Sitting of 15 December 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two O'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
  Lords Amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Local Enterprise Agencies
    Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of local enterprise agencies.
    The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): There are now almost 400 local enterprise agencies in the United Kingdom. My Department, through the local enterprise agency grant scheme, encourages the development of viable agencies in England. One hundred and sixty-eight agencies were supported in 1986–87.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Does he agree that local enterprise agencies are necessarily brought about as a result of a partnership between local interests, local authorities and, particularly, chambers of commerce? Does he also agree that bringing together the practical skills and knowledge of those individuals and organisations results in the creation of much new business and many new jobs, as is the case in the Leeds business venture?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend. The agencies are valuable institutions which improve the survival rate of small firms which consult them, as was shown in a recent report. The Leeds business venture is a long-established and well-supported agency, which receives our grant.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister recognise that many local enterprise agencies in areas such as mine, which no longer benefit from inner-city policy or other Government policies to push money into areas of high unemployment, are worried about their future and about future money to enable them to create and secure jobs in places such as Derwentside, which, since 1979, has suffered enormous job losses? The agencies have done a good job, but they need Government support to continue it.
    Mr. Cope: I recognise the concern which the hon. Lady expresses and which some of the agencies have expressed to me. The grant scheme to which I referred is intended as
    906
    a pump-priming scheme to help agencies get going and develop. It is not the only way in which we assist them —there are others—and I am conscious of the case that the hon. Lady has made.
    Mr. Bright: Does my hon. Friend agree that enterprise agencies have been a wonderful catalyst for bringing together management expertise from the larger companies to help the smaller ones? Have they not been one of the major contributions that have enabled the many start-ups that have taken place to continue, flourish and develop into medium-sized companies?
    Mr. Cope: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. As I said earlier, the survival rate has improved a great deal. According to the report that I mentioned, only one in six of the companies that have had advice from enterprise agencies fail. The agencies also do a tremendous job in helping small firms to develop, and many job; are coming from that.

    Tourism
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the amount of United States tourist dollars earned in 1986.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Slate for Employment (Mr. John Lee): United States visitors to the United Kingdom spent £1,250 million in 1986.
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend will be aware that 25 years ago both France and Italy individually earned more tourist dollars than the United Kingdom and that now the United Kingdom earns more than both those countries put together. Can he say what steps he has taken to inform the tourist industry about how to live with an extremely weak dollar this year?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right about the trend of increasing United States tourism to the United Kingdom and about the success of the industry. In 1986 we had a US-UK tourism surplus of £717 million. During the first nine months of this year there was an increase of about 25 per cent. in the number of United States tourists visiting Britain. At the present time the number of tourists from the United States is holding up well, but clearly, because of the gyrations of the financial market and the likelihood of an election in America next year, the industry must be fully alive to the challenge of competition.
    Mr. Wigley: The Minister will be aware thai a large proportion of American tourists have been coming into the golden triangle of London-Oxford-Stratford-on-Avon. Because they can probably get better value for money by going to other areas, and especially to Wales, can he say whether the British Tourist Association has come to an agreement with the Wales Tourist Board to increase the promotion of Wales in particular and Britain in general to those in the United States with an interest in Wales?
    Mr. Lee: Yes, progress is being made. I fully concur with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments that Wales is an extremely attractive area which has many tourist attractions.
    Mr. Bill Walker: We welcome American tourists, but most of them come to London and we should like them to visit other parts of the country. Will my hon. Friend

    907
    look carefully at that? What are his Department and the tourist boards doing to encourage visitors to go from London to Scotland and back to the United States via Prestwick?
    Mr. Lee: The British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board are charged with doing everything possible to encourage tourists to move out and visit the regions and not just spend time in the golden triangle and in London. In recent years Scotland has benefited to a considerable extent from tourism.

    YTS
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to what proportion of those people completing the YTS in the Truro constituency find full-time paid employment within the next six months.
    Mr. Cope: Sixty two per cent. of young people who completed youth training schemes in the district of Carrick between April 1986 and June 1987 were in full-time jobs when surveyed several months later. A further 9 per cent. were in part-time jobs. I regret that separate figures for Truro are not available.
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure the Minister agrees that those figures are welcome and that the increasing quality and take-up of YTS courses in my area is a very good thing. However, given the Government's plan to force all young people to go on to YTS or face the withdrawal of benefit, is it not likely that people who are unwilling and unresponsive to the courses will be forced on to them? Not only will that not help people who do not care to make use of the scheme, but it will hurt the many other people who have a constructive attitude and wish to get the most that they can out of the scheme.
    Mr. Cope: That is not necessarily correct. Already, almost everyone in that positon is offered a place on the YTS. Youth unemployment has greatly improved recently. There are now fewer unemployed 16 and 17-yearold school leavers than at any time since 1974. I do not think that our new proposals will have the effects that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend compare the YTS to its predecessor, the youth opportunities programme, which was introduced by the Lib-Lab pact Government? Does he not agree that the youth training scheme is far superior and far more successful in giving training to young people?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, it is much more successful in every respect. Well over 400,000 young people are currently being trained under it.

    Tourism
    Mr. John Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to encourage regional tourist boards to focus on shopping as a major element in tourist spending.
    Mr. Lee: The English Tourist Board's development strategy "A Vision for England" identifies leisure and speciality shopping as an important growth opportunity for tourism, particularly in towns and cities. The ETB is actively working with the regional tourist boards and others to encourage such developments.
    Mr. Browne: Does my hon. Friend accept that spending on such items as specialist shopping, food and drink is of crucial importance to employment not only in the United Kingdom as a whole but in cities such as Winchester? Can he please give the House an estimate of the proportion of total tourist spending for which this type of activity accounts and, therefore, give us a target at which we can aim for spending on high-quality goods, food and drinks?
    Mr. Lee: I know that my hon. Friend is keen to encourage tourists to stay overnight in Winchester.
    We estimate that about 40 per cent. of the money spent by overseas visitors goes on shopping, food and drink. I certainly support all that my hon. Friend is doing to draw to the attention of visitors the attractions and heritage of Winchester— including King Arthur's round table and Winchester cathedral. Of course, the money spent by tourists will provide every opportunity for entrepreneurial retailers and shopkeepers to develop their businesses.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware of the wonderful things happening in Birmingham at the moment, with the creation of new jobs and investment; in particular the £100 million convention centre, which will attract tourists from all over the world, and the £250 million, 1 million sq ft redevelopment of the city centre and the old Bull Ring, which will provide hundreds of shops and 6,000 new jobs?
    When the tourists come, should they not be able to use those new facilities on a Sunday? Therefore, should we reform our trading laws to enable this to happen?
    Mr. Lee: As the Minister with responsibility for tourism, I support an extension of Sunday trading. That has always been my personal view and it is also my ministerial position. I support what my hon. Friend said. Birmingham offers tremendous opportunities, and huge developments are coming on stream. I was at the NEC Interbuild exhibition recently and heard some tremendous success stories and good reports about what is happening in the region.

    Factory Inspectors
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of factory inspectors; and what was the number in 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): On 1 November 1987 a total of 610 factory inspectors were employed in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 April 1979 the total was 742.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that since 1979 there has been a massive cut in the number of factory inspectors, due to the meanness of the Government, and is that not lamentable, in view of the many lives and the millions of days lost each year through industrial accidents and injuries? Is it not worse still that the Health and Safety Executive has tried to gag people who work for it from pointing out the savage cutbacks by the Government of their services, on the pain of sacking if anybody speaks out? Is it not an attempt by the Government to apply the Peter Wright standard to health and safety at work?
    Mr. Nicholls: No, that is not the position. The number of inspectors per 1,000 employees has remained roughly constant since 1979. Having said that, an increase in

    909
    inspectors is appropriate and next year there will be an increase of some 60 on the combined number of specialist and non-specialist inspectors. Resources have been allocated for that.
    On the other situation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, obviously guidance is given on the circumstances in which civil servants have an independent approach to their Members of Parliament. We are aware of the situation that occurred, and the director on that occasion gave general guidance.
    Mr. Patnick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that provision will be made for the Health and Safety Commission for an increase in the number of inspectors in 1988–89?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The extra £6·7 million allocated next year will make it possible to fund the extra 60 inspectors to whom I have referred. The chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has made it clear that those extra resources will allow those additional inspectors to be appointed.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Why did the Government permit cuts in the inspectorate during the 1980s when there were growing worries and fears about asbestos? Why did the cuts take place when there were growing worries about accidents to youngsters on the YTS scheme? Surely the Government in the 1980s have been very complacent.
    Mr. Nicholls: No. The hon. Gentleman assumes that one can simply look at the number of inspectors and say that the more inspectors there are, the fewer accidents there will be. That is not true. The number of inspectors per 1,000 employees has remained roughly constant and where there is a necessity for more inspectors, we have made the funding available. As to fatalities, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that in recent years the number of fatalities has declined, and in 1986–87 they were at an all-time record low.
    Mr. Strang: Is it not disturbing that the Health and Safety Executive in its annual report published this month, admitted that 10,000 work places, which, according to its criteria, are a priority for preventive inspections, were not inspected because of a lack of resources?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman grossly oversimplifies what was of necessity a very detailed report. Essentially, the report was historical. It was looking to the past. As to the future, extra inspectors are being allocated —some 60 in total. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

