The IRA, having served its apprenticeship in the civil rights campaign, began successfully to blackmail politicians in Ulster into a policy of self-inflicted disintegration. Concession after concession was made to appease, but nothing will satisfy those whose only avowed aim is the destruction of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Since the days of O'Neill we have witnessed in Northern Ireland the unfolding of a scheme—continuing today—which, in the minds of those who have planned it, will eventually lead us, ease us and tease us into an all-Ireland solution. The IRA's aim is the same but the political moves and aims are to achieve it deceitfully by stages.
558
For many years some people in Northern Ireland feared that they would wake up one morning and find themselves in a united Ireland. If that had been possible, it would have been done already.
The purpose, the plan and the design of politicians in some parts of the United Kingdom is, little by little, to ease Northern Ireland out of its ties with the United Kingdom. It is clear that London and Dublin are engaged in attempting gradually to integrate Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic. Ever closer co-operation between north and south and an increasing number of social and economic plans have been foisted upon Northern Ireland in an attempt to condition the people into thinking that their real affinity lies, after all, with the Irish Republic and not with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a devious plan and ploy.
Many hon. Members are forthright in their declaration of what they desire. Others are more underhand. Unification by degree, by stages or little by little, is anathema to the Unionists of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland people resent the neutral stance adopted by successive British Governments about the Union. Westminster refuses to declare itself in favour of the Union, but some Opposition spokesmen make no bones about it. They would like a united Ireland, but they add the rider that they want it by peaceful means and not by the bomb and the bullet. However, others in the House say that they have no preference and that if the people want to go into a united Ireland, let it be.
Where are those who desire the Union? Why is there always a neutrality? Why does not the rest of the United Kingdom clearly state that Northern Ireland, like Scotland, Wales and England, should be a part of this great United Kingdom?
The IRA interpret that as a signal that the British Government will not stand in its way — the way of unification—if it can persuade Northern Ireland to join a 32-county republic. It derives encouragement and succour from attempts by the British Government to move gradually in the direction of an all-Ireland republic. I have heard many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and Unionist politicians express that view. The purpose of this and successive Governments has been the easing, or setting adrift, of the strong links that have been forged between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Such measures would be an insult to those who have died or been injured in Northern Ireland and victory for the barbaric campaign of Republican terrorism. I demand in the name of those who elected me—I therefore have a democratic right to say it—that the current discussions with the Government of the Irish Republic be brought to an immediate end. Because of the past, people are suspicious of the words of politicians. People do not really trust what politicians say—they believe that their words are chosen to suit the occasion. Indeed, when the Secretary of State or others come on the television screen in Northern Ireland and say categorically that there are no moves to ease Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom, the people of Northern Ireland become suspicious. Many of their suspicions are later found to be true.
The people of Northern Ireland are forthright and open. They like to call a spade a spade, and they say exactly what they mean. If the Government have certain designs for the Province, the people would far rather hear them said to their faces than through one of those leaks or kites that are

559
often flown by the press. Not all of what the papers suggest is derived from uninspired leaks. Many are deliberate leaks to assess the temperature and what the people of Northern Ireland will accept. Surely it is about time that the majority in Northern Ireland asked the Government to come clean about the negotiations and talks with Dublin.
It is a disgrace that the future of British Ulstermen is being discussed, yet no member of the majority is made aware of what matters are under discussion. Some hon. Members may say that no member of the minority knows. That is clearly not true. The Government can inform the Reagan Administration about the core of the negotiations between the London and Dublin Governments. The Dublin Government make no bones about the fact that, when the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) makes his weekly flight to Dublin to hear the next episode in the story, they are happy to tell him exactly what stage the negotiations are at and what the negotiations are about.
The majority, whose future is at stake, are kept in the dark about these discussions until some conclusion has been reached. With the greatest respect to the minority, the majority community should know what is discussed. It is only then that the Loyalists and the majority community can give their answers to the proposals under discussion and acknowledge the truth of the situation.
The Government's amendment
"invites the Government to continue to promote measures which encourage peace, stability and good relations between the two communities in Northern Ireland".
That sounds very good. Everyone wants
"to continue to promote measures which encourage peace"
yet insensitive measures have been taken during the past week concerning the re-routeing of traditional Loyalist parades—I join the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) in saying traditional Loyalist parades. Those insensitive measures have been taken at the request of Mr. Peter Barry—a Foreign Minister with no responsibility to the Government or to the people of Northern Ireland. This action, taken at the request of Mr. Peter Barry, Sinn Fein and the SDLP—the Republican trio — does nothing to instil hope into the hearts of Ulster people.
As for the Secretary of State's statement about the Chief Constable's decision, I remind him, as an Ulster Member of Parliament, that the local chiefs of police in Cookstown did not want the parade to be re-routed. They made it absolutely clear that the Chief Constable's decision was not a decision which they recommended for the preservation of order in Cookstown, which is part of my constituency. There had to be another motive for that rerouteing—because Sinn Fein wanted it. Loyalists have to sit in local councils with Sinn Fein. Last evening, I talked to colleagues in the border area of Strabane who told me, as it has been announced, that a Sinn Fein councillor is being questioned about murderous activity. Because my fellow Loyalist councillors will not sit at the table with Sinn Fein, they were ordered out by the SDLP chairman of the Strabane district council. Such actions and the SDLP's close associations with Sinn Fein instil little hope of that party encouraging the return of stability to Northern Ireland.
The IRA and similar organisations cannot be eliminated by new structures of government in Northern Ireland or by any political settlement. We are told to get ahead with the political settlement of Northern Ireland—has everyone forgotten that the IRA is not concerned about political
560
stability in Northern Ireland? It will give no allegiance to any Government, with or without cross-community support. It must still be tackled and dealt with.
I am delighted that the Government have stated clearly that it is their policy to eliminate terrorism. After 17 years of trouble under the policies pursued by successive Governments, it is about time for an assessment of whether the policy is working. The Government's amendment
"recognises the need to maintain a firm security policy under the law."
Perhaps I may remind the House of a recent international terrorist action concerning American hostages which all right-thinking politicians condemn. We are delighted that most of the hostages have been released and pray that those still being held in Lebanon will also be released.
I understand that the American Administration are offering money for information about the whereabouts of the person who hijacked the plane and, to go even further, the person who shot the young service man. Would anyone suggest that Mr. Reagan would consider offering money if he was going through the usual processes of the law? Is he asking the Lebanese to deal with their terrorists? He is not. The American Administration desire to eliminate that terrorist so that he can never again commit his dastardly deeds.
The Government know the whereabouts of well-known IRA murderers who have a safe haven — I know that certain Ministers do not like to hear that mentioned—in the Irish Republic. A place called Provohill contains some of the most beautiful houses and bungalows built in the south of Ireland, paid for with money from skulduggery. Those terrorists sit in the south of Ireland without fear of arrest or harassment. They enjoy the fruits of their terrorism.
If the south of Ireland wants to prove the sincerity of its friendship, let it come up with a proper extradition treaty so that those guilty of the most vile atrocities can be brought to justice in the United Kingdom. It is only with the military defeat of the IRA that peace can be restored to Northern Ireland.
The Republican politicians who insist that only the adoption of policies leading to a united Ireland can bring peace are using IRA terror to blackmail the Unionists and the British Government into submission. The violence of IRA murderers cannot be allowed to succeed. The people of Northern Ireland are remarkably resilient and restrained in the face of the most violent of atrocities. They want only that which is their inalienable right—to live as British citizens and to go about their daily business in peace.
There are those in Northern Ireland who want the Province destroyed. However, the vast majority of people in the Province want stability. They have no desire to ride over the heads of others who hold different opinions. It is all very well for a minority group to have a dream. We have heard of the dream of some people in the United States centred around Martin Luther King. There are those in Northern Ireland who dream of a united Ireland. However, it is one thing to have a dream but another to murder and destroy the vast majority of people to achieve that dream.
Northern Ireland needs stability. The real needs of its people can be served only by the restoration of a proper devolved Government to the Province. Such devolution must be based on established British democratic principles. Our Stormont has been destroyed. Our Parliament has been taken from us. Local government has

561
been destroyed by the presence of Sinn Fein. There are those in government who tell us that Ulster people will be held to ransom—that either they will move or they will never again have control over their own affairs.
The Government have given the SDLP a veto on progress in Northern Ireland. Because its representatives will not serve in the Assembly, there are those who are crying out for the Assembly to be closed. A great deal of good work has been done by those who have attended the Assembly. The Minister must acknowledge that many changes in legislation affecting the lives of people in Northern Ireland have been brought about by the Assembly committees. That is to be welcomed. There is a desire to move a step forward.
The Government must tell the SDLP that Northern Ireland's future is within the United Kingdom and that it must reach an accommodation with the Unionists to ensure that future. Holding the possible carrot of the intervention of Dublin in our affairs will never bring reality into the position or force reality upon the minority community in Northern Ireland. I say with all my heart that if realism was brought to the SDLP, and if it was told that the future of Northern Ireland lay firmly within the United Kingdom, the SDLP would be forced to sit down and talk genuine business with the Unionist community.
It must be laid clearly on the line today that the Unionists offered clear and genuine discussions with the SDLP. I trust that it will turn its back on its new-found friends in Sinn Fein and return to sanity and reason so that there can be a future for the people of our beloved country. May stability soon be restored to our Province again. I know that it is for this House to dictate the terms to Ulster. I know that it is in the hands of the House to tell it what it must do. But this House must also remember that the people of Ulster have it in their hands to make the final decision.
5.57 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: During the past week I have had the task of studying the consultative paper on police complaints and discipline, collating the opinions of my party colleagues and submitting them to the Secretary of State. I wish to quote two sentences from the report. One states:
"Despite the fact that all complaints are investigated by senior and experienced officers, it seems apparent that this has not proved sufficient in all cases to sustain public confidence in the complaints system."
The other states:
"every effort should be made to ensure that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is acceptable to all law-abiding people in Northern Ireland."
When I see such a statement in a Government report, I begin to wonder what on earth they are doing to the RUC. Those two sentences give the impression that the RUC is not a force of which we can be proud and not one that has served the community so well over many years.
During the past 15 years there have been many reports on security, the judiciary and methods of dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland. There must have been eight, 10 or 12 reports. They range from the Hunt report to the Bennett report. Each of the reports trots out the same old arguments and adjustments are made—yet what is the outcome? Within our community there is a section that is never satisfied, so we must have yet a further report and
562
further concessions to try to satisfy the insatiable. It seems typical of the Government's apparent will to be subservient to all except those law-abiding citizens and the law enforcers who work under such difficult circumstances in Ulster.
This afternoon, we listened to the Secretary of State saying that our motion was commendable and he approved of it but that the Government had to modify it. Can anyone tell me how the motion diverges from the opinion we expressed in our document "The Way Forward", and why the Government find it necessary to push us a little bit further and a little bit quicker when my party is trying to be responsible in facing the issues that confront us? Are the Government of the opinion that by doing that they can dissuade terrorists from continuing with their terrorism? Surely they have learned their lesson after 15 years.
A French criminologist, Jacques Léanté, said:
"Terrorism is an act of communication."
We know that it is other things as well, but I draw that phrase to the attention of the House because, during the past week the Secretary of State has complained to me that he is finding things very difficult. He complains that his efforts towards progress are being stymied by rumour. He is right. The difficulty is that law-abiding citizens, ordinary men and women in the street, do not know what is happening in our Province.
There is a lack of information coming from the Government as well as misinformation. A good example of that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). He observed that the Secretary of State had told us that he had received no communication from the Irish Republic about parades. The Secretary of State could have gone further and said that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, has had communication. So there is misinformation to some extent.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State was grossly insulted last week during a meeting at which I was present. I deplored that insult to a member of Her Majesty's Government, which was uncalled for. However, there has been some ambiguity in what the Government have told us and what has emanated from the Northern Ireland Office for the past 13 years. People become sceptical and disheartened and suspicious. Over the years, the people of Northern Ireland have seen the liaison by the Government with the Provisional IRA. It took place against the sound, solid and reasoned advice of members of my party. The Government were told, "You cannot deal with those people, they are terrorists. They are not prepared, irrespective of what indications they may appear to give, to deal with a democratic Government in the normal way." That advice was not heeded and the liaison was a disaster.
We advised also against political status. That was not heeded and the result was disaster. We advised against the setting up of a Sinn Fein advice centre. The Government gave the Provisional IRA money and said, "Go and take over that incident centre or that advice centre." That was a tremendous boost for the IRA. Again, the Government did not listen to our advice.
More recently, we told the Government, "Do not allow a person who says he is going to the ballot box with an Armalite in his hand to take a seat in local government." Again, they did not take our advice. Unionists are blamed if they do not keep their councils peaceful. It is very difficult for Unionists to keep the councils peaceful when they are sitting opposite people who they know have been

563
involved with murders and in murder. Some councils are succeeding. It is not for the want of trying, but I believe that most councils have not succeeded. I accept that there are one or two councils where a wholehearted effort has yet to be made to overcome the handicap of having a Sinn Fein member sitting in the chamber. I hope that all our councils will endeavour to overcome that handicap in a way which will not allow these killers to enjoy propaganda. We suffer from Provisional IRA-inspired propaganda and the IRA will do its best to drive the ordinary decent person in the Province over the brink. The Government must endeavour not to help them.
I shall contrast what happens in the Irish Republic with what happens in Ulster when we deal with Provos. A week ago there was the sad murder of Garda Sergeant Morrissey. A member of the Provisional IRA was arrested and charged with his murder. On 2 July in The Irish Times we saw a photograph of a screaming suspect being shoved into a car by five burly policemen. In the Irish Independent we saw a photograph of a suspect who was having to be virtually carried into court from the hospital by two members of the Garda Siochana. If that had happened in Ulster it would have been called police brutality. The Americans would have been involved, hon. Members would have been involved and the Government of the Republic of Ireland would have been deeply involved in protesting about police brutality.
When a complaint was made in court about the treatment of the suspect, the judge said that there was no case. He did not take Provo propaganda at face value. Let me make it perfectly clear, I am not criticising the Garda Siochana. I believe it has done a difficult job in facing up to the IRA when it has endeavoured to subvert law and order in that country.
Fifteen years ago it was the Ulster Special Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary which were guilty of a not very clearly defined crime against the minority community. Then it was the Ulster Defence Regiment and now it is the judiciary. Next it will be the police. Away from the forces of law and order it has recently become the Orangemen. Why does the Northern Ireland Office give credibility to those who continue to spew out this vitriolic propaganda against our people?
Can we not look at what has really happened over the years in Ulster? Can we not realise that for the last 15 years, in the face of an IRA onslaught, the Orange institution has stood out against any retaliatory violence? I can say that because I am not a member of the Orange Order. That stand should make the order proud of its tolerance and its strength. It has stood in a way that should make the Government and the Northern Ireland Office a little less sensitive about propaganda relating to traditional marches.
How wrong I found the Secretary of State to be this evening when he talked about the parades being cheerful and festive. Indeed they are cheerful and festive, but that is not their purpose. The purpose is to enable those who have a Protestant and Unionist heritage to demonstrate it in a lawful way. He is telling us we should not go into certain areas because we provoke the minority. How on earth could the Orange Order, which has protected the minority for many years and stopped retaliation against it, be provocative? Is it not a great deal more provocative that the nationalists who are in charge of Londonderry council have done their best to alienate the Protestant community?
564
They have driven that community, including the last policeman who was murdered, from the west bank of the Foyle.
When the nationalist-controlled council in Omagh took over it stated categorically it was all right to kill council employees who were members of the security forces. Has the vice-chairman of Magherafelt council not said he would not dispute that point because he believes that the dictates of the Irish Republican Army council are correct? In the face of that provocation, how can the Secretary of State ask the Unionist people to give up their right at least to show that Northern Ireland is Unionist and part of the United Kingdom? That is what we would be doing if we gave up our traditional parade routes.
He is saying, "Of course, those routes have changed. Members of the minority community now live along those routes and you did not have that 20 or 25 years ago." He is really saying, "You must allow yourselves to be driven out bit by bit and you must concede to the sort of philosophy which exists in Londonderry, Omagh and Magherafelt." He must understand that that is the way my section of the community looks at things.
Mr. Roy Beggs rose——
Mr. Maginnis: I should prefer not to give way.
Dublin's role is treated with suspicion. Can we forget that Charlie Haughey was tried for supplying arms at the very start of the troubles; that the money for those arms was laundered through a public company in the Irish Republic? Can we forget that on every possible occasion Peter Barry and Mr. Noonan have done their best to discredit the Ulster Defence Regiment? Despite his overtures, the Taoiseach himself, Mr. FitzGerald, delivered in America a speech which was harmful to the work being done by our security forces and endangered the lives of people in them.
Unfortunately, our greatest difficulty is getting proper liaison with the Northern Ireland Office. I should like to read to the House a letter I had from a Minister's office in the Northern Ireland Office. I will leave the Minister unnamed, but I was told he would be undertaking an official engagement in my constituency. The letter went on:
"Considerations of security oblige us to confine advance notice of the details of the visit to those directly involved, and I regret that for this reason I cannot be more informative about his visit to your constituency."
Does that Minister not realise that I hold a commission from Her Majesty; that I am a member of the Select Committee on Defence of this House, and that I have had the privilege of a top-secret briefing in the Pentagon and in defence establishments in this county? Does he believe that he can trust me less than he can trust a civil servant? Does he forget that Bill McConnell, a prison officer, was murdered at the behest of someone employed in the Civil Service? I do not want to condemn all civil servants.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member's criticism of the letter he received has been brought to my notice and he will receive a letter of apology. There is a real problem here which he is familiar with and which we cannot discuss now. It is one to which we have riot yet found the right answer and I want to discuss it with the leader of his party and with the party.
Mr. Maginnis: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. I ask him to think in terms of the majority community. I am not talking about the majority Unionist

565
community, but about the majority who want to live in peace one with the other. He cannot continue to place himself in the middle as a referee. I do not need my dealings with my Catholic neighbours to be refereed by anyone. I am willing and able to conduct my own liaison with my Roman Catholic neighbours and I am able to live at peace with them. I believe the vast majority of them wish to live in peace with me.
I want to see the Secretary of State dealing with a situation of which he is aware: that in one county in my constituency 73 murders have been committed. Six of those were murders of Catholics by Protestants. Four of them have been solved, but 67 of them have been murders of Protestants and Roman Catholics by the IRA and not a single one has been solved. I want to see the Minister dealing with that and I want to see him dealing with the rights and interests of the RUC and the UDR. I want to see UDR full-timers having a proper career structure and I hope that he has been making overtures to the MOD about that.
Some of our full-time police reservists have been serving for 12 years and I want to see them being given pension rights because they are being treated abominably over security of employment. I want to see our elected representatives who want to work, who are willing to work and who have tried to work for peace, being given an opportunity to do so without undue interference from another country, the Irish Republic.
6.19 pm
Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that he was not a member of the Orange Order. I have some Ulster ancestry, but I am ineligible for membership of the Orange Order. However, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) knows that I respect the modern Orange Order as a legitimate expression of loyal sentiment and Protestant solidarity that has generally proved to be a responsible influence for restraint in the present troubles. I therefore understand how keenly Northern Ireland Members must feel at the curtailing of traditional parades by the authority which they support. It seems a poor reward for moderation, yet it is far-fetched to allege that the re-routeing of a parade is the result of a diktat from Dublin.
I myself heard Mr. Peter Barry lay somewhat exaggerated claims to a locus standi in respect of Northern Ireland, but we must expect the Irish Government to express opinions to Her Majesty's Government when the affairs of the United Kingdom and the Republic are so closely knit and we seek ever closer collaboration between our respective security forces.
There is nothing new in southern representations about the minority in Northern Ireland. In 1922, Sir James Craig was talking in London to Michael Collins and assuring him of arrangements for the protection of Northern Catholics.
The motion is founded on "conflicting unofficial reports", but during today's business questions the Leader of the House said that we do not base our business on press speculation. That is not the proper foundation of public policy. It is for the Government to judge how, when and where it is best to carry on diplomacy and dialogue on matters of common concern to the kingdom and Republic, and it is then for Parliament to assess the results. However,
566
I agree with what has been said about cause for suspicion due to lack of information. I think that the Secretary of State had sympathy with the suggestion of a White Paper.
The Secretary of State is responsible to Crown and Parliament for law and order in the Province and the Chief Constable has his own independent part to play. I hope that the statement issued by the RUC will be placed in the Library. Part of it states:
"It should be clearly understood that it is the duty of the police to maintain community stability and public order at all times regardless of the political or religious persuasion of those who threaten or challenge the peace."
It adds:
"The number of parades has increased and, regrettably, in some instances the standard of conduct has deteriorated … It is intolerable that police officers carrying out their duty should be subjected to abuse, personal threats and physical injury, as has happened on several recent occasions."
The decisions that the Chief Constable and Secretary of State must take are unenviably difficult. Let us suppose that all parades proceeded according to custom and that serious rioting resulted. The police and the Government would be assailed from all sides. However that may be, the shenanigans at Castlewellan and Cookstown and the disturbances in the Shankill are a disgrace. So is the blackguarding of the Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Assembly by a member of the Democratic Unionist party. I would have expected the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) to express some regret at what happened, even if the leader of his party, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), is unable to be present to do that himself.
Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Very briefly, because I intend to bring my remarks to a close very shortly.
Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Gentleman can take it from me, on behalf of my colleagues, that we genuinely believe that the Secretary of State clearly misled the people of Northern Ireland. I therefore make no apology on behalf of my colleagues. Indeed, other members of the Assembly —including the Chairman of the Committee who was interviewed on television — agreed that the right hon. Gentleman should be told that he had made such misleading statements.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I regret that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. Those who want thus to display their loyalism should understand that they are opening a breach in the national unity of the United Kingdom at a time when a diabolical conspiracy to blast men, women and children in our mainland resorts had brought it home in Great Britain that we are all caught up in one anti-terrorist struggle and that we must win it together.
There is admiration on this side of the water — perhaps there should be more—of the restraint of the majority in Northern Ireland through more than a decade and a half of Republican terror. But there is scant sympathy on this side of the water for those who beat drums at the doors of those in whom those drums inspire an atavistic dread. There is no sympathy at all for those who would press an insistence on traditional observance to the point of conflict with the hard-pressed RUC who have dared and endured so much and for whom the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone spoke so well. Unfortunately, it is a far cry from the times when, for

567
example, the events of 1689 could be commemorated in Londonderry by both bishops and the whole community of that great city.
I conclude with a few words on the political and constitutional aspects of stability. I suspect that Ministers are now beginning to realise that the Northern Ireland Assembly is more limited in its role and potential than in its cost to the taxpayer. The fullest administrative devolution is desirable, but legislative devolution in any terms acceptable to Parliament is impracticable. The agreement would not exist.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) spoke of one tradition being fearful of domination by the other tradition. Surely the lesson of Stormont, with all its virtues, is that the minority is safest under Westminster. We are told that that is second best, but it is a second best that least divides the people of Northern Ireland and allows co-operation with Dublin to proceed unbedevilled either by separatist hopes or Unionist fears.
6.27 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Because of pressure of time, I shall not comment on the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) about the future of institutions in Northern Ireland.
I wish to address myself to the content of the speeches that have so far been made by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland and to what they have not said. They have spoken passionately about stability, but not one has to any extent addressed his mind to the problems of the minority and why, among the minority population, the great majority find it very difficult to accept the role of the police and the UDR. No Northern Ireland Member has said why those two institutions, which are responsible for maintaining law and order and stability, do not have the support of that population. When one adds to that the problems that we now face over the reported statements and attitudes of the judiciary on aspects of co-operation with the Republic of Ireland, it appears that those institutions do not, and cannot, at present have the support of the minority.
It therefore behoves members of the majority to go out of their way to say something positive to help their fellow citizens to arrive at that support for the institutions within Northern Ireland. All the speeches to which I have listened so far, and I have heard them all, have failed to do that.
The amendment talks of trying to achieve some cohesion between the communities. What positive acts will the Government take to try to achieve the allegiance of the minority population to the institutions of the state? By "allegiance" I do not mean that they must necessarily feel that they have to surrender their identity, that they must be loyal to the Union Jack or anything of that nature, but a general sense of feeling and confidence within the community that they will be treated fairly. That is what I am looking for, no more. There need be no surrender of identity. They feel that this does not exist in the community. It is a question not of political or national aspirations, but of a general feeling of fairness. They do not believe that in the institutions of security within the state—whether it is the RUC, or, more particularly, the UDR, and now what is happening in the judiciary—they are likely to be treated fairly. Until the Government can come forward with positive proposals which seem to the
568
minority community to do that, the stability that we all want to see, whichever way we see the future of the Province, is not going to be present.
My second point relates to the question raised by the Secretary of State about suddenly throwing suspicion on the support that he is receiving from the Government of the Republic in terms of security. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State could enlarge upon those areas where he feels the Republic is not giving 100 per cent. support to maintain security, to hunt the terrorists and to cut the power of those who seek to destabilise both communities.
I say to hon. Members from the whole of the Unionist tradition, whether it be Conservative and Unionist or Ulster Unionist, that they cannot expect the Republic of Ireland to shoulder the burden of security and not have a powerful voice and interest in saying, "What are the causes of instability which cause us as taxpayers to have to put so much of our wealth into security?" Those figures show that their spending, in percentage and per capita terms, far outweigh spending in the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, it must be accepted that if we expect to have responsibility and co-operation from the Republic, we cannot expect the Republic not to take a powerful and realisable interest in what is going on within the six counties.
6.33 pm
Mr. James Couchman: Last Wednesday I sat in this Chamber for four and a half hours listening to the debate on the continuance Order for the Northern Ireland Act 1974. It was a singularly dispiriting experience and I found myself becoming ever more depressed. It would be invidious to offer a critique of each of the lengthy and barren offerings to which we were treated. The verbal cock-fighting came as no real surprise, but the speech of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux.) left me with a feeling of hopelessness such as I have rarely felt. In short, during his bleak speech he offered no hope that the intractability of the Northern Ireland situation as it is presently cast will ever give way to the sort of discussion and consultation that can lead to a lasting political solution. For those of us who hope, perhaps naively, for an end to the tragedy there was scant encouragement from last Wednesday's proceedings.
English Members are reticent about fishing in the muddy waters of Northern Ireland politics and reluctant to intrude in what seems like a family affair. That circumspection in no way lessens the concern we feel about the continuing violence and political instability in the Province. If Northern Ireland politics was purely the domestic concern of Ulster politicians then I should be the last person to consider himself qualified by two brief visits during the last year to offer any thoughts at all on the situation. But of course there is an English dimension, even a dimension impinging on my own constituency in south-east England. There is the dimension of transfer payments from east to west across the Irish sea each year to support the Northern Ireland economy. There is the enormous dimension of our troops being in Northern Ireland for 15 years and being killed and maimed for a time longer now than the two great wars, the Boer War and the Korean War put together. That, incidentally, is where my own constituency is concerned because in that constituency is the Royal Engineers military engineering school and a regimental headquarters.

569
In terms of the life of this House, Northern Ireland politics consume a great deal of the energy and time of Government Ministers and hon. Members. I feel constrained to speak for just a few minutes this evening because of the gloomy reports emanating from the English-Irish talks presently going on. It has been suggested that some right hon. and hon. Members almost hope that they will fail. I believe that that attitude is utterly wrong, because to deny any Irish dimension to the Northern Ireland situation is to bury one's head in the sand.
I would be the last person to try to force upon the majority population any form of union consideration or even closer liaison with the Republic against the majority wish, but it is unrealistic to say that there is no Irish dimension. I recognise all of those features of Irish life which make and maintain the division between the communities. I recognise the feeling of vulnerability on the part of the majority population when viewing any constitutional or structural change that has as its aim closer relations with the Republic.
I understand and recognise the essentially tribal dimensions of the Northern Irish situation but I am forced to ask just how long we must wait for the Northern Ireland politicians — most of them are in the Chamber this evening—to use their influence to bring some sense and sanity to the situation and to allow talks to develop which may lead to a lasting solution. How long will it be before the House may dare to see an end to all the Acts it has had to pass in recent years to maintain some semblance of order in the Province? How long will the economic life of Ulster be disrupted by violence? How long will the bomb and the bullet continue to subjugate the ballot box?
It is a cliché to suggest that only a political solution can defeat the gunmen in Northern Ireland, but it is true. That is the only lasting way to peace. I beg all those who are influential in Northern Irish politics and affairs to examine their position, to review their stand in relation to the present discussions and, what is more, to use their influence to foster any political initiative that may emerge. The rapid collapse of discussions and initiatives of last September, if repeated, can only deepen the despair and bitterness on which the violence and hatred thrives. There must one day be an end to the intransigence and intractability on both sides if a just solution is to be reached. I would ask that people use their influence to make that intransigence give way to what is a very simple goal—the peace in the Province to which we all aspire.
6.37 pm
Mr. Harold McCusker: Like the good Presbyterian he is, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), when he moved the motion, defined stability. I felt that he had missed the most significant aspect of stability — that it is a relative phenomenon. I suppose it is self-evident that what would be considered constitutional stability in the Lebanon or Cyprus would be a nightmare in Norway, Sweden or Switzerland. What might be considered a stable internal security situation in Spain certainly would not be tolerated in the USSR. Just as stability is relative between countries, so it is relative within countries. I am not simply talking about what we might mean by stability in Northern Ireland vis-a-vis stability in Great Britain—we have evidence
570
during the past year of variations in what might be considered stability between Yorkshire and perhaps the south-east of England.
I do not aspire to the values of Chelsea or Bath or any of the other areas where stability would be much admired by many people in this House. I do not in any way criticise those people who hold strongly to the personal and social values associated with those communities. Equally, I hope that they would not belittle the personal and social values which I hold in Northern Ireland and which make Northern Ireland distinctive within the United Kingdom, just as there are certain characteristics which make other regions of the United Kingdom distinctive.
All we can hope for is relative stability. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) may wish fervently for peace, but he may have to conclude one day that peace as he defines it may never exist in Northern Ireland. He should not be reticient about getting into what he describes as a muddy pool. England helped create the muddy pool. The House contributed substantially to the muddy pool, if it is there, and every hon. Member in the House has a responsibility to deliberate upon what goes on in that muddy pool. We look forward to hearing other contributions from the hon. Member.
I should like to see a return to relative stability. I would prefer it to be the stability we had prior to the terrorist campaign but I would settle for the relative stability of the 1977–79 period when public confidence in Northern Ireland reached its high water mark of the past 17 years. Public confidence is the key to stability. Public confidence does not mean obtaining the confidence of the majority of the minority. If it is achieved by that means, it is being bought at too high a price, especially if the public confidence of the majority of the majority is being sacrificed. That is where the balance has gone wrong.
Since 1979 public confidence has ebbed away. Occasionally the ebbing away has been stemmed by the actions of the Prime Minister when she has intervened, but the incompetence of 1980–81, the double talk and double standards of 1981–84 and the ambivalence of 1985 have caused public confidence to drift to its lowest point in the past decade.
I do not want to allude to any single issue as causing the fall in public confidence. There has been a combination of factors—the Anglo-Irish process and the collaboration of the Government with the Sinn Fein exploitation of the ballot box and the bullet. If we layer on top of that the inept handling of the parades issue, we find ourselves standing on the edge of an abyss that has been created by the Government. A fortnight ago there was controversy and concern in Northern Ireland about the first two points, but everything has been brought to a head by the inept and ham-fisted handling of parades.
Let me go back to the Anglo-Irish process that is sometimes referred to as a dialogue. There are four parties to the process—Her Majesty's Government, the Irish Government, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Unionists. Two parties, I presume, know what they are talking about. A third, the SDLP, pretends to know, thinks it knows or perhaps does know what the other two parties are talking about.
Mr. John David Taylor: The Dublin Government meets the SDLP after each meeting of the two Prime Ministers.
Mr. McCusker: My right hon. Friend tells me that the SDLP is invited to have consultations with the Irish element of the dialogue. Unionists do not have that advantage. We are not consulted or advised by Her Majesty's Government; we have to glean what we can from the leaks to the press and from what the SDLP tells us. Clearly someone is lying. I do not know who the liar is. The deputy leader of the SDLP has assured us during the past few weeks that the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic has persistently raised the issue of parades with Her Majesty's Government as part of the on-going process.
When my future and the future of my children are at stake, it is not good enough to be told that the discussions have to be kept in confidence and that we cannot be told what is happening. If the Secretary of State tells me that, he will raise my suspicions and the suspicions of others in the community. Equally, he cannot say to me that issues such as security strategy, future forms of government and police tactics are not part of the discussions. They must be an essential part, or the Irish Government would not think it worth while to continue the discussions. Those matters raise genuine fears.
I noticed that some of the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office laughed when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South said that, whether or not these things are facts, the people of Northern Ireland believe they are facts. They do not need politicians to tell them lies or to raise their fears. The people feel it in their hearts.
Whatever number was in Portadown last night, whether it was 20,000, 30,000 or whatever, it was a very large number. It was a bigger number of people than I have ever seen in Portadown before, and I have lived there for the best part of my life. They came there with little exhortation from politicians. They were there to react not simply against the ban on parades but against the Anglo-Irish dialogue and the exploitation by Sinn Fein of the ballot box and the bullet.
The bland assertion of the Secretary of State that Sinn Fein can be out-manoeuvred and out-voted, and that it is important that the world should see how little real support it has at the ballot box, does not wash with a community that has had to take so much from Sinn Fein. We now know that a former Sinn Fein candidate is part of the group that has been arrested in connection with the planned bombing campaign on the mainland, that an elected Sinn Fein councillor in Northern Ireland is being questioned about terrorist offences, and that some Sinn Fein councillors are convicted terrorists. They were able to stand for election only because there is automatic remission of 50 per cent. of prison sentences in Northern Ireland. The one advantage that a terrorist has in Northern Ireland, irrespective of the sentence he gets for whatever crime he has committed, is that the sentence has to be cut in half.
The feeling in the Unionist community about Sinn Fein must be understood by the Secretary of State because that lies behind much of what we are facing today. The average Northern Ireland Unionist thinks that if someone murders a Member of Parliament or a councillor he becomes a Member of Parliament or a councillor; if someone blows up council premises and kills council employees, he becomes a member of that council; if someone murders a judge or a magistrate, later a judge or magistrate will find in his favour when he seeks protection in pursuit of his despicable ends, whatever they may be.
572
The Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland has admitted a convicted terrorist to train as a lawyer, but he has not expressed contrition or regret for what he has done. We will never know whether he regrets his crime. Automatic 50 per cent. remission means that it is not necessary to determine whether terrorists regret what they have done. In my constituency there is a senior social worker who was formerly a convicted terrorist. He may have regretted his former acts but there has been no impartial assessment of whether he has done so. All these things force people in my community further and further on to the defensive. They ask what the Government are doing about this.
The IRA has told us what its objective is. It says that it intends to take power in Ireland through the ballot box and bullet. By our behaviour, are we not assisting the IRA to achieve that objective? The Secretary of State has told me that it is important that the people should know how little support the Provisional IRA has. The Provisional IRA clearly does not see that as a disadvantage. At the moment it is happy to settle for the support of one third of the adult Roman Catholic community in elections. If there is an advantage for us in the Government's policy, I should like to know what the disadvantage is for the Provisional IRA. It does not appear to see any disadvantage.
I want to deal briefly with the Portadown parade because the right hon. Gentleman knows how strongly I feel, not simply about whether we walk or not but about the consequences if we walk. Despite what has been said in the media the walk in Portadown by Orangemen is from the town of Portadown to a parish church to worship. It is not a parade of Orangemen through a Catholic district of Portadown. That is incidental to the walk.
I have gone into detail with the Minister about the location. There are three routes to Drumcree church, which is set in the Protestant hinterland of Portadown. Portadown itself is a 75 per cent. Protestant town and the tragedy is that the three routes from the town to the church all go through Catholic areas. That is coincidental. There is no ideal route. One of the routes that is recommended as a return route from the church is through a Catholic area which numerically is much stronger than the one from which the parade is being re-routed. When he does not know what to do in circumstances of that kind, the Secretary of State should pause and consider doing nothing, because to do nothing might be better than to do something which may create trouble in the town.
The police cannot do their job without majority support. The number of people in Portadown last night will not be there on Sunday morning. Those who will be walking to church on Sunday morning will not want confrontation with the police, but there may be others who will. Even if the police stop those men from walking to church next Sunday morning, what will happen between then and the 12th? What will happen on the eleventh night when 20 or 30 bonfires are blazing around Portadown and more alcohol is being consumed than is good for those people? What will happen in the few hours between then and the start of the parade? No matter how many police and troops are put into Portadown, they will be unable to stop people from going down that road for the wrong reasons.
I appeal to the Secretary of State and, through him, to the Chief Constable, to see sense. This parade has taken place for over 150 years. It causes the minimum amount

573
of aggravation. No party tunes are played; there is no flaunting of colours; there is no beating of drums. It may not be exactly what the Secretary of State or the Chief Constable want, but if the parade takes place on Sunday it will be in the best interests of all concerned.
6.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): It will be impossible for me to deal with all the points that have been raised in the debate. However, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I welcome the fact that the theme of the debate and the motion on the Order Paper relate to stability in Northern Ireland. Everybody wishes stability to be created in Northern Ireland, but I take note of the point of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) that stability can be relative between countries and regions and, indeed, over a period. The concept of stability in Northern Ireland today is different from what it was 15, 10, or perhaps even four years ago. The graffiti in west Belfast, querying whether there was life before death, touched a chord, but I hope that the times that gave rise to that have passed for ever in Northern Ireland. The Government and the security forces will make every effort to maintain the new stability that has been created in Northern Ireland, but responsibility for maintaining that stability rests not only upon the Government and the police. That is a point to which I hope to return later.
The House owes a very great debt to the people of Northern Ireland for their courage, resilience and endurance during the most vicious and sustained period of terrorism that modern Europe has experienced. The House owes to their elected representatives understanding because of the unique burdens that they bear. They represent a society that has been torn apart and has had to endure terrorism on a massive scale for a very long period. They act honourably as the democratic representatives of a divided society. Not least are we in their debt because of the personal danger that they face in doing their duty to their Northern Ireland constituents. Many of them, not least the hon. Member for Upper Bann, have seen constituents, friends and colleagues murdered and maimed by the men of violence.
We owe a very great deal to the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and we have a duty to listen to, appreciate and be sensitive to their unique anxieties. Those anxieties have been presented in a constructive way in this debate by the Official Unionist party. But it owes something to this House and also to those who are privileged to share in Government—namely, recognition of our good faith in seeking to govern Northern Ireland fairly, even-handedly and, dare I say it, generously within the context of the constitutional guarantee about the future place of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. As we grapple with the complex economic and political problems that face Northern Ireland and pursue the eradication of terrorism, we are entitled to the recognition that we are acting in good faith on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.
I hope that the House will examine the problems of Northern Ireland on the basis of fact rather than of mythology.
574
I turn to one of the themes that has run through this afternoon's debate: parades and marches in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spelt out the aim of those parades and marches: to demonstrate in a lawful way their adherence to their protestant heritage. That deserves respect, but the key word is "lawful." It cannot be lawful to ignore to seek to set aside a re-routeing order by the Chief Constable or a banning order by the Secretary of State. That is breaking the law. It cannot be justified or defended.
It is worth while putting the problem in its proper context. The hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that a move is being made towards completely overturning the current practice on parades and marches in Northern Ireland. Nothing could be further from the truth. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, during the last marching season, as it is called, in Northern Ireland, 2,200 parades had to be policed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Many of those marches had their routes adjusted by mutual agreement between the police and the organisers — whether they were Republican, Loyalist, Orange, or any other kind of parade—that it would be sensible to make minor adjustments.
Would that this were always the case and that it was unnecessary for the Chief Constable to impose a re-routeing order or for my right hon. Friend to ban a parade. However, in the interests of harmony in the community, sustaining law and order and avoiding the dangers of large-scale rioting, there are occasions when, in the professional judgment of the Chief Constable, action is necessary. But there is no policy which prevents people from marching or walking in recognition of their Protestant heritage. There is no political direction behind all this and there is no Dublin role. To make the distinction that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone did not make, the representations in the question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary related to banning a parade on St. Patrick's day in Portadown. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comments related to the present marching season.
The concern that is felt about parades and marches in Northern Ireland is not a recent phenomenon. I have considered the Chief Constable's reports not only for 1984, but for 1980–1984. In each report he drew attention to this problem in different ways. In 1980 he referred to large numbers of police personnel having to be deployed
"to deal with politically inspired parades and demonstrations, many of which pose a serious threat to law and order."
In different ways he has drawn attention during the last five years to problems that face the police in Northern Ireland because of parades.
For the handful of parades that might be affected by a re-routeing order or, exceptionally, by a banning order, we have to depend upon the professional advice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It has a difficult job to do in Northern Ireland. For the RUC to be assaulted by representatives of the majority community in Northern Ireland is unacceptable to the vast majority of law-abiding Unionists.
I can only re-emphasise what has been said on a number of occasions about the dialogue between the sovereign Governments of London and Dublin. It is carried on entirely within the parameters defined by the Chequers communiqué. The exaggerated fears of the hon. Member

575
for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) have to be set in the context of that cast-iron guarantee. I commend the amendment to the House.
Question, That the original words stand part of the Question, put and negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER, forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House invites the Government to continue to promote measures which encourage peace, stability and good relations between the two communities in Northern Ireland; invites both communities to work to these ends; recognises the contribution which improved relations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland can make in furthering these objectives; and recognises the need to maintain a firm security policy under the law.