    Tourism
    Mr. Aspinwall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent by tourists in the six counties of the west country last year.
    Mr. Lee: I understand from the English Tourist Board that total estimated spending by tourists in the six counties of the west country in 1986 was £1,650 million.
    Mr. Aspinwall: That information is extremely helpful. It obviously means plenty of job opportunities and investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was detrimental to the interests of the west country for Avon county council to withdraw from the West Country tourist board? What benefit does he see in the council's rejoining it?
    Mr. Lee: It is a pity that Avon withdrew from the West Country tourist board and we hope that it will rejoin. I think I am right in saying that it is the only county council in England which is not a member of its regional tourist board. Given that Avon has such considerable attractions for tourists, such as the cities of Bath and Bristol, it is really missing out, and I hope that it will reconsider.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Will the Minister confirm that many of those so-called tourists come from the north of England and from Scotland looking for jobs? They may or may not have bikes, but they are anxious to have the means to exist as human beings. Does the Minister have anything to say to people in other parts of the United Kingdom who are anxious to contribute to the national well-being, whether or not they are tourists? Can he say anything apart from his nonsensical contribution about tourism?
    Mr. Lee: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraging all his constituents to go on holiday from Leith to the west country next year.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend recognise that, in seeking to meet the demands of the important tourist industry, ancient cathedral cities such as Salisbury have particular problems? Is he aware that following the decision of the dean and chapter to remove coaches from Salisbury close, two years ago, it is beginning to look as if the only solution which will save Salisbury as a tourist centre is to breach the 13th century closed walls yet again, to make room for a coach park inside them?
    Mr. Lee: I cannot give an instant answer to the particular problems of Salisbury, but I am sure that no one would want any city walls to be breached.
    Mr. Cryer: The Minister spoke about the attractions of the west country for tourists. Will he tell us about the attractions of tourism for the people of the west country? In the west country, as elsewhere, the tourist industry provides the lowest rates of pay and the longest hours and has the least trade union organisation to protect the workers against excessive exploitation. Apart from uttering platitudes, what will the Minister do about that?
    Mr. Lee: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. In terms of job creation, the tourist industry sustains about 1·4 million jobs nationally. No other industry creates jobs at a rate of 1,000 a week, as our tourist and hospitality industries do. Certain conclusions can be drawn from the fact that there is no over-substantial trade union representation in that industry.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people feel that although the West Country tourist board does good work, it covers far too large an area, stretching from the Isles of Scilly to Swindon? Will he look at the possibility of devolving part of its budget downward so that county promotional organisations such as the Cornwall tourist board can get a share of that budget?
    Mr. Lee: In my discussions with the West. Country tourist board, that point was not raised. It does not consider its area to be too large. However I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Job Training Scheme
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to arrange for people on the job training scheme to have their fares refunded; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cope: Participants on the new job training scheme may claim reimbursement of all travel expenses associated with their training.
    Miss Lestor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, is he aware that although the trainees do not have to pay their fares now—that is an innovation, as they had to pay them under the youth training scheme —many still have considerable expenses as they have to pay for their lunch and other expenses out of the very small amount that they receive? Will the Minister consider some way of reimbursing them so that they get the small amount to which they art entitled in total? Many trainees, particularly in my constituency, have to contribute to the budget at home because their parents are unemployed.
    Mr. Cope: As the hon. Lady probably knows, we are reviewing the job training scheme and developing it along with the community programme. These matters are under consideration by the Manpower Services Commission at the moment.
    Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister confirm that the DHSS recognises the cost of going to work as being £7 a week —being the cost of fares, the high cost of food away from home, and the cost of protective clothing, which will apply to the job training scheme? Under the new "Benefit Plus" scheme, if the "plus" were £15 a week, it would be only £8 a week in real terms.
    Mr. Cope: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point and, as I said, the matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that JTS has played an important part in the Government's adult training programme and that one of its biggest problems has been the way in which some unions and Left-wing Labour councils have undermined and boycotted it?
    Mr. Cope: I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's remarks. The job training scheme is playing an important role, but it could play a more important role if more people would co-operate in it.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed; how many are women; and how many men.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): On 8 October 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 2,751,000 — a reduction of almost 500,000 on a year ago. Of these, 848,000 were women and 1,904,000 were men.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that women are heavily discriminated against in employment and that when they come off the unemployment register most get jobs that most other people do not want, which are usually very low paid—for example, in tourism in the west country? Is there not something that we could do to ensure that women have some chance of full-time jobs instead of miserably low-paid, part-time jobs?
    Mr. Fowler: I accept almost nothing of what the hon. Gentleman said. In the past 12 months there has been an increase of about 372,000 in the number in work. For women, the increase in those in full-time jobs was more than the increase in those in part-time jobs. However, it is also true that many women prefer to have part-time jobs, and that is shown by many surveys.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of unemployed in Lancaster has fallen steadily and that, more important, the number in employment is steadily increasing? Many are employed in adaptable small firms and many in the tourist industry, which is taking advantage of our natural attractions and historic connections.
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a very big increase in employment, and the tourist industry has been one of the major activities involved. It is not right for Opposition Members to criticise that increase and suggest that, somehow, jobs in tourism are not real jobs. Of course they are real jobs, and they are internationally competitive real jobs.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Secretary of State recognise that unemployment is still far too high? Given the present level of unemployment, is it not crazy to have ended the job release scheme? Is it not wrong to say that that scheme has been ended because the number using it has fallen considerably? Should not the Government have been moving in the opposite direction and allowing more people to take early retirement under the job release scheme to make employment available for younger people?
    Mr. Fowler: The job release scheme was being applied only to those aged 64 and was having a very marginal impact.
    On the unemployment statistics, the fact is that unemployment has come down for 16 months in succession. In the past 12 months the fall in the figures has been the largest on record. It has affected every region of the country and there have been record falls in long-term unemployment and in unemployment among young people. I had very much hoped that the Opposition would welcome that trend.
    Mr. William Powell: Is it not a fact that there has been not only an enormous reduction in unemployment this year but a corresponding and greater growth in employment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in each month of 1987 the Corby jobcentre has had a record number of job vacancies? To encourage people to take the jobs that are now available, would it not be sensible for income tax rates to be reduced to reduce some of the disincentives to work?
    Mr. Fowler: The last point is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What my hon. Friend has said about the increase in the number in employment is right. The position in this country compares favourably with the EEC average and with countries such as France, Germany and the Netherlands.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State accept that it would be helpful if his Department produced figures which showed the number of people in part-time employment and those in full-time employment? While the new jobs that are being created are welcome, there is genuine concern that they are often part-time jobs

    913
    replacing full-time jobs. Rather than exchanges which do not shed light, would it not be helpful if his Department gave us the facts?
    Mr. Fowler: The fact of the matter is that we do produce those figures. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who I think leads for the Liberal party on these matters, is not aware of that. I will repeat the figures again. Over the past 12 months, 372,000 new jobs have been created, of which 206,000—the majority—are full-time.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom is at its lowest for five years? Will he comment on how he sees the unemployment trends developing in the coming months?
    Mr. Fowler: As I have said, unemployment has come down for 16 months in a row. My hon. Friend is entirely right to state that it is now at its lowest level for five years. The Government want that trend to continue. That is not automatic, but provided that the lessons of the past are learned, I believe that unemployment should continue to come down.
    Mr. Meacher: While we certainly welcome any further fall in the unemployment figures, may I ask whether the Secretary of State is aware that, even on the Government's figures after they have fiddled them in 19 different ways, unemployment has still fallen by only one quarter of the amount by which it has increased under the Government since 1979? Is he further aware that under this Government Britain still has the worst combination of high unemployment and high inflation of any major Western country? Is he also aware that the number of people in jobs as a proportion of the total population available for work has not improved one jot, according to the Government's figures, since the end of 1982?
    Mr. Fowler: I am not prepared to take lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the inflation rate. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Labour Government when inflation exceeded 20 per cent. The fact is that unemployment has come down for 16 months in succession. There is no question about the downward trend in unemployment. The hon. Gentleman would do much better to welcome that trend and recognise that in countries such as France, Belgium, Spain and Ireland unemployment is higher, not lower, than in this country.
    Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is significant that during the general election campaign in June the Conservative party was the only party which did not make rash promises about reducing unemployment to 2 million in one year? Does that not prove that actions speak louder than words?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Since the election the unemployment rate has come down by several hundred thousand. We very much hope that the trend will continue.