Birmingham City Council Bill (By Order)
As amended, further considered.
Birmingham City Council Bill (By Order)
  New clause 2

    RESTRICTION ON CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
    '(1) The Council shall not make payments in respect of prescribed expenditure incurred in the exercise of the powers of this Act before the first authorised day in excess of £2,000,000.
    (2) For the purposes of this section—
    "the first authorised day" means the authorised day during which the Council first exercise their powers under section 5 (Closing of streets for motor races) of this Act;
    "prescribed expenditure" has the meaning assigned to it by section 71 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.'—[Sir Reginald Eyre.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7 Pm
    Sir Reginald Eyre: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time new clause 3—Annual revenue account:
    '(1) The Council shall prepare a revenue account not later than 30th September in the financial year following that year.
    (2) A revenue account must show a true and fair view of the financial result of the Council having exercised the powers of this Act in the financial year to which it relates.
    (3) If at the end of any financial year any revenue account is in deficit, the amount of the deficit shall be charged—
    (a) in the first instance to any reserve fund established by them; and
    (b) subject thereto to the general rate fund.
    (4) In subsection (3) above, the reference in paragraph (a) to a reserve fund established by the Council is a reference to a fund the sole purpose of which is to meet any expenditure incurred by them in connection with the exercise of the powers of this Act.
    (5) If the revenue accounts for the first five financial years in which the Council provide motor races show a cumulative deficit the power to provide motor races shall cease to be exercisable by the Council.'
    Sir Reginald Eyre: It will be remembered that the purpose of the Bill is to give the city of Birmingham an opportunity to provide once a year a great tourist attraction in the form of a motor race and associated family attractions on a carefully chosen pattern of roads near the city centre. It is believed that the event will attract considerable media interest in a new and attractive part of Birmingham and will give great encouragement to the motor industry in the west midlands and to the many thousands of people in Birmingham and the west midlands whose work is connected with the motor industry.
    New clause 2 meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) in amendment No. 16, and I hope that, in view of my new clause, she will withdraw that amendment. The new clause restricts capital expenditure to £2 million prior to the first motor race event. It therefore improves the Bill by taking account of the points that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) raised on 24 June, when a defined limit of the kind that I propose was sought. I felt that both hon. Members had expressed points of concern that would be understand in Birmingham, and I am happy to say that the new clause meets the points that they raised.
    The council expects that the expenditure will be of a lesser sum, but the figure specified in the new clause takes

    577
    account of regulations that could be imposed in regard, for example, to safety requirements, and of unforeseen contingencies.
    Having expressed the hope that amendment No. 16 will be withdrawn, as I see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in his place, I hope that he will agree, following the discussion that we had at a previous stage, not to proceed with amendment No. 7 which stands in his name.
    Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will new clauses 2 and 3 improve the Bill?
    Sir Reginald Eyre: I had hoped that it was clear from my opening remarks that I had tabled them on the basis that they would improve the Bill.
    Mr. Rooker: In that case, it follows that my comments were aimed at improving the Bill. I do not intend to proceed with amendment No. 7 in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Sir Reginald Eyre: I have always accepted that the hon. Gentleman's purpose was to improve the measure. I am grateful to him for the attention that he has given to these matters and for his decision not to proceed with amendment No. 7.
    New clause 3 is also designed to meet points that were made in our earlier debates. This provision meets my undertaking that if the revenue accounts for the first five financial years in which the council provides motor races show a cumulative deficit, the power to provide motor races shall cease to be exercisable by the council. The advantage of an adjourned Report stage is that I now have an opportunity to table the new clauses, rather than to amend the Bill in another place, the course that I undertook to adopt when we last debated the Bill.
    The council's figures suggest, even on a pessimistic basis, that sufficient operating profits will be generated to repay the initial capital cost within the five-year period. However, the project may do much better than that, and it is hoped that that will be the case.
    Mr. Rooker: I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) for tabling the new clauses. When we debated the Bill a week ago, we were told that such amendments could be made only in the other place, and even then there was no guarantee that the Bill would be amended. My hon. Friends and I appreciate that that was not the fault of the hon. Gentleman.
    We were told originally that such amendments as we required could not even be countenanced. A week ago we were told that the council, the promoter of the Bill, would accept no financial limit. In other words, we were asked to sign a blank cheque, Birmingham city council having decided to sign what was, in effect, a blank cheque.
    I recall asking the hon. Member for Hall Green what figure he would accept on behalf of the council, if a limit of £1·7 million was not acceptable. I wondered whether he thought the figure should be £2 million or £3·5 million. The hon. Member for Hall Green was placed in a difficult situation, not of his own making, because of the incompetence of the promoters of the Bill, including the parliamentary draftsman, the agents and those responsible in the city council. Until recently they had not listened to the views of hon. Members.
    578
    It is a disgrace to think, following our deliberations on the Bill on 24 June, that Councillor Bosworth, leader of the Tory group in Birmingham, described the concerns that my hon. Friends and I had expressed about the financial aspects of the Bill as "sheer humbug." Councillor Bosworth told the world about my views on the race, yet I have never discussed the race with him or been at discussions which he has attended when the road race has been considered. My views are the views which I put forward in Parliament, together with my hon. Friends, that there should be no question of signing a blank cheque, which the council has agreed to do, and that we should seek to make this a better Bill, and to do that we have had to use parliamentary procedure.
    We agree that there is now a limit provided in the Bill of £2 million—somewhat higher than the £1·1 million figure which the council first talked about — and a contingency of up to £1·5 million. At least now there is a legal limit. This could have been done a long time ago.
    As I said in an intervention, I do not intend to raise the issue of external sponsorship under amendment No. 7. On the other hand, I note that Councillor Charlton, the chief whip of the controlling Labour group, who is a good friend of mine, was quoted the day after our last debate as stating that Birmingham city council said that it had always intended commerce and industry to provide some of the finance. I presume that that still stands, and that, in saying that, the whip of the controlling group means that an attempt will be made to get some finance from industry and commerce. I think that industry and commerce will be more willing now to put its hand in his pocket in the knowledge that the council now has a legal limit on what it can spend and that we are no longer looking into a bottomless pit. To that extent, I welcome new clause 2.
    New clause 3 meets the points covered in our earlier amendments and what we said about the initial instructions on 1 April. We were told that these were rubbish and could not be countenanced in any circumstances, yet they are included on the Order Paper to be written into the Bill before it goes to the other place. It makes one wonder about the unnecessary waste of ratepayers' money up to now. Under new clause 3, the extra costs involved in consideration of the Bill on the Floor of the House on two occasions will have to be accounted for.
    My hon. Friends and I do not intend to prolong the debate. We have achieved a remarkable success, given the intransigence that we met last December in the refusal even to discuss with us the contents of the Bill.
    Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I wish to respond in part to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has said and to support the effect of new clauses 2 and 3 and other amendments.
    It may well be true that there has been some confusion in discussing this matter because there may have been a lack of communication between the council and hon. Members concerned. Many of us tried to ease this path when we were contacted by the council and went to some lengths to try to arrange liaison meetings. It is fair and proper to say that there was no confusion at this end. It is fair and proper also that the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr, for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) have raised these questions to ensure that clauses are enshrined in the Bill in order to give a degree of protection

    579
    to the ratepayers of the city of Birmingham and all those who have financial interest in the measure. I congratulate them on the effectiveness of their representations, and I trust that the amendments will meet the case in full.
    Hon. Members who have been in favour of what I consider to be the exciting concept of a city road race in Birmingham have learned to be patient. It was at least 12 years ago that, as a member of Birmingham city council, I first voted in favour of the Bill. We lost that day, but the idea has rightly gained momentum. Birmingham should be allowed that which it wants, and it does indeed want the road race.
    I was impressed when I spent a whole Sunday—I did not see any other hon. Members present — at the rehearsal of the road race.
    Ms. Clare Short: What about me?
    Mr. Bevan: If I have maligned any hon. Member, I apologise. I thought that I was the only hon. Member present.
    Mr. Rooker: There were 250,000 people present.
    Mr. Bevan: Indeed there were, but there were only 18 or so people in the city of Birmingham stand where I was sitting, and no hon. Members were there. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members wish to declare an interest in having attended the road race, I will be happy to withdraw. In that case, I congratulate them on undoubtedly having enjoyed the day and the spectacle and shared the joys of the 250,000 people who watched the road race and cheered to inordinate lengths after it had finished.
    It is imperative to remember that this is a people's race. It is a race in support of the new Birmingham concept and of the tourism interest in Birmingham which is helping to solve some of the abundant unemployment problems from which Birmingham suffers.
    Speaking humbly as chairman of the tourism committee, I have noticed that in my constituency, in which there has been a promotion of the national exhibition centre, Birmingham international airport and Birmingham international station, the unemployment rate is substantially less than in other areas. [Laughter.] It is no good Opposition Members laughing. It would be better to appreciate that many channels of employment have to be used. If, in this respect, we find the formula, that will attract people and bring some credit to the city as a car showcase, which is what Birmingham undoubtedly is, as a car manufacturing town.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: A city.
    Mr. Bevan: Indeed, a city which is dependent on the car industry and its derivatives, which must encourage the promotion of a car race.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is giving the context of his remarks, but I hope that he will come to the restrictions on capital expenditure, which is the subject of the new clause.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Bevan: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, I give way to the hon. Member for Ladywood.
    Ms. Short: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would comment on two points. First, the event to which
    580
    he has referred attended by 250,000 people was free. The road race is projected to cost between £5 and £25 per ticket, and that might make some difference. Secondly, the city council told us that it expects only 20 full-time jobs to be generated by the road race. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to exaggerate its potential for job creation in the city.
    Mr. Bevan: Indeed not. Bearing in mind your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speaking strictly to the financial aspects of the new clauses, I think that it is imperative in the context of the financial restrictions that an admission fee be paid to attend the road race. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ladywood would not wish this to be a charge upon the ratepayers or the taxpayers. Indeed, the essence of some of the earlier amendments was to ensure that no loss would be incurred by the citizens of Birmingham. It is therefore automatic that some reasonable charge should be levied. We do not dispute that there must be some charge. The Bill aims to attract sponsorship. I anticipate that sponsorship will be forthcoming from firms in Birmingham—perhaps in my constituency — which will be proud to contribute, provided that the financial ground rules are well laid.
    We must not denigrate the creation of 20 full-time jobs. They are important. The race will create many more exciting part-time jobs and the spin-off into other industries and the services sector will be profound.
    We have learned patience. This vehicle has been on the starting grid for a fair time. None of us wish to see the chequered flag drop at an inopportune moment — for example, Easter Monday. I join those Opposition Members who tabled an amendment to ensure that that is not so.
    We have had the patience to create the right atmosphere and the sense to produce amendments with care to ensure that everything is well protected. An amendment has been tabled to ensure that the race is not perpetuated unless it is a financial success within the next five years. I believe that the race should now be allowed to start.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Kindness discourages me from commenting in detail upon the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan). I merely remind him that once again he has demonstrated his inconsistency, as he has done several times during our discussions on the Bill.
    The hon. Gentleman applauds the provision of jobs and the creation of work through public expenditure in this context, but in every other context he is opposed to public expenditure. I wish that his attitude was more consistent.
    The hon. Gentleman also said that there was no confusion at this end. I am surprised that he did not take the opportunity to remove some of the confusion that he created on Second Reading on 1 April. He was then so carried away that he claimed that 93 per cent. of the people living in his constituency and in Erdington, Perry Barr and Hodge Hill were in favour of the race. He was referring of course to a survey that had been carried out in the constituency of Ladywood. No other constituencies in the city of Birmingham had taken part.
    Mr. Bevan: That was pointed out at the time. I accepted that correction from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Davis: That is not how I read column 987 of Hansard, but I leave it to the hon. Gentleman and the House to review that point.

    581
    It is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman has throughout been in favour of the Bill and consistent in his support for a motor race on any terms. That has been the difference between the hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friends and myself, because we shall only accept a motor race if the financial terms are satisfactory.
    New clause 2 is a significant step forward. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) for having displayed flexibility and willingness to compromise during private discussions on the Bill. If it were not for the constructive role that he has played, we would still be debating this Bill many months from now. Instead we are making progress. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has encouraged both parties on the city council to make the concessions which will enable the Bill to make progress. The Bill is different from what it was when it was presented to the House in November. It is a pity that those concessions were not made several months ago. That would have avoided a reat deal of delay and expense for the ratepayers and the city council. The way in which the Bill has been handled should be studied as a lesson in how not to introduce and deal with private Bills in the House. Nevertheless, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has not been responsible for the errors that have been made.
    On the other hand, if the hon. Member for Yardley is confused, so is Councillor Neville Bosworth. His comments were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I shall say no more about Councillor Bosworth's comments. It is clear that he has never understood our objections. I will go further. I suspect that he has never understood the financial arrangements behind the motor race. That would be typical, coming, as it does, from a councillor who led the Conservative party on the city council and who was partly responsible for this year's massive rate increase which resulted from the legacy that he left. [Interruption.] I and all my hon. Friends, whatever their views may be about a motor race in Birmingham, will be happy to debate that matter on another occasion.
    The limit of £2 million on capital expenditure which can be incurred by the city council is important. I had some sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hall Green during the debate a week ago. I understand the difficulty of imposing an inflexible limit, but I must, nevertheless, point out that the city council originally estimated that the capital cost of the motor race would be £1·1 million. The council then added 35 per cent. for contingencies and inflation between 1984 and 1986. I do not know how much was contingencies and how much inflation. It would probably be unkind to press the hon. Member for Hall Green to tell us.
    The city council said that the race would cost only £1·5 million. "Only" was its word. Then, last week, we were told that the figure of £1·7 million was too restrictive, and the council now wants £2 million. That is nearly double its original estimate—let us make no bones about that. Not even the Opposition would describe the rate of inflation as being responsible for an increase from £1·1 million to £2 million. On the other hand, the new clause does mean that the council has torn up the idea of a blank cheque. It is now willing to accept some limit on the amount of money that can be spent on the race, and that is good news because it is the capital expenditure which
    582
    has most disturbed my hon. Friends and myself throughout our debates on the Bill. It is the most important aspect of the Bill.
    At the same time, the most important concession made by the city council is not included in new clause 2. That was the concession that I described during the debate on 24 June. It cannot be written into the Bill, and I am not asking that it should. I am happy to accept the assurances that I have been given by representatives of the city treasurer's department, underwritten by Councillor Dick Knowles, that the financial arrangements will now be devised in such a way that we are not choosing between holding a motor race and repairing roofs, urban renewal, improvement grants, old people's homes or day nurseries for children. That is probably the most significant step forward that the city council has taken.
    New clause 3 is also important. It writes into the Bill an assurance that we have been given privately on several occasions. My hon. Friends have urged that the race should not be run as a promotional effort for the city of Birmingham and at a loss to the ratepayers. We all realise that the figures which have been put before us are only estimates, but we have been anxious to see that the race is not a bottomless pit into which ratepayers' money is thrown. If the race makes a loss, it will be an expenditure item and it will mean that the city council is spending money on a motor race instead of making a profit. That is not acceptable to us, and I believe that it may not be acceptable to some Conservative Members. Therefore, a limit of five years has been put on the motor race. If the race does not make a profit within five years and recover all its expenditure within that time, as I understand it, the city council will stop the race. That is an acceptable and reasonable position to have achieved.
    It also means that separate accounts must be kept. To be fair to councillor Knowles and his colleagues, they have always assured me that there will be separate accounts. I did not want it to be written into the Bill. I was happy to accept their assurances. However, I must point out that their assurances encompass more than is written into the Bill. As the hon. Member for Hall Green appreciates, new clause 3 only requires the council to keep accounts for the motor race from the passing of the Bill. I am anxious that we should know the total expenditure on this project, and I have been given assurances that separate accounts will be kept from the beginning so that we shall know how much has been spent on promoting the Bill, how much has been spent on the hospitality sponsored in the House by the hon. Member for Yardley and how much is spent next year on preparing for the motor race.
    These expenses all form part of the cost of a motor race. I am not suggesting that these are costs that should be set against the profit—the hon. Gentleman is smiling and I am sure that he enjoys playing the host in the House of Commons—and I do not expect them to be recoverable. Nevertheless, we want to know how much in total has been spent on this project. That is a reasonable request. We want to know how much expenditure has been incurred in promoting the Bill and securing its passage through the House of Commons.
    The hon. Member for Hall Green, who represents the interests of councillor Dick Knowles and the officers of the council, has taken tremendous steps towards meeting my hon. Friends on all these financial points, and I am glad that he has now introduced these new clauses.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. Roger King: I welcome the amended requirements outlined in new clauses 2 and 3. Many people have pointed out that one of the dangers in promoting this race is having an open-ended commitment or the lack of a financial background to staging the race. Motor racing is technically complex and a difficult marketing business. One cannot merely clear a bit of ground or a few streets and hold a race. Hon. Members who watched the formula 1 road championship race in Detroit recently know what motor racing through the streets actually involves. It is a complicated procedure, requiring the highest safety standards.
    The question is how much the implementation of those standards will cost the organising body or authority. One of the requirements of formula 1 meetings, specifically on city circuits, is the provision of cranes to lift broken and damaged cars from the track. It is not possible to push cars to the side as it is at a dedicated circuit such as Brands Hatch or Silverstone. The emergency services need ready access during the race both to racing accidents and to domestic dwellings and business premises inside the circuit. All those requirements can involve substantial sums of money. The organisers would have to concentrate on securing sponsorship and other forms of racing money to stage the actual race.
    There are several categories of motor racing. There is the fairly basic club racing, where standards are lower than they would be for a full-blown formula 1 grand prix. The city of Birmingham should pay close attention to the type of race that it wants to hold. If it were to hold formula 1 grand prix races from the beginning, it would need higher standards than for a basic club circuit. The public may believe that other categories of race are being considered, so I should make it clear that that is not the case. The event will be of a category which fits the budget.
    Sponsorship can provide a substantial amount of income for the organising body to help to defray much of the organisational cost. There is a great demand to watch street circuit racing, which would be unique in this country, and it should attract people not just from Birmingham but from all over the country. The initial cavalcade last summer attracted large crowds and was covered extensively in the media, but it did not attract many people from outside the city to come and spend money in Birmingham. After all, we would not go to Nottingham just to watch a parade of cars through the streets. It is assumed, however, that the people of Birmingham would not be the only spectators for a racing event. Income for the race would come from visitors from all over the country, and possibly even from Europe if European competitors were encouraged to participate in championship rounds.
    There should be unanimity in the House, because this is a great step forward for any city. If Birmingham is prepared to spend money on such a circuit, other cities may wish to follow suit, but they will be aware of the amount of discussion and debate that this has caused and will probably hesitate to embark on a similar venture.
    Mr. Rooker: If any other city attempts to promote a private Bill to compete with Birmingham, it will materially affect the finances of Birmingham's road race. I wish to make it abundantly clear, therefore, that I shall use every parliamentary means to oppose any such moves
    584
    by other cities until Birmingham has had five years to assess its finances, as the Bill makes clear. They have been warned.
    Mr. King: The House is unanimous on that point. If other cities want to copy Birmingham, which has achieved this after a great deal of time and effort in the past 12 years, they will proceed along that path at their peril. We know the problems of reaching unanimity on organisational procedures, and more importantly, we believe that, because we are the first, we should stay that way.
    Clause 3 provides that the circuit should show proper profit and loss accounts and not be a loss leader for the city's overall leisure programme and tourist attractions. All racing circuits in the country, including Brands Hatch, Silverstone and Oulton Park, have to ensure that income covers expenditure, and they would not be happy if another organisation sought to subsidise its own circuit.
    Although parliamentary approval may be given for the staging of a motor race in Birmingham, that is only the first hurdle. Once approval is given, Birmingham must seek a racing permit from the Royal Automobile Club. Various established circuit owners will be watching carefully to see whether Birmingham gets its race and seeks to subsidise that race so that their own circuits lose custom. Those owners will see from the evidence presented to the House that we are insisting that the race has a proper profit and loss account. I can only pay the highest compliments to the Opposition, who place such a high value on the profit and loss account.
    Local industries will be prepared to contribute and to see this great venture on its way. I have had discussions with various organisers. If August bank holiday Monday were the date of the first race meeting, Austin Rover in my constituency would be willing to provide 12 Metro cars for a celebrity race. Today, I heard that the Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Evening Mail are prepared to give a cheque of £500 to a charity of the winner's choice. I stress that the charity will be in Birmingham, not elsewhere.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) may well be the first recipient of money from a sponsor of the motor race, if the winner picks a charity in her constituency. I have a slight vested interest in this matter, in that I had the pleasure of winning the recent Commons versus Lords motor race at Brands Hatch, coming away with a £500 cheque for charity, which I gave to the Birmingham children's hospice.
    Motor racing will provide an income for the local community. It will provide a wonderful opportunity for industry and commerce to sponsor a glamorous, exciting, brash, bold day for the citizens of Birmingham and the country generally. It will also put back into the local community much of what the motor industry has taken from the area through industrial dereliction and change.
    This is a great opportunity. The new clauses will help to forestall criticism by outside sources which have been afraid that this project would destroy them but which will now readily recognise that this is not a here today, gone tomorrow, escapade. It is a commercial, sensibly thought. out undertaking that will last not for five years, but for many years.
    Ms. Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), and for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) for making it so clear that they

    585
    consider that new clauses 2 and 3, which were moved in response to previous amendments, improve the Bill. I hope that all those who have commented on the Bill and on our criticisms will take their remarks seriously.
    Many of the commentators on the Bill, including Councillor Neville Bosworth, Councillor Dick Knowles, the disreputable Birmingham Dispatch and the leader writer of the Birmingham Post and Birmingham Evening Mail, owe Labour Members an apology. We were using the House in a proper manner to improve the Bill, yet these commentators put about the story that we were being disruptive kill-joys.
    The Bill has been greatly improved. It means that, at worst, if the race fails, the waste of money for the people of Birmingham will probably be little more than the initial £2 million capital expenditure. Of course we hope that the additional £1·5 million that it will cost to run the race each time will cover costs.
    From the beginning, I have been worried about the inefficient way in which this proposal has been put together. Although we were given figures and projections of the amount that would be spent, there was no guarantee that the organisations would hold to those figures. It was possible that the road race would become a big black hole and that Birmingham ratepayers would be required to keep shovelling money into it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and I were present at a meeting with one Birmingham city official who suggested that, even if the race made no money, it would be good for Birmingham and that somehow it would make Birmingham as famous as Indianapolis. Clearly, some city council officials were willing to see the race as a loss leader. That has now been ruled out — if the race is not profitable, it will not continue.
    When the city council began contemplating setting a limit on capital expenditure, the official proposal to the leader of the council was that the limit should be £3 million. That was incredible, given the fact that the initial projection was £1·1 million in capital costs. The council then allowed itself £1·5 million to cover inflation and contingencies. The amount was then doubled, just in case the authorities wanted to spend more. Wisely, the leader of the city council reduced the amount to £2 million. That exercise supports the case for the amendments.
    We have accepted a capital limit of £2 million, because we all understand that an unforeseen event might jeopardise the race and require expenditure of more than £1·5 million. I hope that the city council will stand by its original estimate. The fact that the £2 million limit is in the Bill should not mean that the council can feel that it is free to spend £2 million rather than the original provision of £1·5 million. I am sure that all of us accept that view. The council should seek to work within the original projections.
    I am pleased that we agree with these amendments and that we are satisfied that they will improve the Bill. I hope that we can hasten the Bill's passage and that Birmingham will be able, at last, to get on with planning its road race.
    7.45 pm
    Dr. John G. Blackburn: I should like to pay a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) for the
    586
    work that he has done, in conjunction with other hon. Members, in bringing about an honourable, sound, common sense compromise, which is contained in the terms of the two new clauses. After I had the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the last debate on this subject, one or two harsh criticisms were made of my speech on the grounds that I did not represent a Birmingham constituency. However, I have a deep interest in the success of the race. It will be successful financially only if the constituents whom I have the honour to represent support it. I hope that the people of the west midlands will give their unqualified support to this venture. The crown of the west midlands has many jewels in it. The first jewel is Dudley castle, the second is Dudley zoo and the third is the black country museum. It is a credit to the Birmingham people that they have supported the black country museum. We want a cross-flow of support.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will come to the jewels in these new clauses.
    Dr. Blackburn: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are correct to bring me back to these wonderful clauses.
    People in the west midlands now know that the race will operate through a good financial structure. The new clauses will enhance the Bill. The legislation will attract much support. The people of the black country and the city of Birmingham will only support a measure in which they see financial common sense. Because Labour Members accept the new clauses, I believe that the responsible, reasonable people who intend putting finance into the sponsorship of the race will do so with greater confidence.
    I have already declared the fact that I have no interest in Birmingham in a constituency sense, but I must point out that I particularly welcome the new clauses because they make the Bill better legislation, providing a sound financial arrangement for this undertaking.
    The Bill is historic for the city of Birmingham, but although I applaud and welcome the Bill we must not be so parochial. We must have a wider vision. The Bill is unique because it creates a most interesting venture that will attract attention far beyond the boundaries of the west midlands. In that spirit, I welcome not only an improved Bill but the fact that the House of Commons speaks with one voice. Tonight, for the first time, we are speaking on the Bill with one voice because the new clauses are saturated with common sense and they bring us together.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 3

    ANNUAL REVENUE ACCOUNT
    '(1) The Council shall prepare a revenue account not later than 30th September in the financial year following that year.
    (2) A revenue account must show a true and fair view of the financial result of the Council having exercised the powers of this Act in the financial year to which it relates.
    (3) If at the end of any financial year any revenue account is in deficit, the amount of the deficit shall be charged—
    (a) in the first instance to any reserve fund established by them; and
    (b) subject thereto to the general rate fund.
    (4) In subsection (3) above, the reference in paragraph (a) to a reserve fund established by the Council is a reference to a fund the sole purpose of which is to meet any expenditure incurred by them in connection with the exercise of the powers of this Act.

    587
    (5) If the revenue accounts for the first five financial years in which the Council provide motor races show a cumulative deficit the power to provide motor races shall cease to be exercisable by the Council.'—[Sir R. Eyre.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Clause 3

    AUTHORISED DAY
    Mr. Terry Davis: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 34, leave out from 'August' to end of line 45.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in page 4, line 39, after 'than', insert 'Easter Monday, or'.
    No. 2, in page 5, line 2, leave out 'said' and insert Banking and Financial Dealings'.
    No. 3, in page 5, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert
    'the authorised day to the statutory undertakers'.
    Mr. Davis: The four amendments amend the Bill in two slightly different ways, but they relate to the same point. I should explain that amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are linked, and amendment No. 21 is an alternative.
    On Second Reading, there were several references to the survey conducted among those who live near the proposed route for the motor race. In moving the Second Reading, the hon. Member for Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) brought the survey to the attention of the House and told us that it showed 93 per cent. support for the race among the residents of the area where the event would take place. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) referred to the survey. I have already mentioned how his enthusiasm carried him away to the point where he thought that the survey had been conducted among all the residents of Birmingham. There was also a reference in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). Fairly, he pointed out to the House that 36 per cent. of those who were given ballot papers had returned them. They voted with a majority of 4·5 to 1 in favour of a motor race. All the comments were fair — with qualification in the case of the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Yardley — because the survey did take place.
    However, I asked the city council for a copy of the letter that was sent with the voting papers to the people living in the area of the race. I discovered that they were asked to vote on the basis of a proposal for a motor race to take place on the August bank holiday. They were given the ballot paper with a covering letter from the chief administrative officer of the city council. The letter asked them to look at the plan and read the explanatory notes before voting. The first note informed the residents that it was suggested that a motor racing event be held on the August bank holiday Monday. It informed them that practice sessions would take place on the Sunday for perhaps four hours in the afternoon and that the racing would be held on the August bank holiday Monday.
    However, the Bill makes it possible for the city council to hold a motor race on any bank holiday Monday except at Christmas and new year. That means that the city council can hold a motor race on Easter Monday, May day or the spring bank holiday Monday. The arguments made so often and so forcefully by advocates of the motor race
    588
    that the people who live in the area want it are based on a survey that referred specifically to a proposed motor race on August bank holiday Monday. That is an important difference, because people were asked to vote in support of a motor race on one day in the year, and the city council and its advocates used the results of the survey to argue for a Bill that would enable the city council to hold such a race on at least three other days during the year.
    I feel especially strongly about the inclusion of Easter Monday. As hon. Members will know, the Bill makes it possible — indeed, it will be essential—for racing car drivers to practise on the Sunday before the race. That would mean that cars would be travelling round the circuit on Easter Sunday. We must object to that. The city council told me that it was never its intention to hold the race on Easter Monday. In that case, why did it not exclude Easter Monday in the same way as it has excluded Christmas and new year? The council need only have added a few words to the Bill to make its intentions clear. I believe that the council changed its mind, and I do not criticise the draftsman of the Bill. He was told to include the possibility of Easter. I regard that as a con trick. I believe that there was a deliberate effort to extend the opportunity for a motor race to other days on the basis of a survey which referred only to August bank holiday Monday.
    I do not feel so strongly about May day or spring bank holiday Monday, although there might be difficulties with May day. It is possible that the Labour movement will wish to hold processions and demonstrations through the centre of Birmingham on that day, and that could conflict with a motor race. I realise that the present city council would ensure that no such conflict occurred. I have less confidence in Councillor Neville Bosworth and his party giving precedence to a May day demonstration. However, I shall not pursue that point and amendment No. 1 because I understand that the hon. Member for Hall Green, on behalf of the city council, will accept amendent No. 21, which excludes Easter Monday. I hope that the hon. Member will assure us that the council does not intend to hold a race on the other two days, and that it is only a possibility, and I shall not press amendment No. 1 on that basis. It follows that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 could also fail.
    Sir Reginald Eyre: I am glad to welcome amendment No. 21, which makes it clear that the motor race will not be held during the Easter bank holiday, and especially that the preparatory racing which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davies) mentioned, will not take place on Easter Sunday. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the amendment, and I give it my support.
    Mr. Davis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 21, in page 4, line 39. after 'than', insert 'Easter Monday, or'—[Mr. Terry Davis.]

  Clause 5

    CLOSING OF STREETS FOR MOTOR RACES
    8 pm
    Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 34, after 'such', insert 'reasonable'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 9, in page 5, line 42, at end insert
    '(even if for the purpose of education)'.
    No. 10, in page 5, line 44, leave out 'reasonable'.
    Mr. Rooker: Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 are alternatives to amendment No. 9. I did not think it right to leave out the word "reasonable" in line 34 if it stays in line 45. I seek either to include it in one or remove it from the other. I understand that the Bill's promoters are prepared to accept amendment No. 8.
    When restricting access to streets and premises the city council should not be allowed to impose
    "such conditions as they think fit."
    Local authorities should not be able to operate like that. The insertion of the word "reasonable" is a reasonable request. It is reasonable to be reasonable and we are all reasonable people.
    Amendment No. 9 ensures that there will be reasonable access
    "to any person attending a place of public religious worship; (even if for the purpose of education)".
    Do the city fathers, the lawyers in the city council or the Bill's promoters understand that Birmingham is a multiracial city? The largest purpose-built mosque in the region is on the route of the race. It is used for other than strictly religious purposes. It is used for education. I tabled the amendment with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in whose constituency the mosque stands. I shall not press amendment No. 10.
    Sir Reginald Eyre: In amendment No. 8 the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) presses for the insertion of the word "reasonable". I have listened to his speech and thought about the proposal and I think that it is reasonable to accept his reasonable amendment.
    I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments in relation to amendment No. 9. It is with pleasure that I accept that amendment.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he does not wish to press amendment No. 10. If the word "reasonable" were deleted the council would be under an obligation to provide a lower standard of access.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 9 in page 5, line 42, at end insert `(even if for the purpose of education)'. — [Mr. Rooker.]
    Mr. Terry Davis: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 20, to leave out 'Birmingham District' and insert 'West Midlands Regional'.
    Clause 5 deals with the rights of certain bodies to obtain access to an area in which a race is taking place in order to discharge their duties. This refers in particular to the fire service, the highway authority, the police and the Health Service. Someone living near the race might need an ambulance or need to be visited by medical or nursing personnel. Such access would be difficult without making special provision for it. That is the reason for clause 5.
    However, the Bill is defective because subsection (9)(b) refers to the "Birmingham District Health Authority". No such body exists. There are five district health authorities in the city of Birmingham. Within the city there are all the points of the compass-north, east, south and west-district
    590
    health authorities plus the central district health authority. The route of the motor race runs through the areas covered by two of those authorities.
    Personally, I think that a mistake has been made. As I understand it, the ambulance service is operated by the regional health authority. The West Midlands regional health authority should therefore be included, even if we specify a district health authority. The best way round the problem is to remove the reference to the "Birmingham district health authority" and to insert
    "West Midlands regional health authority"
    on the reasonable assumption that the regional health authority, which supervises and liaises with the district health authorities, would ensure that everyone in the Health Service has access and will be consulted before the race is held.
    I think that a mistake has been made in the drafting of the Bill and that the change in the organisation of the Health Service a few years ago has not been understood by the city council. It was Conservative Ministers who introduced the structure of five district health authorities instead of the old Birmingham area health authority. Perhaps that is why we have been joined by a former Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). In the expectation of a contribution from him as well as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre), I rest my case.
    Sir Reginald Eyre: I accept the arguments by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). Earlier I said that the drafting error would be corrected by an amendment moved in another place. However, I am happy to say that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is acceptable. I should like the hon. Gentleman to know that the West Midlands regional health authority has confirmed to the city council its satisfaction with the arrangements. The Bill is much improved by the amendment and I am grateful to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Davis: That means that we shall amend the Bill, and I am only sorry that we shall not hear a contribution from the Minister, the hon. Member for Brent, North.
    If we had concluded our deliberations a week ago, on Monday 24 June, it would not have been possible to amend the Bill in this way in this place. The city council would have been compelled in common sense and logic to correct the drafting of the Bill in the other place. I understand that that would have been expensive because a petition would have been involved.
    Mr. Rooker: It would have meant that my hon. Friends and I would have felt bound to ensure that there was a Third Reading debate, which would have added to the cost of the Bill. Getting the matter right tonight saves money for the ratepayers, but it could have been put right earlier.
    Mr. Davis: My understanding — I have taken the trouble to discuss it with Clerks in the Private Bill Office, who are supposed to be the experts — is that it would have involved a petition and not simply an amendment. I am told that it would have been expensive, but I may be mistaken.
    We are able to debate this matter tonight only because we did not finish our deliberations a week ago. I must say that it would have been easy for the city council to do earlier what it has done in the past 10 days. It would have been possible for the city council, when I tabled this

    591
    amendment and sent a copy of it to the leader of the city council, to consult the West Midlands regional health authority before our discussions on 24 June. I am a bit disappointed that the council was a bit slow off the mark, but better late than never, and I am delighted that it has seen sense enough to accept my amendment.
    Sir Reginald Eyre: I appreciate what the hon. Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) have said. We are entering the final stages of our examination of the Bill to which we have given close attention and we all agree that it is much improved. I hope that the possibility of a formal Third Reading will continue, because certain expenses — promotional costs — which I think we all wish to keep as low as possible, would be incurred by debate.
    Mr. Davis: If I may speak for my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Ladywood, we would not want to increase expenditure. Indeed, we have been concerned throughout to make sure that the Bill is sensible. It is now becoming more sensible by the minute. Whether there will be a Third Reading debate depends upon whether the spirit of concession and willingness to accept our amendments continues.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 11

    CHARGES FOR ADMISSION
    Mr. Terry Davis: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 9, line 6, leave out 'The' and insert
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this section the.'
    The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 23, in line 7, leave out '(1)' and insert '(a)'.
    No. 24, in line 9, leave out '(2)' and insert `(b)'.
    No. 20, in line 13, at end insert —
    '(2) For Birmingham residents and families tickets shall be available at half price and arrangements shall be made under the Passport for Leisure Scheme or in some other way to provide tickets free or very cheaply for the unemployed and pensioners resident in Birmingham'.
    No. 25, in line 13, at end insert—
    '(2) The Council may make arrangements for the granting of concessions of not less than 10 per cent. in respect of the payment of charges under subsection (1).
    (3) The Council shall exercise their power under subsection (2) above in relation to qualified persons ordinarily resident in the City.
    (4) In this section:—
    "concession" means the reduction or waiver of a charge either absolutely or subject to terms, limitations or conditions.
    "qualified persons" means persons mentioned in any of the following paragraphs or any description of such persons, that is to say—

    (a) men over the age of sixty-five years and women over the age of sixty years

    (b) persons whose age does not exceed sixteen years

    (c) disabled persons

    (d) persons in receipt of unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit or family income supplement

    "disabled person" has the meaning assigned to it by section 8 of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978.'
    Mr. Davis: These amendments are tabled in my name, but it is my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Ladywood who have been particularly anxious about the arrangements for concessionary prices for tickets for
    592
    the motor race. They want to ensure that Birmingham residents, especially the unemployed, the disabled and the retired should be given the opportunity to purchase tickets at special prices.
    The amendments arise out of discussions which I had last week with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) and the promoters of the Bill. Although the amendments have been tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friends, who have campaigned so strongly on this issue.
    Mr. Bevan: Amendment No. 25 is wholly commendable. It is quite right that the citizens of the excellent city of Birmingham should have the proposed concessions. We all share that view.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) thinks that the excess glories of Dudley zoo and Dudley castle outshine anything in Birmingham. I immediately dispute that, and those attractions may not, unfortunately, share the same concessions which should be available to the citizens of Birmingham in whose city this race will take place. I was happy, when on the city council, to introduce concessionary travel on the railways for the senior citizens of the area. Both Conservatives and Opposition Members have supported various forms of concessionary fares. We must ensure that the citizens of Birmingham enjoy the type of concession to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) referred — a low admission price. I hope that such provision will help make the race popular.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Rooker: We have just witnessed a road race on a bandwagon. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) cannot wait to get on the bandwagon of the goodies being put into the Bill. I commend him for that, but wish that he had supported us earlier when we moved similar amendments on 1 April and were derided.
    Mr. Bevan: I should be happy to provide a bandwagon in opposition to the hon. Gentleman. If he would care to take me up, his bandwagon could race my bandwagon on the time that the Bill takes to become an Act and the time that elapses before the first race takes place.
    Mr. Rooker: I am interested only in improving the Bill by including provision for concessions and some financial probity. I assume that the first road race will take place in 1986. It is ironic that there will be concessionary admission prices for Birmingham ratepayers who want to see that race in the same year that concessionary bus fares in Birmingham end because of other legislation.
    Amendment No. 25 provides that the city council has discretion to grant concessions of up to 10 per cent. in respect of admission charges, but that it must exercise that power in respect of people listed later in the amendment. People in Birmingham, whether unemployed, pensioners, disabled or just those who find life tough on low pay, will welcome the concession. Without amendment No. 25, there was no hope of a genuine concessionary scheme.
    On 1 April, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) said that there would be concessions for what he called "Birmingham folk". When we raised the matter with the leadership of Birmingham city council before Report, it was clear from their blank faces that they did not know what we were talking about. We said that,

    593
    if they did not know what their representative had said on Second Reading, we wanted the matter spelt out in the Bill. That explained our pressure for amendments on 24 June which have been tidied up so that they are more technically efficient. I hope that amendment No. 25 will be accepted.
    Ms. Clare Short: It appears that amendment No. 25 is finding all-party favour in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) said, it is an alternative to amendment No. 20, which I tabled. We wanted to tie down the city council in its undertaking to provide concessionary tickets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) said on Second Reading implied some sort of lottery. That commitment could be fulfilled by offering only five cheap tickets, and that would not have benefited many people in Birmingham.
    The concessions promised in amendment No. 25 are limited. I hope that the city council will try to do better. My amendment calls for half-price tickets for all people living in Birmingham and very cheap or free tickets for the unemployed and the disabled.
    Amendment No. 25 states:
    "The Council may make arrangements for the granting of concessions of not less than 10 per cent."
    to the citizens of Birmingham. However, it does not require the council to do that. If the council was mean-minded, the unemployed and the disabled would receive no concession. I hope that that will not be the case and that the council will ensure that everyone in Birmingham——
    Mr. Rooker: I think that my hon. Friend is a little inaccurate. The people listed — such as the disabled, the unemployed, those under the age of 16 and pensioners — must receive a concession because the word "shall" is used. It is with the generality of ordinary domestic ratepayers that the council has discretion.
    Ms. Short: There is no difference between my hon. Friend and me on that point. I agree with his interpretation of the amendment, which states, "may make arrangements" for all the people of Birmingham and "shall" make arrangements for pensioners, the disabled, people under 16, those on unemployment and supplementary benefits and those in receipt of family income supplements. Therefore, all that the amendment secures for certain is a 10 per cent. concession for those groups.
    I hope that we all agree that it is reasonable to impose by law only that minimum condition on the city council. However, we all want to do better than that and to make a larger concession to the citizens of Birmingham. I understand that the tickets will be expensive — the city council suggests between £5 and £25 each. Anyone wishing to take their family to such an event would find it expensive. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) said that 250,000 happy Birmingham people attended the original event. That event was free and families could enjoy a nice day out without it costing them anything. If tickets for a race — which might be more exciting, who knows — cost a family £25, fewer people would be able to afford to go.
    Many people in Birmingham have been led to believe that they will be able to have a fun day out, but there is
    594
    a danger that they may not be able to afford to go. I hope that the hon. Member for Hall Green will be able to give a commitment that the city council will try to do better than the rather small minimum contained in the amendment.
    Mr. Roger King: I wish to address my remarks to amendment No. 25. I have always been under the impression that there would be some form of concessionary ticketing. Indeed, that applies at most motor racing circuits. Although the cost of a ticket to Brands Hatch or Silverstone may be £5—or a good deal more for a grandstand seat — there are usually concessions for carloads. A set price is paid for a car, regardless of the number of people in it. Obviously, that must be within reason because the people on the gates would watch closely for a mini with 20 people in it.
    There needs to be some imagination in the way the tickets are sold. Motor racing events are expensive to stage, and no one has tried to hide that fact during the passage of this Bill. We need to get as many people to the event as possible. The figure might not be 250,000, but it will include people from Dudley, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Coventry and throughout the country. The tickets must be pitched at a price that people can afford.
    A ticket to a cinema in Birmingham will cost about £2 or £2·50. For a family, the cost would be about £12, plus whatever is spent on icecreams. Therefore, if the price of the motor racing tickets is pitched carefully, people would have about 10 hours of intermittent entertainment, which would be good value.
    Many people will have a freeman's day because they will be domiciled in some of the tower blocks near the track. They will have a commanding position to view the day's events at no personal cost. They will witness what many people would call an exciting spectacle. However, to be honest, others might describe it as monotonous. Cars racing round a circuit do not fill everyone with enthusiasm —perhaps only 99 per cent. of us.
    At many circuits throughout the country the unemployed are unable to watch motor racing because of the cost of travel to the tracks. The disabled are also disadvantaged because they have to vacate cars and cross grass areas to watch the race. I hasten to add that many of the established circuits do provide facilities for the disabled. The only way for many people to see a race is on television or at the cinema.
    I firmly believe that many of the categories in amendment No. 25 should receive concessionary tickets and have the opportunity to see a race. After all, the whole object of the exercise is to expand the motor racing market and the activities, the business and the industry that it generates. The more people who watch a race, the more income there is for the industry.
    Motor racing is one of Britain's most successful industries. It is not readily appreciated that at Indianapolis some 70 cars compete, of which 65 are British-built with British engines. During the last few years the winners have been British cars. Britain is pre-eminent in the design of motor car so it is right that more and more people should have the opportunity to witness a spectacle in which we are virtually one of the world's leaders — with the possible exception of Ferrari, which is legendary for its spasmodic attempts at usurping British racing cars.
    I note that the amendment refers to
    "men over the age of sixty-five years and women over the age of sixty years."

    595
    I suppose that that is a throwback to the pensions business. It is just a bit disadvantageous for males — they have to be five years older than women to appreciate the sport on a concessionary ticket. I do not criticise the hon. Members who tabled the amendment. It is one of those unfortunate things that we lesser mortals — the males of the species —have to tolerate. It has happened yet again in broad letters that we can all witness.
    It is important to encourage families to take part in motor racing activities. Although those living close by will be able to see the event at little or no expense, my constituents in Northfield will have to use public transport or their own cars to get to the circuit. I hope that those using cars will have the benefit of a family ticket. Indeed, there should be an opportunity to purchase a family ticket whatever transport one uses. For example, one could buy a family ticket at a railway station in, say, Coventry that would take people to the circuit by rail. That will not be in effect by next August, but it will be afterwards when all the private bus companies will be supplying cities with the cut-price fares and wonderful services that we confidently expect.
    8.30 pm
    The main criticism about concessionary tickets, which has been mentioned only in passing, is that applicants must be resident in the city. This provision will create the problem of producing evidence, which is acceptable to the ticket vendor, that one lives in the city. That can be overcome, but there would be problems of issuing concessionary tickets on the day. One way round that problem would be for concessionary tickets to be purchased a few days before the event, to allow those who are entitled to concessionary tickets to get them.
    The normal practice at motor racing events is that if someone buys a ticket in advance, he gets a concessionary ticket whether or not he lives adjacent to the circuit. I hope that our friends in Dudley, Wolverhampton, Walsall and anywhere else in the west midlands who wish to avail themselves of a ticket two or three weeks in advance of the event will be entitled to a discount. That is not stipulated in this amendment, but it does say that the council may make such arrangements. I hope that the arrangements will be extended to other parts of the west midlands and not be confined to the citizens of Birmingham. As was so eloquently said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) this is not merely a Birmingham event.
    Ms. Clare Short: It will be the ratepayers of Birmingham who will have to spend the £1— million every time the race is run. It is right that they should have cheaper tickets than anyone else, because they will pay for the staging of the event.
    Mr. King: The hon. Lady has said the word. It is right that the people of Birmingham should have "cheaper" tickets. Those in the immediate area surrounding the city, upon whom the motor race will depend largely for its success, should also have some form of concession. That is normal marketing procedure. Nowadays, there is not just one price for a ticket, take it or leave it. Instead, there is a range of opportunities, such as family tickets, advance purchase tickets, local citizen tickets and through tickets, including transport by bus and train. There is wide scope for imagination.
    The amendment is not necessarily needed to improve the Bill. Any organisation seeking to make a profit and a
    596
    success of a venture such as this would leave no stone unturned in its efforts to sell as many tickets as possible. If it suits the Opposition to categorise the series of concessions that they would like, I am happy to support them.
    Sir Reginald Eyre: I am glad to accept the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Birmingham. Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). I believe that it expresses a feeling that is widely held in Birmingham. I agree with the interpretation of the clause which was developed by the hon. Member for Ladywood and other Opposition Members. I hope that the generous interpretation of the scheme that she asked for will be implemented. That would make the scheme so much more attractive in Birmingham.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has emphasised the importance of selling tickets. It will be necessary to effect a large number of successful sales and we shall want to encourage block bookings from Sandwell, Dudley, Wolverhampton and all parts of the west midlands. We shall want also to attract visitors in large numbers from Scotland, the north of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Kensington and other parts. In addition, we hope to attract many visitors from overseas.
    Dr. Blackburn: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a market of about 750,000 people concentrated in the black country? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has suggested that a concession might be presented to those who live in areas adjacent to Birmingham without taking away the benefits that citizens of Birmingham will have.
    Sir Reginald Eyre: The costings exercise has not been completed, so it is not possible to talk about costs in detail The principle of having attractive terms for those in the west midlands appeals to us all and the notion of having a special consideration for the people of Birmingham has been accepted on both sides of the House. We want especially attractive terms to be available to Birmingham people. In all the circumstances, I am glad to accept the amendment.
    Mr. Terry Davis: I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) is prepared to accept the amendment.
    Unfortunately, it seems that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) may have misunderstood one or two matters. He is definitely labouring under a misapprehension if he thinks that there would have been a concessionary scheme for Birmingham residents, the unemployed, the retired or the disabled if my hon. Friends had not tabled earlier amendments to the Bill.
    Perhaps I should explain that my hon. Friends and I met the representatives of the city council in March shortly before Second Reading. We had been asking for a meeting for five months and some time passed before the leaders of the council were able to arrange to meet us. It was clear from the expression on the faces of the council representatives that the creation of especially attractive terms for those groups of people was a new idea for them. Indeed, it was clear that the idea was a revalation. They had not anticipated that we might be asking for such a scheme.

    597
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has said, in spite of everything that was said on Second Reading, the council representatives had not considered what should be done by the time that we met them again shortly before Report. I do not accept that the arrangements that we are discussing would have been made if my hon. Friends, with my support, and the support of others, had not advanced the suggestion. The hon. Member for Northfield is simply mistaken if he thinks that it would have happened in any case.
    The hon. Member for Northfield made a serious comment about attractively priced tickets for retired men and women and said that it was unfortunate that men would have to wait until 65 years while women would be eligible at 60 years. I agree with him entirely. However, the wording of the amendment was negotiated with the representatives of the city council last week and the form in which it appears before us is their drafting. We wanted our objectives to be met and we were willing to accept their wording. We were arguing on behalf of pensioners, and men retire at 65 years under the state pension scheme. I have always supported the idea of a reduction in that retirement age to bring it into line with the retirement age for women. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Northfield I look forward to his support in the Division Lobby on the next occasion that that proposal is put before the House.
    Mr. Roger King: I do not want to be side-tracked on this debate as to when one should retire, but I support the same retirement date for men and women, not necessarily at 60 but somewhere in between. I support a lot of things I would like to see happening but it is not necessarily the case that one can afford to do them.
    Mr. Davis: I am not going to be distracted by the hon. Member for Northfield because I have always believed in raising the level of people who have least to the level of people who have more, and I am not going to do it by taking a lot from people who have a little. I would have thought that was the sort of philosophy that Conservatives would have accepted. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman wants to penalise women in order to benefit men. I will not pursue that any further because I am sure we will have an opportunity to pursue it at a future date, and I look forward to seeing how the hon. Member for Northfield votes on those occasions.
    He also raised a very important point about how a Birmingham resident would be defined. I understand his point, but I repeat that the wording of this amendment was negotiated with representatives of the city council and they told us they could do it. The phrase "Birmingham people" is a difficult one to define and cannot be restricted to Birmingham ratepayers. We are concerned that people who live in Birmingham should be able to buy tickets at concessionary prices.
    The wording of the amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has rightly emphasised, only makes it possible for the council to give a concession to Birmingham people. We have been given a firm assurance that it is the intention to provide that sort of concession and we want to put it in the Bill in order
    598
    to emphasise our concern. If the council had not met us on this point, I do not think my hon. Friends and I would have allowed this Bill to pass so easily this evening.
    I must also draw the attention of the House to the fact that the concession would not be restricted to Birmingham residents. There is nothing to stop the organisers of the motor race from providing concessionary tickets to individuals or groups of people as they think right from a marketing point of view. But we were elected to represent the people of Birmingham and we argued for many months that they would be paying a price as a result of this motor race in terms of expenditure which would not take place on things which we regard as worthwhile items of expenditure by the city council. If they are going to pay any price at all, and that price has been reduced to a very low level as the result of concessions by the city council, it should nevertheless be balanced by an advantage.
    The concessionary price for Birmingham people — and they are the people who are suffering a loss of expenditure in other fields — should be allowed in order to provide that advantage. It is only permissive in the Bill, but we have been given a firm assurance, and we are satisfied with the integrity of the representatives of the city council who met us. I repeat that we are not concerned about marketing or the motor race industry. I am not entering into disputes with the hon. Gentleman for Northfield about that. I am quite sure that people who are promiting this Bill and organising this motor race will take that sort of decision. Of course, their decision will be based on marketing reasons and on what is most profitable. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the decision will be based on whether it increases income for the motor race. That is not our point of view. We are concerned to ensure that people living in Birmingham have an opportunity to see this motor race at a lower price than people who do not live in Birmingham. We are not concerned about increasing the profits from the motor race but about increasing the opportunities for enjoyment for the people we represent.
    The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) expressed the hope that there would also be a concession for people in the black country. The hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to have benefits for the people of the West Midlands county after his Government have abolished the West Midlands county. He cannot have it both ways. From next year the people in the black country are going to be on exactly the same footing, as far as the people of Birmingham are concerned, as people who live in Worcestershire or Warwickshire or Staffordshire. They will simply be people living under a different local authority, thanks to this Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman cannot come asking the people of Birmingham to give concessions to people who live in places which were in the West Midlands county, a body which will not exist, I fear, after that time.
    8.45 pm
    The hon. Member for Northfield said this amendment was not needed. In one sense he is quite right. It would have been possible for the council to give these concessions to Birmingham people and to give concessions to the retired, the disabled, the young and the unemployed without this provision being written into the Bill. However, we were concerned about the lackadaisical way in which the council was approaching the arguments we put to it. The council did not come back to us and say

    599
    that it had got a scheme. The reaction was, "Well, we hear you and we will think about that at some time in the future." We were not willing to allow this Bill to pass without ensuring there was more than that. These arrangements are not perfect but they are the minimum on which we will allow this Bill to proceed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 23, in page 9, line 7, leave out `(1)' and insert '(a)'.
    No. 24, in page 9, line 9, leave out '(2)' and insert (b)'.
    No. 25, in page 9, line 13, at end insert—
    '(2) The Council may make arrangements for the granting of concessions of not less than 10 per cent. in respect of the payment of charges under subsection (1).
    (3) The Council shall exercise their power under subsection (2) above in relation to qualified persons ordinarily resident in the City.
    (4) In this section:—
    "concession" means the reduction or waiver of a charge either absolutely or subject to terms, limitations or conditions.
    "qualified persons" means persons mentioned in any of the following paragraphs or any description of such persons, that is to say—

    (a) men over the age of sixty-five years and women over the age of sixty years

    (b) persons whose age does not exceed sixteen years

    (c) disabled persons

    (d) persons in receipt of unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit or family income supplement

    "disabled person" has the meaning assigned to it by section 8 of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978.' —[Mr. Terry Davis.]

  Clause 22

    RESTRICTION ON RIGHT TO PROSECUTE
    Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 16, line 20, leave out
    'the Council or a constable'.
    This clause probably appears in dozens of other similar Bills. It is not a question of my suspicion of the legal
    600
    officers on Birmingham city council, although they do unnecessarily harass many of my constituents. Neither the council nor the constable should have the power to prosecute for any offence under this legislation unless the Director of Public Prosecutions agrees. I do not understand why the clause has been drafted in this way, allowing only an aggrieved person to organise and start a prosecution and then slip in that either the council or a constable can do it. If the council wishes to prosecute anyone as a result of an offence under this Bill, it should get the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There should not be blanket approval to do so as is provided for in the Bill.
    I accept that prosecution policy will change in any event, and it is a change that will win my support. As I understand it, the promoters are prepared to accept the amendment.
    Sir Reginald Eyre: I am glad to accept this amendment. As a result, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be necessary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, to be read the Third time.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (ESTIMATES)
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of estimates) shall have effect for this session with the substitution of four days for the provisions in paragraph (1) of the Standing Order;

  (2) On the third day allotted under that Standing Order, consideration of estimates may continue though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock, the estimates listed in items 1 and 2 of the Report of the Liaison Committee [27th June] shall be considered in that order, and paragraph (2)(c) of the Standing Order shall have effect with the substitution of half-past Eleven o'clock, or the hour at which debate on the estimates listed in item 2 of that Report shall have been concluded, whichever is the earlier, for the provisions in that paragraph;

  (3) On the fourth day so allotted, the estimates listed in item 3 of that Report shall be considered until not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Durant.]

  Nephrops Fishing Industry (Portavogie)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Durant.]
  8.49 pm
  Mr. John David Taylor: I wish to raise on the Adjournment the problems of the Northern Ireland nephrops industry at Portavogie, County Down, which also relate to the fishing port at Kilkeel, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). This afternoon we had a debate about improving stability in Northern Ireland. This is the third debate today on Northern Ireland affairs, because we had one between 2.30 and 5 o'clock this morning. The Minister will agree that Portavogie and its constituency of Strangford are a stable part of the United Kingdom, probably much more stable than many parts of England. In Portavogie, a most attractive village, we have one of the major fishing fleets in Northern Ireland — the other being Kilkeel. Portavogie has 60 boats of more than 40 ft in length.
  The fishing industry in Northern Ireland is considerably larger than many people realise, and it contributes greatly to our income and our employment. It is directly responsible for the employment of 800 men on the boats and a further 800 people in the processing industries — a total of 1,600 employees. It contributes about £12 million from the sale of the various fish that are caught.
  The fish types vary considerably, but the main ones are mackerel, cod, whiting and nephrops. There are many other fish, including a small catch of scallops. That is another problem that the Northern Ireland fishing industry faces, and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say something about that. As he knows, the scallop fisheries in the Irish sea have been closed since 1 June this year, with the exception of the stretch around the County Down coast. So alarmed are the Northern Ireland scallop fishermen that at present they are refusing to fish, and they fear that the existing beds are being over-fished by boats that do not normally come into their local waters.
  The word "nephrops" is not often used in day-to-day discussion. In fact, they are prawns, although scientists would argue that they are not exactly the same. Nevertheless, for the remainder of the debate, which could continue until 10 o'clock, although I hope that that will not be necessary, I shall refer to prawns and the various problems facing the prawn industry in the Province.
  The Northern Ireland prawn industry is now a significant part of the total industry and comprises 40 per cent. of the Northern Ireland fishing industry's total income. Unbelievably, the prawn catch in Northern Ireland is now 25 per cent. of the total United Kingdom catch. Any damage to the nephrops industry in Northern Ireland would have a dramatic effect on that industry as well as implications for prawn cocktails that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members enjoy from time to time. Therefore, it is in everyone's interest to safeguard the prawn industry in Portavogie and elsewhere in Northern Ireland.
  The apprehension and legitimate fears of the Portavogie fishing industry arise from the existence of the common fisheries policy. Spain and Portugal recently signed a treaty of intent to become members of the EEC from 1 January 1986. Among the terms of accession are provisions relating to the future of the nephrops industry, in which Spain in particular has a direct interest.
  602
  I understand that the European Commission is proceeding with proposals on the nephrops industry, and I hope that the Minister will clarify this. I understand that it hopes to introduce a market support scheme. In the Northern Ireland nephrops industry there is opposition to the idea of such a scheme, which is felt to be quite unnecessary. The Northern Ireland fishing industry is able to sell its catch but feels that, if such a scheme is introduced, in parallel with it will be various controls on the number of nephrops that can be caught. That will have complications for the number than can be sold as well as for the number of people directly employed by the industry. I should therefore like to know whether there will be a market support scheme.
  How will such a scheme operate? Will the entire catch or only a percentage of it be brought in? What qualifications will be involved in a market support scheme? What other conditions will be applied? Does the Minister envisage the introduction of total allowable catches, which already apply to other fisheries under the common fisheries policy? If there is a TAC for the nephrops industry in Northern Ireland, that will mean reduced catches. That will result in fewer jobs and higher prices for the prawn cocktails that are sold in hotels and restaurants throughout the United Kingdom. This therefore affects consumers throughout the nation as well as fishermen in small villages such as Portavogie which provide 25 per cent. of the nation's total prawn catch.
  There is also concern about the size of the prawns. It could well be that, in order to qualify for the scheme, prawns will have to be of a certain size. At present all the prawns that are caught are sold irrespective of size, but it has been rumoured that the European Commission is suggesting a minimum size of prawn of 46 mm. If that is so, 70 per cent. of the present Northern Ireland catch would be illegal, and that would have disastrous results for the prawn industry throughout the Province.
  Has the Northern Ireland Office made representations in this regard? Does it recognise that the prawn caught in the Irish sea is a dwarf nephrops? Does it recognise that Northern Ireland nephrops are different from the nephrops caught elsewhere in the European community? Has that special feature of the Northern Ireland prawn industry been bought to the attention of Brussels?
  The same problem applies to the prawns caught by the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, what I am arguing for will help not only the Northern Ireland industry but the fishermen who catch prawns from bases within the Republic of Ireland. If there are to be various sizes of prawns to qualify for this market support scheme they would have to be graded, presumably on the boats. I should like clarification on where the grading will take place. Will it be on the boats or on shore? If the tails are taken off on the boats and they are graded there, one can imagine the extra workload this will place on the fishermen and, yet again, the increased cost of the prawns to the consumer.
  My final point concerns mesh sizes. The mesh size at present is 60 mm and there have been suggestions from time to time that the European Economic Community will require it to be increased to 70 mm. That would discriminate against the special type of nephrops in the Irish Sea because, as I have said, this is a dwarf nephrop similar to that which one finds in the Bay of Biscay but certainly dissimilar from those elsewhere within the European Economic Community.

  603
  The concerns facing the nephrops industry in Portavogie are the support scheme, the size of the mesh and the net, the size of the prawn itself to qualify for the scheme, whether there will be total allowable catches or whether we will be able to continue to catch as many nephrops as are caught at present without any restriction because of the ample supply. There is no need to curtail the number of prawns that are caught.
  If these problems are being followed up by the Government, there is a good future for the prawn industry in Northern Ireland; but if the Government are not vigorously presenting the special interests of the Northern Ireland nephrops industry we shall certainly have problems which will have to be pursued — and not, I hope, by calling a meeting of the Northern Ireland Committee, because that is something we would wish to avoid for some time. It is a serious matter which requires to be pursued, if the Minister cannot give effective replies tonight, in order to reassure fishermen in Portavogie and elsewhere in Northern Ireland.
  9 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) for cutting me in on his Adjournment debate in circumstances which render the limitations rather less restrictive than normal.
  I note that the Minister of State will reply to the debate, so that we are speaking at three removes from our actual target. He is representing the noble Lord who is responsible for agriculture and fisheries in the Government of Northern Ireland but that Government does not have responsibility for negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community in fisheries matters, so the real target of my right hon. Friend and myself is Her Majesty's Government in their relations with the European Economic Community. It is in that context that I want to follow up what my right hon. Friend said by underlining two considerations which ought always to be in the mind of those who are negotiating on behalf of our part of the United Kingdom—indeed, that part of the United Kingdom concerned with fisheries in the Irish Sea—with the European Economic Community.
  Although I hesitate to do so, I am impelled to insert at this point a grammatical observation. It occurred to me, though I shudder at the thought, that my right hon. Friend might have been guilty of solecism in assuming that nephrops was a plural and that there was such a thing as a nephrop or a nephrops industry. It will be realised that nephrops is a word like cyclops and means something which looks like a nephron or kidney, which is what a scampo looks like—if that is the singular of scampi — when it is nicely curled up and is having its tail taken off in a force 8 gale in the Irish sea. Nephrops is the singular as well as the plural of this remarkable species. That is enough of pedantry — perhaps too much.
  Those of us negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom ought to have two facts firmly in mind. First, it should not be assumed, unless the facts bear it out, that in discussing a species one is discussing something which is unitary in European terms. Very often the species, as it presents itself in the North sea, is different, in peculiarities, in size, in habits and in plentifulness, from the same species in the rest of the European waters. Consequently it is easy for fishermen surrounding the Irish sea to suffer from the natural vice of the European
  604
  Economic Community of harmonisation and of assuming they are dealing with the same thing in all parts of the European Economic Community and what it now calls its waters. It is not the same thing and I wish to underline the fact, which my right hon. Friend emphasised, that the Irish sea nephrops is distinctively different from nephrops in most of the rest of the European waters and that therefore measures of control or regulation ought to take full account of those species differences between the Irish sea nephrops and the rest.
  My second observation goes deeper still and is of a social as well as a biological character. It relates to conservation. We tend to talk about conservation as if it was a bright new idea that had dawned upon us in the past 15 years. Total allowable catches are laid down in the context of the common fisheries policy as a new gift to mankind, as though nobody had ever thought before of the conservation of fish resources round our shores.
  Those who live by the fish, and whose ancestors have lived by fishing for generations, have worked out a symbiosis with the fish that provide their livelihood. They have always been alive to the requirements of conservation. Therefore, they have worked out systems of fishing, modes of fishing, types of catch, and periods of fishing which are peculiar to the particular fishery but which are nevertheless highly conservationist. Yet it is possible for the EEC to come blundering into that socially mature environment with notions of conservation, steamrollering what has been going on for generations, to the benefit of all, including the fish species.
  The fishermen of County Down, whom my right hon. Friend and I represent equally, have worked out over the generations a pattern of fishing for scallops as well as for nephrops that is calculated to yield the maximum benefit to the nephrops and to the fishermen, if such a coincidence of interest can be conceived. Therefore, it would be wrong to intrude a system of subsidy and support upon those fishermen, together with the attendant rules as to time, size of catch, net dimensions and so on, which would cut right across the truly conservationist habits that prevail on the coast of Northern Ireland.
  I will not persist upon the point, but this is an illustration of how damaging our membership of the European Community, with its harmonising and universalist assumptions, can be to the interests of the inhabitants of parts of the United Kingdom, not least those who, like our constituents, live in one of the peripheral provinces.
  I appeal to the Minister of State to convey to us this evening the assurance that he will brief his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and say to them, "When you have to deal with the enlarged Common Market, with those predators from Spain and Portugal who have been let into the game, bear in mind that when they appear to be talking about a species, they are not necessarily talking about a species as it affects the fishermen of Northern Ireland, and that when they purport to introduce schemes for support of the industry, those schemes may be a curse in disguise to those who have worked out the modalities of their own industry in a manner that is profitable to them; do not let them assume that the fishermen are not alive, in their present practices relating to size, method and period of catch, to the interests of conservation."
  The fishermen are the great conservationists. The European Economic Community has nothing to teach the

  605
  nephrops or the scallop fishermen of Northern Ireland on the subject either of nephrops or scallops or of conservation as it affects those species.
  9.10 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I have listened with intense interest to the speeches of the right hon. Members for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and for South Down (Mr. Powell). I have to confess that I am not an expert on nephrops, and I welcomed the right hon. Member for South Down's wise, not pedantic, description of the singular and the plural. This is an important matter for all those who are concerned. It is their livelihood.
  The right hon. Member for South Down said that conservation is not a new concept. In order to survive, from the very beginning the human species has had to create a balanced environment. It knew that once a species became extinct it had gone for ever. Man has evolved a relationship with his environment and does not need Parliament to tell him how to achieve it.
  The right hon. Member for Strangford referred to the fact that my noble Friend Lord Lyell is responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland. One the other hand, I am responsible in this House for agriculture and take an interest in it. I know how important agriculture and fishing are to the Province.
  Nephrops, commonly known as prawns, is the most important species for the Northern Ireland fishing industry. In 1984, nephrops landings in Northern Ireland were 4,030 tonnes, worth £3·1 million, representing 40 per cent. to 41 per cent. by value of total fish landings. This is an important issue for the people of the Province. Approximately 600 people are employed in nephrops processing, producing mainly scampi for the United Kingdom and Irish markets. Approximately 20 per cent. of the total United Kingdom scampi market comes from Northern Ireland.
  Portavogie is the second largest of Northern Ireland's fishery harbours. Approximately 590 people are employed there, either directly in the fishing industry or in its ancillary industries. In 1984, 1,156 tonnes of nephrops were landed there. This represents 15 per cent. of total fish landings in Portavogie and 25 per cent. of total landings of nephrops in Northern Ireland.
  The Government were pleased to be able to help the fishing industry at Portavogie through the recently completed major harbour redevelopment scheme, to which we contributed nearly £4 million in grant aid. I know that the fishermen at Portavogie have made good use of these facilities, particularly during the past winter season when, I am informed, there were large landings of white fish.
  The right hon. Member for Strangford referred to the concern — I shall pass on this concern to my noble Friend — felt by the Northern Ireland fishing industry over a number of European Community proposals relating to nephrops, which, it is feared, may have an adverse effect on the Northern Ireland industry. Besides passing on this concern to my noble Friend I shall try to deal now with the points that have been made in this debate. I shall write to the right hon. Members for Strangford and South Down if I am unable to deal with any of their points from the Dispatch Box. It is the job of Northern Ireland Ministers to defend the interests of Northern Ireland, wherever they
  606
  can, so I shall ensure that these points are also passed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When any European Community measures on fisheries are considered, my noble colleague who is responsible for fisheries matters in Northern Ireland and his officials ensure that the position of the Northern Ireland fishing industry is taken into account, so I am sure that this Adjournment debate will be studied carefully by my noble Friend and his officials.
  On nephrops, officials have regularly consulted the main representatives of both catchers and processors, and as far as possible they have been kept informed of developments, and their advice sought on the implications, which are of concern to everybody, for the Northern Ireland industry.
  Basically, two points are raised. The most immediate concern to the industry is probably the proposed private storage aid scheme for nephrops and the minimum marketing standards that will be introduced as a consequence of the scheme. The first point of concern is the marketing scheme and the second is the standards that are being imposed and whether there will be a limitation on catch. I shall deal with both issues.
  While the details of the scheme have not yet been finalised, I understand that the industry has been informed of the outline structure around which the scheme will be constructed. The private storage scheme is not mandatory. It will be up to those concerned to decide voluntarily whether to take part, and I believe that it is the wish of the nephrops fishermen in the area not to be involved in the scheme. There is no question of a limitation of catch.
  Mr. John David Taylor: The Minister has emphasised that the scheme will be optional and it is interesting to have that confirmed. He also underlined the fact that there is strong opposition to the scheme by the Portavogie fishermen. If the scheme is optional and one opts out of it, does that mean that one does not have to comply with the grading sizes of nephrops?
  Dr. Boyson: I shall deal with that. Meanwhile, I was trying to deal in two parts with the main points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. The first is, as it were, the straightforward point about the scheme, under which, say, 20 per cent. is taken off the market and stored, to be brought back on to the market at another time.
  As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the fisherman can sell that quantity. There is no point in storing what can be sold. I may be primitive in my view that they are better if they are fresh. Having been on Strangford lough and having eaten nephrops—I almost called them prawns; I must not be accused of deviation from the ultimate truth —the very fact that they have come ashore fresh, their death warrants having been signed only a moment previously, seems to make them taste at their best.
  The marketing standards, however, will be mandatory. I am now dealing with the second part of the issue, and it is clear that this aspect will have to be watched by the Northern Ireland fishing industry and those who speak on its behalf. In setting the standards, due regard will be given to the size variation between nephrops stocks in different water around the United Kingdom, particularly the smaller sizes of nephrops which are landed from the Irish sea.
  When I was in Northern Ireland this morning I was shown a map of the area between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and it resembled almost an inland sea.

  607
  Though having been in the Royal Navy in a previous incarnation, I had never seen the area as an inland sea, particularly bearing in mind all the ships that came across from America during the war. In that it is almost surrounded, it is a different area, and the species in it are different.
  The right hon. Member for South Down said that species were different everywhere. It is not that they might have been different had they been planted somewhere else; history continues, and they were not planted anywhere else. They are there, in that existence, and the very fact that they do not stay that size elsewhere must be recognised. Apparently in the open sea, including in the Atlantic, they are larger, and the difference in mesh, therefore, matters greatly.
  I was about to refer to them as people. They are so lovely to eat that I see them almost as individuals. Even if these nephrops do not grow to the size of nephrops elsewhere imagine their embarrassment when all their lives they have wanted to be eaten but have been too small to be caught in a net.
  One is reminded of "Alice in Wonderland." Lewis Caron could have written a wonderful story about these beings. Here they are in Strangford lough wanting to be eaten by, among others, the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, and myself, but are never caught because they are too small to stay in the net. Clearly, that must not be allowed to continue. For the sake of the nephrops and the people who would enjoy eating them, something must be done. As there is agreement on both sides of the House about it, we could have a unity of parties on the issue.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I was not aware that Alice wanted to be eaten.
  Dr. Boyson: I am not so sure. I could almost quote from the book. We must not overlook the way in which the walrus danced. In any case, nephrops were not thought of at that time.
  The right hon. Member for South Down spoke of conservation. The idea of conservation, both on the fish side—although they are not consulted about it—and on the human side, is to make sure that we have some to eat not only this year but next year.
  As I say, the marketing standards will be mandatory. In setting the standards, due regard will have to be given to the size variation. I understand, however, that the most recent proposals for standards discussed in Brussels would he regarded as acceptable by the Northern Ireland industry, and this will obviously be followed up by the right hon. Member for Strangford and by my noble Friend.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred also to nephrops being brought into the system of total allowable catches and quotas as a result of the settlement reached on fisheries following the accession of Spain to the Community. During the negotiations with the Spanish, we secured agreement to the exclusion of Spanish vessels from fishing in the area known as the Irish box until the end of 1995. This includes the whole of the Irish sea, and thus the waters which are fished for nephrops.
  Total allowable catches will be set for nephrops in certain sea areas from 1986 to prevent unrestricted fishing for nephrops by Spanish vessels in the sea area in which they are allowed to fish. While Spain has been allocated a relatively small share of the total allowable catch in these
  608
  sea areas, no proposals have yet been made for the allocation of the remainder of the nephrops total allowable catches between the existing member states, and this remains a point of negotiation.
  I note that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the possible effects of the Hague agreement—he obviously had this in mind, although he did not say it—on the setting of individual member states' quotas in the Irish sea. If quotas are to be set, we shall aim to ensure that the United Kingdom quota is sufficient to meet the needs of all United Kingdom nephrops fishermen in this area. I think that that is one of the big concerns that have been raised.
  I note also the industry's concern about the proposal to increase the minimum mesh size when fishing for nephrops from 60 mm to 70 mm, which was clearly stated by the right hon. Gentleman. While I can understand the industry's concern, there is obviously a responsibility on those concerned with fisheries management to ensure that in the longer term sufficient fish resources are available, and mesh sizes are an important factor in the rational management and improvement of stocks. I am aware from what has been said elsewhere of the long-term link between the two. I have been informed that quite a few of the nephrops fishermen are happy with a larger size, although some obviously are unhappy about it. There will have to be consultation with the fishermen and the people who are involved in the making of the agreements.
  An EC scientific working group has been established to advise on the conservation benefit of an increase in mesh size for both nephrops and white fish taken as a by-catch. One of the Department of Agriculture's fisheries scientists is a member of this group, and it is expected that the group will report to the Commission soon. The critical issue is the advice given on conservation and the effects that this will have. I have studied the question this week. Since nephrops here are smaller than in the rest of Europe, special consideration will have to be given to the situation or they will be severely disadvantaged. I understand the point, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman and I see eye to eye on this crucial issue.
  As the issues develop, the position of the Northern Ireland industry will be fully considered and the regular consultation that has been taking place with the main spokesmen of the industry will continue.
  I wish also to mention scallops because the right hon. Member for South Down has raised the matter with me, and I have passed on his comments to my noble Friend There is concern about the effect of stopping fishing on the borders of the Republic. I am informed that an air review is made weekly of the number of boats fishing for scallops. This is the service that takes air surveys of the fishing fleets to ascertain what is happening. I am informed that since 1 June, when scallop beds elsewhere in the north Irish sea were closed, those who advise the Department — this is why we have hon. Members and Ministers present to discuss the matter in the House — have considered the current level of fishing to be not excessive, given the present state of the scallop stocks. The right hon. Gentleman said that nobody is doing such fishing in the area. I find it most odd that no Northern Ireland boats are fishing there. There are always odd things about Northern Ireland and, indeed, marvellous things about Northern Ireland. However, I will leave the matter there, and undoubtedly I shall be further enlightened tonight or at some future date in private conversation. The position is

  609
  kept under constant review. The beds will be closed to fishing, if necessary, to prevent the overfishing of the scallops. I know that the right hon. Members for South Down and for Strangford will keep me and my noble Friend informed about the fisheries at Kilkeel and Portavogie.
  I realise that this is an important matter——
  Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I listened with interest to the points that he made about the scallop fishermen. I have an interest as I represent Kingston upon Hull, West and I have 155 constituents who rely upon that industry. I was wondering whether the Minister would tell us what effect the accession of Spain will have upon scallop fishing in Northern Ireland.
  Dr. Boyson: One can sometimes go off hon. Members, when one gives way.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Answer the question.
  Dr. Boyson: Of course, I shall now reply in ministerial fashion as you would expect, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has asked a most important question. It is so important that we are still considering it, and I trust that by tomorrow I shall be able to answer him. I know that the hon. Gentleman will keenly await the note that I shall send him, which will be an illumination for me. I am delighted that he asked the question, so that I can add further to my knowledge of the fishing industry and life in Northern Ireland.
  We are aware that scallop and prawn fishing is vital to Northern Ireland. It has provided a livelihood for people for over 100 years. There has been natural conservation. We are in negotiation with the EC, in particular now that two other countries are to become members, to maintain the safeguards to ensure that the fisheries are not destroyed and that people's livelihoods will continue. The industry is a benefit to the Northern Ireland tourist industry. The prawns and nephrops add to the attractions of Northern Ireland. I am surprised that during the last debate, about free tickets or something in Birmingham, no mention was made that Northern Ireland is the best place to go from Birmingham.