    Fresh Claims Experiment
    Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the fresh claims experiment.
    Mr. Fowler: The experiments, which involve using more senior staff to interview newly unemployed people, have
    914
    just ended. Their aim was to see whether it is possible to provide a greater range of help and advice on both benefit procedures and employment opportunities at the initial point of contact with an unemployed person. The experiments are now being evaluated.
    Mr. McLeish: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Is it not obvious to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that the principal reason for the reduction in the number of people registered as unemployed is the increasing abuse of measures such as restart, the fresh claims experiment and the availability-for-work criteria? Indeed, 2·5 million restart interviews have taken place and some cynics would suggest that we should not be suprised about the dramatic fall in the number of unemployed that the Government talk about. Does he also accept that that view is increasingly shared by the British people? When will he elevate the tackling of unemployment above the abuse of the unemployed?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Not only have the unemployment figures gone down, but the number of people in employment has risen substantially. He mentioned the availability-for-work test. I must point out to him that those powers come from the Social Security Act 1975, which was passed by the Labour Government. As far as I know, no one seriously wants to pay out benefit when people are not available for work.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend any plans to extend the experiment nationwide?
    Mr. Fowler: We shall have to evaluate information that we have only just collected. We shall then consider what the possible extension of the programme may involve.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Secretary of State is thinking of extending the new scheme as another turn of the screw against the unemployed, perhaps he or one of his colleagues will examine the fresh claims made in the House of Lords by all those peers who turn up for work, nod to the duty officer and then walk out without even voting, complete with their £100 a day tax-free.
    Mr. Fowler: That has nothing to do with me, or with the question.

    Liquid Petroleum Gas
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the findings of the Health and Safety Executive investigation of the explosion in Balham on 21 August 1987; and when he expects the advisory committee on dangerous substances to announce the results of its consideration of the standards relating to the keeping and use of liquid petroleum gas.
    Mr. Nicholls: The Health and Safety Executive investigation into the explosion at Balham on 21 August 1987 concluded that the most likely cause was a leak of butane from a gas bottle and gas ring in the basement of the building.
    The advisory committee on dangerous substances has considered proposals for future controls over flammable gases and liquids, including standards relating to the keeping and use of liquefied petroleum gas. Its recommendations have been submitted to the Health and Safety Commission for consideration at a meeting to be held shortly.
    Mr. Bowis: In the light of the coroner's statement that the canister was not adequately labelled on the occasion of the explosion, will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the fact that such labelling is required for industrial use of canisters, but not for domestic or retail use? Will he make recommendations accordingly?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right in saying that the coroner made remarks to that effect and pointed out the distinction between domestic use and storage of gas and its use in the workplace. I am sure that Calor Gas has taken careful note of what the coroner said.

    Fire Fighting
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to seek to amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as it relates to the training of employees in fire fighting procedures at the place of work; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholls: No, Sir. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act already confers general duties on employers to provide such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of employees. More specific requirements for general fire precautions, including training in the event of fire, are contained in the Fire Precautions Act 1971.
    Mr. Madel: As there is a duty on employers to make every effort to improve safety and training in safety at the place of work, should not employers regularly communicate at least once a year with all their employees to explain what is being done to update and improve firefighting procedures?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, employers have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their employees. That applies to fire or to any other risk. However, the working of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which is the primary legislation available for the purpose, is more properly the province of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Miniser aware that many British employers are daily and yearly infringing the requirement of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act for their companies' safety policies to be updated annually? If he is aware of that deliberate flouting of the law, what is he doing about it?
    Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Lady has any specific instances of breaches of the law, I hope that she will do what is necessary to draw it to the attention of the authorities responsible.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the balance in the commendable desire to ensure that employees and other people are equipped to fight fires is not sometimes tipped too far and that some of the buildings in which people have to fight fires have become difficult for people to live and work in because of the requirements of some safety precautions?
    Mr. Nicholls: I take my hon. Friend's point, but at the same time it must be reiterated that there is a responsibility on employers to ensure the safety of their employees, and that must be a primary consideration.

    Young Training Schemes
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17-year-olds are currently on youth training schemes.
    Mr. Cope: On 31 October there were 391,719 YTS trainees with a two-year training entitlement and 25,084 with a one-year entitlement. Those with a two-year entitlement usually start training at 16 and those with a one-year entitlement usually start at 17.
    Mr. Nellist: I thank the Minister for that reply. Has he seen the October edition of his Department's Employment Gazette, which shows that YTS trainees in the retailing sector produce for their employers an average of £39 per week added value? The average for the eight industries that take 59 per cent. of YTS trainees placed with employers is £32 a week. If that amount is added to the current YTS allowance, £70 a week is coming into employers' hands. Why cannot trainees have a decent training allowance of at least £55 a week?
    Mr. Cope: The training allowance is adequate, and a recent survey which showed that 80 per cent. of trainees thought that their training was worth while proves that fact.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, nationally, more than 70 per cent. of young people on YTS go on to further education training or a job, and that in some areas, including Norwich, the figure may be higher? Is this not a major success, compared with the feeble efforts of the Labour party when it was in government some years ago?
    Mr. Cope: The figures are very encouraging, and they show the success of the scheme.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister admit that these figures show a disappointing level of employed youngsters on youth training? The original intention of the scheme was for it to be a good training base for young people in and out of work. Is it not about time that the Government said that no youngster should be going into work without training, and is it not about time also that we caught up with our industrial competitors and trained young people who are in and out of work?
    Mr. Cope: With over 400,000 people being trained on it, YTS is a very successful scheme. The option remains for youngsters to go directly into work, if they so wish, without going on YTS, and that should remain so.

    Self-employment
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of self-employment.
    Mr. Cope: Self-employment has a very important role to play in the regeneration of the economy and the reduction of unemployment. The current level of self-employment is 2·7 million, representing one in nine of the work force, and it is continuing to increase.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. It shows that, if those figures were taken together with the employed population, unemployment would be well below 10 per cent. Has my hon. Friend

    917
    any plans to ensure that self-employed people are helped by Government to sell their services and products to Government?
    Mr. Cope: We help small firms as much as we can to tender for Government contracts. A booklet, "Tendering for Government Contracts", is available from the Department's small firms service. With our encouragement, a number of Departments are publishing similar guidance for small firms on the opportunities to do business with Government.
    Miss Mowlam: Very few young people are self-employed. After April, self-employment for young people may take on a new definition, because they will either have to be on benefit or on YTS. Will the Minister guarantee that he will provide a YTS place for every 16 and 17-yearold, as the Secretary of State for Social Services is unprepared to give that guarantee?
    Mr. Cope: We do guarantee a place on YTS to those eligible.

    Tourism
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution the tourist industry is making to reducing unemployment in the inner cities.
    Mr. Lee: The tourism industry is making a significant contribution to employment in inner-city areas. More jobs are expected to be created when the tourism potential of inner cities and urban areas is further realised as a result of Government policies, the English Tourist Board's initiatives and investment by the public and private sectors.
    Mr. Bowden: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only the English Tourist Board, but local authorities and other agencies have a significant part to play in increasing tourism and encouraging employment? Is he aware of the imaginative initiatives that have been taken by Southwark chamber of commerce to encourage tourism south of the river in the inner London borough of Southwark? Will he confirm that 22 per cent. of the urban development grant is spent on tourist initiatives?
    Mr. Lee: Yes, I can confirm that. In fact, about 23 per cent. of total English urban development grants are used on tourism projects. As my hon. Friend has suggested, tourism is very much a partnership industry between Government and the public and private sectors, with local authorities also having a role to play. As far as Southwark is concerned, I am delighted by the progress that is being

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher):. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend reflect today on areas in the north, which suffer from high unemployment
    918
    and which will give a hearty welcome to the thousands of new jobs that will result from the confidence of Japanese manufacturers in our economy?
    The Prime Minister: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the excellent news that Nissan is expanding its investments in the north-east by about £200 million because it is delighted with the work that is done there. That will create another 1,400 jobs. Another Japanese company is expanding in East Kilbride, which again will provide a considerable number of jobs. That displays excellent confidence in the economy and work force of this country.
    Mr. Kinnock: In an unprecedented action, the Prime Minister has been petitioned today by over 1,000 doctors and consultants, who are alarmed at what they call
    "serious reductions in the Health Service … which are endangering patients' lives".
    What is the Prime Minister's response to them" Will she say that they are wrong and that the cuts are not really happening, or will she accept that they are right. but tell them that it is really all their fault?
    The Prime Minister: I shall set out the Government's excellent record in providing more resources— about 30 per cent. more in real terms over the past eight years—and in increasing—[Interruption.] As they asked me to make certain that expenditure kept pace with the increasing GNP, I shall point out that when we came in, expenditure on health was 4·8 per cent. of GNP and that it is now 5·5 per cent. after eight years of Tory Government. So we have done better than they requested. I shall also point out that the allocations of the £1·1 billion for England next year will soon be announced.
    Mr. Kinnock: With her recitations of figures, the Prime Minister is now making a fool of herself. She is showing a complete determination not to respond to what the highest authorities and most expert opinions have called the "crisis" in the Health Service. Will she not heed the words of Sir George Godber, who said:
    "it is useless for Ministers to repeat barely relevant multiples of past expenditure, staff employed, or numbers going in and out of hospital doors … What matters is the volume of services not provided or too long delayed".
    Will the Prime Minister now make sure that the resources are made available to bring those beds back into use, to fund the pay awards and restructuring and to ensure that she stops the rot in the National Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: As I said to the right hon. Gentleman, the allocations for increases next year -which to the hospital and community services in England alone amount to some £700 million, paid for by the taxpayer—will shortly be made and the regional health authorities will soon have details of them. In the meantime, because it is the treatment of the patient that counts, let me make it quite clear that for every three hip replacement operations in 1978 there are now four, for every two cataract operations which took place under Labour there are now three, and altogether, for every six operations then, there are now seven. That is an expanding Health Service and it will continue to expand.
    Mr. Kinnock: The House and the country needs to know that, much though the Prime Minister makes of that £700 million, £500 million is already allocated for pay and prices, a further £100 million is already allocated for emergency initiatives, a further £48 million will be