Roads Programme
9.27 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the roads programme, although many other subjects might be more popular. High rhetoric and declaratory speeches about road transport and motorways do not trip neatly off the tongue.
An inferior road system has an effect on local communities and on the quality of people's lives. To make my central point, I do not need to discuss the Government's road programme at length. The importance that the Government attach to the subject has been clearly shown in the White Papers that they have published, in particular that of 1983. In that White Paper, the Government set out their national and local priorities. There is no doubt that the Government know what they are doing. If one considers the progress that has been made since 1979, the details given in the White Paper on Government expenditure and in my hon. Friend the Minister of State's announcement as recently as 25 June about 51 further projects at a cost of about £300 million. one begins to see that those priorities are being fulfilled. However, when one studies those matters, I believe that one finds that one ingredient has not received the degree of prominence that it merits.
In 1977, the present Secretary of State for Social Services produced what might be described as a seminal document setting out the attitude that a Conservative Administration would take to transport. The paper stressed that a Government implementing such a programme should seek to ensure that decisions were taken by and for the users rather than the providers of transport. In matters concerning local communities it is vital to ensure that local people's views are properly taken into account. That problem certainly arises in the context of planning legislation, and I have raised it in the House more than once.
The procedures adopted must pay more than lip service to local people's views and ensure that local opinion has a real effect on the policy adopted. When one considers the way in which road traffic policy is implemented at the local level it is clear that, despite our rhetoric before we came to power, local communities do not always feel that they have the input that they want.
The specific problem that I have in mind concerns the road traffic system in Newton Abbot, a substantial market town in my constituency. Devon is the third largest shire in England, with more than 8,200 miles of road—more than twice the total for any other county. There is no doubt that Devon and the west country generally have seen substantial improvements in terms of major capital projects. For instance, there has been the dualling of the Plymouth-Exeter road. There is now dual carriageway virtually from the end of the motorway to the Tamar bridge. In terms of major projects, the west country has benefited greatly and it was well entitled to do so.
Improving motorways and dual carriageways, however, may simply move the bottleneck further down the track. It thus becomes even more important to ensure that the traffic is dealt with properly when it leaves those main arterial highways and comes into market towns.
It would be all too easy for me to say that those responsible for planning the traffic system in Newton Abbot do not know what they are doing. I could make a

611
splendid speech. The Gallery would become packed and reporters would be hanging on my every word. I do not go so far as that, but there is no doubt that the people of Newton Abbot feel that the needs of their town are not properly reflected in the traffic system provided for them.
These days everything has become a speciality. Even politics, which in our British tradition should be the province of the true amateur, has become professional. Traffic management, too, has become a speciality. There is certainly a feeling among my constituents, especially those living in Newton Abbot, that the specialists have designed a traffic system which is all very well for them but which simply does not work.
A specific example is the Penn Inn roundabout where priorities were altered in such a way that traffic ariving at the roundabout found that it had precedence over traffic already on the roundabout. By any stretch of the imagination, it was an extraordinary decision. Public protest was such that eventually the highway authority, to its credit, while not actually admitting that it was wrong, did the next best thing and changed back to the old system.
The system in Newton Abbot has not been completed yet, and those of us who are optimists are wondering whether, when the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, the system will work. For the time being, the local people are faced with a system of one-way streets and mini-roundabouts, by which the authorities seek to control traffic. A person trying to get through Newton Abbot in a hurry on a weekday had better take a deep breath, because it takes some time to do so. On one occasion—this was not during the high season or at a particularly busy time of day—it took me 20 minutes to get across the Penn Inn roundabout.
Clearly, if local people are asked to design a traffic system, they will have many ideas. The fact that they may not be able to achieve a consensus does not detract from the basic proposition that, at times, traffic in this market town is being brought to a standstill and the common-sense views of local people on what should be done are not being properly reflected.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have the advantage of knowing the hon. Gentleman's constituency extremely well, having lived there for many years. I am following his argument carefully. What exactly is his point? Is he suggesting that the previous Conservative-controlled county council, which presumably channelled the views of the inhabitants to the traffic planners, failed in its duty? Is he suggesting that that is why those Conservative councillors were deposed in the shire county elections?
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady makes a particular political point. If she casts her mind back, she will recall that her stay in the west country was brief as, having succeeded in being re-elected in one parliamentary election, she was promptly deposed at another. I do not think that her reflections on how we act in the west country are especially helpful.
I come to the point that I would have made if the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) had been able to contain her exuberance. One cannot be certain whether the traffic planners in a town such as Newton Abbot have got it right. The present structure makes it impossible for local people to ensure that their views are taken into account. A planning analogy is the best analogy
612
that I can offer the hon. Lady. What happens if the local community does not have the right to appeal once a planning application has been granted? It is too simplistic to say, "That means that it must be the fault of the local councillors." Of course it is not necessarily their fault. Whatever their political persuasion, local councillors properly give a great deal of weight to the advice that they receive from professional officers. The planners in Newton Abbot may be getting it right, but their views cannot be put to the test. Those living in areas where the traffic does not flow freely face considerable hardship. Their hardship may be exaggerated, but one must emphasise the stress faced by the travelling public in using a complex traffic system that is not working properly.
We can note the Government's priorities and the spending on major projects and can compare the record of this Administration with that of their predecessor. This Government are getting it right.
In the end, one must come down to local level and ask oneself: "Can we be sure that there is proper control, so that those who are responsible for road planning are providing transport systems that are there for the benefit of the people, dictated by the people and created in the light of their experience, or is it a case of transport systems being thrust upon them from on high?" That is the point that I wished to make to my hon. Friend.
9.40 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), because I lived for many years in his constituency. Not only were two of my children born in Devon, but I lived in the hospital at Newton Abbot. The information that he gave to the House earlier was completely inaccurate. I know the area extremely well.
I am not sure what the object of the hon. Gentleman's speech was. The amount of money spent by the Government on roads is markedly different from the amount that they have spent in other areas of transport. For example, the Government said that, this year, their priority would be to move increasingly towards the provision of bypasses. They would be welcome in Devon and Cornwall, as well as in Cheshire. It is unfortunate that the Government's sense of priority has meant that our motorways are becoming subject to a series of major reorganisations and resurfacing programmes at this time of the year. It would have been better if the Government had been prepared to undertake a sensibly spaced programme of road renewal at the same time as a programme of new major roads.
I do not argue with the hon. Gentleman's statement that the Government have spent much money on roads. However, they have not organised the programme correctly. Indeed, we may have considerable difficulty, not just this year but in the future, in getting a properly planned and organised road programme.
My objection to the Government's plans is different. At a time when the British Rail workshops at Swindon will be closed, with the loss of about 2,800 jobs, Government money is being spent not on providing new manufacturing and new work in the workshops but on a road programme that is still not properly organised or planned.
The Minister of State's efforts this week have shown some of the difficulties involved. She drove up the M1 to show that there would be some difficulties, but said that

613
her planning had ensured that the difficulties would be absorbed by the travelling public. There would have been more admiration for the Department's planning had it provided some evidence over a longer period that the Government have balanced our need for a motorways renewal programme and the needs of our urban communities.
The major roads in my area desperately need updating. There are many problems on the roads between Shropshire —especially the constituency represented by the Leader of the House—my constituency and north Staffordshire, because the roads programme, as it is presently envisaged, will not allow us to spend enough money on updating A-class roads to take the ever-increasing freight traffic. The provision of motorways in the area precludes that. It shows the difficulty of planning in advance for increasing freight traffic.
The hon. Gentleman said that he is worried by the fact that traffic management is becoming too professional. His slightly derogatory tone when he said that reflects the attitude of the Secretary of State for Transport who, during the passage of the Transport Bill, showed only too clearly that he regards anyone who has a qualification in traffic planning as having slightly doubtful judgment and as being an unacceptable adviser in the planning of a transport system. That is stupid and reprehensible. For modern traffic management it is important to have the input of those who understand how traffic flows effect the areas through which they pass.
The hon. Gentleman fears that the problem is being dealt with, not by local councillors but by others—an abstract set of advisers hidden away far from his constituency who take decisions over which he has no sway.
One of the problems in Devon is that for many years one political party has believed that it is firmly in the saddle. Its reponse to his constituents is often conditioned, not by the needs of the area but by the way in which that party envisages its political advantage. There might be problems in the Newton Abbot area. I suspect that they are not unconnected with the complexion of the political party which has been in control for many years. It was in control when I arrived in the county and has only just relinquished that control at county council level.
The time has come for the Government to accept that roads must be part of an integrated transport system. Their relationship with the movement of passengers must be calculated, not only on the basis of the numbers of heavy lorries or of road trains, but on the basis of how they can best be integrated with the rail system the aeroplane system and overall transport planning for the future. Britain can no longer afford simply to think in terms of a road system without recognising the Government's responsibility for planning their commitment to transport spending over a wider area.
Unfortunately, an effective and vocal roads lobby has emerged. It has advocated changing basic and important forms of transport. The Secretary of State for Transport is straightforward and honest and has made it clear that the only kind of transport planning that makes sense to him is to remove the bus system that operates for the benefit of its passengers and to replace it with a system of anarchy under which any sharp pirate who can make a penny out of the system will be allowed to benefit. The Secretary of
614
State believes that the train and inland domestic airways systems should be regarded less favourably in terms of planning than the motorway system.
The Minister of State is not only highly intelligent but committed to intelligent road planning. At long last this year she has succeeded in achieving some acceptance in her Department of the fact that many communities want roads developed which are useful to them. People want more bypasses and more A roads. They want the motorway system to be updated so that it does not constitute a hazard to the environment.
Only the other day I was told by a member of the police force in my constituency that, apart from the speed at which vehicles travel, the hazard caused by the closeness and the number of vehicles on the M1 and M6 is the equivalent of that caused by road trains and major freight movement. That cannot be the only efficient way to transport goods. No proper planning has been done. Public transport should comprise a wider and more intelligently grouped system of services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider seriously what he has said and will not seek to give the House the impression that transport planners are some obscure and removed breed of men and women who have no understanding or appreciation of the needs of local communities. The Secretary of State for Transport neither understands nor accepts the role of transport planners. In fact, these planners have made their life's work the extension of the interests and needs of local communities so as to integrate them with the national interest.
Mr. Nicholls: Surely the hon. Lady must realise that she is trying to have her cake and eat it. She is suggesting that all the transport sins of the world have been caused by the fact that in the past Devon county council was Conservative controlled. Secondly, she suggests that I am being unkind to traffic managers. Does she not realise, even from her brief acquaintance with my constituency, that the road patterns in the area have been devised at the behest of professional traffic managers? I said clearly—I am surprised that the hon. Lady was not able to grasp the argument — that it is too easy to criticise traffic planners. I said as clearly as I could that there should be another input. The expertise of the user should be taken into account as well as that of the professionals.
Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed the argument that I was advancing. He seems to believe that transport planners operate in a vacuum. If he has not noticed that local councillors are consulted, that county councillors are consulted and that many people throughout the region are consulted, he has confirmed my view of the Conservative party. It is clear that it is so disinterested in the views of others that it does not take account of the occasions when it takes decisions which should be based on the informed views of transport planners. If the decisions on traffic planning in Devon have been taken entirely by council officers until this stage, I am not surprised that a different set of people is in charge of the county hall.
I am interested that the hon. Gentleman feels that 15 years is a short acquaintance with his constituency. If we take account of some of the recent political results, he might consider that if he is not careful my acquaintance with his constituency may turn out to be rather longer than his own. However, I would not want to be unkind.

615
In one sense the views of the Secretary of State for Transport are unique. They bear a strong resemblance to the views that prevailed in 1802—I do not suppose that there was a Secretary of State for Transport in those days —on the part of the member of the Cabinet who was responsible for deciding how many ruts, for example, a stagecoach should have to deal with in travelling from one inn to another. I am sure that the views of that Minister were similar to those of the Secretary of State.
The Government are prepared to spend a great deal of money on roads, but their spending has been directed almost exclusively at motorways. I note that the Minister of State shakes her head in dissent, but motorways have, almost exclusively, been the Government's spending target. Very rarely has Government spending been spread across our road transport system in such a way that local communities have benefited by the building of bypasses, for example. I am glad to note that the hon. Lady's common sense is now reasserting itself. This year there has been the announcement of a change in planning for the coming years. I hope that she will be able to carry out that programme for the remaining two or perhaps two and a half years in which she and her colleagues occupy the Department of Transport. It is probably the team of Ministers whose policies will be least in need of total change when the time comes for the Government to leave office.
I ask the Minister of State to explain to the hon. Member for Teignbridge that transport planning must be based on informed and expert advice. There is nothing wrong with being a transport expert. I know that such experts upset the Secretary of State, but their expertise is useful and should be valued. The fact that the advice of the planners is frequently disregarded in the present climate is no criticism of the experts. Instead, it is a plain and open criticism of Ministers and their way of running the Department.
9.55 pm
Mr. Stuart Randall: As a Devonian, I would like briefly to contribute to the debate. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who did an admirable job representing the interests of his constituents. However, there were a few paradoxes in some of his points. He talked about ensuring that the views of local people were taken into account in any decisions on bypasses or other works. I entirely agree with that. There should be full consultation so that people can ensure that they have the road systems that they want, that there is free flow of traffic and that the environmental aspects are acceptable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) also touched on the question of bypasses. The matter is raised often because of the environmental consequences. Many people do not want large lorries rushing through their towns. Being a Devonian, coming originally from Plymouth, I know the Newton Abbot area fairly well.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned traffic management, but that is only one aspect of the skills necessary to ensure that we have the right traffic system. He said that the system in Newton Abbot does not work. However, the other aspect is traffic engineering, which involves the expenditure of money to ensure that there is the right kind of traffic furniture, that roads are dug up, that cables are
616
laid, together with all the other expensive activities associated with ensuring that an area has the right traffic system.
The hon. Gentleman said that the system in Newton Abbot did not work because people in a hurry could not get where they wanted to go. The hon. Gentleman can speak more effectively for the people in his area than I can — indeed, I would not dare to speak for them. But people want consistency of journey time. If people rushing to get to the station know that it will take half an hour, they will allow half an hour. If they hit a bottleneck during the rush hour, that means inconsistency in travel time. People in rural areas are happy to spend a longer time getting to a particular place because they want a good environment. They do not like inconsistency.
The question of bypasses is important. The Minister, from a sedentary position, suggested that a great deal of money is being spent on bypasses. We all know that the bypass programme has suffered considerable delays because of the Government's desire to continue with the motorway programme. They are putting in the large links and ensuring that there is the right motorway infrastructure. We understand that objective. However, the people in the rural areas—and the hon. Gentleman is from a rural area—want bypasses.
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman proclaims himself to be a Devonian. As a fellow Devonian, I must tell him that, for the third time, he has completely mispronounced my constituency. If he is saying that there should be a bypass in Teignbridge, perhaps he would help the House by telling us what place he wants bypassed.
Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not know when this new constituency came into being. I am probably a few years older than the hon. Gentleman, I was born in that part of the country and I am prepared to have a competition on Devonian pronunciation, but that would probably be out of order.
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he is dissatisified with the road systems in his area, but traffic engineering involves money. Many towns run campaigns — I see them in the Cotswolds—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
Mr. Randall: When I travel through the Cotswolds on my way to Westminster each week, I see little notices asking when villages will have a bypass. The Government's rate-capping policy has had a devastating effect on road building programmes. If the hon. Gentleman is unhappy about roads in his area, he should put some pressure on the Treasury and ensure that investment in the road building programme and in traffic engineering and traffic management systems is not restricted.
The Labour party can now claim to be Britain's Green party as well as that which cares for the development of industry. People in rural areas can come to us and be sure that we shall push their case for bypasses and improved road systems.
10.1 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am grateful to my hon. Friend

617
the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for raising this subject. I hope that I shall be able to put to rest some of the fears about what is obviously a Devon county council road safety programme, as my hon. Friend mentioned mini-roundabouts.
I am shocked at the lack of knowledge which, in a more crowded Chamber, would have been a further embarrassment to the Leader of the Opposition, that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has displayed. She has not caught up with what has been going on. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if, as well as replying to his debate, I put the hon. Lady on the right road.
Mrs. Dunwoody: How kind.
Mrs. Chalker: I would not want the hon. Lady to be under the illusion from which she is obviously suffering on this subject, in addition to all of her other illusions about transport. I shall not trade in political insults with her, but it would be wrong to let her comments go without correction.
We should all love consistency of journey time, but that matter does not necessarily rest in the hands of transport planners. Transport planning, no matter how good or bad, does not alter the consequences of drivers travelling too close together and having a bump. The real problem about journey time is the behaviour of motorists rather than road engineering.
During the past five years there has been a major effort to involve local people early in the planning of roads. That is especially true of the Department's schemes on main roads. The process is lengthy for bypasses, main roads and special junctions. Quite frequently, the whole route goes out for consultation, as happened with the A41 in Chester. We try to measure local views.
All of that occurs before the scheme is worked up into public orders which are then published for the preferred route. It is at that stage on most of the schemes that we have an opportunity to learn from local people.
The instance my hon. Friend cited tonight about mini-roundabouts in Newton Abbot is not one with which I am familiar because it is not a departmental scheme. I can assure him, however, that I will find out what is going on in Newton Abbot. I have seen a number of other road safety improvement schemes which have deployed mini-round-abouts and in the initial stages they have not always been easy to accept. This is because some other part of the planning which may have worked— and here I agree with every word he said—on the drawing board had not taken the fullest account of the well-imbued habits of the local population in taking short cuts and all the other moves they were accustomed to making in the town.
We have had a number of such instances where for very good reasons, particularly where accident black spots have occurred, mini-roundabouts have been very successful in reducing the number of accidents, particularly those which were simply car bashes and non-injury accidents. That is one of the reasons why we have sought, in the right places, to extend the use of mini-roundabouts. But if it is not working in an area, I hope that the county council will do exactly what the Department has done. If it finds, with a local community, that the scheme is over-stressed in terms
618
of new traffic management, there could be meetings with the local population such as I have had in Reading and other areas round the country, to amend the scheme.
Patterns change in road traffic management as new roads are opened and as habits change, and the council should always be amenable to advice and discussion with the local community. I hope that will happen in Newton Abbot.
The schemes that operate in an area such as Newton Abbot, or anywhere else for that matter, sometimes involve a change of priorities. From time to time one can be critical of the insufficient signing of such a change, because people often drive their cars by instinct and habit, and if one does not strongly impress upon them a changed system of priorities one gets the sort of problems my hon. Friend has rightly described. That would not enhance road safety but might well add to the number of non-injury accidents.
I understand what my hon. Friend was saying about an incomplete system in Newton Abbot. It is right that, wherever possible, we should consult local people and local shopping communities as well as pedestrians and motorists. In most of those schemes that is the responsibility of the local authority, the highway authority, and not my Department.
The House and, indeed, the Government have been watching very carefully what has been going on in recent years in the national road programme. It has been my job for the last three or more years to try to sort out the transport policies and programmes submitted by the highway authorities to determine how much we could give them to assist with their chosen priorities, whether they were bypasses or other road improvements. As well as getting the local programme moving, we have for the whole period—I can vouch for this since I became a Minister at the Department in 1982—given attention to the three aspects of the road programme.
In our 1981 document, in the 1983 road review, the road White Paper and in the 1985 "National Roads England" report, our priority has always been to relieve residential areas, and those that do not need to take heavy traffic, by a full bypass programme. This is not a sudden conversion, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich suggested, and she needs to indulge in a little more reading——
Mrs. Dunwoody: Come, come.
Mrs. Chalker: It is all very well to say "Come, come", but the hon. Lady plainly does not know what she is talking about. Her comments on the bypass programme, motorways and roads renewal were all jumbled up together, and she plainly did not take account of the fact that in 1974 and 1975 the Labour Government completely slowed down renewal on the motorways, and in 1976 stopped it altogether. Yet since 1979, when this Government came to power, expenditure on roads had been extended by more than 30 per cent. in real terms. That is what the hon. Lady gets wrong when she says that we have not programmed the renewal. She talked about fitting it into the overall infrastructure, but in 1984 and 1985 we sought to balance that by agreeing to every capital investment scheme brought to us by British Rail.
Mrs. Dunwoody rose——
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady has had her whack, and I wish to put her right. She also said that insufficient had

619
been spent on renewal, but of more than £3·8 billion, £1 billion was spent on renewal. Even adjusted for inflation, that is far more than her Government ever spent. The remaining £2·8 billion has been spent on new construction in the last five or six years. To have completed 171 major schemes and added nearly 500 miles to the national network in response to the increasing, and still increasing, demand for personal road transport has been a feat on which my engineers and staff in the Department of Transport are to be congratulated. There are now more schemes in the programme that are capable of being carried through.
That programme will give the communities their bypasses and will build the roads that will lead to new industrial areas, which will result in economic regeneration. Over the next 10 years, the programme could total some £4 billion. If the hon. Lady is concerned about spending, I suggest that she takes a while to read this report, which details what is happening overall and what is happening scheme by scheme throughout the country.
When she intervened, I thought that she would plead the case of the A52 Barthomley link. That is a scheme that she has been very interested in, but I should like to have seen a little more energy expended by certain other people, because the fact that it is moving along is due to——
Mrs. Dunwoody rose——
Mrs. Chalker: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a minute.
It is because we have pushed hard for that linkage from the M6 across to the hon. Lady's area that this has happened. I know, and she knows, that it was partly because of land difficulties, but that should tell her something. It is not enough to say, "We need a road between two places" and not to observe the great difficulty that can sometimes arise in assembling the land between one place and another before a scheme starts. That is the reason for the length of the programme and the time it takes. We now have a full preparation pool which is a reality, which is being worked upon and which we did not inherit in 1979.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's energy in pushing the Barthomley link against opposition from the local Conservative county councillors and one or two other people who were determined that we should not have this needy means of conveying goods from my constituency to the M6. But I refute absolutely any suggestion of lack of energy by any of the Labour councillors on Crewe and Nantwich borough council. If she is referring to the Duchy of Lancaster and her colleagues in the Government who have spent over six months talking about this without any obvious attempt to push it forward, I concur with that point of view. The Labour councillors and the Labour representatives on the county council were most anxious to proceed with it. It is unfortunate that others of a different political persuasion did their best to delay it.
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady will make any point that she can latch upon in place of facts. It was on the regional annual consultative committee for the north-west, where the county councils from different areas were gathered together in 1982, that this issue was, first raised, not by Labour councillors but by Conservative councillors. We wanted to get on with it. It depended also on the Cheshire
620
county council. While any chairman of highways will bring to my notice schemes that he wants to pursue, I can honestly say that most of the representations I have received in recent years have been from people of my party and of no party. They certainly have not come solely from the hon. Lady or from her party.
Whereas in 1982 we found that local authorities were traditionally underspending on their road programme, we have achieved, in the interest of people who need bypasses and new industrial links something which I did not believe was possible. In 1983–84, the outturn on the road programme was within 1 per cent. of the budget. I was very pleased but quite surprised. However, in 1984–85, we managed to spend to within 0·5 per cent. of the increased budget. Every scheme that is brought forward goes through the statutory processes. This frequently takes far longer than is at first envisaged, because people must have their say and objectors must be freely heard at a public inquiry through an independent inspector. Occasionally it has not been easy to ensure that available resources have been properly programmed and managed.
Those two figures refute the comment of the hon. Lady that the programme was not properly organised and managed. It is exceptional for any Government Department to stay so close to its budget. Another thing that makes me proud to be a Minister in the Department of Transport is that the increased investment which the Government have been able to allocate to road infrastructure and other aspects has been matched by an ever-improving performance from the construction industry. Competitive tendering and improved productivity, plus more effective programme management, have meant that not only have we secured better value for money but we have got a better deal for the taxpayer and the road user. Because the road programme is well developed to a total provision in 1985–86 of £824 million, with schemes ready and waiting to be brought in should any currently expected to start this year fall behind because of statutory procedures or for any other reason, we are doing exactly what is expected by spending £600 million on new construction, which is 5 per cent. in cash terms more than last year. Added to that is £224 million for reconstruction.
Road repairs affect motorists all over the country. The hon. Lady complained about resurfacing being done at this time of year. It was sad to hear the main Labour spokesman on transport show that she does not understand the optimum combination of times at which to do roadworks. It is important to have high night ambient temperatures to allow the materials used to set in the best way. It is necessary to utilise the long daylight hours to the best advantage. It is also necessary to do the work at a time when there may be less rain. That is why we do not proceed with schemes that are time-conscious in June, but leave them until July, when we seek to get them done before the holiday season starts.
The whole programme, whether of renewal of motorways, where we are beginning to catch up with the road renewal that was not done in the 1970s, or of new onstruction, whereby we shall add ·100 miles of new road to the national network, of which 65 miles will be trunk road and only 35 miles motorway, mainly the M25, is, by any account, the right way to proceed with our ever car-conscious nation.
One cannot turn one's face against what the people want by way of new roads.
Mrs. Dunwoody: When are the Government going to start?
Mrs. Chalker: That is why we have 295 schemes in preparation. Whatever the hon. Lady may mutter, if we give better value for money and get more work done for the same budget I can only be pleased with the hard work put into the roads programme by the whole Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred to the objectives of the policy. Our objectives have always been to serve the provision of roads in three ways. All hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned bypasses. A bypass removes traffic, especially lorries, from places where it has no business, improves the safety of roads and provides industry with more efficient communication. Those are the three objectives of the work.
We are keen to serve industrial needs but also to serve the nation with great sensitivity for the environment by making sure that people have the roads they need. In carrying out those aims we have reached a rate of return of about 11 per cent. on average. That is a highly profitable return for any construction industry.
We are doing well on volume, too. That is one of the better aspects of the improvement that we have managed to carry out over the last five years. I am not complacent. I do not think the programme is yet good enough. We can do more and we can do better.
If we are to provide the national road links for which the Department is responsible, I expect local authorities to
622
abide by the codes of practice and the guidance that the Department has been developing with them. By that means we shall put right the problems at local level to which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred. Those problems are not always understood by engineers who live a long way away. I cannot comment in detail upon the Devon county council scheme, but I shall find out about it and will write to my hon. Friend.
We can be proud of the improvement in the codes of practice. We announced three weeks ago six road schemes in the south-west. Consequently my hon. Friend's concern will be brought to our attention and also to the attention of the county council. As the highways authority, the county council plays a major role. It discusses its priorities with the Department and their links into the national road network.
I hope that I have explained to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend that the Department is fully aware of the "brother" programmes of the county councils. I hope, too, that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has learnt tonight just a little about the roads programme. I recommend that she should read "National Roads England 1985". By the time she has finished reading it, she might find that she enjoyed it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  EC Internal Market (White Paper)
  EC Internal Market (White Paper)
  Human Tissue (Member's Correspondence)
  Human Tissue (Member's Correspondence)
  Engagements
  Engagements
ENERGY
  Geothermal Energy Sources
  Geothermal Energy Sources
  Magnox Reactors
  Magnox Reactors
  Nuclear Fuel
  Nuclear Fuel
  North Sea Oilfields
  North Sea Oilfields
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Statistics)
  Teachers (Statistics)
  Hampshire Schools
  Hampshire Schools
  Universities (National Insurance Contributions)
  Universities (National Insurance Contributions)
  Handicapped Students
  Handicapped Students
ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Sulphur Emissions
  Sulphur Emissions
  Water Metering
  Water Metering
  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Sporting Bodies (Grants)
  Sporting Bodies (Grants)
  Association of County Councils
  Association of County Councils
  Inner City Areas
  Inner City Areas
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Broad Street Station
  Broad Street Station
  Solar Energy
  Solar Energy
  Radionuclides (Sellafield)
  Radionuclides (Sellafield)
TRANSPORT
  Airport Security
  Airport Security
  Motorists (Drink Problems)
  Motorists (Drink Problems)
  Blind People (Travel Facilities)
  Blind People (Travel Facilities)
  Cycling
  Cycling
  Vehicle Testing
  Vehicle Testing
  Railways (Safety)
  Railways (Safety)
  Humberside Airport
  Humberside Airport
  Motorways (Construction Costs)
  Motorways (Construction Costs)
  British Rail
  British Rail
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Crown Court Appeals
  Crown Court Appeals
  Bail Applications
  Bail Applications
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Tiger (Portavogie)
  Tiger (Portavogie)
  Nursing Homes
  Nursing Homes
  Hospital Inpatient Costs
  Hospital Inpatient Costs
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
WALES
  Households
  Households
  A55
  A55
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Inward Investment Unit
  Inward Investment Unit
  National Audit Office (Documents)
  National Audit Office (Documents)
  Patents Office
  Patents Office
  Lead Development Association (Exhibition)
  Lead Development Association (Exhibition)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Sri Lankan Nationals
  Sri Lankan Nationals
  Tamils
  Tamils
  Wandsworth Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
  Immigration Rules
  Immigration Rules
  Public Order White Paper
  Public Order White Paper
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Prohibited Drugs
  Prohibited Drugs
  Metropolitan Police (Expenditure)
  Metropolitan Police (Expenditure)
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
  Crime
  Crime
  Civil Defence Inspectorate
  Civil Defence Inspectorate
  Police Tactics (Manuals)
  Police Tactics (Manuals)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  London Policemen (Firearms)
  London Policemen (Firearms)
  Young People (Sentencing Policy)
  Young People (Sentencing Policy)
  Railway Vandalism (Parental Responsibility)
  Railway Vandalism (Parental Responsibility)
  Alcohol Sales (Supermarkets)
  Alcohol Sales (Supermarkets)
  Temporary Parole (Statistics)
  Temporary Parole (Statistics)
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Special Constables
  Special Constables
  Police Custody
  Police Custody
  Hooliganism
  Hooliganism
  Metropolitan Police (Expenditure)
  Metropolitan Police (Expenditure)
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Defendants (Compensation)
  Defendants (Compensation)
  European Convention on Human Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights
  Victim Support Schemes
  Victim Support Schemes
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Football Ground Safety
  Football Ground Safety
  European Court of Human Rights (Immigration Rules)
  European Court of Human Rights (Immigration Rules)
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Drug Squad Duties
  Drug Squad Duties
  Popplewell Report (Football Grounds)
  Popplewell Report (Football Grounds)
  Drug Trafficking
  Drug Trafficking
  Heathrow (Jokes)
  Heathrow (Jokes)
  Frankland Prison
  Frankland Prison
  Trials (Statistics)
  Trials (Statistics)
  Privacy
  Privacy
  Political Asylum
  Political Asylum
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Wayland Prison
  Wayland Prison
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Black People (Wilmslow)
  Black People (Wilmslow)
  Police (Discipline)
  Police (Discipline)
  Mr. Peter Pickering
  Mr. Peter Pickering
  Community Service
  Community Service
  Stonehenge (Disturbances)
  Stonehenge (Disturbances)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Racial Discrimination
  Racial Discrimination
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Illegal Fishing
  Illegal Fishing
  Zimbabwe (Beef Quota)
  Zimbabwe (Beef Quota)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Diet and Laundry Allowances
  Diet and Laundry Allowances
  Doctors (Pay)
  Doctors (Pay)
  Outpatient Waiting Lists
  Outpatient Waiting Lists
  Notifiable Diseases
  Notifiable Diseases
  Hospitals (infection)
  Hospitals (infection)
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  St. George's Hospital
  St. George's Hospital
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  East Cumbria (Health Authority)
  East Cumbria (Health Authority)
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
SCOTLAND
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Agriculture Industry
  Agriculture Industry
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Banff and Buchan (Youth Training)
  Banff and Buchan (Youth Training)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Agricultural Research and Development
  Agricultural Research and Development
  Dental Services
  Dental Services
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Electronics Industry
  Electronics Industry
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Regional Development Grant
  Regional Development Grant
  Wages
  Wages
  Emigration
  Emigration
THE ARTS
  Export Licences
  Export Licences
  Allocation
  Allocation
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Football Pools
  Football Pools
  Trustee Savings Bank Bill
  Trustee Savings Bank Bill
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South Africa (Nuclear Weapons)
  South Africa (Nuclear Weapons)
  South African Broadcasting Corporation
  South African Broadcasting Corporation
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid
  Aid
  Tsetse Fly
  Tsetse Fly
EMPLOYMENT
  Accident Rates
  Accident Rates
  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Employee Consultation
  Employee Consultation
  Racial Discrimination
  Racial Discrimination
  Health and Safety Inspection
  Health and Safety Inspection
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
DEFENCE
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Armed Forces (Retirement Statistics)
  Armed Forces (Retirement Statistics)
  Royalties
  Royalties
  Foreign Service Men (Training)
  Foreign Service Men (Training)

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

EC Consumer Affairs
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will elaborate their reply to Baroness Burton of Coventry's Starred Question on 6th June (col. 843), so that the House may be informed of any progress made on European Community Consumer Affairs as a result of the meeting of the permanent representatives following consultation with their Governments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, agreement was reached in COREPER on 26th June on almost all the outstanding points in the proposed European Community directive on product liability. The proposed directive is now being considered by individual member states. An explanatory memorandum on the latest proposal was submitted on 1st July to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Community and the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation. The Scrutiny Committee on European Legislation in another place has recommended the proposal for further consideration in the other place.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister as regretful as I am that he has not been able to give a more positive reply to today's Question, especially in view of the high expectations engendered? Can he tell the House what obstacles remain to agreement and whether the Government have any further reservations about the text?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, indeed I also share the regrets of the noble Baroness at this position. There are no identifiable difficulties. One will have to wait for consideration by the Scrutiny Committee in the other place to see what emerges there. However, so far there have been no other members states which have raised any objections to the proposals now on the table.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, may I offer my respectful congratulations on the speed with which action has been taken on the directive on product liability, which was under active consideration in the Legal Committee of the European Parliament only seven or eight years ago?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am delighted to accept any congratulations from my noble friends behind me on whatever occasion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, on 6th June, the noble Lord gave an indication that he thought the Ministers would be meeting a fortnight after 14th June; which implies, of course, 28th June. Can the noble Lord give us a firm indication as to when the next meeting of Ministers on this subject will take place?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should like to be able to give that information to the noble Lord—indeed, I should like to know myself—but until the consideration by the Scrutiny Committee in the other place is completed I cannot say when the matter will again come before the Council of Ministers.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to express my disappointment, which I am sure the Minister shares, that he is not able to give us more positive news after all this time. May I take the opportunity of asking whether the noble Lord recalls that on 6th June he maintained that, if we in this country allowed the defence of development risks, particularly in the context of drugs, and the other countries did not, as still seems rather likely, there was no risk of this country being used by the drug companies as a place for experiment? Can he elaborate on why he felt able to come to that conclusion and why he ruled out the possibility of treating drugs differently from other products, as I believe the Germans do?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is quite correct in reminding the House that the Germans do, in fact, treat drugs separately. While I recognise that they may be seen as perhaps different to other manufactured products, I believe that the system of strict liability which is in the current proposals more than adequately deals with this type of product. We do not foresee any risk of this country being used, as the noble Lord suggests, for experimental purposes in that regard.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord, but can he say why? We shall be in the position that this will be the one country where the drug companies can operate in the knowledge that if things go wrong they will not be under any liability, whereas in other countries they may well be. Is this not a somewhat uncomfortable situation?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in the light of the proposals before the Community, we do not feel that this is an unhappy position to be in, in so far as we were looking towards a completely harmonised system. This has not proved practical over the 10 years of negotiation. We believe that a partially harmonised system is better than no system at all.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while going one better than the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne—
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord has not dealt with the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who referred to the disadvantages to this country if action is not taken by Her Majesty's Government to place us on the same footing as our partners in the Community. Will the

1305
noble Lord be good enough to answer that question specifically and, if he is not certain of the reply, that would be something we should all understand? Will the noble Lord talk to his right honourable friend and bring a full reply to the House in due course?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I shall be quite happy to discuss this matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in the hope that I shall be able to expand a little further on the brief reply that I gave the noble Lord.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition. I did not see him get up. May I perhaps improve on the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, in that I believe that general discussions on product liability started some 10 years ago. As it seems obvious to the House that the Minister himself shares our general disappointment today, may we take it that he will do everything in his power to help us in putting down a Question which might secure a definitive answer to this problem before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. The commission first proposed the directive in 1976. The matter was debated in part of the Pearson Report in 1978, and again in 1979 and 1980 by both Houses. If there is any news that I can impart to your Lordships before the Summer Recess, I shall be pleased to advise the noble Baroness, in order that we can find the opportunity for me to do so.

Information Technology Centres
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what effect they expect the change to independent funding of ITECs (information technology centres) will have on their training programmes and on the provision of Youth Training Scheme places.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, information technology centres exhausting their entitlement to their initial three years of Department of Trade and Industry pump-priming funding are being required to make a partial contribution to their future salary and capital costs. In order to help centres do this, the Government have relaxed the conditions under which they operate and are supporting a range of marketing initiatives to facilitate the sale of their products and services.
Following the Government's announcement of the introduction of a new two-year Youth Training Scheme, the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission has initiated a review of the future role and overall strategy of information technology centres which will be carried out in consultation with the interested parties, including centre sponsors and managers. This will take account of an independent review of ITECs being carried out at the commission's request by a firm of management consultants.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I wonder whether he is aware that many careers officers, and indeed some area manpower boards, are very concerned that as the ITECs become more income-generation biased and more concerned with the provision of commercial services, the opportunities for many young people, particularly the less qualified and disadvantaged groups, are likely to decrease?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that comment. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships' House that ITECs, information technology centres, are part of the Youth Training Scheme and as such are not a formal part of the education system; but their very basis is employment-oriented, and the driving force behind them is to introduce young people to the world of work. I suspect that the steps which are being taken in this regard will not have any adverse effects on those less fortunate young people but would in fact introduce them to work.

Deregulation: Proposed White Paper
3.16 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the terms of reference of the group of Ministers, chaired by Lord Young of Graffham, which is looking into deregulation; and what will be the scope of the White Paper which may emerge from its work this summer.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is not the practice to disclose details of Cabinet committees. In the areas of deregulation, the Government have two main aims: first, to follow up the recommendations of the Burdens on Business report, which was published in March by the Department of Trade and Industry and which examined the impact of administrative and legislative requirements on small firms; and, secondly, to look at ways of cutting the burdens which Government impose on business more generally. We are hoping to publish a White Paper on deregulation before the summer Recess. This will include a wide range of measures to remove obstacles to enterprise.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, although the House understands that it is not the practice to give details of Cabinet committees, since the noble Lord himself has written an article about this committee in The Times, may I ask him whether it might be reasonable to divulge its terms of reference, as in the Question? May I further ask the noble Lord whether, in pursuing deregulation, the Cabinet committee under the noble Lord's guidance will take care not to dismantle the planning system for land use? Is the noble Lord aware that England and Wales, with the exception of two city states, is the most densely populated region in the world and that our system of regulation in that respect has served us well?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in giving this answer I am not commenting on the existence or otherwise of any committees. We are well aware of the need to maintain the balance between, on the one hand, encouraging enterprise and, on the other, protecting the environment. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in the foreword to the Burdens on Business report:
"Controls are necessary in some areas to ensure that the market works humanely, fairly and efficiently. These must be maintained. But we can reduce regulatory burdens, without destroying essential protections for employees, consumers and the general public".
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most helpful things that the Government can do for small businesses is to raise the VAT threshold considerably? Will he please suggest to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he makes serious approaches to the Common Market so that we can raise that burden from a large number of small businesses?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the most helpful thing that this Government can do for small businesses is to carry on in our present path, which is to encourage the spirit of enterprise in the land and get to a framework where we will let enterprise go. I have said already that within two weeks, by the beginning of the Recess, we shall produce our White Paper. I am sure that in this case patience will be rewarded.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the future of wages councils fall within the scope of the White Paper? If so, does the noble Lord accept that deregulation in that regard should not be so extensive that some of the measures taken are reversed if the present Government lose office after the next general election? After all, the Liberal-Social Democrat Alliance might then take a hand in Government.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that it is as profitless to conjecture about what is in future White Papers as it is about future election results. Perhaps I may just say that this Government are determined to maintain the balance between liberty and licence—giving liberty to the individual to earn his income and generate the wealth that this country so sorely needs but not the licence to abuse his or her fellow men.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the paper to which he refers, Burdens on Business, contains no specific reference to the relaxation of accounting and audit requirements? In fact, in connection with that, the unprompted responses were under 1 per cent. In those circumstances, can he explain why it is necessary for the Government to issue the consultative document, Accounting and Auditing Requirements for Small Firms? Will he give the House an assurance that in this sphere the Government will proceed with great caution? Otherwise untoward results in regard to business financial disciplines might ensue.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it seems to me that the purpose of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in issuing a
1308
consultative paper was to determine that very fact. When we get the responses, we shall find out whether the consequences feared by my friend opposite come about.

Manufacturing Industry and Jobs
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what new initiatives they are considering to arrest the continuing decline of jobs in manufacturing industry.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Government wish to see a flourishing manufacturing sector and our policies are directed at developing an economic climate in which all industries can improve their performance. The rate of decline in manufacturing employment has eased considerably since 1983, but in manufacturing, as elsewhere, jobs depend on the market for what is produced and markets depend on competing effectively.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I do not think that the trend to which he refers applies in the West Midlands, where there is still a downfall in employment prospects. Only this week there has been another substantial loss of jobs. Are the Government doing enough financially to help major exporters—and I speak particularly of those in the West Midlands—who are trying to capture export markets? I use as an example the export of cars. British Leyland is still suffering under the penalties of exports to Spain, and then of course there is the question of breaking into the Japanese market. Are the Government really giving enough financial incentives to help major industries and manufacturers, such as, for example, British Leyland?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords who are concerned about unemployment, as we all are, will have seen the unemployment figures issued today which show a welcome fall of some 62,000 in the headline total and 7,000 in the seasonally adjusted figure. That represents the biggest fall in the seasonally adjusted level of employment in a single month since August 1979 and demonstrates that Government policies are working. Secondly, I hope that your Lordships will take cognisance of the fact that if we are to have a viable manufacturing industry, it may not necessarily employ many people, but we must have an industry in which productivity and profitability ride side by side to generate the wealth which will give employment in the rest of the nation. Thirdly, employment relates to much more than manufacturing. The policies that this Government have initiated and carried through over the past six years are showing that in industry once again we can compete with the best in the world.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lady Fisher the Minister said that market forces determine the level of employment in the manufacturing sector. Was he able to take on board an interview on the "Today" programme on the radio this morning in which a representative of the CBI from either London or the South-East quoted a case where the goods, the price, the quality and the delivery were right and the firm almost got the contract, but at the eleventh hour there was an intervention by the Japanese who came along with better financial arrangements, underpinned by their Government, and took the contract away from our manufacturer? Does he not agree that such practices should be stopped as quickly as possible; and when are we going to start bowling a few bouncers?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I did not say that market forces determine the level of manufacturing industry. The determining factors are good management, good work practices, a view to quality and good delivery. I am aware that the Japanese, as well as many other nations, give special credits. I have no doubt at all that we can hold our place with other countries, if not in total. What such programmes as "Today" rarely do is to report on the instances where we take contracts from other nations.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but are we not impaled on the horns of a dilemma in so far as modern technology is advancing labour-saving devices and we are getting the production without the muscle power which we had in the past? Consequently, do we now not have to look at work and hours of work from a different philosophical point than we have through the centuries? In other words, the question of hours of work and further education in how to use leisure should be one of the concerns of any party which gets into power.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is a philosophy of despair. Some countries are seriously worried about how they will find the people to fill the jobs between now and the end of the century. What keeps us back is not technology, but ourselves.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that our major competitors abroad have achieved a considerable degree of consensus on the industrial revival policies that they pursue? Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek to achieve a similar degree of agreement in this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is an old saying that it takes two to tango. In order to have consensus two people need to sit down to discuss the same problem. It is not always the case that that happens.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many people are now registered as unemployed, and how does that number compare with what was the total when the Government came to office? Did the Minister fail to hear me? If that be the case, I shall speak a little more loudly. Can he tell us how many people are now registered as unemployed, and how does that number compare with the total when this Government came to office?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have no wish to avoid answering questions of this nature, but the Question on the Order Paper is specifically about the manufacturing sector. The increase in the number of unemployed since 1979 is common knowledge, and the figure has gone up substantially. Incidentally, on the chart that we have been following the line of increase is no greater than the line of increase since the 1970s. But what is different today is that the employment that we have has a firm foundation. I sincerely believe that the steps that this Government have taken are restoring employment on a permanent basis.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is it not the case that 100,000 new jobs have been created under this Government?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, last year the United Kingdom created twice as many jobs as the whole of the rest of Europe put together.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I welcome the reduction in unemployment announced today, and I do not wish to be partisan. However, is the Minister aware of the depressing psychological effect of unemployment on thousands or even millions of people in this country, in particular young school leavers, who become anti-social in a society which does not want them? Is not something serious happening as a result of unemployment to the relationship of many thousands of people towards the community?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, without wishing in any way to sound immodest, I suspect that there are few Members of your Lordships' House who have spent more time than I have dealing with the subject of unemployment, and I am as concerned as anyone else about it. But what the Government have done for the employment of young people stands comparison with what has been done by any nation of the world. The new two-tier Youth Training Scheme will be a very great step forward.
It is not necessarily unemployment which demotivates young people. Sometimes I used to wonder at the state in which they reached us after 11 years of compulsory education. I wondered what it had done for them.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister said that he was answering a Question concerning manufacturing industry. I am not sure whether his answers have been in reply to the Question I put down. Will he answer this question? What assistance are the Government giving to the car industry to help it to get into Spain?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, Spain is one particular case, but if one really wants to know what help the Government are giving to the car industry, one should ask Jaguar. They have transformed themselves because they have realised that the only way to win orders and expand business is not to look for Government help and Government handouts, but to ensure productivity, reliability, delivery time and competitive pricing. These are matters in which the Government cannot intervene; only manufacturers can.

Business
3.31 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Swinton will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the teachers' dispute.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I make a statement about the arrangements which have been made through the usual channels for our consideration of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Bill, which is expected to reach your Lordships' House from another place this afternoon.
It is proposed that the Second Reading and remaining stages will be taken next Thursday, 11th July. The necessary Motion to dispense with Standing Orders will be taken next Tuesday, 9th July. In these circumstances, the Public Bill Office will be prepared to accept amendments to the Bill from tomorrow onwards.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Statement he has just made—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, makes his point, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Denham, whether he has any statement to make about the order of business this afternoon.
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords. The order of business for this afternoon will be as shown on the Order Paper. At one time it was hoped that if agreement could be reached on the rest of the business for the Sexual Offences Bill, which failed to reach the end of the proceedings after its Third Reading last night, to such an extent that the remaining business would not take very much of your Lordships' time, then it might have been possible to take it after the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill. I understand that at the moment such agreement has not proved possible and so the order of business will remain as it appears on the Order Paper.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Denham, aware that the statement he has made, that all the stages of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Bill will be taken in a single day, is deeply objectionable to a number of us? To adopt that procedure would be quite wrong. Is the noble Lord aware that many of us regard it as entirely wrong that new criminal offences should be put on the statute book without proper parliamentary scrutiny? Is the noble Lord aware also that a number of us will be opposing the business Motion next Tuesday in the most emphatic terms?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I understand that the initial consultations took place through the usual channels in another place.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: No, my Lords.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I understand also that all parties agreed that this Bill should be considered in the way I have described.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: No, my Lords.
Lord Denham: My Lords, consultations have also taken place through the usual channels here. If the noble Lord so wishes, he will be able to contest the Motion next Tuesday. That would be an unusual event, and I hope that he will have second thoughts before pursuing that course of action.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is also unusual to put down such a Motion on such a Bill? Is he aware that one of the last occasions on which that was done was in 1911, for the Official Secrets Act? After a precedent of that kind, is it not desirable to give this House at least two days to debate a matter of such considerable importance?
Is the noble Lord not aware that most of us recognise that it is desirable to have this Bill on the statute book before the next football season begins, but that that should not prevent the House giving the Bill detailed consideration, as is our duty as a revising Chamber?
Lord Denham: My Lords, we can of course revert to this matter when the business Motion is on the Order Paper next Tuesday. If the noble Lord feels as strongly as he appears to feel about this matter, the correct action for him to take will be to get in touch with his business managers—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have done so, my Lords.
Lord Denham:—and for them to get in touch with my noble friend the Leader of the House and myself. It is not right that business procedure of this nature should be argued across the Floor of the House by people who are not members of the usual channels.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with all due respect, and taking into account what was said yesterday, and also speaking as one who has not long been a Member of this House and who does not pretend to be knowledgeable about its procedure, I should have thought that the noble Lord's statement was mistaken. It was clearly spelt out to the House yesterday that all Peers are equal in this House. Although the usual channels are a useful means of communicating, they are not the only means for the House to make up its mind on such matters as this.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is absolutely right. An opportunity for the House to express its views, if that is necessary, will present itself next Tuesday. However, I do not believe that such argument should take place as part of a business statement. It will he much better if our business can be arranged outside the Chamber. Any noble Lord is entitled to object, and he can then complain to the House. But if agreement can be reached outside, it saves the time of the House.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, many of us accept that we should work through the usual channels, but when else can we object except when the business statement is first made?
Lord Denham: My Lords, if, by leave of the House, I may speak once again, we are probably getting a little outside the rules of order now. It is quite normal for the Government of the day to make a business statement. It is quite normal—not very usual, but it does happen—for other parties or for individual members of other parties to object, in which case we usually go away and discuss the matter.
There is plenty of time to discuss this matter before next Tuesday. Of course it will be possible to object next Tuesday, and to object in private before then. That is normally done, and I hope that we may observe the usual procedures in this House. It is not a case of the usual channels acting in some Machiavellian way, but of arranging matters for the benefit of the House so as not to take up its time with matters which can be more properly dealt with outside.

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Shetland Islands Council (Omnibus Services) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.
Charter Trustees Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Transport Bill
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Transport Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 and 3

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 to 57,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 58 to 102,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 103 to 122,

Schedules 5 to 7,

Clause 123.—(Lord Belstead.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill
3.41 p.m.
Report received.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of corporal punishment.
.—(1) In any civil or criminal proceedings where it is proved that the defendant, or any person for whose acts the defendant is responsible in law, assaulted or struck a minor, it shall not be a defence for the defendant that he, or as the case may be, that other person was a teacher in a school, or had the custody, care or charge of such minor otherwise than as a parent or guardian, and that the assault or striking was inflicted as reasonable corporal punishment; and it shall not be a defence for the defendant that he, or as the case may be, that other person was acting on behalf of or in the place of such teacher in inflicting reasonable corporal punishment.
(2) The powers conferred on the Secretary of State by or under any enactment to regulate the conduct or discipline of any establishment or institution, in which a minor may be placed or required to attend or stay by order of court or local authority, or on a local authority by section 3, subsection (1) of the Child Care Act 1980, shall be deemed not to include powers to authorise the use of corporal punishment in such establishment or institution; and any regulation made or purported to be made in virue of any such power which authorises the use of any form of corporal punishment, is to that extent hereby repealed.
(3) References in this Act to any other enactment shall, except in so far as the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to that enactment as amended or applied by or under any subsequent enactment, including this Act.
(4) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings respectively assigned to them, that is to say—
"guardian" in respect to any minor, means a person appointed according to law to be his guardian by deed or will, or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, but does not include any employee of any organisation, charitable body or local authority who has the custody, care or charge of such minor by virtue of his employment, and normally exercises such custody, care of charge otherwise than at his private residence;
"minor" means any person who has not attained the age of 18 years;
"parent" includes the natural parent of an illegitimate child, a foster parent and any person who has lawfully adopted a child;
"school" as respects England and Wales has the meaning assigned to it by section 114, subsection (1) of the Education Act 1944, and as respects Scotland, has the meaning assigned to it by section 135, subsection (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
(5) In this Act reference to the defendant shall, in Scotland, be construed as reference to the defender.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we are aiming to establish the principle that corporal punishment in our schools and other institutions should be abolished. We are anxious to assist the Government to produce a workable piece of legislation. This means, in our view, that certain unworkable provisions in the Bill will have to be amended. This is a job that the House of Lords as a revising Chamber should do and which we are well qualified to do. We should not allow a bad piece of legislation to reach the statute book unamended. The interest in this Bill on all sides of the House was shown at Committee stage and is reflected in the names supporting this amendment, which has all-party support.
The fact is that the Bill has been condemned by the whole educational world as unworkable. It has upset

1315
both that world and every association or group concerned with child care. I believe that we should be doing the Government a service by carrying this amendment, as we should be putting this country in line with the European covention and the rulings of the European Court—those already made and those likely to come in the near future, which are not covered by the Bill. I would hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers could concede that the proposals that they have put forward to satisfy the decision of the court are unworkable, inadequate and totally unacceptable to sensible and civilised opinion in this country. I believe that they would be admired if they had the courage to do that.
I do not think that I need again to go into the case for the abolition of corporal punishment which I put very fully at Committee stage. I should like to emphasise just two points. The first is that as a deterrent it does not work. The same children get beaten over and over again and frequently for the same offence. The second is that it is degrading for both the giver and the receiver and that a school which relies on that form of punishment will not have the sort of atmosphere conducive to good education and good relationships between teacher and taught. I would remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, said back in 1973 when speaking in the debate on the Protection of Minors Bill of my noble friend Lady Wootton. He said that,
"the harm of corporal punishment goes a good deal further than its effect on the frightened child. I am referring to the more subtle damage to the atmosphere of an educative community and to the proper development of the individuals in it when authority has to rest on the infliction of physical pain".—[Official Report, 10/12/73; col. 947].
If that was true 12 years ago, it is even more true today. Since some people who were not here at Committee stage may not be aware of it, I should say that all the teacher organisations are against the Bill, even the three which have not yet an explicitly abolitionist policy. All would prefer abolition to this Bill. The very important and influential Society of Education Officers argues against the Bill in strong terms. It takes,
"the view that any form of exemption scheme, though one might be devised and made to work, would be unsatisfactory, unfair and divisive. If one were introduced, it could, by creating a sense of injustice, be very damaging to the ethos of a school and could eventually undermine a school's discipline".
That is not, I imagine, what the Secretary of State wants.
The society goes on:
"It would be preferable for the Government to grasp the nettle immediately and issue a policy statement announcing the abolition of corporal punishment within a specified timescale".
We would agree that a specified timescale is necessary in order to give those schools that still rely on corporal punishment as a method of discipline time to phase it out. For this reason we have put down Amendment No. 61 to Clause 8 which would enable the Secretary of State to appoint the day on which the Act would come into force. A year to 18 months should be ample time.
The Church of England General Synod Board of Education issued a circular in 1982 calling on its schools to phase out corporal punishment and
1316
ultimately to abolish the practice. The Free Church Federal Council has come out against it. And in 1983, the Catholic Education Council called on its schools to phase out beating.
I should like to say a little about the views of the child welfare associations. A coalition of them are for abolition. I quote from a letter dated 13th June which I have received from Mr. Raymond Clarke, the clerk of the National Council of Voluntary Care Organisations:
"We were very sorry to learn that the House of Lords narrowly failed to achieve the abolition of corporal punishment in schools during the course of last week's debate. This Council is composed of almost 60 organisations including the large national child care charities, the social work agencies of the major Churches and a number of specialist or regional voluntary organisations. Our membership expressed its strong reservation about the proposals originally contained in the Bill. We are therefore very grateful for the advocacy which you and your colleagues offered. We greatly hope that you will feel able to apply further pressure during the report stage of the Bill. We hope that, at that stage, many of the Peers who were Not Content on 4th June will be willing to listen to the voices of reason and progress".
I hope so too, my Lords.
The policy and practice review group of the National Childrens Bureau was set up early in 1984 to examine and review policy and practice in child health, education and the personal social services. It is a widely based group of senior policy makers, practitioners, managers and academics. Its aim is to advocate children's interests. It is not a pressure group, but aims to marshal evidence and give a considered view. As a member of the all-party Parliamentary Group for Children I was sent a copy of its paper on corporal punishment in schools and child care institutions. I quote from it:
"Following our deliberations we call on the Government to accept the overwhelming weight of professional advice against the use of corporal punishment in schools and child care institutions and to end Britain's isolation as the only European country to permit this discredited practice".
Again, it says:
"We would urge the Government to accept that the present position in which whether or not you can be beaten depends on where you live is unjust and that it also demonstrates conclusively that this sanction is in no sense necessary".
It goes on to make the point that the 23 LEAs that have abolished corporal punishment include most of the large conurbations where it is felt that schools have some of the more serious problems, particularly in relation to discipline. Those Members of your Lordships' House who attend meetings of the all-party group of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will I am sure accept the very responsible and professional opinions of that group.
About the Bill itself, many of us, including eminent lawyers, such as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Wilson of Langside, had difficulty in understanding a number of its clauses. I mention particularly Clause 1, subsections (3) and (4). The Minister was good enough to send me a copy of a letter that she wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on those subsections, attempting to explain them. It ran to four pages. I would contend that any legislation that needs that amount of explanation is bad legislation. We complained of Clause 2 with its multiple negatives. I am aware that a Government amendment will be moved later which will make the

1317
clause a little simpler. But I ask your Lordships to think of the complications and paperwork that Clause 3, which runs to seven subsections and which deals with the registration of parental views, will entail.
I refer the House to the lengthy description of the process of communication between parents and schools described by the noble Baroness in answer to my opting-in amendment, Amendment No. 30, at Committee stage. The Minister took a whole column of Hansard in justifying and explaining the register and the letters that would have to pass to and fro and the work of the school secretary, or whoever gets involved in it. An unwanted and additional burden is being imposed on very hard-pressed LEAs.
There is still uncertainty whether the local authorities or the governing body have the overriding power as to whether or not corporal punishment can be used. Why go to all this length to produce a Bill which is inadequate for the purpose of responding to the judgment, and likely judgments, of the European Court? It is a Bill which is complicated, difficult to work and to understand and which arouses the hostility and scorn—I do not think that those words are too strong—of the education world and all those interested and involved in child care.
The Bill is unsatisfactory in content and in expression. It is a bad Bill. What we offer as an alternative is simple and short. It would make us conform to present and expected judgments of the European Court; it is in line with progressive and informed opinion in this country. This amendment has all-party support. There was certainly all-party dissatisfaction with the Bill at both the Second Reading and Committee stages. Of course, the amendment may well have technical faults, and there may have to be appeals or the removal of certain sections or subsections of earlier Acts, but that can all be dealt with at the next stage.
I am asking the House to support the principle that corporal punishment should be abolished in the United Kingdom and that your Lordships do not become a party to letting a very foolish, ridiculous and unworkable Bill go on the statute book in its present form this summer. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I have listened with growing amazement to the self-styled voice of reason and progress, and I find it impossible to reconcile what has been argued with the fact (which was admitted by the noble Baroness) that of the teachers' organisations, three have not gone on record as being in favour of abolition. Yet abolition is to be the keynote of a Bill which was designed for a rather different purpose.
I remind your Lordships that our proceedings this afternoon will be interrupted by a Statement on the highly regrettable pay dispute involving the teaching profession, and I would point out that one of the reasons which has been advanced by the teachers' organisations for extra remuneration is the greater degree of physical risk and strain which some of them now face in some schools. It seems that if those teachers themselves believe that the existence, as a final sanction, of corporal punishment is to some extent a protection for them, it is not for your Lordships to remove that protection. After all, we are
1318
dealing with a Bill—and I would not defend the Bill as a masterpiece of legislation; it is not Magna Carta—which arises from a judgment of the European Court, which extended the interpretation of the convention beyond what many people would think were reasonable limits.
The clause on which they relied concerned the necessity that educational systems should take into account the philosophical and religious concerns of parents. It is very difficult not to believe that, when that convention was drawn up, its authors had in mind, not corporal punishment as a final sanction in English schools, but the fact that many countries in Europe under Nazi-Fascist rule had seen the rights of parents in serious respects with regard to religion and morale violated.
Now, all these years later, in response, if one likes, to humanitarian, libertarian or sentimental views, this convention has been stretched in this way. It seems to me that it is the business of the British Government to look first at the needs of the teachers and the schools and then to see what minimum action is necessary in order that Britain should not be in breach of her international agreements, however absurd the judgment of the European Court might appear to be.
For that reason I hope that your Lordships will realise that on Third Reading the noble Baroness is trying to substitute one Bill for another. Indeed, she has been very frank about this.
Noble Lords: This is the Report stage!
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I apologise. The Bill as reported to us—and I accept the correction—was a Bill to enable parents to contract their children out of the punishment system in a particular school. This amendment intends—and no doubt subsequent amendments will be consequential—to change the Bill into a measure for the abolition of corporal punishment. However much they may dislike the Bill, I invite noble Lords to say that they prefer it to the alternative now proposed.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords "absurd" is the word used by my noble friend Lord Beloff when talking about the judgment of the European Court. I believe that it is possible to suggest that the judgment was absurd. However, I would suggest to my noble friend the Minister—and I say this with the sincerest admiration because I admire her very much indeed—that the Government's proposal as to whether mummy lets you pay your parking fine, or whether mummy lets you be sent to prison because you are Reginald Kray, or whether mummy has a choice in what your punishment shall be when someone else does not have that choice, is a cause for major injustice. I do not honestly care whether or not capital punishment is carried out. I have no particularly strong views on it. However, I hold very strong views that justice should be for everybody and not for one section or the other.
This Government are an intelligent Government. My noble friend Lady Cox is really a major adornment of the Government, and I say that sincerely and from the bottom of my heart. I know that she does not believe in the Bill for a single moment because she is

1319
far too intelligent. It is a silly thing to do. Therefore, let us agree to accept something which I do not particuarly want—namely, to abolish corporal punishment—because I do not think it is necessary. Most of the time I am longing to thrash my children, but that may be an unhealthy reaction. I think we have all wanted to thrash our children, and I quite understand the schoolteachers who want to thrash the children in their class. However, to be able to thrash Johnny but not Fred would be a ridiculous and unfair system; and, against my will, I shall be forced to vote for the noble Baroness, Lady David.
4 p.m.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, very briefly, I want to support this amendment. The date of 4th August 1914 is a day that will always be imprinted on my mind. On that date I was beaten for the first time as a schoolboy, and on that date the First World War broke out! I shall never forget it. In those days the houses at Eton—for that was my school, which was then regarded as a very posh school—were governed by a select group of five or six senior boys called the library, of whom two, the captain of games and the captain of the house (and my noble friend Lord Home was both) were allowed to beat other boys with a cane. It was called tanning. That happened every Saturday night in my house, and the consent of the whole library had to be obtained. When I was put into the library by the housemaster I used my vote to veto all tanning, and that lasted for about four weeks. There were no beatings in the house during that period. I took the view that the house was very much happier at the end of that time.
My housemaster, however, took a different view. He said that all discipline had been undermined, and replaced by anarchy. He therefore decided to make a new rule, which was that my vote on this question should be disregarded. Therefore, every Saturday night when tanning was to take place I was reduced to walking out in protest, and tanning was restored. But even at that time I realised that more damage was being done to the beaters and the watchers than to the beaten, because very soon you could see that they began to enjoy it.
Whichever way we look at it, and however much the noble Lord who has just spoken may maintain that beating is an essential part of the Christian religion, I nevertheless say that corporal punishment, however administered in nurseries and schools, is to legalise physical assault upon unprotected children. As such it condones violence, and even encourages it. This is extremely dangerous.
Violence should be a cause of great anxiety to all of us at the present time. I have never seen anybody turn on a television screen, or turned one on myself, at any hour of the day and for any programme, for the last five years, without my saying, "I bet ten to one that this is violent". If anybody had ever taken the bets I would be a rich man today. Violence is the greatest danger we have to face at the present time, and it is growing.
The main reason why I have risen to my feet in support of this amendment, which I hope will be passed, is to put on record in the Official Report a last
1320
sentence or two of one of the great men of our time, the late Sigmund Freud, who was apt to see through to the roots of a problem. In a slim book called Civilization and its Discontents published in 1929, nearly 60 years ago and long before the atomic bomb had been invented, he concluded by saying that he had discovered that there were two instincts in all of us, the instinct of life and the instinct of death; the instinct of aggression and the instinct of love which he called Eros; and they are in constant turmoil and conflict with one another. The words I want to put on record in the Official Report are these:
"My courage fails me, therefore, at the thought of rising up as a prophet before my fellow-men, and I bow to their reproach that I have no consolation to offer them; for at bottom this is what they all demand—the frenzied revolutionary as passionately as the most pious believer.
"The fateful question of the human species seems to me to be whether and to what extent the cultural process developed in it will succeed in mastering the derangements of communal life caused by the human instinct of aggression and self-destruction. In this connection, perhaps the phase through which we are at this moment passing deserves special interest. Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature"—
and this was written nearly 60 years ago—
"to such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man. They know this—"—
and here is a characteristic sentence—
"hence arises a great part of their current unrest, their dejection, their mood of apprehension. And now it may be expected that the other of the two 'heavenly forces', eternal Eros, will put forth his strength so as to maintain himself alongside of his equally immortal adversary".
We can only hope so.
My Lords, I think these fateful words should be in the Official Report. They apply today perhaps to a greater extent than they have ever applied in the whole of human history. Violence, I repeat, is the greatest menace we have to face. We should make a better start putting an end to violence in nurseries and schoolrooms than we shall in the conference rooms of Geneva. I believe, therefore, that underlying this Bill and this amendment, which I quite agree lends itself to considerable jokes from time to time, is a problem which adds up to the greatest menace of our time.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. Although I personally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that matter is not the question before the House. The question before the House is whether we should comply with, and in what form, the judgment of the European Court. The logic of Lord Beloff's arguments has been rejected by the Government, because clearly he thinks that either the court should not be there or that we should totally disregard its decision. If we are going to comply with the decision the question is, how? In my submission—and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—we should do it in a form which is both just and workable.
This bureaucratic nonsense is adding to the scarcity of resources in education. The chance of whether a child is, or is not, subject to corporal punishment depends on the parents. In some cases, with ethnic minorities for example, the parents may not have got round to writing the letters. I do not see how anyone can run a school, or a class, when there may occur cases such as I have heard of, with forward juveniles

1321
who have told policemen, "You can't touch me because I am under age." We shall have the kind of feeling: "I can do this because I can't be beaten, because my father sent you a letter." This would create a quite impossible situation, in my view. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, manages his family with equitable justice or otherwise to each of them. He does not have some who can be subject to his displeasure and others who are not.
It would be quite impossible to administer this as a piece of legislation or from the point of view of the actual practitioners in the school. Since I believe that we should comply with the decisions of the European Court—as indeed do the Government—I support this amendment. It would also not be a bad thing if we became not the only country in Europe which persisted in corporal punishment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wonder whether, as I have my name down to this amendment, I may be allowed to speak at this stage? Hitherto on this Bill I have not spoken, partly because more or less everything that could be said has been said, but I have silently indicated my opposition by consistently voting for the amendments to improve this Bill in Committee, amendments which, alas! have been resisted by Her Majesty's Government, supported, I feel, rather sheepishly by a trickle of Government supporters.
I now speak on this amendment if only to show that it has support from all round the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, has her name down to this amendment, and a formidable lady she is. She is strongly in favour of this amendment, as well as of abolition. The noble Earl spoke from the Conservative Benches, and we have heard the noble Lords, Lord Mulley and Lord Boothby, so I think that it is important that this should not be treated as a Government Bill. It should be treated more or less like a Private Member's Bill, in which everyone can exercise their conscience free from the constraint of the Party Whips, which have been so predominant recently. I should have thought that that must be a relief to the members of the Conservative Party.
I should like to address myself to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He does not seem to understand that this is a alternative way of fulfilling what the Government are trying to do. All he has to do is to look at the Explanatory Memorandum, where it says:
"This Bill [is] to fulfil obligations arising under Article 2 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights."
This is a better way of doing so. That is all there is to it. We are really helping the Government out of a hole. It is better than the text of the Bill brought before the House, and that is the principal justification of this amendment. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, or anybody else who objects to this amendment, that it is also squarely within the Long Title of the Bill:
"An Act to make provision in respect of the corporal punishment of pupils."
Of course that is what this amendment does. It makes provision in respect of corporal punishment in schools.
1322
I hope we shall not have too much by way of quibble. This amendment is not just an alternative way of fulfilling the obligations to respect our treaty rights and legal obligations. It is a better way, and one which is unlikely to be challenged in the future: while I fear that the present Bill is open to incessant challenge and that we shall be brought repeatedly before the European Court in the humiliating way that we have suffered all these years. Let us put a stop to that, for I do not want to see it happen again.
I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that this is a proper job for this House. We are a revising Chamber and we have a clear duty to see that this country's legal and treaty obligations are fulfilled. The Bill before us does not do so. We also have to ensure—and I am sure this is a common factor between us all—that we make work that which, in the view of those who have to work it, is seen to be unworkable; I refer to all the teacher organisations, both the relevant local authority organisations, the education administrators and the child welfare organisations. They may or may not be in favour of the abolition of corporal punishment. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has tried to say that some of them are not. But that is irrelevant. They are all agreed that the Bill, as brought before us, is unworkable. If there is a consensus of the professional opinion, how can it not be respected? I ask the Government to respect it and to agree to this alternative way of fulfilling the duties of this country to respect the European Court. We must also have regard to those professional organisations, their anxieties, their disquiet and indeed their outright opposition. That is a main reason for this amendment to be accepted by all Peers in all quarters of the House, irrespective of party.
I must also revert to this question of fairness. The Bill is surely manifestly unfair as between one child and another. This has been so amply demonstrated on Second Reading and in Committee that I do not need to elaborate on it, except to say that I find it hard to believe that anyone could have entertained the idea of opting out, or even of opting in—which is better perhaps, but only marginally so—sufficiently seriously to have put it into statutory language and to have brought it before Parliament. It passes imagination that someone so obviously intelligent and sensitive as the noble Baroness should have to say as she did in Committee—this is only an example of the kind of thing she had to say because the Bill is drafted in this way:
"Some mixed schools exempt girls from corporal punishment and most schools will exempt delicate pupils"—[Official Report, 4/6/85; col. 626.]
What a shameful thing to have to say on the Floor of the House in defence of a public Bill! The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, makes dissenting noises. All schools, I would hope, would exempt delicate pupils from corporal punishment. Would the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, like delicate pupils to be subject to corporal punishment?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble lord goes out of his way to challenge me, I am very happy indeed to respond.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I merely said that the noble Lord was making dissenting noises, my Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does it not occur to the noble Lord that the words of the noble Baroness could very properly exclude schools that did not have delicate or physically weak children, and there are a good many?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I leave the House to judge the worth of the noble Lord's intervention. But I find it upsetting that the noble Baroness should have to say things like that and that the House should have to listen to such distasteful words, thoughts and expressions.
4.15 p.m.
I would briefly say that the exemption of the independent schools is only yet one more cause for further application to the European Court. Of course if this amendment is unsuccessful (and I very much hope that it is successful) that must simply be rectified, because if it is not this country will again be dragged through the shame of further causes in the European Court just because parents in independent schools will undoubtedly take the matter where it has been before.
I admit that the schoolboy concept of fairness is pretty crude. Recently I read these words of Sydney Smith, written in 1809:
"The morality of boys is generally very imperfect; their notions of honour extremely mistaken; and their objects of ambition frequently very absurd".
But there is this fundamental notion of fairness which we all recognise from our schooldays, and that concept of fairness is carried on into adult life and is one that we all share. Indeed, the schoolboy concept of what is fair now has statutory recognition and is incorporated into such concepts as fair trading. Surely we cannot impose on boys and girls at school something which we know they will consider to be unfair.
What I have to say finally may appeal to noble Lords on the Conservative Benches because they are words of the great Dr. Samuel Johnson, who was always a very good Tory and was concerned to see that the Whig Dogs never had the best of it. But just in case noble Lords on the Conservative Benches feel that they may be, to use the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, "cissies", let them bear in mind the words of the great Dr. Johnson, who said:
"The hardy method of treating children does no good".
I commend those words to the House.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, I think we should remind ourselves at this stage of the seriousness of the matter we are discussing. We are not discussing trifling things that happen and are not taken much notice of, and that some schools have and some schools do not have. We are thinking of what would be a serious criminal assault if similar and equal force was applied to an attack made upon a grown adult of one's own size.
I have always believed that the principle of justice was that one never attacked a man who was not of one's own size. It is not so long ago that we abolished corporal punishment for adults who were convicted of serious criminal offences. I believe that there has been some reason to suppose that this has had a beneficial effect upon the necessarily large number of criminal offences that were formerly dealt with in that way.
1324
I suppose that we might retain corporal punishment in schools if we admitted that the aim of education is to teach children that force always wins in the end. Perhaps I might refer once again to my friends, the Russian children, who, when our English party arrived, greeted us all with a warm handshake and the moving words, "So you come from Britain, where they beat the children?" This has remained as a stain and a mark of guilt on my mind ever since. Wherever I go I have to say to myself, "I come from Britain where they beat the children"—and I carry this sort of mark of the devil about with me. And so do all of you who are equally to blame!
I think that we have heard quite enough on this topic, but I want to emphasise that it is a very serious matter. It is true that you would have committed a serious crime if you had applied unequal force in a dispute with a man of your own size about a matter affecting you alone.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I support this amendment, and may I also go on to tell your Lordships of the decisions of the European Court which have given rise to it. It is said that the Government, and they, I think most reluctantly, feel, they are obliged to adhere to the decisions of that court. Let me tell your Lordships what those decisions were. The particular case which gave rise to this dialogue took place in 1961. It involved a boy called Jeffrey Cosans who was aged 15½. The boys from his school continually took a short cut across the cemetery and disturbed the peace and quiet which should be there. The school made a rule that they were not to take that short cut. Cosans and others disobeyed. They were reported to the headmaster for a caning; but when they got to the spot they objected to it, so that he did not cane them. Instead, Cosans was suspended for a little time from going to school.
That is the case which occurred in 1961. By the time we get to 1978, that comes before the European Court. Your Lordships ought to know that that European Court has its protocols and its treaty. May I say what those come to? Your Lordships ought to know that the one case they referred to has nothing in it about corporal punishment. It is concerned only with education. Let me read the whole article which the Government feel that they must implement:
"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching as is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions".
There is nothing about corporal punishment there.
Then, in 1978, they said that a parent could object to corporal punishment on the ground of his philosophical convictions. What nonsense! I am glad to say that the English judge, Sir Vincent Evans, dissented from those other six foreigners. He did not agree with that interpretation, that there were philosophical convictions. And how right he was!
My Lords, they were not only wrong on that, and this is only in a protocol. When this country, through its treaty-making powers, signed the protocol it made the express reservation that it was accepted in the United Kingdom only so far as it was compatible with the progression of efficient instruction and training. So

1325
there it is. That is our own reservation. How far is it compatible? Our English judge said that this business was not compatible at all. The only three ways in which the court suggested it could be made compatible were: one, to have separate schools, in some of which there was corporal punishment and in some not; and they turned down that; two, separate classes in which one class could have corporal punishment and the other could not; and they turned down that. The third one was that the children in the same class should be treated differently according to the views and wishes of their parents.
Our English judge said that it was all nonsense; that in one class you cannot have differently treated children, some of them liable to corporal punishment and some not. Any of those who were not subject to it would cock a snoot at the headmaster and say, "You can't cane me". If two of them were larking about together and smoking or whatever, then one would say, "You can't cane me. You can cane him". That will not do for discipline at all. I venture to say that our English judge was quite right in dissenting from that decision in the European Court. There it is. It is said that we must comply with it. I doubt whether we should. That decision has caused all the trouble, and it is why the Government think that they have to go along with it.
Let me go to the next stage and the next case. There is another clause, and this is in the original treaty which your Lordships ought to know about. It is Article 3, which states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
That is simple enough. But that arose from a case in 1956, that of a boy aged 15 called Tyrer. He was one of three boys who took beer into school. I suspect that they were going to have a good time. At all events, the senior boy, the prefect, reported that fact to the headmaster. The headmaster thereupon caned the three; and those three, then, if you please, attacked the prefect. They bruised and cut him. I do not know that he was hurt very badly. But those three boys attacked the prefect who had reported them for doing what they did.
Then the headmaster thought that it was about time he intervened and the boys were brought before the magistrates' court—this was in the Isle of Man, if you please—and they pleaded guilty in a way that most of us would think was a very good step. At that time, in 1956, they were sentenced, each of them, to three strokes of the birch. Well, there it is! That has been held by the European Court of Human Rights to be degrading treatment, contrary altogether to the convention. Our English judge, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, again dissented from those other seven. In a way (and I am afraid that I must say so) that court is trying to put forward its own social theories and impose them on a modern state, as distinct from what we agreed to in 1956. This is what they said:
"Modern opinion has come to regard corporal punishment as an undesirable form of punishment [whatever the age of the offended]".
Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice added that the fact that it was undesirable does not turn it automatically into a degrading punishment. But there it was: the court held that the three strokes of the birch, done in private, was a degrading punishment.
1326
The logical consequence which I must draw to the attention of your Lordships is this. If the case of any child who is beaten at school is now taken to the European Court the chances are 99 to 1 that that court, in view of that earlier decision, will hold that it is a degrading punishment, contrary to the convention, and that therefore we are disobeying the convention in that way. That is why I would support this amendment because it is 99 to 1 that when the next decision comes from the European Court of Human Rights it will condemn all corporal punishment in schools as being degrading.
4.30 p.m.
Do not let us wait for them to tell us what to do, my Lords. Let us really take it into our own hands and govern ourselves by our own statutes. This statute produces an impossible situation, as every schoolmaster will tell you, because, if some of the boys are liable for corporal punishment—caning or whatever it may be—and others are not, it is quite impossible to work, it is quite unjust to the boys and the boys themselves know perfectly well what is just and what is fair. No teacher, I think, can possibly support this dual system of some boys being liable to corporal punishment and some not.
On that simple ground, I would ask your Lordships not to go into all these trivialities or this "dual purpose" in the Bill but to take the straightforward case now and abolish corporal punishment now in schools, because we can certainly well get on without it. Also in that way we shall in due course be conforming to the European Court's decisions in a modern sense. For that reason I would support the amendment.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I had not really intended to speak on this Bill at all since I felt that it had already gone beyond the point where it was possible to improve it. However, I should be very grateful if the noble Baroness, when she replies, would tell me whether there is any legal interpretation of the words "assault of a child". I have heard of cases where somebody who just took a child by the arm to prevent it doing what it ought not to do was accused of assaulting it. I think perhaps that ought to be more clearly defined.
Lord Soper: My Lords, the discussion is about the relevance of violence in the contemporary system, and particularly in education. I wish I could speak authoritatively and ecumenically for the Christian churches. I cannot do that. I had hoped that at the Methodist Conference, which is now in session, I could have produced a motion, but they were too busy concerning themselves with the dubious habits of freemasons and the opportunity did not arise. However, I do not think it would be imprudent of me to say that I represent an overwhelming consensus in the Christian Churches today that everything that can be done to reduce the element of violence in the contemporary society should be undertaken as a matter of primary opportunity and of primary concern.
Therefore I will make a very simple plea and take very little time over it. Here is an opportunity to

1327
reduce the content of violence in one particular area where I think its effects are probably more dangerous than anywhere else. I have come to know, and I would submit to your Lordships, that violence is a very insidious practice and can produce effects which are totally unappreciated at the time they are inflicted. Those of your Lordships who have read Darkness at Noon and those of you who have contemplated the somewhat extravagant theories, in some cases, of a number of psychiatrists too numerous to mention will not, I think, be opposed to the view that the application of violence in any form is dangerous because the results of it can never be attributable in terms of a final end to the problem that they seek to solve and indeed are so incalculable in their effects that we now have a community saturated with violence. Your Lordships will perhaps permit me to offer one illustration. I repair to a place called Hyde Park every Sunday afternoon, and what bothers me is the kind of violence that has erupted in that arena for which there seems no reasonable basis or explanation—and I do not think it is the National Front. It is mindless violence, because the whole atmosphere is saturated with the concept and presentation of violence.
Therefore all I have to say is this. I heartily support this amendment, not only because the Bill is ridiculous, absolutely impracticable and theologically highly wrong but because here is an opportunity, I would submit to your Lordships, of reducing to some extent the element and content of violence in our contemporary society. In that regard, even if it is the only argument that is presentable, I believe it has sufficient force to say to your Lordships that here is an opportunity which should not be missed and that this amendment should be commended and agreed to.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, may I also fairly shortly support this amendment and follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has just said and also what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, has said, together with the reference in the amendment to criminal proceedings? There is a matter which seems to me to have been avoided by your Lordships throughout our debates, and that is a matter which concerns the sexual overtones which undoubtedly exist when it comes to the question of corporal punishment. Anyone who has spent any time in the criminal courts knows perfectly well that in a very large number of cases where violence comes up before the courts, involving people who have administered corporal punishment, there are in fact sexual overtones involved.
I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is in his place—I see that he is—but one claim that I have to be on a basis of equality with him is that we are both in a sense experts in pornography. If your Lordships go into any shops which deal in soft pornography, you will find that over 50 per cent. of what is there involves the administration of corporal punishment in some form or other. There are magazines which are called Spanking, and so on, which have an enormous sale. If one goes round Soho and looks at the notices on boards from ladies offering their services—not that your Lordships have ever done that sort of thing but, unfortunately, professionally I
1328
have had to do so on a number of occasions—one will find that those advertisements, over and over again, are offering some form of corporal punishment, which has of course to do with sexual gratification.
I must say I have always looked with some suspicion on those Members of your Lordships' House who get up and say, "I was given a number of good hidings when I was at school and it has done me nothing but good." One noble Lord referred to the abolition of corporal punishment for adults. It was found that violent men who had the cat-o-nine-tails or the birch administered to them quite clearly very often obtained great sexual gratification from that administration and in fact looked forward in a sort of horrific way to the punishment they were going to receive, let alone the gratification which some persons who administered it got out of that administration.
It has always seemed to me quite astonishing that in this country parents, innocently, can hand over their children perfectly happily for corporal punishment to be administered—of course not in all cases, but quite often involving sexual gratification on the part of the person who administers it. Therefore it gives me particular pleasure to see that this amendment involves criminal proceedings and the defence of inflicting reasonable corporal punishment which, in many cases, I, acting professionally, have put foward as a defence, when so often one has seen that the real truth of the matter was that the person administering the punishment was receiving pleasure out of it.
When one looks back at the glory of the days of the public school in Victorian times, one realises how many persons from the great houses of this country who received corporal punishment would return to those great houses later in adult life and, after dinner, quietly get out among the gentlemen present their pornographic libraries. That was one of the effects of the great public school system, because of course in those days pornography was limited to the great and the good. I support this amendment and I hope the House will do so too.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, having been beaten at school I shall no doubt be under deep suspicion in this House before I say anything. I scarcely thought that some 30 years after having been beaten for listening to a state funeral on a crystal set I should be in your Lordships' House discussing the merits of whether beating should be allowed at all. I have the feeling that many of your Lordships would agree that in those 30 years most of the Western world has become a considerably softer place in its attitude towards discipline. I dare to suggest, furthermore, that many of your Lordships will consider that to be not a good thing. Perhaps like myself—and it would appear others—some of your Lordships have experienced a beating and found that it did no harm; and indeed on reflection did some good.
The reason we are discussing this Bill at all, as we all know, is as a result of the judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights, to which we are a party. As a result of this judgment the British Government have decided that it is better to allow some form of corporal punishment rather than none at all. It is on this issue that I am in agreement with the Government. The entire spectrum, the whole

1329
principle, of corporal punishment has for years been accepted as a part of our daily lives.
What is it that now causes us to doubt its relevance? Is it fashion? Is it 40 years of peacetime? If we are not to continue to include this particular form of discipline in our schools through the assistance of a short, sharp rap that may sting for a few seconds in our stern endeavour to teach that child at an early age the difference between right and wrong, to teach that child respect and kindness towards its elders, its fellow pupils, and property, then teachers, and parents, and children later to be adults may well be the poorer citizens for it.
If we deny the option of administering reasonable and moderate corporal punishment in our schools, how long will it be before the Paediatric Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and other such august bodies will be recommending that all forms of discipline should be outlawed in all schools? Furthermore, the fact that we are the only Western European country which does not prohibit corporal punishment in schools is really not an argument for abolition. How many times in the past have we had to go it alone against strong pressures from outsiders to acquiesce? The majority is not always right.
In conclusion, very few clauses of any Bill are ideal. Some of the clauses in this Bill may not be ideal. But I suspect that as much as the ideology, the rights and wrongs, behind this particular Bill there lies the natural anxiety over the unknown, the uncertainty, as to whether this Bill can be made to work. Given understanding and patience and time, I have little doubt that it will. I therefore urge your Lordships to support the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and thereby the Government, and to vote against this amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, to follow what has just been said by the noble Earl who has just sat down, I think it is a great pity if the issue is polarised on the question of whether or not corporal punishment should be abolished. The Bill is the Government's response to the decision of the European Court. For myself, I do not think the decision of the court was absurd; I do not think it was nonsense. I think it was just mistaken. From my study of the reports of the commission and the judgment of the court, the mistake which the court made may have been—and I put it no higher than this, because I was not there—contributed to by the inadequacy of the case which was put before it on behalf of the British Government.
It was by a slip of the tongue that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, spoke of 1961. It was 1976 when what I see as this long-running farce began. Neither Master Campbell nor Master Cosans was ever subjected to corporal punishment. I remember that when I first read and heard about it—I live not far from where these youths live—I thought, "Surely the case will be for the Government de minimis non curat lex". Having studied the reports which are available, I remain of the same view. I cannot understand why that case was not made. It might not have been valid, and I may be wrong and others may disagree with me. But we now have this decision. I would have been with the dissenting British judge had I been there.
1330
But the question for us is not: are you for or against corporal punishment?—although we all have our views about that. The question is: how can we make the best of a bad job? I said this on Second Reading, and probably at Committee stage. Happily, there are many more of your Lordships here today and I am glad, as the noble Baroness said, that it is being appreciated that this is a very important matter and that your Lordships are clearly taking so much greater an interest in it. We may get a sensible decision.
If this Bill goes through, what is obvious is that the British legislature, instead of making the best of a bad job, will have made the worst of it. It will be damaging in the schools; damaging for our youth; and it will do no good at all.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships more than just a minute. At the Committee stage, I said something which now feels rather like a public confession: that is, that many years ago when I was running a small school as headmaster, I felt it was necessary to use the cane. This was the feeling from the staff—not just the feeling; it was what they said—and also, it may surprise you, from the hoys themselves. This was their idea of justice and of seeing that justice was done. But it was 20 years ago. I would not do it now. It is not just because I have given up playing tennis. It is because times have changed. The climate of opinion has changed. In an increasingly violent world, I think all civilised educationists, and perhaps all civilised people, agree that violence breeds violence and that we are not likely to achieve any better purposes by putting the clock back.
I believe that youth are particularly sensitive to the prevailing violence in the world. I think that they can be helped towards making a constructive contribution to society only by having their immense depths of unselfish service called forth. I should like to echo the noble words of Freud, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that we must devote our attention as educationists to developing love and service within young people, and not in the negative disciplines of using violence.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, this amendment is clearly much more widely framed than those which we considered in Committee. We are, not surprisingly, opposed to this amendment, because it is thorough-going in its efforts to see an end to virtually all corporal punishment outside the home, whatever the circumstances, whatever the views of parents, teachers or other professions. My noble friends Lord Arran and Lord Beloff have very helpfully reminded us of the context of this Bill, its purpose and the desirability of respecting the wishes of parents and teachers; many thousands of parents and teachers have indicated a wish to retain the option of corporal punishment, if and when it seems appropriate to a teacher.
As has been pointed out, our objective with this Bill is straightforward—to secure compliance with a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights—and we are opposed to the injection of broader aims, in particular, the enforced abolition of corporal punishment. In reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, no one should be misled by the use of the term "battery", because very much of

1331
what we are talking about is the mild tap or slap or use of force which a primary school teacher might for example, use on a boy who is distracting a classroom; on a five- or six-year-old who is throwing paint pots around or is, perhaps, opening the door of the hamsters' cage and letting out the school hamsters—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that the parent of one child who allows hamsters to escape or throws paint pots around is to have his child thrashed, but that the parent of another child is going to say, "My child must not be thrashed if he lets hamsters escape or throws paint pots around"? If that is the case, the position is even more ridiculous than I originally thought it was.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I should have thought it was absolutely ridiculous to thrash a child for letting the school hamsters out of a cage. What I am talking about is precisely the heart of this Bill, which is to retain for the primary school teacher, or for any other teacher, the use of such appropriate physical force, or corporal punishment in the broadest sense of that word, as might help quickly and speedily to bring a situation back into order and to impose appropriate discipline.
Perhaps I may briefly summarise the Government's position without rehearsing all the arguments which have been made at Second Reading and Committee stage. The Government prefer to leave the decisions concerning the appropriateness of corporal punishment to those closest to the child and with responsibility for his or her well-being. I refer, of course, to the parents and the teachers. No one is requiring them to use corporal punishment, but the enforced abolition of corporal punishment implies a lack of trust in them and in their judgment; and, indeed, during the debate this afternoon, even worse, sadistic motives have been imputed to them. The Government therefore oppose this amendment as a matter of principle. In reply to my noble friend Lord Onslow and also to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I must say that I speak with complete sincerity regarding the principle of respecting parents and teachers, of trusting them with responsibility for the welfare of the children whose charge they have.
Baroness David: My Lords, we have had a long discussion on this amendment. I have had a great deal of excellent support for it and I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my noble friends Lady Wootton and Lord Soper, because they made the point about violence and the fact that we want to get rid of as much of that as we possibly can in this community. If we support this amendment, we shall be doing that little bit towards it. I press the amendment.
4.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 104.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Banks, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bernstein, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Boothby, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brockway, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mais, L.