    919
    necessary only because the Government are putting up electicity prices, and the area health authorities have to find £170 million out of that sum to pay off the debts that they have had to run up because of underfunding this year. Why does not the Prime Minister, instead of constantly hiding behind those figures, understand that, as Sir George Godber says, the principles of equity and of access to care on the basis of need, not the ability to pay, are now seriously under threat, and make not just commendation of the Health Service, but resources available for the Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: I give the right hon. Gentleman the figures because they show that no Government in history have given the Health Service more resources, more doctors, more nurses, or better pay for the nurses, than this one. That is what the right hon. Gentleman does not like.
    As the right hon. Gentleman quotes from a previous chief medical officer to the Health Service, let me quote from the Labour party's document "The Way Forward", with a foreword by the noble Lord Ennals, then Secretary of State for Social Services. He gave a very different tale from the right hon. Gentleman when he said:
    "Public expectations of the health and social services will frequently outrun supply and sometimes hard decisions will be needed to hold back some services to allow others to be developed."
    That is what the Labour Government said when they were in power because they could not provide a fraction of the services that we have provided.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Very occasionally. Mr. Kinnock.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.
    Mr. Kinnock: Free speech, Mr. Speaker. Free speech. —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Very occasionally a dispensation is given to the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Kinnock: Tory Members are only proving their sensitivity, Mr. Speaker.
    Following what the right hon. Lady said, the infinity of demand for health care is understood to be a reality—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to contain itself. Mr. Kinnock
    Mr. Kinnock: Following what the Prime Minister said, the infinity of demand for health care—[Interruption.]
    Hon. Members: Name him.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no good hon. Members pointing at each other across the Chamber in such a disgraceful way. Mr. Kinnock.
    Mr. Kinnock: That reaction really does show that the blood is flowing through the bandages that the Tories are trying to wrap around it. The infinity of demand of which the right hon. Lady speaks is well understood. For most Governments, it is accepted as a challenge. With her Government, it is used as an alibi. Will she heed the words of her erstwhile supporter, Mr. Nigel Harris, who said that her policies are ludicrous, deceitful and lead to the degradation of the patients? How can she take pride in that? Why does she not make the proper resources available to stop the crisis?
    The Prime Minister: The doctors' petition this morning asked for the proportion of GDP to be maintained. I therefore repeat that this Government have done better than that. The last—[Interruption.] This Government—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This kind of noise does the reputation of the House no good at all.
    The Prime Minister: This Government have increased the proportion of GDP to 5·5 per cent. The last Labour Government cut it from 5·1 to 4·8 per cent.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Christmas in England will be the most prosperous Christmas that the country has ever known? Is she further aware that this happy time could be spoilt by certain yobbos, whether on the cricket field, in the boxing ring or in football crowds, whose behaviour falls short of what we expect? Do we not want, with better, prosperous times, more decent behaviour by the mass of the people?
    The Prime Minister: These are—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: These are the times of the highest standard of living that this country has ever known. So far as I am concerned, if more of us emulated my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), the House would be very much more orderly than it is.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave quite some time ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that yesterday in the House I and several colleagues met representatives of the ambulance service in Gwent, who complained bitterly about cuts and reorganisation which have now reached the stage when life is being endangered? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what response I should make to this dedicated group of people who have served the community so well over many years?
    The Prime Minister: Let me make two points. First, expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales has risen in real terms by a third. People may want more, but they should be very grateful that, under this Tory Government, expenditure goes up to levels which it could not possibly have reached under Labour. Secondly, in respect of the increased allocations for next year, paid for by the taxpayer, an average family this year pays £1,500 to the Health Service. Next year, to pay for the increased expenditure on the Health Service, the average expenditure per family will go up to £1,600 a year. The allocations resulting from that expenditure in Wales and elsewhere will shortly be announced.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the implications for the Government service of the harassment and intimidation currently going on in the CPSA and say whether that union should continue to have time and Government money to carry on its activities?
    The Prime Minister: We condemn harassment and intimidation wherever they arise. Of course, the Employment Bill is concerned with the rights of trade union members, not with harassment and intimidation. The alleged harassment and intimidation is a matter for the police. It is now being investigated, so my hon. Friend will not expect me to say anything further at this moment.
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nicholson: Since we are now approaching the coldest period of the year, and since many of my hon. Friends and I have been the object of a co-ordinated campaign by the opponents of the expansion of nuclear power, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to study and emphasise the strength of the British
    922
    electricity generating industry, based on a variety of sources of supply? Will she contrast its happy position with the position in Romania, where the domestic ration is enough only to run one small electric heater for one hour each day?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a responsibility or the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the generation of electricity needs to come from a number of different sources, including nuclear. Nuclear supplies are now approaching some 20 per cent. of our generating capacity. As my hon. Friend knows, we need a considerable programme of investment in power stations, transmission and distribution. This Government are about to embark on such a programme.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Time is up. [Interruption.]

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) brought to your attention the fact that there is no Scottish Minister serving on the Standing Committee considering the Health and Medicines Bill. That Committee met this morning. Of course, you ruled on the matter, Mr. Speaker, and it is now concluded. I drew the attention of the Chairman of the Committee to the fact that, Standing Order No. 87(1) states:
"Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, or any of them, being Members of the House, though not members of a standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum."
That matter was raised, and the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), ruled that it was not a matter for him.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss on the Floor of the House what goes on in a Committee.
Mr. Hogg: The point is that the problem of there not being a Scottish Minister on the Committee could have been overcome if we could have sent for the Solicitor-General for Scotland because the Bill deals with primary legislation covering the Health Service in Scotland. That is not possible because the Solicitor-General for Scotland lost his seat in the general election, but the Government saw fit to reappoint him. So here we have a Standing Order that says that we may send for a Law Officer, but we have lost that right because the Law Officer is not a Member of this House. How can we get around that problem?
Mr. Speaker: I have to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that he is correct in saying that there is no Scottish Law Officer qualified to attend the Standing Committee. Membership of the Committee is a matter for the Committee of Selection. As I explained to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) yesterday, that is the place where he should take his representations. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to press the point any further, but we in Scotland have now reached the point at which we have no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because the Government cannot provide membership and cannot agree on it. We have failed to have a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, we do not have a Scottish Minister on the Standing Committee, and we cannot send for the Solicitor-General for Scotland. It must be apparent to hon. Members and to people outside that the Government are incapable of properly administering the affairs of Scotland.
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of the House, will you confirm that this is a unitary Parliament in which every part of the United Kingdom is dealt with properly and that Scottish affairs are regularly dealt with in the Chamber? In fact, within the recent week we have dealt with Scottish business.
Mr. Speaker: That is true, but it does not necessarily follow from the point of order.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Health and Medicines Bill. This morning, I was silenced. I was unable to debate the very important—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that we cannot debate in the House what goes on in Standing Committee. It is not my responsibility. It is a matter for the Standing Committee itself and for its Chairman.
Mr. Hayes: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. This relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg). The reason I could not speak in Committee this morning was the filibuster organised by the Labour party.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have rightly on a number of occasions pointed out that you see one of your major roles as protecting the rights of Back-Bench Members. At Question Time you mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition that it was an exception for a fourth question to be asked by him. May I ask you to re-emphasise that it is an exception because it is a dangerous precedent? May I also point out that nine of the 15 minutes of Prime Minister's Question Time today were devoted exclusively to questions by the Leader of the Opposition—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any help on this. I said to the House—and the hon. Member heard me, otherwise he would not have raised the point of order—that very exceptionally I call the Leader of the Opposition for a fourth time. I emphasise to the House that in the course of a Parliament I shall seek to ensure that every Back-Bench Member who wishes to be called is called at Prime Minister's Question Time. To that extent I have to exercise a degree of rationing. I seek to ensure that the calling is as fair and as wide as possible.
Mr. Ernie Ross: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will also be aware that today we were unable to hear at least two minutes of Prime Minister's Question Time because of the actions of a number of hon. Members. I know it is very difficult for you. It would be easy for us to identify individual hon. Members, but is there any way by which you can name collectively a group of hon. Members who seek to disrupt the House by actions such as we had today?
Mr. Speaker: I welcome the opportunity of saying to the House that our reputation is in the hands of hon. Members. A row such as we had at Question Time, which, sadly, was broadcast, does the House a very grave disservice.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that, even in the short time that I have been here, the amount of time taken by the Leader of the Opposition increases—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That touches upon my prerogative. Let us leave it.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order before last, Mr. Speaker. When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry asked the then Attorney-General, Mr. Sam Silkin, to advise it, he replied

925
in writing that, although Law Officers had a duty to advise the House as a whole, they had no duty to advise Committees of the House. That was the accepted doctrine. It might be well worth reminding the House of it so that there are no further points of order on Law Officers who do not go to Committees.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for his memory of these matters.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Member who was next on the list at Prime Minister's Question Time and who was unable to ask the Prime Minister about the very important statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just the point. I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman. I carefully keep a list, so I am aware that the hon. Member has not asked a question of the Prime Minister in this Session. I shall seek to make it up to him later.

Child Benefit (Uprating)
3.38 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the event of an increase in the Retail Price Index in 1988 or any subsequent calendar year, to lay before Parliament the draft of an uprating order to produce an increase in child benefit with effect from the beginning of the following financial year of not less than a corresponding percentage, and to make future increases in child benefit a charge on the National Insurance Fund.
Once again, I am seeking the leave of the House to introduce a Bill in respect of the uprating of child benefit. May I remind hon. Members of the long title of the Bill that I am proposing, which is as follows:
"to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the event of an increase in the Retail Price Index in 1988 or any subsequent calendar year, to lay before Parliament the draft of an uprating order to produce an increase in child benefit with effect from the beginning of the following financial year of not less than a corresponding percentage, and to make future increases in child benefit a charge on the National Insurance Fund."
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that this is an important ten-minute Bill on child benefit, I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, would ask those Members leaving the Chamber to do so quietly so that the rest of us can hear the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams).
Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) for his help. Will hon. Members please leave quietly?
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I believe that it is worth the time of the House to consider for a few moments the origin of child benefit and the reason why it is somewhat controversial at this time. As hon. Members will remember, the system of family allowances was introduced, with all-party support, in 1945 by the caretaker Government. That system continued until the mid-1970s as a universal benefit targeted to families with children according to the number of children in the family. However, child benefit has a much older origin than that, because it originated with the child tax allowances that featured at the very start of the income tax system when it was introduced by William Pitt at the end of the 18th century. It was decided in the mid-1970s that the two kinds of child allowance should be amalgamated. I calculate that, if child tax allowance had continued and had been uprated in the same way as the other tax allowances since that time in accordance with the Lawson-Rooker-Wise formula, it would now be worth to taxpayers in net terms, about £450 for each child.
Child benefit has not been uprated in the same way as other tax allowances and, therefore, this year it is worth only some £370 per child. Bearing in mind that that sum As paid direct to the mother and is not liable to tax, it is an important benefit for the nearly 7 million families who claim it. It is targeted to all families without test of means.
I should like to raise one or two points about the benefit because the majority of the people who claim it are people who are also liable for income tax. For them, the child benefit has the effect of a remission of their tax burden. The amount of tax and the amount of benefit breaks even

927
for couples with one child only at about £100 per week, and even for couples with four children the break-even point is below the national average of male manual earnings. Between 4 million and 5 million families pay more in income tax than they derive in child benefit. Therefore, for that large number of families, child benefit constitutes a welcome remission of their tax burden. In fact, it constitutes a tax cut targeted towards families according to the number of their children.
Many people favour a reduction in the general rate of income tax, and they believe that, in some ways, that is preferable to an uplift in the rate of child benefit. I do not share that view. In fact, single people stand to do best if there is an across-the-board, untargeted reduction in income tax. However, if we were to relieve the tax burden of families specifically by raising the child benefit, the money would go to the people who obviously have the greatest need at each particular level of income.
It is worth going back to the arguments that many of us remember about the amalgamation of child benefit and family allowances in the mid-1970s. I believe that there were three particular reasons why the House decided that child benefit should be introduced to supersede family allowances and child tax allowances: first, for the ease of administration; secondly, on account of the question of incentives, which was extremely important then and, indeed, is certainly extremely important now, given the growing awareness of the importance of the poverty trap for so many people in this country; thirdly, because of the question of take-up. We had virtually 100 per cent. take-up of the family allowances before the amalgamation, and, since the amalgamation, in the form of the child benefit, once again we have virtually 100 per cent. take-up of this popular benefit, which still goes directly to the mothers.
These are particularly important questions today. Every one of us knows the pressure there is on the supplementary benefit offices to deal with their monumental load of case-work. We must remember that the child benefit not only has the highest take-up of all the family benefits; it involves virtually no case-work and is the cheapest of the family benefits to administer.
Then there is the question of incentives. I must bring to the attention of the House the tragic way in which the numbers are growing, inexorably, of people who are obliged to apply for means-tested benefit of one sort or another. I received a parliamentary answer a few days ago which shocked me and would shock anyone who studied it carefully. It appears that there are now between 15 million and 16 million people in this country who are dependent in one way or another on means-tested benefits. Worse than that, it is officially estimated that there may be about 5 million or 6 million further people who do not claim means-tested benefits, but would be eligible for benefit if they chose to do so. That is a large part of our population for whom, when they have calculated the effect of so doing, there is not a great deal of purpose in working or saving. Conservative Members and, I believe, Opposition Members, too, believe in the importance for self-respect of working and saving.
This country cannot continue to have an inexorably rising number of people who are obliged to apply for means-tested benefits. Although it may be administered in a kind manner—I know that the people in the DHSS and in the local authorities and elsewhere who have to deal
928
with case-work do their utmost to be humane and reasonable—that number of millions of people must class themselves, inevitably, as second-rate citizens. The great advantage of the child benefit is that it is a universal benefit, and people who improve their lot do not lose their eligibility for that important benefit.
This year, by not uprating the child benefit, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State unhappily has tipped about another 40,000 people on to the heap of those who are eligible to apply for means-tested benefit. We have before us now the prospect of the community charge. I believe that that may add as many as a further 2 million to the number of people who are eligible to apply for means-tested benefits.
The time has come for the House to make a clear recommendation to the Departments concerned about the future of child benefit. When I introduced a similar Bill about 18 months ago there was a Division, and the number of Members who voted in favour was 152; only three Members voted against. The Department should have noted the expression of opinion in the House at that time; but it did not. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chose not to increase child benefit this year, but I should like to make it clear to the House that my Bill as drafted is not a confrontation with my right hon. Friend. I understand his reasons; at the very time when the new family credit is being brought in, which everyone must welcome, he did not feel inclined also to uprate child benefit. I understand his reasons, though I regret his decision. My Bill however, is not a confrontation with that decision. The effect of my Bill, if passed by the House, would be only to put child benefit on the Lawson-RookerWise formula with effect from next year. That truly is something on which the House could unite in all parties.
I realise that there are certain people, inside and outside the House, who feel that they do not need child benefit, so why should it be given to them? To them, we should make the point that they are entitled to a reduction in taxation if tax cuts are in the air, and there is no reason why tax cuts should not be targeted specifically to families—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had 10 minutes. Will he now bring his remarks to a close?
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I will indeed do so.
There are some 10,000 claimants in each constituency, which is a point that hon. Members may care to bear in mind.
My last point is to explain why the national insurance fund features in my long title. We should revive the concept of national insurance, so that child benefit, just as much as pensions and unemployment relief, may be seen to emanate from the national insurance fund. I trust that the House will support my Bill.
3.50 pm
Mr. Frank Field rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Field: I seek to oppose this important proposed Bill. It is important because it affects 7 million mothers and 14 million children and it would be wrong for it to be nodded through. The only way in which we have a chance to express our individual preferences is in the Division

929
Lobby, and when the time comes I shall seek to divide the House. Needless to say, I hope that the Bill is given leave to be brought in by a massive majority.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must oppose, not praise and then oppose.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 20.

Division No. 112]

[3.50 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Eastham, Ken

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Allen, Graham

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Alton, David

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Anderson, Donald

Fearn, Ronald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Fisher, Mark

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Flannery, Martin

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Flynn, Paul

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Foster, Derek

Barron, Kevin

Foulkes, George

Battle, John

Fraser, John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

French, Douglas

Beckett, Margaret

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Beggs, Roy

Galbraith, Samuel

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Galloway, George

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Benyon, W.

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Boateng, Paul

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Bowis, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Boyes, Roland

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bradley, Keith

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Gould, Bryan

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle B)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Buchan, Norman

Grocott, Bruce

Buckley, George

Hardy, Peter

Caborn, Richard

Harman, Ms Harriet

Callaghan, Jim

Haynes, Frank

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Heffer, Eric S.