Caradon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Collison, L.

Mulley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

De Freyne, L.

Onslow, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Denning, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Ezra, L.

Seebohm, L.

Falkender, B.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fulton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Galpern, L.

Smith, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Soper, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Tayor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Tonypandy, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Vickers, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ingleby, V.

White, B.

Jacobson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Caithness, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cayzer, L.

Aldington, L.

Coleraine, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Arran, E.

Cox, B.

Attlee, E.

Craigavon, V.

Bauer, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Beloff, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Bethell, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Blake, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Gainford, L.

Burton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Caccia, L.

Gowrie, E.

1333

Gray of Contin, L.

Orkney, E.

Grey, E.

Pender, L.

Gridley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Porritt, L.

Portland, D.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Romney, E.

Hooper, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kimball, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandys, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Soames, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stamp, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sudeley, L.

Marley, L.

Swinton, E.

Marsh, L.

Terrington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Teviot, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Teynham, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Molson, L.

Vivian, L.

Monson, L.

Westbury, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Morris, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wise, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.2 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, it is quite clear that, this amendment having been passed, any further consideration of the Bill is rendered quite impossible today. I therefore beg to move that the Report stage of this Bill be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Teachers' Pay Dispute
5.3 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question which is being given in another place on the teachers' dispute. The Statement is as follows:
"We are all surely very unhappy that this long dispute continues. I intensely want to see pupils receiving uninterrupted education, but the Government have wide economic obligations and are not willing to make extra resources available for teachers' pay unless those extra resources would be used to make progress towards our objectives for improving educational standards. That means improving promotion prospects and giving better rewards to good quality teachers. Last July, a year ago, I made plain my willingness to help progress in this area. On 21st May this year I made plain the Government's willingness to provide extra resources for teachers' pay next year for this purpose. I repeated that offer in meetings with the employers' associations on 24th June and 1st July and in a letter
1334
to the teachers on 2nd July. Both employers and teachers were well aware of the Government's position before yesterday's requisitioned meeting. They also know that I stand ready to join in discussions to make the progress which is so urgent and necessary, given the October deadline for decisions on the rate support grant settlement, if we are not again to miss the chance of reforming the pay structure".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Is the Secretary of State really going to be content to let this dispute go on by using his veto as he did yesterday? The 15 votes which his two DES representatives have on the Burnham Committee and those of the five Tory ACC councillors could prevent the continuation of discussion, which means that this dispute could run on into the Autumn. It is quite incredible that a Secretary of State for Education could be a party to this.
The committee was not seeking yesterday to improve the offer to the teachers but to put forward a statement of support for their case to form the basis of a joint approach to the Secretary of State in order for discussions to take place. The local authorities are in a very difficult position indeed, and it has been very difficult for them and for the teachers to approach the Secretary of State. Is the Secretary of State really not going to do anything to improve matters within the next week or so before the end of this term?
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, for having repeated this Statement, even though because of the excitement following the last Division I am not sure that I altogether heard the earlier part of it. We on these Benches naturally deplore the continuing disruption in schools because of the adverse effect on the education of children. At the same time we regret the increasing disparity between the pay increases offered to teachers along with so many other public servants and settlements being reached in the private sector. What, beyond exhortation, are the Government going to do about this difference between the two sectors?
Of course we hope that agreement can be reached as to the criteria to be used and the procedures to be followed in determining teachers' pay. For my own part, I have no objection to the principle of performance assessment provided that it is done in an acceptably objective way. Nor do I object to the principle of differential payments for certain teachers, such as maths teachers, as recommended by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology of which, for this purpose, I was privileged to be a member. But whatever the criteria to be used, is it not high time, if I may return to an old theme, that the Government took the initiative in seeking to ensure that where they are directly, or, as in this case, indirectly, the paymaster and negotiations result in a failure to agree, the issue should be resolved in a civilised manner by a single, independent standing body whose findings could be overturned only by resolutions to that effect passed by both Houses of Parliament? I have said this on a number of occasions

1335
in your Lordships' House and I make no apology for doing so again. Is not the alternative continuing disruption on the part of people who perceive themselves—in my opinion rightly—to be unfairly treated?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful for the brief way in which the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, received this Statement. I was a little surprised by what the noble Baroness said about the meetings which took place yesterday. The meeting was requisitioned by representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I am quite sure that they sincerely wish to make progress but my understanding is that the substantive issue addressed in the management panel was the sort of statement which might have been represented to my right honourable friend in the name of the committee.
The committee is made up of three groups; representatives of the teachers, representatives of the employers and representatives of the Department of Education and Science. I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that it would be an oddity for the Department of Education and Science representatives to make such representations to my right honourable friend. He would normally expect any joint approach to come from the teachers and employers. Such an approach need not be the subject of a written preamble agreed at a full formal session of Burnham.
Both sides know that my right honourable friend stands ready to meet them in groups or together. I must repeat that to say that there is a stalemate is not the case. My right honourable friend is willing to meet the teachers' representatives any time. I do not know why the noble Baroness says that this is so difficult. Indeed, he was ready to do so in May when the teachers declined, and he remains ready now.
I think that the idea that there was a veto, as the noble Baroness said, is just not true. The DES representatives have not exercised a veto. As far as I understand the position, what was under discussion in the Burnham management panel was not a figure but a set of words without a figure. The press seems to imagine there was more substantive discussion. All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is that there is an offer for the teachers to go to arbitration, which surely is a fair way of deciding these matters, and they have turned it down.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and I am very glad to hear that the Secretary of State is willing to see the members of the panel, the local authorities or the teachers, either alone or together. I very much hope that that will happen. However, I understand that the DES did use its votes yesterday. The DES representatives used their 15 votes with five Tory members of the ACC and they were able to defeat the others by one vote.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, on one point I entirely agree with the noble Baroness: that is, I hope the teachers will now decide to see my right honourable friend; and he is very willing to see them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the teachers have given any reason either for their unwillingness to have discussions with the Secretary of State or to go to arbitration?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think their reasons are fairly well known. The teachers have put in a pay claim for 12 per cent., which they are now trying to achieve. Also, they are not willing to talk about conditions of service, which is one of the bases of discussion on which my right honourable friend wants to talk to them.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it not the case that it is not much use going to arbitration when the Secretary of State said beforehand that he is not going to put any more money on the table to honour the decision which might be made?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I was replying to what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said about the teachers going to a body of people who were not involved, and surely that must be an arbitrator.

Water (Fluoridation) Bill
5.12 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Fluoridation of water supplies at request of health authorities]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert:
("(6A) If at any stage it appears to the statutory water undertaker that the concentration of fluoride in the water supplied to consumers in the area in question has risen to 1·5 milligrams per litre or over the statutory water undertaker shall cease further fluoridation and inform the Secretary of State immediately.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think there is any need for me to explain this amendment in detail as its purpose is self-evident. The Government say that 1 milligram of fluoride per litre is the maximum normal safe dose. At an earlier stage of the Bill I tried to ensure that the maximum never rose above that. It was subsequently suggested that that was a little too constraining and perhaps 1·2 milligrams per litre was the maximum to write into the Bill.
However, I have been pursuaded by the arguments from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and her colleagues that perhaps that, too, does not allow for exceptional circumstances and that 1·5 milligrams per litre is the maximum that should be written into the Bill. That is, after all, a 50 per cent. overdose and in the normal way if a hospital or surgery patient were to be given an overdose of 50 per cent. it would be considered a serious matter. I think that the amendment allows for exceptional circumstances and gives a certain flexibility.
It may be of interest for your Lordships to know that recent Swedish research has pointed to the danger to children which can result from overdoses of fluoride. Research was carried out by three Swedish doctors and on 3rd March 1985, in the journal, Pediatrics a paper was published entitled, "Renal Clearance of Fluoride

1337
in Children and Adolescents,", which made quite clear that an overdose of 50 per cent. or more was decidedly dangerous and not to be tolerated. The amendment, therefore, has been drafted so that if the concentration of fluoride in the consumers' area has risen to 1·5 milligrams per litre or over the water undertaker shall immediately cease fluoridation and inform the Secretary of State.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to Amendment, No. 2, which is to all intents and purposes consequential:
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
(" (6B) The Secretary of State on receiving the information set out in subsection (6A) of this section shall order an investigation into the causes of the concentration of fluoride in the water supplied exceeding 1·5 milligrams per litre and into the harm to health if any suffered by any person as a result of this concentration.").
This provides that the Secretary of State, on receiving information that the maximum safe dose has been exceeded, shall order an investigation into the causes of the concentration of fluoride into the water supply and into the harm to health, if any, suffered as a result of this concentration. It is not absolutely necessary that Amendment No. 2 should be accepted although I think it follows logically from Amendment No. 1, and it is for that reason that I am speaking to both. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I am really at a loss to know what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, means by a 50 per cent. overdose. The short-term consumption of water fluoridated at 1·5 milligrams per litre or even 2 milligrams per litre has absolutely no ill-effects. Indeed, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has recently concluded that a permanent level of 4 milligrams per litre still allows an adequate margin of safety; but that is by the by.
I hope that I can persuade the movers of this amendment that it is unnecessary and should be withdrawn. As noble Lords will be aware, fluoridation is carried out in this country according to guidelines laid down by the Standing Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality. These guidelines impose an upper limit on the concentration of fluoride in the water supply resulting from a fluoridation scheme of 1·5 milligrams per litre. This upper limit allows a very wide margin of safety and the guidelines are entirely consistent with the World Health Organisation's recommendations and also with the European Community Directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption.
The guidelines provide that the schemes should generally run at between 1·1 milligrams per litre and 0·9 milligrams per litre, and daily readings as high as 1·5 milligrams per litre are very unusual. The water undertaker carries out frequent and regular monitoring, and daily monitoring records are sent to health authorities. If one of the daily readings does show a concentration of 1·5 milligrams per litre, the water undertaker will rectify this immediately by temporarily halting the supply of the fluoride compound. In fact, most of the plants operating in this country have systems which do this automatically.
1338
Water undertakers are already obliged to keep within the guidelines, as the guidelines are written into the contracts which govern fluoridation schemes. Similarly, the requirement that the Department of Health has to be informed in certain circumstances already exists. I therefore see absolutely no need for this extra statutory obligation to be placed upon water undertakers operating fluoridation schemes and I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn. If the noble Lord will not withdraw it, I will have to ask noble Lords to reject it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Baroness gives us a certain minimal reassurance in her description of the procedure which is normally adopted when the concentration exceeds 1·5 milligrams per litre. But she did, if I may say so, despite alleging that much higher concentrations are safe, say that the normal figure was between 0·9 and 1·1 milligrams, which seems to indicate that anything much in excess of that is considered unsafe. It worries me that the Government are not being as careful as they ought to be about the health and safety of the people of this country. Having said that, and in the absence of further support, all I can do is beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, inse0rt the following new clause:
("Suspension of this Act
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order suspend this Act if at any time he has reasonable cause to believe that evidence of danger to health has become manifest as a result of the addition of fluoride to the water supply.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order suspend this Act if at any time he has reasonable cause to believe that evidence of danger to animals, plants, or aquatic life has become manifest as a result of the addition of fluoride to the public water supply.
(3) The Sectretary of State shall present the evidence for an order of suspension under subsection (1) or (2) in a statement to each House of Parliament.
(4) The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to an amendment in regard to the suspension of the Act and I believe, as do a number of my noble friends, that this is a lacuna within the structure of this Bill at the moment, particularly because the story of research into this vital subject is by no means completed.
Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to two areas where current research may well yield some particularly important information. I refer in particular to the study being carried out by the Japanese into the genetic hazards of fluoride. No final report has yet been published. I understand from the Medical Research Council that work is being done and will perhaps be concluded before long. Nevertheless, should this study yield an adverse report, surely the Secretary of State will be particularly glad to have within the present structure of the Bill the opportunity to suspend the Act without further ado and to report to Parliament, as the amendment indicates, giving the reasons for doing so.
In this country work is being carried out in a number of places. Several times we have referred to the work

1339
being done in King's College, London, and also in Strathclyde University; Dr. Cedric Wilson, the consultant physician who was Professor of Pharmacology at Trinity College, Dublin, is doing work at the moment, and once again experiments are being carried out, in this particular case in regard to allergies on guinea pigs produced by fluoride. If we assume that work is being carried out all round the world, surely the need for an amendment of this nature is one of the first things to be considered? My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have to tell my noble friend that the Government consider that this amendment really is unnecessary, because, in the wholly hypothetical event that fluoridation were found to be unsafe, the Secretary of State already has the power to direct health authorities to terminate their fluoridation schemes and to withdraw the indemnity to statutory water undertakers. No additional statutory power is required. However, I stress yet again that the Government are convinced that fluoridation is an entirely safe procedure and that the amendment is unjustified to the extent that it seeks to suggest to the contrary. I think it is fair to say that more research has been carried out on fluoridation than on any other public health measure. Most of the evidence on this matter comes from detailed surveys of the health of communities which have been drinking either water with a natural fluoride content of around one part per million, or artificially fluoridated water at this level, for many decades.
Investigations have shown repeatedly that the small increases in the amount of fluoride in the diet that result from these concentrations of fluoride in the water supply have no ill-effects. Laboratory tests have failed to demonstrate mechanisms by which such small increases could have ill-effects. Nevertheless, my department keeps under review all literature published on the subject of fluoridation and we will continue to put any significant new work to our independent expert medical advisers. I would emphasise, however, that we consider it most unlikely that new evidence will come to light showing fluoride at these concentrations in water supplies to be unsafe. This is precisely because of the great weight of detailed evidence that already exists from direct studies of human populations which have been drinking this water for many years without ill-effect.
The department already has an interim report on new mutagenicity studies. There are no grounds at all for believing that once completed the studies will show any adverse results regarding the safety of fluoridation. Dr. Wilson's recent study, to which my noble friend referred, involves the measurement of the electrical potential in the skin of guinea pigs after fluoride has been injected into the abdominal cavity. However, this is not a recognised method for detecting an allergic response, and it is the department's view, as stated at Report stage, that Dr. Wilson has not shown that even this unnatural type of exposure gives rise to allergic reactions.
To be completely certain, we referred Dr. Wilson's study to an independent assessor and the report has
1340
just been received. The assessor's conclusion is that the findings of Dr. Wilson and his co-author cannot be sustained and that sensitisation to fluoride, whether in water or when given by injection, has not been demonstrated. It remains the case that, although every human being is exposed every day to fluoride in the diet, no case of allergy to ingested fluoride has ever been demonstrated—and we, as a nation of tea drinkers, should be prime examples. This amendment is both unnecessary and unjustified, and I must urge that it be rejected.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. Unlike with the previous pair of amendments, there are no technical aspects involved here to confuse the issue; it is perfectly straightforward. If there is danger to health, there is danger to health; if there is not, there is not. The noble Baroness repeated the Government's contention that fluoridation is an entirely safe procedure. Not for the first time, I find myself wondering why the Government do not have the courage of their convictions and accept this amendment. It does not cost the taxpayer anything. There is nothing in the amendment which would lead to extra cost or trouble for any of the parties concerned. If they are really convinced that fluoridation is 100 per cent. safe, and that no evidence is likely to come to light in the future to force them to change their mind, what on earth do they have to lose by accepting the amendment?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I intervene very briefly, to say that I agree with the conclusions of the noble Baroness. I have no doubt that if it were the case—which I think is unlikely—that evidence emerged to show that fluoride was damaging people's health, it would be made widely known and no water authority or health authority in their right mind would continue with what they were doing.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, if it is the wish of your Lordships' House that this amendment be withdrawn, I shall certainly withdraw it in a moment, but before doing so, I should like to say something on the state of research into the subject. While I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that a very large amount of research has been carried out—I understand that there are over 800 different varieties of researches and reports—nevertheless there is still a divergence of opinion. This divergence is probably best shown in the work that has been done and has been commented on by Sir Richard Doll, and of course Professor Knox of Birmingham University on the one hand and that done by Dr. John Emsley of King's College, London, and many others on the opposite side—and I referred to Dr. Cedric Wilson this afternoon.
I accept entirely that if powers exist within the Bill to empower the Secretary of State to cease the fluoridation, then we need say no more in this matter. I accept the comments made by my noble friend and also by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in regard to this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Review by Secretary of State.
. The Secretary of State shall be under a duty to keep under review all relevant medical and scientific evidence on the effects of fluoridation and to publish a summary of the same at not less than five year intervals after the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has little or nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of fluoridation, but it emerges as the result of the discussions in your Lordships' House. Those of us who have put our names to this amendment think that it is a necessary and desirable step to take on behalf of open government, on behalf of keeping the electorate informed and on behalf of preserving their liberties. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and I do not see eye to eye on every point to do with fluoridation, but on this point we are in agreement and I think that we shall find widespread agreement within your Lordships' House. Indeed, we have it already. I hope, and would almost go so far as to say expect, that the Government will be able to accept the amendment.
The amendment merely asks the Government to do one thing which the speech of the noble Baroness has already said that they are doing, and that is to keep under review all the relevant medical and scientific evidence on the effects of fluoridation. No doubt they will continue to do that. The amendment goes on to say that that review should be published every five years. It does not say what previous amendments did, that as a result of that the whole question of fluoridation by any given water authority should be brought up again and reopened. It merely says that the state of play and the research at any given time should be made known to the public. That will involve very little public expense, and I think that what public expense there would be would be worth while.
We have discovered in the course of the passage of the Bill that there are real reservations and doubts about the addition of fluoride. It may be, as some of us think, that those doubts are totally unjustified. Nevertheless, they are not completely confined to those whom one would regard as cranks. It is clear that the reservations go much wider than that. It is certainly my attitude in putting the amendment forward that if the Government are to add substances to the ordinary drinking water of the population, without going into the rights and wrongs of that now, it should be known to the public and the effects of it or otherwise should be kept before the public. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I think that it is a reasonable request. I think that there is a steady flow of opinion that fluoridation is Government policy and is being foisted on the people by the methods of the Bill. That may be a mistaken view, and it may also be wrong to think that if the health authority decides to make an application, the water authority will necessarily comply with it. The word "may" is to be found in Clause 1(1)—the,
"undertaker may … increase the fluoride content of the water supplied".
1342
Am I right in thinking that there is no statutory obligation upon the water authority to accept the application of the health authority? That is important.
In any case, whether or not my construction of the clause is right, the controversy will leave this House and go into the country. The bodies that will be under the most vociferous public attention will be the health authorities. They will have to face the publicity, consult and do everything else that the Bill provides for their information before they decide to make an application.
But whatever the controversy in localities and whatever the outcome of the Bill, those districts which have fluoridation are entitled to receive some kind of stocktaking of what they are doing at reasonable intervals. I do not think that the scientific and medical controversy will go away, whatever the Government do. I think that feelings will run strongly about this matter for a long time to come. Otherwise it will look as if the Bill will fluoridate the water supply of the country for ever and ever; it will become almost a habit, like taking pills. Nobody will ever know whether it is doing good. Is there to be a check-up? What about all the researches that have been done under controlled conditions and lasting over some years? What surveillance over the effect of fluoridation is to be undertaken by the Government so that the public may be informed? I think that the noble Lord who moved the amendment is absolutely right. There should be a continuing opportunity for public information about the consequences of what is being done as far as they can be discovered and they should be closely attended to. This should all be subject to debate at some future time.
This is not an exercise in the quality of water. We are not deciding whether we like the taste of it or whether it is more palatable. We are looking at it from the point of view of medication. There is no doubt that that word is right. It is medication. It is the importing of chemical substance into water supplies to bring certain ingredients up to a certain standard for health reasons. I do not know what else it is if it is not medication. But we need not quarrel over the term.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of peope do not like it. In those circumstances, I think that we need to have regard to differences in public opinion at the time of the introduction of fluoridation. I think that the review by the Secretary of State should be a statutory obligation. It will assure people that once fluoride goes in the water that is not necessarily the end of the story. They will be able to keep track of the consequences, benefits and possible drawbacks of what has been done, in many cases without their assent.
In order that we may know whether effective steps will be taken in the regions to carry this debate further where it will matter most, we want to know whether water authorities are under a statutory obligation to accept an application by the health authority or whether they have any discretion at all. The noble Earl the Minister is nodding his head, which suggests that I am right in what I have said. If that is so, I need not pursue the matter further.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Baroness comes to reply perhaps I may make my position clear in relation to the amendment to which

1343
I have attached my name. Noble Lords are perhaps aware that as president of the British Fluoridation Society my principal purpose in being present for these debates has been to do what I can to see that no unnecessary obstacles are allowed to impede the progress of this Bill on to the statute book. That remains my view.
However, wholly convinced as I am of the desirability of fluoridation, and also of its safety, I become increasingly concerned by the extent to which public anxiety has been aroused by discussion of this matter in your Lordships' House, in another place, and in the press. Anything that can easily be done to reassure the public about their needless anxieties, to set the record straight, and to put the facts clearly and incontrovertibly before the public seems to me to be desirable from the point of view of those of us who are in favour of fluoridation.
This amendment merely asks the Secretary of State,
"to keep under review all relevant medical and scientific evidence on the effects of fluoridation and to publish a summary of the same at not less than five year intervals after the passing of this Act".
It is my understanding that the Secretary of State already has a statutory duty to keep under review all the relevant medical and scientific evidence on the effects of fluoridation. He already has that statutory duty.
It is possible that the scientific evidence that has accumulated is published in the Department of Health and Social Security's scientific reports from time to time, but I should like to be reassured on that point. Therefore, it may be that the noble Baroness will be able to tell the House that the action requested in the amendment will in fact be taken but that it is not necessary to incorporate the amendment in the Bill. If the noble Baroness can say that, then I shall be much relieved. I hope that she can do so.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment because I feel that a review is very necessary. I should particularly like to refer to the question that was raised at Report stage, when I drew the attention of my noble friend Lady Trumpington to Lord Jauncey's judgment in regard to the whole aspect of the Medicines Act and in respect of the supposition which the Government make that fluoridation does not fall within Section 130(3) of that Act.
It is still my submission that further studies should be made of Lord Jauncey's judgment. I drew attention to pages 386 to 392, which detail two matters. The first is, that no product licence is required for fluoridation. That is not disputed, but it was Lord Jauncey's claim that fluoridation does fall within the provisions of the Medicines Act. Therefore, this matter still requires the consideration of the Government in that regard.
If that is so, I agree entirely with what was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that fluoridation is medication and nothing else. I feel that this amendment in particular deserves our attention. I hope that my noble friend will give serious consideration to the matter with which it deals, which is clearly arousing much interest on all sides of the House.
Lord Charteris: My Lords, this is a very interesting amendment, as it has support from both sides of the argument; by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who is very keen on our water being fluoridated, and by others of us who are very keen on our water not being fluoridated unless we have a chance to talk about it. It therefore seems to me that this amendment should be very seductive to the Government.
The amendment asks the Secretary of State to do something that I am sure he is going to do anyway. It merely asks whether he will, every five years or so, let the rest of us know what the results of the medical and scientific investigations are. The real point of this is—as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said—that it will allay the very natural and real concern that exists among many people about artificial fluoridation of water.
I hope that the Government are right when they say that there is no danger in fluoridating water, but the fear of danger is very real. That has been shown by the almost monotonous regularity with which any democratically-elected body given a chance to consider this question goes against it. That has happened in Anglesey, Staffordshire, Shropshire, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Such is happening not only in this country but all over the world.
5.45 p.m.
I have no doubt that the noble Baroness knows about the report that was published in the Timaru Herald of 24th January. Timaru is in New Zealand, as I am sure your Lordships know. The report stated:
"As a result of Dr. J. P. van Herel of Timaru writing to the city council on behalf of 2,850 patients listing the risks involved in drinking fluoridated water, the city council voted to cut fluoridation by 50 per cent".
I am not sure how strong democratic control is in Timaru and whether what was said should happen did happen, but the fact that it was said shows that there is much concern about this matter, not only in this country but also in New Zealand.
As I said earlier, I hope very much that the Government are right in thinking that no danger can arise from the fluoridation of water. I must say that I find the general attitude towards this matter rather like that which I encountered a week or two ago in Wales, when I met a fundamentalist clergyman. He was able, with a kind of virginal conviction, to cast aside all evidence produced by Darwin and others concerning evolution, and said that everything was exactly as written in the Bible. As I am sure your Lordships know, there are at least two different accounts of the Creation. The clergyman did not say which he was favouring but made it quite clear that the Bible was right and all other evidence was wrong. All I am saying is that it would be sensible to accept this amendment.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I hate to go over old ground again and again but the House must remember that in 1976 the Royal College of Physicians undertook a major review of all the available publications on fluoridation. The committee consisted of 14 eminent specialists in the areas of general medicine, paediatrics, community medicine, toxicology, epidemiology and genetics. They met over a period of

1345
18 months and examied all available evidence. They produced a list of all the disorders claimed to be attributable to water fluoridation. These ranged from the trivial, such as flatulence, to the more serious, such as congenital malformations, heart disease and cancer.
Most of the listed disorders were claimed by two persons, Waldbott and Spira, who claimed also that all kinds of allergic reactions could be attributed to fluoride in drinking water. Those who made such claims concerning health hazards often overlooked the difference between inorganic and organic fluorides, or between fluoride in drinking water at one part per million and the concentrations used in certain test tube or animal experiments.
We have heard it said that fluoride added to drinking water differs from that naturally present, but I can assure your Lordships that, due to complete ionisation, that is not the case and the fluoride ion is identical. I reject the criticisms made. The words of the amendment are unnecessary and I feel sure that the aspects mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, when speaking to the amendment are adequately covered in the existing words of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I do not know what the Government intend to do with this amendment. No doubt they will consider the question of whether a review would be a sensible part of this Bill. I should like to ask those noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment whether the word "fluoridation" embraces also the natural fluoridation that exists in all supplies of water for drinking in this country.
For example, in various parts of Essex and in the Hartlepools and South Shields, the water already contains more fluoride than one part per million and therefore more than the optimum concentration proposed in this Bill. Is it really suggested that there should be a review every five years of areas where fluoride already exists in the water at concentrations even higher than the optimum amount? People in those areas have been lucky enough to enjoy excellent teeth for generations. That is one reason why I am a supporter of the Government's Bill.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn, who is a dentist, has pointed out that there is no difference in effect in the fluoride that already exists in natural supplies of water in every part of this country. I would therefore ask those who are moving the amendment and who have their names to it, whether they consider that a review should take place in those areas where the water already contains the optimum amount or more.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in replying to this amendment, I should like to make it clear at the outset that the Government already accept that they have a duty to keep under review all the relevant medical and scientific evidence on the effects of fluoridation. This has been the position of successive Governments in this country since the 1950s when fluoridation was first considered and then introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is quite right. There is no statutory obligation for water authorities to accept applications for fluoridation from a health authority. However, the Secretary of State already has a clear obligation to monitor the safety of any public
1346
health measure, in that he is answerable on these matters to Parliament.
With reference to the other point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, fluoridation contractual arrangements are for a fixed term. There are, therefore, periodic opportunities for both health and water authorities to reconsider their position. My noble friend Lord Sandys raised a question in relation to the Medicines Act. My noble friend has argued that hexafluorosilicic acid and disodium hexafluorosilicate should be considered as medicinal products falling within the provisions of the Medicines Act. The Government's legal advice is that neither of these chemicals, nor water fluoridated with them, are medicinal products within the meaning of the Medicines Act.
I can assure the House that the Government will continue to monitor all new published evidence that we are able to identify through regular computer searches. And, of course, health Ministers will continue to be answerable to this House on these important issues. The DHSS will also undertake, in the guidance to be issued to health authorities following enactment of the Bill, to bring to their attention any significant new developments regarding the safety and efficiency of fluoridation. We shall, of course, ensure that Parliament is also made aware of these. Against the background of the assurances that I have given, I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the House is, I think, united behind the feeling in this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, spoke on the general subject and agreed very strongly with my noble friend Lord Winstanley, whose name appears to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised the point of natural fluoride. All relevant medical and scientific evidence on the effects of fluoridation will, I believe, necessarily include all relevant medical and scientific evidence on the effects of fluoride. In fact, this amendment asks only for a report on fluoridation which, it is clear, is the addition of fluoride to drinking water.
I was extremely encouraged by the reply of the noble Baroness on this point. If I have any doubt, it is that I was not able to take in absolutely what, I believe, was the assurance she gave. The first half of her remarks I understand completely. The department will keep under review all the evidence and will continue to do so. I accept this absolutely. The noble Baroness then went on to talk about—I did not write this down, and I hope therefore that she will repeat it—drawing the attention of water authorities and of the general public, although I am not quite clear about the latter, to additional evidence that may be forthcoming after the Bill is passed.
Is it the case that the medical and scientific evidence that is being kept under review will be available to the public in an easily ascertainable form—I do not mean merely in learned journals—as a result of what the DHSS is undertaking to do? If so, I, for my part—I cannot, of course, answer for my colleagues who have put their names to this amendment—would be happy to withdraw the amendment. It is a question of whether the evidence really will be easily available to

1347
those people who have genuine doubts and who are not up to date, and do not keep up to date, with all the scientific evidence or indeed with the more recherchéé documents of the DHSS, particularly ones that would go only to the water authorities as such and would not necessarily go to the general public. In order for me to accept what is, so far as it goes, a good assurance, there must be publication to the general public.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to repeat what I said for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I said that the DHSS will also undertake, in the guidance that is to be issued to health authorities following enactment of this Bill, to bring to their attention any significant new developments regarding the safety and efficacy of fluoridation; and we shall, of course, ensure that Parliament is also made aware of these. I would add that studies of fluoridation commissioned by the department are published and will continue to be published. Anything of interest would naturally be taken up by the press. I hope that that answers the noble Lord.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I think that it does. It is reassuring to have the undertaking that the evidence will not only be kept under review but that it will also be imparted to Parliament. I think that this meets the point. Therefore, unless any of my colleagues differ, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Continuity of existing fluoridation schemes]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (2A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together.
Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 41, at end insert—
("(2A) Section 4 of this Act shall apply to a scheme or work under subsection (1) above as if the water undertaker were a Health Authority which proposed to implement the scheme or work four months after the commencement of this Act.").
Both amendments relate to the same subject. This may appear to be a new matter and therefore not suitable for Third Reading. However, your Lordships may remember that my noble friends on the Front Bench introduced a new clause, now Clause 4, on Report. There was an attempt to put the Bill back into Committee to permit this to be discussed. Unfortunately, the Government resisted this, and we had to remain on Report. When I drew attention to the fact that, as at present worded, there would be many supplies already being fluoridated to which the consultation procedures approved by the Government would not apply, my noble friend said that she did not understand my point. Under the rules of the House, I was not in a position to give her further enlightenment.
The only recourse open to me was to seek to move this amendment on Third Reading. It may seem strange that to change the operation of Clause 4 it has
1348
been necessary to introduce this amendment to Clause 3. I can, however, assure your Lordships that drafting was not easy, and this seemed the tidiest way in which to operate. Having drawn attention to the matter, and if the Government have faith in their own Clause 4, one might have expected them to introduce their own amendment, if I may I shall now explain in rather greater detail the need for it.
Currently 5 million people in England and Wales receive fluoridated water. If my amendment is not accepted, these people will never be given an opportunity to express their views as to whether or not they wish to have their water supplies fluoridated. The Government have granted some powers of consultation as regards any new schemes, but there are no such powers for existing schemes. If they have granted powers for one, why not for the others? It seems to be totally unfair to leave matters as they are, and therefore I believe that my amendment is fair, equitable and reasonable.
6 p.m.
No doubt my noble friend the Minister will tell us that any schemes prior to 1974 had democratic approval, as in those days the health authorities were the local authorities and had been duly elected. However, that was more than 10 years ago and much has been learned in the interim. Indeed, during that time several countries have given up fluoridating their water supplies. It was 25 years ago that Anglesey started to fluoridate, and if this amendment is not approved Anglesey will be landed with fluoridation for ever and a day, in spite of the fact that most, if not all, of the democratically-elected bodies affecting Anglesey are now against it. It seems most unfair that they should not be given an opportunity to press their view.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the next amendment, Amendment No. 7, is agreed to, the noble Lord's worries would be met, would they not?
Amendment No. 7: Clause 4, page 3, line 27, at end insert ("and shall only proceed with the proposal if the consultations produce an affirmative response from the local authorities concerned.").
Amendment No. 7 would authorise decisions to be taken by local authorities.
Lord Burton: My Lords, we are not discussing Amendment No. 7; we are discussing Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I believe that this is the simplest and easiest way of dealing with the matter. Since 1974 there have been several schemes, notably in the areas covered by the West Midlands Regional Health Authority and the Severn-Trent Water Authority. They are areas with large populations, and it seems quite unreasonable that those people should be deprived of any right of consultation.
Prior to the introduction of fluoridation in the areas of those two authorities, a national opinion poll was conducted for the West Midlands Regional Health Authority. The question asked was: "Do you think fluoride should be added to water if it can reduce tooth decay?" What will anyone answer to that but, "Yes, if it has no other effect". It seems a ridiculous question to ask. In 1981 the anti-fluoridation campaign employed a research organisation to conduct a poll

1349
and the question then asked was: "Do you think people should be allowed to choose whether or not they and their children will have more fluoride added to their drinking water"? In answer to that, 67 per cent. said yes, they should be allowed to choose; 22 per cent. said no; and 11 per cent. did not know. If that is the case, surely we should give, not a small section of the community a right to have consultation but these 5 million people who will be completely disfranchised if we leave matters as they are. They should be allowed to have their say. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I should like to support most warmly my noble friend's amendment. I do so for a particular reason. In Committee, I drew your Lordships' attention to the situation in the West Midlands, which was referred to by my noble friend, and in particular I mentioned the Severn-Trent Water Authority. I should like to amplify what my noble friend has said in regard to those who will be disfranchised, and that is the important word. Out of a total of 266 elected councils in the Severn-Trent region which had debated, thought about and ultimately voted upon fluoridation, 205 voted against the practice. Yet their democratically-reached decisions were overruled by the powerful non-elected bodies in those areas. Indeed, 205 out of 266 is a very high proportion of those who were disfranchised and who as I understand it, will have no opportunity once again to express their perfectly valid choice and views in this matter.
My noble friend Lord Burton has pursued this matter with great dexterity, because it required considerable skill in drafting to achieve these two interlocking amendments. I realise that at the moment we are speaking to Amendment No. 5, which my noble friend has so lucidly moved, but nevertheless the two interlock. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has suggested that Amendment No. 7 would render Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 unnecessary. I do not believe that to be the case. I think that Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are desirable because they would fulfil another function which concerns those bodies and persons, to whom I have referred, who will be disfranchised if the present Bill before your Lordships becomes an Act.
Therefore, I think that this amendment, is worthy of your Lordships' attention. We have not had the opportunity of having discussions about it at an earlier stage, for the reasons given. However, I think it is most definitely worth further consideration, and I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider the matter.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am glad to be able to speak on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Burton, whose home is near mine in northern Scotland and where we enjoy sparkling Highland water which contains a due amount of fluoride. It does not contain quite the one part per million, but it contains enough to be part of the British supply of natural drinking water, which all contains fluoride.
I can appreciate my noble friend's point about consultation. During the various stages of this Bill the Government have done everything possible to ensure consultation at every level and at every stage. I
1350
recognise that if Amendment No. 7 is accepted, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, it would cover the point which my noble friend has raised.
I agree with everything that has been said during the various stages of this Bill about the need for consultation. However, we do not want to have so many stages of consultation that nothing ever happens or that people become frightened about bogies that do not really exist. My noble friend mentioned the 5 million people who he says will be disfranchised. I should mention that nearly 2 million people in this country enjoy the right amount of fluoride in their natural supplies, anyway. Are they to be included in this? I understand that they are not to be included, and in any case it would be rather difficult to remove fluoride which already exists in optimum quantities in the water. Therefore, while we consider the 5 million people, let us remember that nearly 2 million people already enjoy the optimum amount of fluoride in their natural supplies of water in various parts of the country.
I should like to emphasise a point that I made earlier when this Bill was proceeding through this House. For the future health of the population of this country—and I speak as a former Minister of Health—the really effective age is the age 0 to 2. Everything that is said about leaving it to the individual to include fluoride in toothpaste, and so on—and my noble friend repeated it again today—does not apply to a small baby. We must accept that it is at that early age when fluoride is most effective in stopping tooth decay. That is one of the most important provisions in the Bill. Although I recognise the need for full consultation—and no doubt my noble friend the Minister will comment on this when she deals with Amendment No. 7—I must again emphasise that the kind of concern which my noble friend has raised is unnecessary.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: My Lords, as an Englishman, I have always assumed that Scottish water was highly dangerous unless mixed with the local whisky. What those of us who feel against this Bill but accept it reluctantly at this stage, and therefore support this amendment, is that it may be good for children from nought to two. What we do not know is the long-term effect of continued use, and how it can be safely done.
Lord Campbell of Croy: No, that has been proved.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: My Lords, I do not believe it. Therefore, I support this amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Burton has raised with this amendment a point that we have not discussed in detail before, as he said, and I welcome the opportunity to do so now. 1 am equally grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his helpful remarks. I should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who looks so incredibly well that I feel that he must live in a fluoridated area.
The purpose of the amendment is to require public consultation to be carried out on the existing fluoridation schemes in much the same way as laid down in Clause 4 of the Bill for the purpose of

1351
proposals for new schemes or the termination of existing schemes. I should first of all like to remind your Lordships that it has always been a requirement of the department that fluoridation schemes should be introduced only after full consultation of local opinion. The only difference between the past situation and the provisions in Clause 4 of the Bill is that we are now making specific provisions as to which bodies are to be consulted and how consultation is to take place.
I must also advise your Lordships that the pattern of consultation already undertaken for existing schemes divides into two categories. Most of the smaller schemes in England and Wales were introduced before the 1974 reorganisation of the Health Service and in consequence decisions were taken by elected local authorities after whatever forms of consultation of public opinion they chose to hold such as public meetings, etc. The remaining schemes are almost all included in the West Midlands Regional Health Authority fluoridation plan which followed Health Service reorganisation.
I would remind your Lordships that there was extensive consultation of public opinion by the West Midlands Health Authority before they decided to implement fluoridation. Thus opinion polls, which were independently conducted, found that upwards of 60 per cent., and in some areas 70 per cent. of those polled were in favour of water fluoridation. Equally, the Severn-Trent Water authority has made it a condition of undertaking water fluoridation for the West Midlands Regional Health Authority that a majority of Community Health Councils should be in favour.
In the light of these reassurances as to the extent to which consultation has taken place on existing schemes, I hope that your Lordships will agree that there is no reason why there should be further reconsultation as the amendment would provide. As we have stressed to the House before, fluoridation is a long-term investment for our children and our children's children which must not be subject to stop-go decision-making if the benefits are to be reaped.
The Bill deliberately does not attempt to rewrite history either by requiring further public consultation on existing schemes, as this amendment proposes, or by requiring renewed public consultation in areas where fluoridation has ceased. The Government believe that we should not seek to restart public consultation on either existing schemes or schemes which have already been terminated, and I must therefore ask my noble friend Lord Burton to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I find that response disappointing. Some of those authorities which have been fluoridated go back 25 years, such as the Anglesey one that I quoted. There are others which must have been at least 10 years, because it was 1974. They have had no chance of consultation since then.
May I mention what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said. He said that our Scottish supplies were fluoridated. Lord Jauncey stopped any artificial fluoridation in Scotland. They are not being fluoridated artificially any more.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, would my noble friend give way? My noble friend has completely misunderstood me. I said nothing about Scottish supplies in what I said. What Lord Jauncey did was to find that the original Act did not carry out what everybody thought it carried out. I said nothing in my intervention about Scottish supplies. I was speaking about the one or two million people in Britain as a whole, who happen to be in England and Wales and not in Scotland, who already enjoy the optimum amount of fluoride in their natural drinking water supplies.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I cannot have been the only one who misheard the noble Lord, because we had a comment about what you add to your water shortly afterwards, and that referred to Scottish water. However, that is by the way. I am pleased to say that so far as I am concerned I am not really affected, because I get it straight off the hill, mainly straight from the heavens, so that it is not likely to have much fluorine in it so far as I am concerned, but I am thinking of other people.
My noble friend, Lord Campbell of Croy also referred to excessive consultation. What I say is that these 5 million people will not be given the chance of consultation, and we are asking that they should be consulted immediately after this Bill comes into operation.
As regards Amendment No. 7, I am sorry but in the middle of talking I could not look at the amendment to pick up what had been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Amendment No. 7 would apply only to the new schemes. It does not apply to existing schemes. This is quite simple. It is not a question of whether we should, or should not, fluoridate. It is a question of whether new schemes which the Government have agreed, and have put in a new clause to this effect, should be given the right of consultation. If that is the case, why should not existing schemes be given the same right? This seems reasonable. I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to accept it. It would not be reasonable to withdraw the amendment.
6.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 88.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Bauer, L.

Holderness, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ingleby, V.

Briginshaw, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Burton, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V

Craigmyle, L.

Monson, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Moyne, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ferrier, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Yarborough, E.

1353

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Annan, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Arran, E.

Mancroft, L.

Attlee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Avebury, L.

Mayhew, L.

Aylestone, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Beloff, L.

Molson, L.

Belstead, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bessborough, E.

Morris, L.

Blease, L.

Mottistone, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colwyn, L.

Reay, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Renton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ridley, V.

Craigavon, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Denning, L.

Shepherd, L.

Diamond, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Smith, L.

Eccles, V.

Somers, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stedman, B.

Elton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Swansea, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Glanusk, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gridley, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Teynham, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vickers, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Vivian, L.

Kinnaird, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Winstanley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wise, L.

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
6.26 p.m.
Clause 4 [Publicity and consultation]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 7:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been interesting throughout all the stages of this Bill that all political parties have been divided on the advisability of fluoridation. The Liberal Party has been divided. My own party does not have a party line. The Conservative Party and the Cross-Benches are divided. However, I have sensed increasingly from the debates that there are certain matters on which there is agreement. This concerns consultation and is the purpose of my amendment.
I must put my own position. I believe that on all the evidence available to me the ingestion of an appropriate amount of fluoride is important for the dental health of the public and especially of our children. The questions to which this amendment addresses itself are: how should this be done, how should the consultation be conducted and how should the decisions be taken?
I pay my tribute to the noble Baroness, who at the Report stage introduced an amendment about consultation. It will be recalled that at the Report stage I moved an amendment, as I am now moving Amendment No. 7, which is slightly different from the one moved on Report. I did not press this to a Division at Report stage, because at that time it was half-past eleven and it seemed to me that issues affecting the whole of the nation should not lightly be taken in your Lordships' House at that time of night. I therefore gave notice that I would move a similar amendment again during this stage.
The noble Baroness has taken us some distance. She has inserted in Clause 4(3):
"Before implementing the proposal the health authority shall consult each of the local authorities (if any) to whom they are required by subsection (2)(b) above to give notice of the proposal".
The real problem is that the decision-making as left in the Bill is done entirely by non-elected bodies. The health authority quite clearly is a non-elected body. We know that the majority of health authorities are likely to recommend that there should be fluoridation. They will make that recommendation directly to the water authorities. The water authorities have clearly said that they do not want to have this decision forced upon them. They, like health authorities, are not elected but are appointed bodies.
I am speaking as a result of representations made to me by the Water Authorities Association. They said what I repeated on Second Reading, that
"they did not wish to be put into a situation where they had to take a decision on something relating to the health of the nation, which was, quite frankly, not an area in which they believed they had competence".—[Official Report, 4/6/85; col. 722].
I find it difficult to believe that that is not absolutely fair and reasonable. Why should we put upon a body who are responsible for providing water to the country the requirement to change the way in which they have done it for what can only be sound or unsound reasons (according to the views of your Lordships) and that they should have to decide whether or not they should put fluoride in the water? It seems to me that the water authority is not the body that should decide this, because it is not in any way an elected authority. Frankly, I wish that I had so worded my amendment that I had taken in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I congratulate him on the way in which he introduced his amendment. Perhaps if we had had it before us during the Committee and Report stages, I might have been wiser than I was and put in an amendment which would have dealt with his considerations as well.
The noble Baroness has said that local authorities must be consulted. What does that mean? The health authority goes to a local authority and says, for example, "We are about to propose to the water authority that the water should be fluoridated". I believe that 95 per cent. of the health authorities will so decide. What do the local authority do? They have been consulted; they have been informed. Is it expected of them that they should have some consideration on this? And, if they do have some consideration, is it expected that the health authority would be bound by it? There is nothing to suggest this.
I say with respect to the noble Baroness that consultation can be made a nonsense if no one is

1355
bound to take any notice of the outcome of consultation. It can be made absolute nonsense. You can see it in all sorts of fields in which organisations are told about something; they may react or they may not react. The Government say, "We have had wide consultation"—as no doubt they would say that they had with local authorities, that they had to tell them about it. But a local authority which is not required to take a decision is not going to take a decision. Why should local councillors stick their necks out and start taking decisions, as they should properly take decisions, unless they are required to do so?
So the argument that I put forward—and I shall try to put it as briefly as I can because I argued it at much greater length at a much later hour of the night—is that the decision itself should be taken by the local authority; that the health authority should consider and make their recommendations and that as part of the consultation with local authorities the health authority must be bound by the elected local authority.
Reference was made by the noble Baroness to public meetings. I am all for public meetings. Why should not the issue be debated? I think that there is a strong case for having local referenda, as they have done in Wales in relation to rules on drink on Sundays. I think that this is the sort of issue on which there ought to be general interest. Simply to fool people about consultation cannot be right. I have given my views about fluoridation. We have different methods of doing it and we have further amendments down. But I believe that the general public should not simply be taken by the nose by bodies that are not elected.
I believe, therefore, that if the health authority so decide, they could go to the local authority and the local authority should be asked to take decisions. When the local authority take a decision, one way or another, the matter is not then sent to the water authority. Many people, we know, may greatly object to it. I may disagree with them; but they greatly object to it. It is an extremely controversial question.
If you have a controversial question, the best way to decide it is by election. What have we got local government for? I believe that local councillors who have to be voted in or voted out at the next election should have to stand up and be counted in the council chamber. I believe that every individual, whether he is in favour (as many are) or against (as some are) should be able to make their respresentations to their local councillors, to go to talk to them at their surgeries and make their representations.
I simply argue that for the Government to say, as they do too often, "We know best. Of course we shall consult; but we do not have to take any notice of it, or rather the health authorities do not have to take any notice of it", makes a nonsense of the word "consultation". I hope that the noble Baroness will accept this but I fear that she will not, because I heard her reply in the previous debate. But I believe and hope that your Lordships will feel that there should be proper consultation and that that must mean decision-making by elected bodies. Too many decisions are now taken in this country by appointed bodies and not enough decisions are taken by elected bodies.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves his amendment, perhaps I may ask him one question. During the course of his remarks—and I think he made a cogent case for the local authorities' decision—he said that he expected, if I heard him aright, that about 95 per cent. of the health authorities in the country would recommend fluoridation. Can he tell us the reasons he thinks such a high percentage would do so?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the reason is quite clear. I may slightly have exaggerated the percentage. It might be 92 per cent. or something like that. I have been in correspondence on the initiative of the National Association of Health Authorities who have consulted with their health authorities; and the vast majority of them—I do not know whether the percentage is 94, 92 or 95; I cannot be precise and perhaps it was silly to say 95—are likely to make that recommendation. Similarly, I had discussions with the Association of Water Authorities. They said, "We don't want to have to take these decisions. Surely they ought to be taken by people who are actually elected to take decisions".
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, I rise to support very strongly the important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I cannot really believe that the Government can conscientiously reject it—because what is the meaning of consultation if nobody takes any notice of the consultation and of the views that are expressed by the people consulted? Secondly, since we are talking about consulting elected authorities where all the other people involved are unelected, it makes an absolute nonsense of the democratic principle that you bow to those who are unelected but ignore those who have been elected.
This is quite obviously a democratic safeguard which ought to be introduced into this Bill. Frankly, the whole business of consultation is so much eyewash unless this provision is inserted. I hope very much that the noble Lord will press this amendment and I hope very much that the Government will be sensible enough to accept it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, what this Bill does is to say to the people, "We think that fluoridation of your water is so good for you that we dare not entrust the final decision whether or not to have it to you. We must listen to what you say but we need only have such regard as we consider appropriate to what you say before reaching a decision; but we are not bound to take any notice of what you say". It seems to me that this amendment is the final test of the democratic principle in this Bill, and indeed in what we are doing not only in this Bill but probably in other directions as well.
What the Government have not the courage to do is to say to people, "Smoking is so bad for you that whether you like it or not—but we will listen to what you have to say—eventually we shall reserve the right to take statutory steps to see that tobacco is placed outside your reach". That is what they have done with drugs. The Government say, "Drugs are so dreadful, because they are eating into the fabric of the nation and young people are falling for them, that we cannot

1357
allow them to get into the hands of the people except on medical prescription. We shall use the strongest measures to suppress any illicit traffic". This is really the Government's position.
The truth is that no matter how democratic we are in principle, all governments lack confidence in democracy. They do not like it; they do not want too much of it; it gets in the way; they have to listen to people too much. It is only when we get near to an election that they will listen enough and say, "We will put your noises in our noises, which is called a manifesto, but we do not guarantee to fulfil it: we hope you will forget it and by the time we come to you again, we shall have a new lot for you to think about". This is democracy in practice and one is bound to be cynical about it. Any noble Lord who has been in politics for 35 years and still has all his ideals intact has not been listening. A healthy degree of cynicism is essential to maintain one in political life, with a sense of humour added to it.
I find it very difficult to have patience with a discussion of this kind because I know what is at the root of this matter. This Bill represents a sleight of hand against the public; there is no doubt about it. If the Government are so convinced that fluoridation is good for us and is essential in the interests of the dental health of children, they should introduce a Bill so that Parliament can decide whether or not it shall be imposed upon the public. Then we would see what would happen; because I think that people do have a very understandable fear of pollution, of having things which are essential to their standard of living being tampered with. They are probably deceived in the matter of food content, additives and so on, and what they do not see they probably do not realise may be harmful to them.
However, there is an uneasiness that somehow or other we are being doped, medicated and misled and that we are in the hands of the hidden persuaders, so that we can hardly call our living our own. This is all part of it, and I think there is only one way, which is the one mentioned just now by the noble Lord who has just spoken. We have to put it to the test of democratic assent. There is no other way, if one is dealing with something which comes close to strong feelings and emotions. Fear may be unjustified but it is there, and the only way to deal with it is to submit the matter to a referendum of the people, one way or another, according to our democratic system.
There is one water authority, which I regret I cannot mention by name because the information was on a sheet of paper which came to me and which I left behind in the Library and have not been able to recover. The paper said that one water authority had already made it known—and this is why I asked a question of the noble Baroness earlier—that they will not put the fluoride in the water without a referendum to consumers. They believe that they are responsible to their consumers and they are not going to be a party to this unless they have consent. Therefore, I wondered whether the word "may" was an important word in Clause 1; and indeed it appears to be.
The Government should not be afraid of democracy. They should put it to the test, and if people do not like it they should not have it. There are alternatives to this. No one need go without the
1358
benefits of fluoridation if they want them. I shall be referring in a later amendment to one alternative so far as children are concerned. But as regards the present Bill, with all the elaborate publicity and consultation which the noble Baroness was so proud of when she spoke at Report stage, one reads Clause 4 of the Bill and sees what has to be done and how much "blah" has to be spread around, and then comes to the words:
"in determining whether or not to proceed, [they] shall have such regard as they consider appropriate—
(a) to any representations which have been made to them with respect to it; and (b) to any consultations held under subsection (3) above."
Really, my Lords, what is in the tail of the publicity story is contempt for those whom you have consulted—not even the words "have due regard" appear. Of course there is a later amendment on this but we do not see even such words as, "having due weight to" or "having full weight to". It is amazing what discoveries one can make in a Bill, going through it for a second or third time. We see these words in this clause:
"have such regard as they consider appropriate".
Can anything be more patronising than those words, the terms of reference of the health authority?
Therefore, I think this is the test of the Bill. Are the Government going to concede something to the democratic principle, or are they going to have it in the hands of combined nominees on authorities, responsible to nobody but themselves, with an addition of nominated elected representatives from local authorities, with no direct accountability to the people in any democratic form? That is really what we are considering now, and I sincerely hope the Government will understand that here we are in the final stages of the Bill, and we want more democracy in the process of decision taking.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the decisions in connection with this Bill should be taken democratically. I shall listen with interest to my noble friend the Minister when she replies to this debate as to whether she thinks the necessary degree of consultation is already in the Bill or whether this addition is necessary.
I should like to draw attention to what I thought was the most significant part of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he said he thought that about 95 per cent. of the health authorities would be recommending fluoridation. He was good enough to give way to me when I questioned him, and he said he thought that it might be 92 per cent. Of course, it does not make any difference to me whether the figure is 92 or 95 per cent. What he is saying is that all over the country, excluding Northern Ireland—England, Wales and Scotland—he expects the authorities who are basically responsible in the areas for the health of this country will be recommending fluoridation to the extent of over 90 per cent.
Some people here might well think this is a conspiracy of some kind; but can it really be suggested that those people who are there because they are experts in health matters or in the administration of

1359
health and who are there because their only concern is to promote the health of the country have anything to gain by causing difficulties or bad health? They are making a recommendation on that scale, and that is really very significant. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was a very distinguished Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—that was his title in those days—and he is really speaking with some authority and knowledge in these matters. I would draw your Lordships' attention to that fact.
The final decision in these matters will be taken no doubt after consultation, which is in the Bill already, and the degree of it will be decided no doubt by amendments which are made to this Bill. I am certainly in favour of elected representatives being fully consulted, but those elected representatives should bear in mind that the people who have only one interest in the matter—that is, the health of the country—appear to be going to recommend the fluoridation of water to this degree: over 90 per cent. of them, according to a former Secretary of State for Health for England and Wales. I would, as I say, draw attention to that, and I hope that those local authorities in due course will pay attention to the advice they are given. After all, they have no axes to grind; they do not have to look over their shoulders at constituents who have been unduly frightened by some alarmist proaganda, and so on. They are concerned only with the health of the country and therefore I would draw that to the attention of your Lordships' House.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment as indeed I believe that the whole substance of it is extraordinarily similar to an amendment which I moved at Committee stage on 18th April. But this is a better, more succinctly worded amendment, and presented to a different clause. The original one was addressed to Clause 1 of the Bill. When your Lordships considered the amendment on 18th April, the Committee divided; those Content numbered 64 those not Not-Content 90, at that time. But that gives way to the opportunity on Third Reading to reconsider this matter. I warmly welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has, with great ingenuity, found a means of doing so.
I address myself to the similar problem under Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, which were proposed by my noble friend Lord Burton. I had cause there to remind your Lordships what 205 out of 266 local authorities in the Severn Trent area did in voting against fluoridation which was radically different from what has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. There is a difference of opinion. Surely it is to the great health and benefit of this country in the much wider aspect of democracy that this amendment is aimed. It is to promote the possibility of a further discussion and a decision being reached which aligns itself with the wishes and views of the people concerned. I therefore wholeheartedly support this amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is precisely the same as was moved and discussed quite extensively at
1360
Report stage. It is also very similar, as my noble friend Lord Sandys said, to the amendment moved by him at Committee stage, which was decisively rejected by your Lordships. I appreciate the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, but I must again repeat that the Government have bent over backwards, as I undertook at Committee stage, to accommodate the views of those who feel that elected local authorities should be consulted by health authorities before any decision is taken to implement water fluoridation. Indeed, subsection (3) of Clause 4—which we introduced at Report stage—as your Lordships know contains precisely such a legal obligation. Clause 4 in fact makes comprehensive arrangements for ensuring that health authorities are fully aware of local opinion on fluoridation before any final decision is taken to approach a water authority or company.
The amendment before us is, however, much more far reaching and, in our view, constitutionally improper. I must again point out that under the amendment a health authority would be allowed to exercise its statutory responsibility for the introduction of preventive health measures only with the agreement of local councils. This is clearly wholly wrong given that local authorities no longer have any statutory responsibility in this area; and indeed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, pointed out in an earlier debate—no longer have access to the appropriate medical and dental expertise. Moreover, as again I pointed out in our last debate on this matter, it should be remembered that the cost of fluoridation is borne by the health authority and not by the local authority. Under the amendment of the noble Lord, a local authority can prevent a health authority from spending health authority money on fluoridation and indeed prevent a health authority—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. In what part of the Bill does it say that the financial responsibility falls on the health authority?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the responsibility has existed before the Bill. The responsibility is there.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, no. On the water authority, not the health authority.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on the water authority, not the local authority. I will repeat what I have just said. Moreover, as I pointed out in our last debate, it should be pointed out that the cost of fluoridation is borne by the water authority—I am sorry. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Burton: My Lords, may I interrupt—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think I want to get on.
Lord Burton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is referring only to England and Wales, I am afraid.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes, I am. As the noble Lord will know, in Scotland the local authority is the water authority. I must repeat this once again,

1361
after two interruptions. Under the amendment of the noble Lord a local authority can prevent a water authority from spending health authority money on fluoridation and indeed prevent—I hope I have this right (it says in my brief)—a health authority from ceasing to continue to fund a fluoridation scheme. I do not know how this can be right.
The Government's position is quite simply that the final decision on whether or not to fluoridate must be taken by the relevant bodies which have the statutory responsibility for the functions inherent in fluoridation—that is to say, the health authorities and water authorities which have responsibility respectively for preventive health measures and the provision of the water supply. The Government cannot accept the principle inherent in this amendment that local authorities, simply because they are elected, can be given the right of veto over the expenditure of funds by non-elected bodies for purposes for which the local authorities have no statutory responsibility or expertise. This principle is of cardinal importance.
If the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will not withdraw his amendment I must again ask your Lordships to reject it, recognising the substantial amendments that the Government have made to the Bill to ensure that local opinion is fully consulted. I would just remind you that the Health Service Act 1977 provides that health authorities have responsibility for procedure under health measures. This Act authorises their authority.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall press this to a Division because I have to say, frankly, I found the reply not very satisfactory and not meeting the points which I had sought to make when moving the amendment.
Perhaps it is best that we deal with the very last point which the noble Baroness made. The financial responsibility undoubtedly lies with the water authority because they have to do the work that actually involves the addition of fluoride to the water. The water authorities have made it quite clear that none of them wants to have this decision foisted upon them because they say they are not experts in whether fluoride should be added or should not. All right, if they are of the two bodies at present involved—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to say this. He was kind enough to give way. All the financial expenses come under the health authority.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is that in the Bill?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no, it comes under the Health Service Act.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for seeing that. I went through the Bill to look at this question for myself and I found no place where that was said. But, quite frankly, it strengthens my argument. We know that it is a very expensive operation, I have quoted figures to your Lordships' House about how much it would cost. This is money that will come out of patient care, so let that be
1362
remembered, my Lords. The health authority would therefore be taking a decision to expend money which the water authority would carry out, and the water authorities have made it clear that they do not want that responsibility placed upon them.
I therefore come back to what I believe is the main point. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, drew attention to the views of the health authorities. No doubt if they feel very strongly about this they will argue their case in public meetings, or they will go to see councillors. They will lobby councillors in just the same way as those who may take a different view have the right to lobby councillors. This is what councillors are about; to take decisions affecting their voters.
7 p.m.
I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that if the Government were determined that it should be done everywhere, then they would pass a Bill which said, "Water authorities are obliged to do it." What they have done is to put the responsibility upon two non-elected bodies, and I do not believe that that is right. Decisions like this affect the whole of our population on issues which are very controversial and on which, rightly or wrongly, very strong views are held on both sides. I am not taking any further part in that discussion—my views are known—on whether fluoride is good or bad to be ingested into the human body. I therefore feel very strongly and I hope I can persuade your Lordships on both sides of the House that this is a matter of deep principle; that we should not take a major decision like this and put this responsibility upon appointed nonelected bodies. It is a decision for elected bodies and they should decide what is happening—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, by leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, may I just say that the Government's concern is that final decisions on fluoridation should be taken by those bodies which are qualified to do so and which will have responsibility for implementing the decisions. The question of whether or not these bodies are elected is immaterial. Indeed, in Scotland the final decision on fluoridation will be taken by elected bodies as the water authorities there are the regional islands councils.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, since the noble Baroness intervened, I shall reply to that. I cannot think how she can stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the views of elected authorities do not matter. After this Bill has passed—I hope with this amendment in it—it will go to another House where they have been duly elected. They will take a decision as to whether or not what I hope we shall have done is right. Is the noble Baroness saying that democracy is not the best way; that the choice of the people is not the best way of deciding vital issues like this? I do not understand how she can stand up and make a point like that.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am saying that I do not go to an undertaker if I want a loaf of bread.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bauer, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jeger, B.

Blease, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brockway, L.

Burton, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Monson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Collison, L.

Moyne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

David, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Sandys, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Greenway, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Yarborough, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Long, V.

Attlee, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beloff, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belstead, L.

Morris, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colwyn, L.

Reay, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Crathorne, L.

Shannon, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denning, L.

Sudeley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Swinfen, L.

Elton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Faithfull, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vickers, B.

Vivian, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Winstanley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("such regard as they consider appropriate") and insert ("regard').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, too, is designed to enhance democratic control over the issue of fluoridation. It is less ambitious than the excellent amendment recently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals: I hope therefore that the Government will feel able to accept it. However, if they do not, I certainly hope that the noble Lord, Lord
1364
Ennals, and his colleagues, noble Lords on the Alliance Benches and those Members in other quarters of the House who had slight reservations about the previous amendment, will be able to support this one.
We discussed this matter briefly at Report stage but did not proceed at that point. Our contention, which has now become a conviction, is that the phrase,
"such regard as they consider appropriate",
is so permissive and wishy-washy as to be almost useless in protecting democratic rights. There are certain water authorities and health authorities which place a high value on democratic consultation. There is, for example, a report in the Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury of Friday, 17th May—this is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was referring. It says:
"A massive opinion poll has been launched in a bid to discover the true feelings of Rutland people"—
I do like the word "Rutland"—
"on the question of fluoridation of water supplies. The opinion poll has been organised by the Leicestershire Community Health Council in response to a pledge from the Severn Trent water authority not to accede to requests to add fluoride unless it is satisfied that a majority of its customers are in favour".
This is a most heartening piece of news. But there may well be other authorities which are contemptuous of the opinions and fears of the man in the street. The phrase,
"such regard as they consider appropriate",
gives them a complete let-out should they decide to accord ordinary public opinion an extremely low priority in arriving at their final decision on whether or not to fluoridate.
This amendment, let me stress, imposes no straitjacket on health authorities. There would be no absolute obligation whatsoever to act in conformity with the representations they had received or in consequence of the consultations which they had held. They would be required to have regard to the consensus of opinions expressed but would not be required to act in accordance with them. In other words, the subsection would remain as it is now permissive and not mandatory. The only difference is that the health authorities would have to pay just a little more attention to public opinion than they would under the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, obviously I would wish to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It does not, as he said, go as far as the previous amendment which was very nearly carried. But it certainly does indicate to the health authorities that they have to do rather more than simply have,
"such regard as they consider appropriate",
which is, as he said, a sloppy form of wording. They have to take "regard". If we are unable to achieve the proper democratic process, at least we can ensure that the health authorities must properly take into consideration views once they are expressed by the local authorities. I warmly support the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept this amendment. She really cannot be so impudent, if I may put it like that—
Baroness Trumpington: Impudent?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby:—as to reject a simple plea like this. As I said earlier, the words used in the Bill are contemptuous; they are worse than wishy-washy; they are really insulting. I think they should be replaced. I would have been willing to concede the phrase "due regard", but "regard" is not very much more than "due regard". We have been playing with words on a number of Bills in recent days. We have had the word "persistently" and now we have "regard". I hope quite seriously that the noble Baroness will do what we ask. Then she will go out in a blaze of glory, with the milk of human kindness to follow in Amendment No. 9, and we shall finish the Bill in a good mood. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness does not have in her hand a brief which says that this amendment will presumably be rejected. That is usually what is in the brief of Ministers when they come to the Committee and Report stages of Bills.
Let us have this "regard" put into the Bill so that, as my noble friend Lord Monson said, some "regard" shall be given to the representations received. Otherwise it will be spitting in the face of those with whom consultations are being sought.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I feel that our discussions would indeed yield some small fruit if the noble Baroness would concede that this is an absolute necessity. I would hold it to be self-evident in the discussions we have had, and also in the result of the Division which took place on the previous amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. On the previous amendment I think the argument was put forward that local authorities were not qualified, whereas health authorities were qualified. In Scotland, it goes to the local authority. The Highland Region does it. If they are not qualified in England, I cannot see why they are qualified in Scotland. If that is the argument, it means that Scotland is getting its water treated by a body which is not qualified. Here we must have due regard to what the local authorities say.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have debated this amendment before at Report stage, and nothing that has been said by any noble Lord has changed the view of the Government. I would reiterate that the words in subsection (5) of the clause on consultation have been inserted for a particular purpose. That purpose is the very important one of ensuring that health authorities remain free to judge on their merits all the representations made to them and can exercise a proper discretion in weighing up the various arguments that will be put to them. We particularly seek to avoid that health authorities should have to judge the issue purely on the volume of voices in favour of a particular standpoint, whether for or against fluoridation. We believe that this would be a very serious limitation on the exercise of their statutory responsibilities.
It may be helpful if I give an example of the kind of difficulty which in our view would arise under the
1366
amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It may be that, in response to newspaper publicity, a health authority receives 100 letters on fluoridation from members of the public. Of these letters, let us assume that some 70 are against fluoridation. Equally, let us assume that the health authority has before it the results of opinion polls conducted locally from a much larger random sample of the population which show that the same 70 per cent. of the local people are in favour of fluoridation. In these circumstances, is it really thought desirable that local opinion should be thought to be represented by the 70 letters rather than the results of the opinion polls? It is clear that in these circumstances no right-minded health authority could pay any attention to such anti-fluoridation correspondence.
The same considerations must apply to the views of local authorities. I stress again that the Government will certainly expect health authorities to take seriously the views of local authorities in England and Wales, but at the end of the day they cannot be decisive. This is simply because, as we have said on more than one occasion—and, my goodness, this Bill has been repetitive—these local authorities possess neither responsibility nor expertise in the field of preventive health measures, or the provision of the public water supply.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, what do the Scots have that the English do not?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have already stated what the Scots have. The local councillors there are particularly appointed. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong because he is a Scotsman and a former Minister and knows better than I, but my understanding is that the local councils who make up the water authorities are therefore experts at the job. I shall give way.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps I can assist my noble friend, because I happened to be Secretary of State for Scotland at the time. I had the unenviable task of dealing with the Wheatley Royal Commission on the reorganisation of local government. As a result of decisions I had to take on that there are two tiers of authority. There are no county councils in Scotland and it is the regional authorities, of which there are few, and the three islands authorities, which are multi-purpose authorities, which are also water authorities.
A noble Lord: My Lords—
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords, I am continuing. The views of local authorities will represent an important test of public opinion but they will not be the only such test as health authorities will also have to consider the views of community health councils which have been appointed by Parliament to represent consumer opinion in Health Service matters as well as the results of local representations by other local bodies and individuals.
I hope that what I have said will be sufficient to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to withdraw his amendment again. If not, I regret that I will have to

1367
ask your Lordships to reject it as it remains our view that acceptance would be contrary to rational and responsible decision-taking by health authorities on fluoridation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am disappointed at the reply given by the noble Baroness. Her replies are quite often disconcertingly effective but this is not one of those occasions. The examples she gave imply that my amendment would give the health authorities absolutely no discretion. She implied, in effect, that my amendment is tantamount to saying that they must act in accordance with representations, and so on. That is not the case. The trouble for the Government is that they are hoist with their own petard because they have effectively conceded no less than three times within the past two months that the phrase "have regard to", which I suggest, is as different as it can be from the phrase "act in accordance with".
On two separate occasions—one being 12th June last—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, resisted amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, respectively, which would have substituted the phrase "have regard to" for the phrase "act in accordance with". He resisted them on the ground that they would weaken the Bill, that they were too permissive.
Furthermore, on 24th June the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, moved an identical amendment—that is, to substitute the phrase "have regard to" for the phrase "act in accordance with"—on the Local Government Bill. Her amendment was resisted by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on the ground that this too would weaken the clause in question because it was too permissive and not mandatory.
Therefore it simply cannot be claimed that this amendment goes too far. All it does, and all it is designed to do, is give the ordinary citizen a little more democratic say in this vital matter affecting his health and that of his family. I believe that democracy is important, and therefore we must press this amendment.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 44.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Alyestone, L.

Ennals, L.

Bauer, L.

Galpern, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Burton, L.

Jeger, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Craigmyle, L.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Moyne, L.

1368

Munster, E.

Stedman, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Yarborough, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crathorne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Denning, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Elton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Faithfull, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vickers, B.

White, B.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Killearn, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Wise, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert—
("(c) to Regulation (EEC) No. 2167/83 (which lays down rules for the supply of milk and milk products to school children) as amended by Regulation (EEC) No. 237/85 of 30th January 1985 (which permits the addition of stipulated maximum additions of fluoride in whole or semi-skimmed flavoured milk and yoghurts intended for school children.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is an addition to the factors to which the health authorities must have regard when deciding whether to make an application. Surprisingly enough, it has to do with the fluoridation of milk for school children under the auspices of the EEC. I must confess that I was unaware of this service, which is available under the EEC, until my attention was drawn to it by the Borrow Dental Milk Foundation. There is a regulation of 30th January 1985—the number is in the amendment—under which the EEC is prepared to subsidise the supply of milk into which a measure of fluoride is to be put for young children. It is fluoridated milk of particular types intended for children; namely, whole or semi-skimmed flavoured milk and yoghurts.
The regulation appears to be little known and certainly little used. Nevertheless it is an alternative method of reaching children with fluoridated liquid, which by general consent seems to be good for them. Grants from the EEC may be applied for. We are all anxious to get some of our money back from the EEC and we can get it in the form of grants to subsidise this milk which is available to school children.
I read in the bulletin of the Borrow Dental Milk Foundation that the present level of subsidy is guaranteed for five years and that the amount paid will rise in line with Community farm prices. It is also said

1369
that the amount of milk allowed for each child is surprisingly generous. It also provides for the actual technical details of the fluoridation addition which is to be made. This seems to be good for children at school. It is to apply to children in nursery schools and up to sixth form colleges, and special arrangements can also be made for independent schools to receive the subsidised milk. I do not know to what extent fluoridation is being used in the supply of milk to school children. However, it is an alternative which might be in operation in some places or which might be adopted in place of the fluoridation of water. After all, it goes direct to the children, which is the main object of the Bill. I know that fluoridated water can reach children of earlier than school age. Nevertheless this is a scheme blessed by the EEC and it must presumably have some merit.
The amendment does not ask local authorities to do anything about it; it says that regard should be had to the existence of the regulations providing this service, if it is relevant to what the local health authority wishes to do. The local health authority may decide that they prefer a scheme of this kind to making an application to the water authority. It is left to their discretion. It might be cheaper to do it in this way rather than by themselves paying for the fluoridation of water, as the noble Baroness says that they would have to do. It is one of the options and no more than one of the options.
I think it will test the sincerity of the Government in the provisions of this Bill to obtain their reactions to an alternative way of achieving substantially the same purpose. The noble Baroness can probably tell us a little more about the use that is being made of this new opportunity, although of course the regulation only dates from 30th January of this year and probably has not had time to become generally known or adopted. All the procedures for the making of grants and so forth are laid down in the Commission regulation.
This method appeals to me as offering a more sensible and direct procedure than the fluoridation of water, especially when I see pictures in the bulletin of the Borrow Dental Milk Foundation of happy children drinking flavoured milk and eating yoghurts, which are all duly fluoridated for the benefit of their health. Apparently it is called "Dentamilk". I have no interest in this, and this is not a commercial. In fact I have little or no interest in the Bill as a whole, because I do not have a water supply that can be fluoridated. I have been asking the local authority to tell me the amount of fluoridation in my domestic water and they say that owing to the cuts in local government expenditure they will not be able to decide whether to test it until the next financial year. Your Lordships see what horrible things can happen when these indiscriminate cuts are made in local authority expenditure. I do not even know whether I am being poisoned, although the authority says from time to time whether the water is satisfactory or unsatisfactory. I shall not continue. I am just saying that I personally am not interested at the moment in the fluoridation of water. I find London water too unpalatable to drink anyway.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to look at the amendment with some favour. It is the penultimate one. The next one is a difficult one for her, but this one is easier. I hope to get a favourable
1370
response. She has only to say that among the other things to which the health authority has to have regard is this. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced the amendment as an interesting option, as he said. But significantly, in the course of his remarks he said that by general consent fluoride in milk was good for children. In moving this amendment he has dismissed the apprehensions which appeared to motivate the amendments put down by a number of other noble Lords, some of whom are not with us at the moment—apprehensions about dangers to health—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, at this stage in the Bill I have just come to terms with reality. That is all.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord and I were in another place for many years and, I think I may say, had the best of relations during that time although we were on opposite sides of the House. I am so glad to think that he has reached that happy state at this point in the Bill.
The amendments which we have been discussing at earlier stages of the Bill conjured up all kinds of dangers to health, the possibility of cancer and things like that. I am just pointing out that this amendment in any case has dismissed them and accepts that fluoride is good for children. It is just a question of what is the best way for them to ingest it. I did at earlier stages, and even earlier today, point out that the most effective time for people to receive fluoride is from the age of nought to about two or three. There are two dentists in the House who will know more about this than I, but they have told me in the past that that is so. I shall not go into the question of mother's milk being best and all that, but it is quite clear that from the age of nought to six months anyway the children may not be taking the kind of milk that the noble Lord is putting forward.
There is another point, which is that people continue to benefit from fluoride for the rest of their lives, although it is most effective during early youth. Although it is important for children to receive it, it is not just a question of receiving it in milk during the period of childhood. I think that this option does not cover the whole field which of course fluoridation of water supplies does.
I shall be interested to hear the Government's comments. I agree that it is an option which is open and it accepts that fluoride is good for children. I should have thought that it was a more complicated option. Anyone who is involved with the National Farmers' Union, milk and its distribution, which I inevitably have been over periods of years, will know that it is a pretty complicated operation in any case. To add this to it I should have thought would have been far more trouble than the question simply of making up to one part per million the fluoride which already exists everywhere in all supplies of drinking water. If that is accepted, I still do not think that it is a replacement for the proposition of bringing up to the optimum water supplies where they do not already have the optimum amount of fluoride, which they do

1371
in some parts of the country. I agree that it is an interesting option, but I do not think that it is a replacement for what is in the Bill.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, before saying even a very few words, I should perhaps declare an interest as a dairy farmer. I want to point out only that children up to the age of two or three drink milk much more than water. On the other hand, when they are breast fed the fluoride may go through the mother. My noble friend Lady Gardner has just told me that it does. This seems to me to be rather a matter for research—watching and keeping statistics. As my noble friend Lady Trumpington explained, the health authorities are the people who understand. We have been arguing about the county councils and so on, but in the Government's view the people who fundamentally ought to give the advice and take the decisions are the health authorities. I suggest that it should be open to the health authorities to take into account this alternative or ancillary method.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for commenting on what I said. I have been involved in this question for 20 years, and I can tell him that the research has already been done on the way that fluoride can come to very small babies.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment proposed by my noble friend. I have here some of the research findings on the benefit of milk. There was a five-year study of schoolchildren in Scotland and another study was done in Hungary. They produced similar results. Roughly, after three years the caries reduction was 70 per cent. for the children monitored who were taking milk between the ages of five and six.
Of course it is in option. My noble friend is not saying that it should be an obligation, but that the health authorities should draw attention to the fact that it is an option. Let me say why I think that it should be done. First, the EC has taken the decision and has been convinced that fluoride in milk is a real option. Otherwise it would not have produced the new regulation referred to by my noble friend and which I read out on 4th June (at column 724 of Hansard). It is a new development and one of which health authorities should be made aware, but there is no attempt in this amendment to make it compulsory.
For what it is worth, my view is that most water authorities will not act on the advice of the health authorities. I do not believe that most water authorities will take the decision. Some have already decided not to, even before they have been asked. They do not want controversy. Had the Government really wanted to ensure that fluoride was put into water across the country, that is the measure that would have been before us now. They would not have placed the decision on health authorities and water authorities; they would have taken it themselves. They are an elected Government. I should then not have had to move my amendment. I think that this is especially important if most water authorities decide not to do it. Some will and some will not, and we shall have whole
1372
areas of the country where they will decide not to. There is toothpaste and all sorts of other things, but milk is much better.
On 4th June (at column 732 of Hansard) in replying to an amendment the noble Baroness made a significant statement. I should like to spend a minute or two in analysing it. She said:
"There would be significant difficulties of distribution during the school holidays and the fluoride would not begin to be received early enough by the children".
Let me make this clear. The Borrow Foundation is a charity with which I have been involved for some time, and I negotiated with the EC for it to do what it finally decided to do. It is not the intention of the Borrow Dental Milk Foundation to flog dental milk up and down the country. It will be the milk producers who would do so. It would come on the market. It is a simple procedure with which Dr. Borrow and his staff have experimented. It is much less costly than putting fluoride in water.
If a local authority decides to take up that option if a water authority has not fluoridated water and parents are keen on their kids having fluoride, they can order milk from the ordinary milk distributor for kids of six months, during the school holidays for older children, or what have you. There will be no difficulty whatsoever in it being available for all children.
I was interested when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that this was of great advantage also for adults. I had not quite realised that. I do not know what the evidence is. My impression is that it is meant for children up to the age of 15. Of course the method remains for adults, too, but I was not aware that it has much great initial value for those over that age.
I return to the interesting speech of the noble Baroness. She said also that there would be likely to be consumer resistance to the product on the part of older children, who may grow less fond of milk in general, and from parents, who are likely to prefer their children to drink fresh milk rather than UHT fluoridated milk, flavoured and marketed by the Borrow Foundation. There is no proposal that the milk should be marketed by the Borrow Foundation. The noble Baroness has not got hold of the right end of the stick in this case, although I was most grateful for the help that she did give in her reply.
Why should the noble Baroness think that children would be less likely to drink milk that has fluoride in it? The fluoride does not affect the flavour of the milk at all, as we know is the case with water. The fluoride has no effect on the flavour of the milk and there is no reason, therefore, why children will be less likely to drink it. In fact, the opposite is likely to be the case. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, with all his experience in the farming industry, that I believe this is one way—and this has nothing to do with the Bill—in which more and more people will naturally see to it that their children drink milk. That could help to use up some of the milk lakes which exist at the present time.
The noble Baroness went on to say, in her reply on 4th June, that:
"Local authorities in areas without water fluoridation may however, wish to supply fluoridated milk to their schoolchildren".—[Official Report, 4/6/85; col. 732.]