Carrington, Matthew

Henderson, Douglas

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Clay, Bob

Home Robertson, John

Clelland, David

Hood, James

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cohen, Harry

Howells, Geraint

Coleman, Donald

Hoyle, Doug

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cormack, Patrick

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cox, Tom

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Cran, James

Ingram, Adam

Cryer, Bob

Jack, Michael

Cummings, J.

John, Brynmor

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Cunningham, Dr John

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Dalyell, Tarn

Jones, leuan (Ynys M6n)

Darling, Alastair

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Kilfedder, James

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Day, Stephen

Knapman, Roger

Dewar, Donald

Knox, David

Dixon, Don

Lambie, David

Dobson, Frank

Lamond, James

Doran, Frank

Leighton, Ron

Dunnachie, James

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Eadie, Alexander

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

930

Lewis, Terry

Redmond, Martin

Litherland, Robert

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Livingstone, Ken

Reid, John

Livsey, Richard

Richardson, Ms Jo

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Rogers, Allan

Loyden, Eddie

Rooker, Jeff

McAllion, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McAvoy, Tom

Rost, Peter

Macdonald, Calum

Rowe, Andrew

McFall, John

Rowlands, Ted

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

McKelvey, William

Sedgemore, Brian

McLeish, Henry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McTaggart, Bob

Skinner, Dennis

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Soley, Clive

Maxton, John

Spearing, Nigel

Meacher, Michael

Squire, Robin

Meale, Alan

Steel, Rt Hon David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Steinberg, Gerald

Michael, Alun

Stott, Roger

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Strang, Gavin

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Straw, Jack

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morgan, Rhodri

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Morley, Elliott

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B heath)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Vaz, Keith

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Wall, Pat

Mudd, David

Wallace, James

Mullin, Chris

Walley, Ms Joan

Murphy, Paul

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Nellist, Dave

Wareing, Robert N.

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

O'Brien, William

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

O'Neill, Martin

Wigley, Dafydd

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Parry, Robert

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Patchett, Terry

Wilson, Brian

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Winnick, David

Pendry, Tom

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Pike, Peter

Worthington, Anthony

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wray, James

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Yeo, Tim

Prescott, John

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Price, Sir David

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Quin, Ms Joyce

Tellers for the Ayes:

Randall, Stuart

Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams

Rathbone, Tim

and Mr. Tony Marlow

NOES

Allason, Rupert

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Amos, Alan

Mans, Keith

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Brazier, Julian

Redwood, John

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Dover, Den

Wells, Bowen

Forth, Eric

Wheeler, John

Gow, Ian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Tellers for the Noes:

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Mr. Frank Field and

Janman, Timothy

Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, M r. Jim Lester, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Tim Rathbone, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Tim Yeo.

Child Benefit (Uprating)
  CHILD BENEFIT (UPRATING)
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the event of an increase in the Retail Price Index in 1988 or any subsequent calendar year, to lay before Parliament the draft of an uprating order to produce an increase in child benefit with effect from the beginning of the following financial year of not less than a corresponding percentage, and to make future increases in child benefit a charge on the National Insurance Fund: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 12th February and to be printed. [Bill 71].
  Orders of the Day

    Local Government Bill
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14 December], That the clause (Dog Licences), proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be read a Second time.
    "(1) The duty charged under the Dog Licences Act 1959 on Licences for dogs shall from the date set out in subsection (5) and subject to subsection (2), be determined by a London borough, or district council, as appropriate at a level of not less that £10 per annum and not more than £20 per annum in any financial year and shall be allocated by the authority to the funding of a dog warden service in its area.
    (2) No duty shall be charged in respect of any dog which is:—

    (a) a trained guide dog kept for the purpose of assisting a blind or partially-sighted person;

    (b) a dog kept for the purpose of work in connection with the maintenance of livestock or gamekeeping;

    (c) a dog whose owner has attained the age of statutory retirement.

    (3) In Section 1 of the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to dogs) Act 1933 (disqualification for keeping a dog of any person convicted of cruelty to dogs), at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    (5) For the purposes of this section a person shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to keep a dog—

    (a) if it is found or seen in that person's custody, charge or possession, or in his house or premises;

    (b) in the case of hounds, if he is their owner or master."

    (4) In section 1 of the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) (Scotland) Act 1934 (disqualification for keeping a dog of any person convicted of cruelty to dogs), at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(5) For the purposes of this section a person shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to keep a dog—

    (a) if it is found or seen in that person's custody, charge or possession, or in his house or premises;

    (b) in the case of hounds, if he is their owner or master."

    (5) this section shall come into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.".—[Mr. Rooker.]
    Question again proposed.
    4.3 pm
    Mr. Bob Cryer: I support my hon. Friends in seeking to maintain the dog licensing system. I shall not dwell on the matter at length because several important points have been made, but it is worth pointing out that, unless we have some system of registration, we shall not be able to detect animal diseases with the accuracy and precision necessary to take remedial action.
    With the development of the Channel tunnel and the completion of the internal market by 1992, there is a grave danger that rabies will be a greater possibility in Britain. In the Common Market, rabies is spreading at the rate of 25 miles each year, and the barrier against rabies that the Common Market has attempted to set up through an inoculation process has not stemmed the spread of the disease. Therefore, it is reasonable that we should have a licensing system, because, although one hopes that that possibility will never come to fruition, we should be forewarned.

    933
    The National Canine Defence League takes the view that we should retain the dog licensing system. The Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society, which is chaired by Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Irving of Dartford and has as its vice-chairman the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who is taking her usual interest in the subject, points out:
    "However, the decision to abolish rather than to increase the licence to a sensible level of up to £10 goes against the advice of the veterinary bodies, the welfare bodies, the local authorities, the environmental health officers and the farmers. The present income goes to local authorities helping to fund, in a minimal way, present dog warden services."
    If there were an adequate dog licence fee, those dog warden services could be made very much more effective in reducing the nuisance of dogs while helping to maintain standards which the vast majority of dog owners seek to maintain. It would provide for a much more effective service.
    New clause 4 seeks to give powers to local authorities to draw up a register of dangerous dogs. It is a probing clause. If the Minister says that the definition of dangerous dogs should not be left to local authorities—I am happy to leave it to democratically elected local authorities to examine what prevails in their areas— and insists that there should be a central, universal definition, I would be happy for a clause to give the Minister power to define such categories by means of a statutory instrument.
    It is a matter of concern. A newspaper comment on the increase in the category of dangerous dogs states:
    "Strict conditions should be imposed on the sale of giant Rottweiler dogs, says former police dog handler Stephen Allinson.
    Mr. Allinson, who runs a Rottweiler dogs display team —the Black Devils—billed as 'The SAS of the Dog World', spoke out after last week's attack on a Bradford headteacher who as savaged by one of the dogs as he took a pupil home from school.
    'The problem today is that the Rottweiler is a fashionable dog and is getting into the wrong hands' said Mr. Allinson."
    It went on:
    "Mr. Allinson said the dogs are not necessarily dangerous or ferocious, but breeders were selling them to the wrong people.
    'A condition of sale should be that the new owner attends dog training classes until the dog and owner can prove a competent team together.' … Bradford Council's environmental health chiefs have already urged owners of big dogs, especially guard dogs, to make sure that they get their animals properly trained."
    That is the voice of experience. A man who trains that category of dog regularly and who was a former police dog handler says that there are dangers.
    There have been a number of attacks, and I wish to dwell on one which occurred in my constituency and which was mentioned in my previous quotation from the local evening paper. It involved the head teacher of a local school who had a pupil who had suffered an asthma attack, so he kindly and humanely agreed to take the small boy home. When he got the boy home, a Rottweiler dog
    "broke free from its chain when they arrived, hurling itself at … and knocking him to the ground.
    The owner sought to drag the dog off its victim as it sank its teeth into his arm and other parts of his body. Bradford Council's emergency dog warden team was called in to subdue the animal with special restraining equipment. The two wardens then held down the dog with lasso poles while a vet raced to the scene. When vet Neil Adams arrived, he injected the animal with a fatal shot and Mr. Waterhouse was rushed to hospital."
    934
    Mr. Waterhouse has been off work for three months, at considerable cost to the local authority and the education service.
    The new clause would enable the mounting of some sort of scrutiny of dog ownership. It would enable a register of dangerous dogs to be drawn up and conditions of ownership, such as kennel provision, chaining and fencing, to be checked by the local authority, which would help the owner in that respect. Those who argue against it say that the cost would be too high, but the new clause may well save public expenditure if it can prevent accidents such as the dreadful vicious attack that I described.
    We need to consider other consequences, too. There were two Rottweilers at the house where the attack took place. The one that was killed because of the attack was immediately replaced by a bull mastiff, so there are now at least three dangerous dogs at the house. They are not always chained up.
    Another of my constituents has a four-month old baby daughter. Can those who criticise the supervision of dogs through licensing, and the closer supervision of some categories of dog, assure me that that four-month-old baby will be perfectly safe if she is left in the garden next to a house where there are two or three Rottweilers and a bull mastiff? Of course they cannot. The parents cannot leave their four-month-old daughter in their garden and enjoy any peace of mind or security. They have erected a fence at considerable expense, but they cannot be sure that one of the animals will not break away, leap over the fence and savage the baby. Given that an adult who was savagely attacked needed hospital treatment and has been off work for three months, one dreads to think of what the dog could do to a four-month old baby.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend recognise that one merit of the new clause is that it would allow the identification and location of the dangerous American pit bull terriers being imported into this country at great cost to facilitate illegal dog fighting?
    Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely the sort of dog that would fall into the category required to be registered under my new clause. That would meet the objections to the way in which some dogs are cruelly and viciously set against each other in illegal fights.
    In addition to the four-month-old baby, a number of young children live around the house to which I have referred. When the dogs are loose, the children have to be kept in. They cannot play in the garden as their parents would like them to. This is not an isolated incident. Several of my constituents have written to me saying that they have experienced similar problems.
    The House cannot just shrug off these cases and say, "Well, decent dog owners should and do look after their dogs," and tut-tut a little at those who are not so careful. In the case that I cited, there has been no prosecution. I have raised the matter with the Home Office, which says that the law is adequate and that dog owners vs ho do not control their animals properly can be prosecuted. However, in this case, the police have decided against prosecution, for reasons that are not spelt out in their letter to me.
    The new clause is a very modest measure which seeks to minimise accidents. We all know that they happen from time to time, and when they do hands are raised in horror. We can seek to take remedial action and to provide a

    935
    legislative framework for local authorities to ensure that the number of accidents and of terrible competitions in which dogs are pitted against each other illegally is reduced.
    The Minister may say that my new clause is too broadly drawn. I should be happy to accept a clause drawn up by his Department if it gave the same degree of security and supervision. Bradford has a very good dog warden service which has improved the process of rounding up stray dogs. However, that dog warden service is not adequate to protect people against some of these ferocious dogs because it does not have the information necessary to pinpoint the dangers. I hope that the House will support my new clause.
    4.15 pm
    Miss Janet Fookes: I shall keep my remarks brief because I have to chair a Standing Committee at 4.30 pm. I hope that it will be understood that I shall not be in my place for the rest of the debate.
    It will not surprise my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to learn that I deplore the Government's decision to abolish dog licences — a decision that goes against everything that I have worked for for 10 years or more. I want the dog licence fee raised to a realistic sum to support a dog warden scheme and a package of measures for the welfare and control of dogs.
    I shall support the new clause if the Government cannot give me anything better, although it has certain drawbacks. I believe in the general thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and would not wish to be too critical of his proposal. I query whether it is wise to have variable licence fees as between one local authority and another because difficulties could arise if adjoining local authorities levied different sums. I query, too, whether it is wise to have quite such a blanket exemption for retirement pensioners. However, I fully agree that we should have a dog licence fee to enable us to go ahead with a package of reforms.
    No taxation is popular and new taxes are even less popular, as the Government will shortly discover — if they have not done so already. Therefore, I query their wisdom in doing away with a tax that at least has the benefit of familiarity and which people have accepted because it has been in place far as long as anyone can remember. It is an astonishing act to get rid of a reasonable means of obtaining money to do a specific job, and I query it on that ground alone.
    Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, the concept of a package of measures to control dogs commands a rare degree of agreement among a whole variety of groups, not least the animal welfare organisations. Those groups also include the National Farmers Union. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Farmers Union do not always see eye to eye, but on this matter they march as one.
    I query the Government's decision to do away with dog licences most of all because of the order that they themselves introduced in Northern Ireland in 1983. I gather that that measure is working well and has done much to reduce the nuisance on which other hon. Members have expatiated. Are the Government so displeased with the scheme that they propose to
    936
    discontinue it in Northern Ireland? If they do not propose to discontinue it, why is it not good enough for the mainland of Britain? I look forward with interest to the answers to those two questions, even if I am not in my seat to listen to them.
    No one would suggest that it would be possible to achieve 100 per cent. enforcement of the increased dog licence. Frankly, it is worth no one's while to collect the miserable and paltry sum of 37p. I believe that if the dog licence fee was raised to a proper level of £5 or £10 that would be an inducement to enforce collection. I gather that there is a fair degree of enforcement in Northern Ireland and we therefore have a practical precedent to follow.
    Although my next point goes beyond the scope of the new clause—and I will do no more than touch on it briefly — I believe that dog wardens should be given greater powers than they possess under existing legislation. They should be the enforcement agents for the collection of the licence fee and for the laws relating to dog fouling and other matters. That would go far to deal with the problems that many people who do not love dogs as I love them find so objectionable, for example the dog mess which they find in many places and the danger to children to which reference was made earlier.
    The Government have missed a great opportunity. If they do not want to accept the new clause, I hope that they can offer something in its place. A general gesture of good will stating that local authorities will be able to introduce dog warden schemes without giving them the wherewithal to carry those schemes out will not be acceptable. We must remember that the authorities will have less money if the new clause is passed because the money that is collected is used by local authorities.
    Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will reconsider. If they are not prepared to progress on the present basis, will they consider the ever-present threat of rabies entering this country? I am aware that a set of draconian reserve powers exists, which can be implemented if rabies enters the country. However, I do not believe that the Government will be thanked if those powers have to be invoked when it would have been possible to have a far more humane and attractive approach through a good system of licensing and registration and a dog warden scheme. If rabies should enter the country, I will not hesitate to remind my hon. Friends of what I have just said. We cannot shrug off the threat of rabies as something which is unlikely to happen. It is all too likely to happen. It would be far more prudent to have a proper system of dog control in force than the present system, which will result in utter chaos.
    I am connected with two welfare societies, the RSPCA and the National Canine Defence League. The societies bear the brunt of dog owners' irresponsibility and the very inadequate controls on the breeding of dogs. They bear that brunt day after day, and it gives them no pleasure to have to destroy dogs when it is not possible to keep them for a variety of reasons. Money is being spent which would not have to be spent for that purpose if we had a proper set of controls. Unwanted dogs that are turned out by irresponsible owners lead a miserable existence. My hon. Friends should look at some of the homes — and Battersea dogs' home is close to the House—and they would see what welfare societies have to deal with every

    937
    day. Once Ministers had witnessed that they might give more thought to the problem before deciding to do away with the dog licence.
    In short, I support the new clause, with reservations, for the reasons that I have given. I am anxious to see that the pass is not sold entirely and that we retain the dog licence as a necessary means of funding a scheme of dog wardens and other control measures. I would like to see a new Act which would bring all the dog laws together. However, I am aware that that goes beyond the scope of the new clause and I will say no more.
    Mr. Hardy: I need not detain the House for long, because I share the concerns expressed by many hon. Members so far and not least those expressed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes).
    I believe that the Government have acted with gross irresponsibility. Since the debate started, much has been said about the nature of the problems that are presented by irresponsible dog owners. I do not dissent from the need for the maintenance of the licence. However, the Government's record must be exposed. They have known since 1979 when they assumed office of the need for an improved, fair and effective system of control. The evidence has been available since the mid-1970s. I recall advancing an argument that certain reforms were required in 1975, when I suggested that the first priority was to remove the six-month exemption for the purchase of a licence whereby people getting a puppy do not need to buy a licence until the puppy is six months old. That exemption must he the single greatest cause of the difficulties from dogs that confront society.
    While I am delighted that the Opposition have tabled amendment No. 29 which, if it was accepted by the House, would force the Government to reconsider the whole position and perhaps come forward with a sensible arrangement such as that advocated by the hon. Member for Drake I would have been delighted if the Opposition's position rested with that amendment. However, I have reservations about new clause 4. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will consider my points when he advises Opposition Members in another place.
    To many hon. Members and perhaps to the vast majority of dog owners, £10 may not be a large sum of money. Indeed, £20—the maximum set down in the new clause — may not be a large sum. However, to many people who will not enjoy the "most prosperous Christmas" that this country has ever seen, to quote the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) — that means the 8 million on or below the poverty — £10 or £20 is a great deal of money. They would be bitterly resentful if they had to scrimp and save to find the £10 or £20 when they were responsible dog owners.
    I hope that I can be regarded as a responsible dog owner. A number of hon. Members have mentioned their dogs. At home at the moment we have a large Irish wolfhound and a young deerhound. Our licences have always been paid on the dot, not because of my efficiency but because my wife insists on it. I strongly suspect that in my area and in all other areas, only a minority of dog owners obtain licences for their dogs. I suspect that, even if the new clause were passed, many people would not pay the
    938
    £10 or £20. The responsible dog owners whose dogs do not do the kind of thing that we have heard about would be even more angry and bitter.
    Perhaps the Government have rather more cunning than some of us would give them credit for. They have failed to act for nearly 10 years despite the weight of evidence and the arguments advanced by Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Drake. The reason why they have not acted is that they did not wish to incur unpopularity. However, it is no part of the Opposition's job to incur unpopularity. Had the Government any serious and intelligent intentions in this matter, they would have accepted one of about five or six private Members' Bills presented to the House over the past six or seven years.
    4.30 pm
    As far as I can recall, in every instance the Government used, or wished to use, those private Members' Bills to get out from under and transfer the responsibility entirely to local authorities. I do not think that that is on from a Government who have inflicted rate capping on local authorities. I take the view that, if there is to be a fee, it should be determined centrally, and not left as a means of ensuring that more odium falls on the shoulders of local government. We wish to avoid the ridiculous state of affairs in which people living on one side of the road pay £10, while those on the other side pay £20.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is dealt with in new clause 15—tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—which provides for a licence fee of £10 per annum? That is the crucial difference between new clause 4 and new clause 15, although the principle is the same in both.
    Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that I have sat through the whole debate. While that may be the intention of new clause 15, it is not the only intention that the Liberal party has demonstrated. The Liberal party's position seems to be very draconian. I believe that it would discourage not only irresponsible but responsible dog owners.
    That, however, is not my only reservation about new clause 4. I note that, under subsection (2)(b),
    "a dog kept for the purpose of work in connection with the maintenance of livestock or gamekeeping"
    would be exempted from the licence charge. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has sought legal advice. I am not a lawyer, but it strikes me that some masters of hounds would be given an opportunity to argue that their packs should be exempt. That is surely not a proposal that the Opposition should contemplate.
    Gamekeeping is a reputable activity. But if the gamekeeper is to enjoy such an exemption, what will be the position of the welfare organisations referred to by the hon. Member for Drake? Many breed clubs within the dog fancy also operate their own rescue societies. Will they have to find £10 or £20 for every dog that they Lake into care, which otherwise would probably be roaming the country or causing a general nuisance?
    The same applies to boarding kennels. It is to be hoped that dog owners who go away on holiday ensure that their dogs are properly cared for while they are away; I do not consider it reasonable to require dog licences costing a