1373
If the noble Baroness said that, why does she not agree to putting fluoride in the milk? The noble Baroness went on to say that:
"The supply of school milk in general is entirely a matter for them and the Government would not wish to intervene. The EC has agreed that dental milk"—
and I would not use that term myself but rather, milk with fluoride—
"should qualify for the same subsidy as non-fluoridated milk".
If the noble Baroness feels that, then surely this option should be written into the Bill. It will not require the health authority or the local authority to take a decision, because they can decide the matter for themselves. But, as the noble Baroness rightly said in her own speech, this new factor should be recorded in the Bill.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, despite the possibility of a grant from the EEC, I cannot accept fluoridated milk as a reasonable alternative to fluoridation of the water supply, for three main reasons. The first is the logistics of the matter. Secondly, this alternative has been inadequately researched. Thirdly, it is still far more expensive.
The provision of free or near-free fluoride tablets to mothers for their children has never been successful in Great Britain. I feel it is highly improbable that the similar provision of fluoridated milk would be any more successful. If fluoridated milk were made available to mothers in shops, then only the most enthusiastic and those capable of paying would consider buying the product.
Fluoridation of drinking water adjusts the level of fluoride to the optimum concentration of one part per million. Most drinking water contains fluoride below that level, and hence adjustment via milk would depend on a large variety of local conditions. To comply with those conditions there would need to be cartons of milk containing varying doses of fluoride, and mothers would need to make continual adjustments as their children moved from one age to another—and possibly as the family moved from one district to another. The complexity of the many variables would mean that most mothers would either not consider this method of supplementation or would abandon it as impracticable after a very short period of time.
Lord Ennals: Why, my Lords?
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, if provided in schools, where children start their education at about four or five years of age, the benefit would not be available for the formation of the deciduous dentition and most of the important and crucial period of permanent tooth development. It is known that permanent teeth develop some six years before they appear in the mouth.
If it is expected that fluoridated milk is consumed every day throughout school life, it would miss out the children who do not like milk or who tend to consume less as age advances. I mentioned inadequate research. There have been very few studies in which fluoridated milk has been tested, and most of them are not acceptable as providing adequate evidence of efficacy.
1374
The trials carried out have been short-term clinical trials which have never progressed to medium-term or long-term trials.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, the research that has been carried out certainly has been accepted by the European Commission. It must stand up. The negotiations with the European Commission took nearly 18 months, during which time the evidence was studied very carefully by the Commission's scientists. I cannot see on what basis the noble Lord argues that this method has not been adequately researched. It has been extensively researched.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, so far, the research has embraced only short-term trials and it has never progressed to medium-term or long-term trials. Trials have not therefore been able to indicate whether the method or agent gives true primary prevention, or merely delays the onset of the disease by a few years.
Because of the natural occurrence of fluoridated drinking water at the optimum level of one part per million, it has been possible to ascertain lifelong benefits under field conditions. Much work has been done on the relative cost-effectiveness. I will not go into that in detail except to say that an approximate estimation is that the provision of fluoridated milk is about 120 times more expensive than the cost of adjusting the fluoridation level in water.
Lord Ennals: No, my Lords.
Lord Colwyn: It is, my Lords. For the cost-effectiveness of school milk to break even with water fluoridation, the former method would need to be five times more effective—but that is impossible. A method only twice as effective as water fluoridation would eliminate all caries throughout life—an impossible task for fluoridated school milk.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said, it is a far more complicated matter to fluoridate milk. Many breeds of cattle give a different type of milk. Some cattle graze on lime land and some on acid land, and they may have a different diet. How can one be sure of the level of fluoride in the milk given by each of them? One cannot go around testing the milk from every herd. How can one be sure that some milk does not have a high enough level of fluoride in it already? It will depend entirely on what the cow has been eating and on what land she is grazing.
Suppose one has a rural farming family. If the children drink fluoridated milk at school and then return home to drink the milk from the house cow, the levels could be completely different. The method suggested is far too complicated, and I agree with everything that my noble friend has said.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have already debated during earlier stages of the Bill the relative efficacy of fluoridated milk as opposed to fluoridated water. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has already pointed out, fluoridated milk has the great disadvantage that it does not reach the recipients at an

1375
early enough age to be fully effective. Fluoridated water, on the other hand, has a beneficial effect on the developing teeth of children from birth until the teeth are fully formed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he is actually a consultant of the Borrow Dental Milk Foundation and lobbied the European Commission extensively in 1983–84—
Lord Ennals: Extensively, my Lords.
Baroness Trumpington:—to allow fluoridated milk to qualify for subsidy. I hope I am correct on that point. The noble Lord will know already that all the European Community has done is to allow fluoridated, flavoured UHT milk to qualify for the same subsidy as similar, non-fluoridated milk. This hardly constitutes positive promotion of fluoridated milk. The Government's position is simply that, while fluoridated milk can certainly be of value in reducing tooth decay, it does not have the same demonstrated potential for improving the health of local communities as fluoridation of the water supply has.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will probably already know that a health authority can already, if it wishes, fund fluoridated milk schemes as a preventive health measure, as part of its responsibilities for preventive health measures under the Health Service Act 1977. No health authority is known to do so—perhaps because of doubts among the dental profession as to its comparative effectiveness, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Colwyn. No amendment to the Bill is needed to permit a health authority to fund a milk fluoridation scheme if it wishes. It already has the legal power to do so. I hope that your Lordships will not accept this amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it is the same old sorry story to the end, is it not? It is very disappointing. It is almost disheartening. I do not think that I should like to be a minister again if this is how they have to go through life. What satisfaction do they get out of it? They do not please anyone. The public do not think any better of them. One wonders why they are there. I am sure that before very long we shall have some technology that can give us all these ministerial replies in rooms upstairs and we can choose which one we go into. There will be no need to sit here to hear the same old reply given to all suggestions for improvement. I have not suggested for a single moment that this scheme for milk is a complete alternative to the fluoridation of water. I am advised from what I have read that it is not desirable to have both. If children are having fluoridated water, there is no need for them to have fluoridated milk. In fact, it might be harmful if they were taking above the approved dose.
It seems to me to be one of the things that health authorities should have regard to. There is no more in it than that. If some health authorities choose not to make an application, it may be that they have something of this kind in mind as an alternative. It is up to them. As it came fresh to my mind, I thought it was worth mentioning in the Bill, alongside the fluoridation of water, something that the EC is doing
1376
so far as the fluoridation of milk is concerned. That is all there is to it.
As regards my own position, one is considering options at this stage. The period of fundamentalist belief or disbelief has passed. We are near the end of the Bill, and we are trying to make it a little better if we can. That is all that there is to this. If I feel about this at all, it is because the Government are so stubborn. There is no harm done at all in drawing the attention of health authorities to this scheme. We are supposed to be in the EC approving of what it does and drawing the directives of the EC to the attention of the authorities concerned. Here is an opportunity of a reference to a scheme which the EC has agreed and which might be of some value in considering all the matters that have to be kept in mind and all the representations that have to be received—the whole lot of it—in Clause 4 of the Bill.
I really do not feel that one should just submit to this unhelpful attitude on the part of the Government Front Bench. So far as I am concerned, I would urge the House to include this in the list of things that the health authorities must have as much regard to as they think appropriate. That is little enough in all conscience. I therefore ask the House to approve this amendment.
8.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 40.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Houghton of Sowerby, L. [Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Bauer, L.

McNair, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Blease, L.

Monson, L.

Brockway, L.

Moyne, L.

Burton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Sandys, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stedman, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ennals, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Yarborough, E.

Harris of High Cross, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Caithness, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Colwyn, L.

Long, V.

Craigavon, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Crathorne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Denning, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rootes, L.

1377

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vickers, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wise, L.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Duration.
.—At the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force all regulations, resolutions and instructions issued pursuant to this Act shall expire unless they are continued in force by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is self-evident. It provides that the Act shall effectively lapse after two years unless each House of Parliament decides otherwise by resolution. This Bill did not feature in the Conservative Party manifesto at the last general election. As far as I know, support for the principle of fluoridation was not in any Conservative candidate's election address, and I doubt whether it was in any other candidate's election address. The whole matter was sprung on the public.
I should like to raise another point. Within the next two years it is quite possible that more evidence may come to light showing the harmful effects of fluoridation upon certain adults, mainly elderly people, but also including some younger people. Indeed, if the health of people in newly fluoridated areas starts to suffer in consequence of fluoridation, it is probable that the symptoms will start to become apparent within the next two years. Therefore, in advance of the next general election, I think that Members of Parliament should have a chance to show their constituents where they stand on this issue and that political parties have a chance to make their position clear to the country at large. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I feel that I must comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said. In the past I have been involved in the drafting of party manifestos, and a subject such as this—which quite clearly is not a party political issue, as has been shown in this House as well as in another place; it is a matter on which members of all parties have different views—certainly would not normally find a place in a manifesto. Indeed, many people complain that manifestos, which nowadays are very long anyway on main political issues, should not include a subject such as this, which is not a party political issue. Therefore, I take issue on that point.
On the question of the Bill arising in Parliament, it was because comparatively recently Lord Jauncey in Scotland in the Strathclyde case found, after a very long hearing, that the Act which everybody had thought meant one thing did not in fact carry out that purpose and so it became necessary for a Bill of this kind to be brought forward. I am perfectly certain that any party which was in office in this country at this time would bring forward such a Bill, because the law had to be examined and clarified for that purpose. However, I return to the point that this is not a party political issue, which I believe has been quite clearly
1378
demonstrated. Therefore, I take issue with the noble Lord on that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I strongly oppose this amendment because, although it looks so harmless, it is an incredibly vicious little amendment. It would mean that in two years' time all those authorities which presently have fluoridated water would find themselves in that same illegal position as they are in today. We are passing this Bill simply to legalise fluoridation of the water where it already exists.
It also means that, if any authority is considering a new fluoridation scheme, it might be deterred by the thought that the expense could be only for two years and that at the end of two years the scheme would be thrown out. Tonight we have had very adequate assurances from the Minister that, if there is any evidence whatever that there is doubt about the effect on people's health, appropriate action would be taken. I rely upon our health department to do that. I believe that this amendment would be very unsatisfactory, and I oppose it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I regret that the Government are unable to discern any merits in this amendment, and I would suggest that the movers withdraw it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the noble Baroness is becoming more terse every time. I can understand how weary she must be. So are we. At least she has what little satisfaction there is in being a kind of inverted Micawber, waiting for something to turn down; but she cannot treat my noble friend Lord Monson as brusquely as that.
I believe that two years is too short, but apart from that, I believe there is some merit in the amendment. I am prompted to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just said. I am sure it is true that this issue was not in the manifesto. I believe that a number of Ministers in the Government are being asked to account for their votes in another place, having regard to the pledge that they gave earlier that they would not vote in favour of a Bill that would enforce fluoridation upon the people.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. That is a rather different point. The anti-fluoridation campaign queries every Member of Parliament on his or her views on this matter and then takes that Member to account for what he or she does later. Does the noble Lord think that a matter like this should appear in a political manifesto?—because I would never imagine that such a subject would appear in an election manifesto.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, having regard to the boldness of the Prime Minister and the sense of purpose and determination of Her Majesty's Government, and having listened to all the arguments right from the beginning of this Bill, I should not have been a bit surprised if the Government had said, "Fluoridation is good for you, and you are jolly well going to have it".
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, they did not.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, they could then have said, "We shall pass a Bill which, if necessary, will go through all its stages in one day in both Houses in order to make sure that your health is safe with us".
Lord Campbell of Croy: But they did not, my Lords.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, they did not; they just played about with it all the time, without tackling the fundamental issue. With regard to those Ministers who gave pledges and who voted with the Government, apparently there was a free vote for everyone in another place, but the payroll vote was conscripted. It is the conscripted payroll voters who are now being called to account by constituents who say, "You promised us otherwise. How do you account for what you have done?" In the replies that I have seen, and I have seen one or two, they say that it is Government policy and that as a member of the Government they have to follow it.
I believe that political parties put far too much in manifestos. I wonder that the public do not rumble these manifestos. They have had so many of them and the manifestos have produced so few results in many directions that there should be a provision about manifestos in the Representation of the People Acts.
I am in a playful mood now because we have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. The noble Baroness is treating this all very lightheartedly at this moment. I think that the suspended sentence of two years is too short, but it is too late to increase it. So far as I am concerned, I am disposed to call it a day.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, may I comment briefly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid I would say to my noble friend that he cannot speak for a second or even third time at this stage of the proceedings.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord had given way to me. I do not think I have otherwise spoken on this amendment.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if my noble friend wishes to interrupt the noble Lord with a short intervention, the formula is, "Before the noble Lord sits down", otherwise on Third Reading he would be out of order.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I have not yet spoken on this amendment, Amendment No. 10. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, gave way. Well, I shall sit down.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am bound to say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, had spoken because I jotted down what he said and I should like to reply to it. He was talking about party manifestos. Many of his honourable friends in another place are extremely embarrassed and upset that this fluoridation has been sprung upon them and their constituents without warning.
1380
We should remember that there is a precedent for the amendment we propose, in the compulsory seat belt legislation, which provides for a review after three years. My noble friend Lord Houghton, who added his name to this amendment, has had partial second thoughts in that he now thinks that two years is too short. I put down two years because that would bring us to the middle of 1987 and shortly before the next general election, and it would enable everybody to put their cards on the table in advance of the election.
However, if we pass this amendment tonight it would go to another place, and if it was thought in another place that two years were too short a period they would disagree with our amendment and suggest that three years, or five years, should be substituted instead, and naturally we should accept the decision of the other place on that matter.
The Government have been extraordinarily inflexible over this Bill. They have not given way at all. The concession made in Clause 4 is so minor as to be virtually inconsequential. I know that the noble Baroness has done her best, but I realise that she is not a free agent in this matter. However, this is the way it is, and I feel we should test the opinion of the House on this matter.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it has been agreed through the usual channels, and after consultation with as many as possible of the noble Lords involved in both Bills tonight, that further proceedings on the Water (Fluoridation) Bill should be adjourned for a short period in order that further proceedings after Third Reading on the Sexual Offences Bill can be taken. Further proceedings on the Water (Fluoridation) Bill will follow immediately thereafter. I beg to move, therefore, that further proceedings after Third Reading on the Water (Fluoridation) Bill be adjoured.
Moved, That further proceedings after Third Reading on the Water (Fluoridation) Bill be adjourned.—(Lord Denham.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the Question is put, could the noble Lord the Chief Whip say whether there is any time limit on the proceedings on the Sexual Offences Bill?
Lord Denham: My Lords, it has been agreed after consultation with all noble Lords who are interested that the proceedings should be formal on this matter. I think an agreed solution has been arrived at. I have assured noble Lords on the Water (Fluoridation) Bill that if there should be any wish to extend proceedings I would ask the House to adjourn the proceedings on the Sexual Offences Bill in order that they should not take too much time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Offences Bill
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered after Third Reading.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 1, I should remind your Lordships that the debate on it was adjourned at the previous Sitting pursuant to Standing Order No. 55. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord wishes to continue the debate I shall now put the Question.
Clause 1 [Persistent soliciting of women from motor vehicles for the purpose of prostitution]:
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 7 and insert ("A man commits an offence if he solicits a woman (or different women) for the purpose of prostitution—").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 2. I should point out that if this amendment is carried Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be moved.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("persistently to solicit a woman") and insert ("to solicit a woman persistently").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have five amendments put down, but in view of Amendment No. 1 being carried, as I read it Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be moved, and Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 do not make sense.
Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 7, after ("woman") insert ("in a street or public place").
Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 8, leave out ("while it is in a street or public place").
Amendment No. 5: Page 1, line 10, leave out ("in a street or public place while") and insert ("when").
Amendment No. 6: Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("while") to the end of line 11 and insert ("having just got out of or off a motor vehicle, if he is still in its immediate vicinity.").
Therefore, I feel that any obligation that I may have been under to speak on these amendments I have now "got out of or off". I therefore do not move these amendments.
[Amendment Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.]
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("persistently or, subject to section 5(5A) below, in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women) solicited, or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move amendment No. 8:
Leave out ("or nuisance") and insert ("or serious nuisance").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the constraints of time I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 8 or 9.
Amendment No. 9: Leave out ("in the neighbourhood") and insert ("in the immediate neighbourhood").
I would hope that the other place will consider our debates on the principles that these two amendments embody, and perhaps consider sending the Bill back to us incorporating one or other of these two amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("save that motor vehicles exceeding eight metres in length are hereby excluded.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to move this amendment, but again I hope that the other place will consider the merits of it.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11:
Leave out Clause 1.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I formally move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mishcon. I do not propose to address the House on this matter. I was not present at the debate last night. I apologise for that. I also apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and my noble and learned friend Lord Silkin, who are both away from the House on different engagements and are sorry for their absence.
I take the view that the House has had the fullest opportunity of considering all the issues in a full debate on this matter last night, and for that reason I move this formally, as indeed I shall do in relation to Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 2 [Persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution]:
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("women (or the same woman)") and insert ("a woman (or different women)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 13:
Leave out Clause 2.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 2 insert the following new clause—
.—(1) A man commits an offence if in a street or public place he (whether from a motor vehicle or not) persistently solicits different women or the same woman for the purpose of prostitution.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982).
(3) In this section "motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1972."
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 3 [Penalties for certain sexual offences]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("Life") and insert ("14 years").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as a result of representations made to me I have decided not to move this widely supported amendment, but should

1383
like to put it on record that I have taken this decision under protest.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Short title, consequential amendment, repeals, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 11, at end insert—
("(5A) In relation to anything done in any area at a time when section 3 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (conduct of criminal proceedings by Director of Public Prosecutions) is not in force there, section 1(1) above shall have effect as if all the words after "persistently" were omitted.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Baroness Vickers)
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I undertook not to speak on the remainder of Third Reading and I have kept to that, but we can spare just a minute or two to consider the extraordinary position in which this House has been put and the way in which the co-operation of strong opponents of parts of the Bill has been given to ensure that the Bill shall have a passage to another place. I am not labouring the subject, but the sponsors of the Bill should recognise that a good deal of forbearance—indeed more than a good deal—has been exercised by those of us who hold very strong views about some parts of this Bill. I hope that that has been noted and will be noted elsewhere.
That is really all I have to say for my part, but I have co-operated in refraining from making the House appear more ridiculous than it was last night. In all the circumstances, we should accept some satisfaction that we have enabled a procedure on a Private Member's Bill to succeed where in the deserts of the matter it really should have failed. Those who are concerned with Private Members' Bills procedure in another place must take note of what has happened on this and on other Bills and let us have some fresh consideration of this part of our procedure.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I hope it will wind up proceedings on this Bill if I say in one sentence how grateful the whole of your Lordships House is to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for the way in which she has presented the various stages of this Bill.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, on behalf of those on these Benches, I associate myself fully with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in the well-deserved tribute he has paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, may I, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister, thank all who have contributed so much to this Bill? I join other noble Lords in congratulating and thanking my noble friend, Lady Vickers, for piloting this vessel through very stormy seas with unfailing grace and courtesy. I believe that not only those of us here now but those in other
1384
places, especially women in town and country, right across the country, will have cause for great gratitude to my noble friend.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to all noble Lords for the time and consideration they have given to this Bill. I am duly thankful to all.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Water (Fluoridation) Bill
8.35 p.m.
Further proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friends Lady Trumpington and Lord Caithness who for many long hours at various stages of your Lordships' proceedings have carried the burden of the day in explaining the reasons for the Bill and the clauses line by line. I should also like to express appreciation to the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Winstanley, for the part that they have played in raising good and legitimate points in the course of the Bill.
The other thing I should like to say at this stage is that it has been a Bill which does not follow party lines. The views of Members of your Lordships' House have not been governed by party considerations and the Division votes have shown that individual views have been expressed. But there is one matter to which I should like to draw attention and that is the anti-fluoridation campaign. I am on its distribution list and receive its material. In the letter sent out after our earlier proceedings dated 20th April the chairman of the National Anti-fluoridation Campaign from an address in Thames Ditton wrote as follows:
"Whereas it was almost heresy to suggest in 1966 that vested interests lay behind the pressure for fluoridation and that doctors who promoted it were serving … as the unpaid agents of big business, scarcely anyone now questions the existence of these vested interests and it follows that everyone who promotes fluoridation is acting as an agent of these interests".
The allegation that we are simply serving the interests of "big business", as it has been described, is denied by those of us who over many years have been considering carefully the advantages and possible disadvantages of fluoridation and who have come down in favour of it for health reasons. I received individually this accusation five years ago when I initiated the debate in your Lordships' House on fluoridation. I should like to draw attention to this and point out that it is a monstrous, an absolutely outrageous, suggestion and it discredits that organisation to have put it forward. No one for a moment would think that those of us in this House on both sides who have been considering this matter are motivated by the interests of big business. The reason given is that surplus fluoride arises as a by-product of

1385
industry and that this is a way of using it. I utterly reject that suggestion.
It is revealing that the same correspondence sent to me among others says that certain noble Lords in your Lordships' House were "rapidly briefed" on this subject, even though they knew very little or nothing about it beforehand. I leave that for your Lordships to think about. But if the campaign against fluoridation proceeds on those lines, it will thoroughly discredit itself.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wish I could be as charming as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has been, though I agree absolutely with the first point that he made. I am not on the hit list, fortunately, but I take, as he does, grave exception—
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am not on a hit list; I am on a distribution list. I think they think that I am one of the people apparently being briefed.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, that is what I meant. It was not a misunderstanding. I meant that I am not on their mailing list. I have not had such an accusation but I should take just as grave an exception to that kind of allegation. I do not think there are any vested interests. It is true that it will be a costly operation and that the capital cost will be about £150 million if it is carried out all over the country. But I am afraid that I do not think that will happen.
I believe that the Government have made a mess of their handling of this issue. If they thought with all their experience—which the noble Baroness has displayed and I thank her for doing so—that it was in the best interests of the nation that everyone should have fluoride in their water supplies then why, in Heaven's name, do the Government not decide to do so? They can bring forward a Bill to the House of Commons which says that from now on from an appointed day water authorities will fluoridate the water. Why did they decide simply to be gutless, as I think they were, and put the decision on to other people instead of taking the decision themselves? What they have done is not only to put it on to other people but to put it on to other people who are not accountable to anyone except the Ministers. I believe that that is the coward's way out.
I think that one of the consequences of this for those who strongly believe in fluoride, in whatever form, is that there is not going to be anything like the success that the Government probably would like there to be and which the health authorities would like there to be. I hope that before this Bill reaches another place—which of course it will, because it has been amended by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness—the Government will take reasonable regard (if that is the right word) of the fact that twice this evening they came very close—within less than a handful of votes—to defeat and that they will take reasonable regard of what has been said by the noble Baroness's noble friends behind her as well as by noble Lords facing her.
I have found the responses of the Minister not very satisfactory. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there has been extraordinary
1386
inflexibility. My belief is that the purpose of a debate like this is to take the wisdom of the House, where the wisdom of the House proves to be right, and to accept it. I believe that the role of Ministers is really to take what is best out of a debate. My feeling is that the Government have (with the one exception) just sat and fought it out, refusing to give way. I fear that the consequences of this will be a continued argument in the country for years and years. When I was Secretary of State, I was anxious that the matter should be resolved; and I do not think that it has been resolved by this Bill.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said what he did, because I think it was necessary to say those words. I too, having been associated with the campaign for the fluoridation of water supplies for some 30 years, have, not surprisingly, received literature and correspondence of precisely the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. How right he is to say that this surely exposes some of those campaigners for what they actually are. Perhaps I could take this opportunity to say that those of us who are in favour of this measure have none of those kinds of criticisms of noble Lords in this House who have taken an opposite view in the course of our debates.
It is true that we have differed, in all parties and some in no party, on the matters. We have had disputes and we have disagreed fundamentally. But I like to feel that we have disagreed amicably and that, while we may still disagree, perhaps at least we understand one another's points of view better than we did before. I think we all appreciate that we hold with total sincerity the views that we hold. As a doctor and as one who has spent a great deal of his life campaigning against pollution of one kind or another—and in another field of activity, as chairman of the Countryside Commission I did a great deal about insecticides, herbicides and pollutants of one kind or another about which I was very fearful—I assure noble Lords that I would not support a measure of this kind without looking at it with extreme vigilance and great care. I say that I have done so as a doctor over many years. Had I not been totally satisfied about the safety of fluoridation I would not have taken the stand that I have taken on this particular Bill.
I should like to say how grateful I am to noble Lords of all parties and no party who have supported this Bill, limited measure though it is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that it is a limited measure, and I rather regret that. I take the view, after 30 years of discussion, that perhaps it might have been wiser sooner or later to move to a mandatory measure. However, the Government have taken this somewhat hesitant step and I think they are to be congratulated on taking that step; because once the Government got involved in this subject of fluoridation, a highly emotive one, they knew perfectly well that they were going to attract an awful lot of flak of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has referred.
Perhaps I may say that when I agreed to become president of the British Fluoridation Society I too knew that I was going to attract a certain amount of

1387
flak and correspondence. I have done so, but perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness—and I should like to express my personal appreciation of the manner in which she has handled the debates and the way in which she has obtained a grasp of very complex matters in a very short time—that she is to be congratulated. I assure her that every cloud has a silver lining. Among the correspondence I have received is this letter. It comes from a lady in Pershore in Worcestershire. It is a very pleasant village. The letter says:
"Dear Lord Winstanley, I was astounded to hear you as a doctor supporting this horrifying scheme for adding fluoride to our water supplies".
It goes on and on and finishes:
"Finally, I should like you to know that never, never again will I vote Conservative".
That cannot be bad! It really reinforces me in my view that the efforts we have made on this Bill have been well worthwhile.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to echo the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Having said that, I must part company with him. It is true that this is not strictly a party political measure; yet I understand that in another place every sort of pressure was brought to bear, every sort of arm-twisting was applied to BackBenchers to make them support the Bill, with the consequences that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has just described. The Conservative Party used to be thought of as the party least hostile of all the major parties to the concept of individual freedom. Now, alas, that perception has, I think, changed very considerably. Conservatives are now thought to be somewhat contemptuous of individual freedom, despite the valiant efforts of so many Back-Benchers in both Houses of Parliament. I think we shall see the results of this tomorrow when the result of the by-election at Brecon and Radnor is announced.
Lord Sandys; My Lords, I disagree with some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, because I do not see this as largely a political debate or a political Bill. I see it as a Bill of great importance arising from the longest case in Scottish legal history. My feeling is not one of levity but one of sorrow at the end of this because, having studied the subject with great concern for over 20 years, I reached the exact opposite opinion from that of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. Perhaps I entered at the point at which I was a most enthused opponent of fluoridation; and I do not deny that my motivation for studying it had that in mind.
Nevertheless, I believe that there are most serious matters that even now have not been fully discussed; indeed, it was almost impossible within the scope of the Government's programme for handling this Bill to discuss them. However, there is Lord Jauncey's judgment, and perhaps I may be permitted in these last moments in which the Bill is being discussed before this House to draw attention to page 79 of that very long judgment. I think that to some extent this is the answer to Lord Ennals's question as to why the Government did not legislate firmly on the matter of
1388
fluoridation. This is what Lord Jauncey said, and perhaps it is the answer. I only put that tentatively. I quote his words from page 79:
"Counsel for the petitioner submitted that I could only reject the epidemiological case if I were satisfied that there was no possibility of fluoride causing cancer. I could not be so satisfied on the evidence in this case and, indeed, proof of such a negative would be very difficult if not nearly impossible".
The noble Lord, Lord Jauncey, considered many aspects, if not all aspects, of this situation with very great care. I think that in discussing it in your Lordships' House we have attempted to investigate as far as possible the areas of research; but, even now, it seems to me that there are areas of dubiety, of doubt and of uncertainty which we have not fully investigated.
I close my remarks by thanking the noble Baroness for her careful and at times humorous replies to your Lordships. Nevertheless, I feel that the Government have been very resistant to even the most minor of amendments. I hope that as this matter progresses, as indeed it will progress, we may have more fruitful discussions on further consideration of this important subject.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, althouth I am clutching a handful of notes you will be relieved to hear that at this late hour I have rejected most of them. Having personally been involved with the arguments about fluoridation for over 20 years, I am delighted to be here this evening to set the seal on this enabling legislation. I too congratulate my noble friends Lady Trumpington and Lord Caithness for the way in which they have handled this very sensitive subject.
Those of us who are perhaps more fully acquainted with the facts and figures about the supplementation of public water supplies of the natural fluoride content to bring it up to one part per million and the certain benefit that it can have on our children's and our own teeth, have had a very interesting series of debates. We determined not to intervene too often for fear of prolonging the arguments, but there were times when statements from the opponents of the Bill were just too misconceived to be allowed without interruption. I certainly respect the views of those opponents but I feel that they have failed to examine in detail any of the evidence emanating from the scientific sources, preferring instead to believe the ill-informed comments of a small minority whose views are highly eccentric and based on purely selfish arguments.
Lord Sandys: No, my Lords!
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I ask myself: why has there been such recurring popular resistance to a simple health care measure of proven benefit to everyone's teeth? More than 10,000 scientific studies have shown that adding one part per million of fluoride to water will safely and effectively inhibit tooth decay, particularly if fluoride is consumed during the first nine years of a person's life. I must stress again that the addition of fluoride at one part per million not only gives benefit to children whose teeth are developing but is also of benefit throughout life, owing to the continuous availability of the fluoride ion. The fluoride content of dental enamel doubles,

1389
and of dentine trebles, throughout life, fluoride supplements in the form of tablets, drops or fluoridated milk can theoretically provide fluoride to developing teeth, but continuous availability is not provided.
Why is it that neither studies nor facts convince a determined coalition of anti-fluoridation activists? They have repeatedly challenged the authority of virtually every major national and international health group and campaign to keep fluoride out of the country's water supply. To some degree, the "antis'" success also grows out of a long tradition of popular hostility to tampering with nature. Milk was not pasteurised during the 1920s; nor were children immunised against diphtheria and small pox without an initial public outcry. Chlorine is now routinely added to water supplies to destroy the bacteria responsible for cholera, typhoid and dysentry. But when the idea was first proposed at the turn of the century opposition was fierce. More recently, scientists have encountered similar bouts of public anxiety about gene splicing and artificial heart implants.
What is peculiar about the fluoridation controversy is that it has been going on for 35 years. During an era marked by unprecedented gains in science and medicine, the perils of fluoridation have repeatedly won support from people supposedly well informed about matters of health and quick to applaud other new medical technology. A 1978 issue of consumer reports described the persistence of the controversy as one of the major triumphs of quackery over science.
This reduction of decay is not a trivial matter. Dental caries is responsible for a great deal of morbidity and for an appreciable number of deaths from indisciplined dental anaesthesia and from bacterial endocarditis. The suggestion that fluoridation is unnecessary because there are other equally effective methods of preventing dental decay, such as the daily administration of fluoride supplements by tablets, drops or milk, has the disadvantage of relying on strict adherence to a regimen by children and parents which, from experience, cannot be maintained.
Before I conclude, I should like to mention the work of the British Fluoridation Society, who have worked tirelessly over the years to present information about fluoridation to anyone who is interested or who had questions or doubts which needed answers. In particular, I must also mention the chairman, Professor Douglas Jackson, who has devoted the greater part of his professional life to research, analysis and presentation of the case for the fluoridation of water supplies. I am delighted to see him here this evening and hope that our passing of this Bill will go some of the way towards achieving his ambition of seeing this simple public health measure legalised and eventually in use throughout the country.
Finally, my Lords, the fluoridation question is almost tailor-made for endless controversy in a democratic society. Fluoridation, unlike chlorination, is not a life or death matter. Its scientific rationale has little emotional appeal. When it comes to a vote, fluoridation is largely a symbolic issue. Arrayed against its adoption have been, and always will be, not only the fanatics and the fearful but also a goodly
1390
proportion of those who simply distrust authority, government and science. Those people will not go away—nor, in all respects, would the nation be better off if they did. As long as the issue is left to local determination, we should expect the fluoridation controversy, in all its bizarre and time-honoured variations, to crop up in towns and cities for many decades to come. This is one of the prices—not the dearest, but not the smallest either—that we have to pay for having our kind of open political system.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the noble Lord has probably listened a great deal more than he has spoken during our debates, but he has just made up for it in a most impressive way. We all listened enchanted by the catalogue of medical achievement and argument in favour of this Bill. It sounded very much like what the doctor ordered, but we are used to that from doctors. Even my noble friend Lord Winstanley sounds like a doctor occasionally.
I rose really in a spirit of thanksgiving to the noble Baroness, tinged with a little forgiveness, for the number of rejections which she has had to offer to various well-intentioned and suitable amendments. Frankly, it is a gruelling task being on the Front Bench and dealing with all the arguments of those who believe their amendments contain the gems of wisdom and the fruit of long experience. We much appreciate how the noble Baroness takes all this and, if I may say so, she is a very pleasant Minister to deal with—
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, may I say just one word to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, whom I see in his place. He must be feeling that this has been a very long day and that he has taken enough, thank you very much. I offer just one humble word of advice; that I think we are moving into a different regime in this House. We have become more important and more publicised, and there is a desire to become more powerful and to take a more definite place in the combined activities of the two Houses of Parliament. I think that what we are suffering from is the inability of our present arrangements occasionally to respond, as I think is needed, to the mood of this House. That is due to the fact that the Government Front Bench in this House comprises people of great ability who are gaining in experience but who do not have the authority to do what a Minister in their place would very frequently feel bound to do, or at least feel that it was desirable to do.
I think we are lacking here the art of parliamentary activity, because the Ministers are not here. We have to put up with that—we cannot have all the Ministers here; but I think that greater authority, more flexibility and more room for manoeuvre should be in somebody's hands in this House; otherwise I think we are going to get rather more fractious than we should do. On this Bill, and indeed on other Bills recently, I do not think we have been quite as happy as we ought to have been; and that is due to the fact that we feel that although the voice is the voice of Jacob the hand is the hand of Esau, and that is not here.
It is very difficult indeed to do business on that basis. I was in Government for quite a time and have been in

1391
Opposition for many years in another place—but how the wheels of Parliament are lubricated by accommodation, by the gesture to Oppositions, who after all have got the most difficult role in Parliament! Our parliamentary system deprives the Opposition of any responsibility for the affairs of the nation. Very often it is packed with experience and knowledge and yet it is unable to make any impact on the Government. There is no power sharing under our Parliamentary system. I think that that is a great drawback.
I offer those observations. I think that the Government will have a rougher time from your Lordships' House as time goes on because that is how it will develop. I think that it will require great wisdom and study to see what the solution may be. I feel, however, that the longer we leave tackling the reform of your Lordships' House the more difficult it will become. I am sure that something has to be done in the next two or three years about this House if we are to know what its function is to be and if people here are to get more satisfaction out of it.
9 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as the second dentist in this Chamber I must, of course, say how delighted I am that this Bill has reached this point. I take issue with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, as to why the Government did not go ahead and compel everyone to have fluoride everywhere. I think in fact it is evidence of the genuineness of this Bill that it is simply to put into a correct legal position those authorities which have fluoride in their water and are presently not in such a position. When the noble Lord says that it should have been a compulsion—and indeed he went on to say he wanted it resolved when he was Secretary of State—I cannot see, if he wanted it so much, why it did not happen then, because I believe that every standing dental and medical advisory committee since the war has voted in favour of this measure.
However, I think times have changed over the years. That is why the day may come when we do not see fluoridation everywhere in such a universal way as we should have if the measure had been passed, say, 20 years ago because a number of other measures are improving teeth now. We have all heard about vested interests. Indeed, at the beginning someone accused me of having a vested interest. I said that I had a vested disinterest because, after all, it will do me out of business as a dentist. The reason your Lordships have heard quite a lot from the dentists in this House, who, like my noble friend Lord Colwyn, have been rather restrained, is because there are no dentists in the other place. Therefore the dental voices have to speak up here.
I would say that this has been a very non-party political issue. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for example, has been completely sincere in everything he has said. No one has given me greater help and assistance since I came as a new Member to this House. I therefore appreciate his sincerity and I respect him for it. I think that he is wrong; and I hope when the Bill is passed to persuade him of that.
I would congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, because she has this marvellous good
1392
humour which has carried us through many tedious hours on this Bill; and of course the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. As regards the statement of Lord Monson that proof of such a negative is difficult, this has been one of the difficulties throughout this Bill. People have been trying to prove things that are negative and it is almost impossible to do so.
When the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, tells us about parliamentary activity, and the art of it, he is rather an expert on that; but when he talks about people being fractious—well, again, perhaps he is rather an expert on that. I thank your Lordships for passing this Bill to this point. I thank those in the Front Bench for doing so.
Lord Burton: My Lords, this debate has continued in an amazingly good-natured manner on what has been a very contentious issue. The good nature must reflect on those members on the Front Bench. On this question of whether this is non-political or not, I think some of us on this side would certainly have lost the Whip had it been political. Indeed, I never expected on an amendment of mine to be supported by the number of noble Lords who supported me. Perhaps in particular I may mention the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We have crossed swords on many issues before but I was pleased to see that we were at one on this. I came fairly open minded to this subject. I am afraid I have left a firmly convinced antifluoridationist.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute both to those who have supported the Bill from all sides of this House and indeed to our opponents for the very high standard of debate we have enjoyed. It has been, let me remind you, a free vote throughout.
Before I move on, may I just pause in order to express my very real sorrow concerning the death of the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn. He was, of course, one of our opponents to whom I have just referred. Like all really clever men, he never made one feel a fool—charming and modest, and a very distinguished Member of your Lordships' House. We will all miss him greatly.
It has been rightly stressed by several of your Lordships that there is much public interest in the subject of fluoridation. For the Government, the Water (Fluoridation) Bill has provided the opportunity to submit to your Lordships' scrutiny the current arrangements for water fluoridation and to discuss in detail the dental and general health issues. I am sure that this in itself has been a very worthwhile exercise and that we have been able to raise the level of public knowledge on this most important issue.
I hope your Lordships will agree that we have been able to improve the Bill during the various stages of our consideration. Indeed, as a result of our deliberations the Bill has doubled in length! I would single out for particular comment Clause 4 of the Bill, where I hope the Government have been able to meet the legitimate concerns expressed by your Lordships and in another place that there should be specific statutory procedures for public consultation in advance of any decision by a health authority to apply for or seek to terminate a fluoridation scheme. In addition the

1393
Government have responded to your Lordships' wishes by providing a specific role in the consultation process for elected local councils, while leaving the final decision to health authorities to take in the light of all the representations they receive and the authoritative medical and dental advice available to them.
We have also amended the Bill in several respects to meet concerns expressed to us by the water industry. In particular, we have added to Clause 1(6)(b) to repair an oversight in respect of the routine maintenance of the water supply. Clause 3 of the Bill also I am sure, represents a major improvement in laying down a specific statutory framework for the existing fluoridation schemes. I feel that this would be an appropriate point for me to pay tribute to the water industry for their assistance over the Bill and also for their efforts in administering water fluoridation schemes. We in the Government recognise that this constitutes an additional burden for the industry, and we are particularly appreciative of the achievements of those water authorities and water companies who carry out water fluoridation.
I feel that I cannot do better than repeat what my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said at the Second Reading of this Bill, that it is an intentionally modest measure designed solely to provide specific legal powers for arrangements for fluoridation which have operated in this country for nearly 30 years.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at eight minutes past nine o'clock.

  SEISMIC MONITORING
  SEISMIC MONITORING
  THE TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS: FUTURE PLANS
  THE TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS: FUTURE PLANS