    939
    maximum of £20 from all boarding kennel owners. That would inevitably put up the cost, and discourage people from ensuring that their pets were properly looked after. If the gamekeeper — who is serving an important, or established, leisure interest—is to receive a concession, why should not such a concession also be offered to responsible people who are engaged in breeding and showing dogs? Thousands of people in Britain shoot, but I suspect that far more show dogs.
    That leads me to a further suggestion. People who show dogs usually value them enormously, and the dogs may indeed be very valuable. Such people will not let their dogs wander about school fields — at least, they certainly should not do so. They recognise that the dogs may be a substantial asset. If those dogs are not likely to cause a nuisance to society, I suggest that their owners should pay no more than one licence fee. Those who own several dogs may be more responsible owners than those who own only one, but do not know how to look after it. I certainly do not wish a system to be introduced that would deter people from enjoying a perfectly sensible pastime in which I occasionally indulge — sometimes with substantial success—with my son's wolfhound.
    We should be encouraging people to enjoy life, and to take part in the various activities that owning a dog can provide. We ought not to insist on a penalty that may make it impossible for poorer people to own dogs. I therefore hope that, by the time that the Bill reaches another place, the Opposition's proposal will be slightly more acceptable to responsible dog owners than it now appears to be.
    Many hon. Members — perhaps the majority — consider that the entire cost of a dog warden scheme should fall on the shoulders of those who pay the proposed licence fee. That is entirely unreasonable. Why should responsible dog owners have to bear the whole cost of the irresponsibility of those who refuse to pay? If the Minister, or any of my hon. Friends, maintains that view, we may eventually reach a time when only smokers will be called upon to bear the cost of the fire brigade.
    I agree with the view, expressed by a number of hon. Members, that the Government have acted irresponsibly, and should reconsider. In doing so, they may wish to consider a version of new clause 4 amended in the way that I have suggested.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) in urging my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government to consider the new clause sympathetically. Its wording is by no means perfect, but I believe that its principle is right, and that the Government should take it to themselves and bring forward in another place a form of wording that does not suffer from the same defects.
    I urge the Minister to do that, because the new clause has an honourable history. I had the privilege of proposing a similar new clause to the Control of Pollution Bill 1974 from the Opposition Front Bench. The principle was the same—that we should give local authorities the power to introduce a dog warden scheme, which they could fund by charging a licence fee. They could then carry out the important measures necessary to ensure that dogs are well looked after, and that the physical environment is well
    940
    looked after at the same time, so that dangers from rabies, and to children in parks and playgrounds, can be properly dealt with and the risks diminished.
    Unfortunately, I was not able to test the then Government's view, because the new clause was outside the long title of the Bill. Nevertheless, it enabled me to have discussions and negotiations which ended in the setting up of a working group which reported in 1976, accepting the principles and urging the Government to introduce legislation of the kind that we are now discussing.
    From 1976 until 1979, the Government of the day found excuse after excuse not to legislate. I rather suspect that similar reasons will be given from the Government Front Bench today for not introducing the legislation that the Opposition are now demanding. It is remarkable how being in government and being in opposition tend to change hon. Members' views on certain matters, and this is certainly an example.
    Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government at that time had such a tiny majority—if, indeed, they had a majority at all — that they would have been unable to do anything but what they did. The Opposition would certainly have used any Bill so presented for political purposes far beyond the interests of dogs. In any case, the hon. Gentleman is talking about a period of little more than two years. The present Government have been in power for eight years.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: The hon. Gentleman's recollection is at fault. It was then Opposition policy to promote such legislation and, from the Front Bench, I was promoting it on behalf of the Opposition. The Government of the day would have had a good answer, because they could have said, "We now call on the Opposition to support what their Front Bench spokesman has been urging on us."
    After 1979 I had the privilege of serving as a Minister in Northern Ireland, and it was no accident that an experiment was tried there with the introduction of an enlarged fee for a warden-controlled system. The problem was that people tended, as they do on this side of the water, to buy puppies for children at Christmas time, but after the Christmas holidays the puppies became a nuisance and were thrown out. They tended to roam in packs and the problem was that those wild packs savaged sheep throughout the countryside. It was necessary to find ways of controlling them.
    It may be said that the experience of Northern Ireland has not been all that great; collection of the new enhanced fee is difficult and—I am unaware of the figures for today—possibly about 50 per cent. of dog owners do not pay the licence fee. If my hon. and learned Friend intends to argue that, I shall tell him that the collection by authorities of fees, taxes, rates and rents is generally difficult in certain parts of Northern Ireland. He should recognise the circumstances that appertain there for the collection of moneys by the authorities.
    The introduction of the enlarged fee was successful because it gave the means to deal with the problem that I outlined. There has been a substantial reduction in wild dog packs, which were causing much danger to animals and, on occasions, to human beings.
    As I understand the new clause, it is proposed to give local authorities the power to set up dog warden schemes.

    941
    Local authorities already have that power and can do that without the need for further legislation, but they do not have a particular means of raising money for a new service.
    I disagree with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who said that people who keep dogs should not make a contribution to the creation of a dog warden scheme. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Drake said, this is not a matter for a national organisation, national apparatus or national levy.
    The problem varies from area to area. Some local authorities will find it necessary to use the power and to raise money for a dog warden service. Others may not have that problem or may not wish to have a dog warden service. Some may need only a slender service and therefore would not need to raise whatever the House determines as the correct maximum, whether it be £10 or £20. It would be within the discretion of the local authority to decide, within the parameters of its needs arid with regard to the number of dog owners that lived in its locality, the amount that it needed to charge to run this service efficiently and effectively. We should enable local authorities to do that.
    I represent an urban constituency, where dogs can be an enormous problem. There are many guard dogs in my constituency because of the levels of crime in certain areas. Dogs must be walked in the parks and streets, which creates an unseemly and dangerous environment, particularly for children.
    There must be the means to encourage the local authority to set up an organisation that will ensure that that nuisance is kept to a minimum. To enable local authorities to employ people to do that, one should not expect them to pay for it out of the community charge —which they will be enabled under other legislation to levy—because £178 per annum per head of population may not be sufficient if we are to add the provision of a dog warden service to the responsibilities of local authorities.
    4.45 pm
    I ask my hon. and learned Friend to treat this matter with some seriousness. It is a matter which the Environment Select Committee has considered since 1983 —since when I have been privileged to be its chairman. We have looked at the Estimates of the Department of the Environment and, year after year, pointed to the absurdity of the cost of £3 million per year for collection of the national dog licence fee. I can well understand that the persistence of the Select Committee in pinpointing and underlining this absurdity each year, has driven the Government into considering the abolition of the dog licence.
    That is one part only of the equation; the other is how one deals with the other problems that must be tackled, and for which local authorities must be given the wherewithal.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am a member of the Environment Select Committee. Would it not be true to say that it deliberately tabled a motion, when the report on the Estimates was last considered, with a blatant view to making the Government think about this problem and come forward with a solution not only to the matter of licensing but the wider implications of the control of dogs?
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Given my involvement with the subject since 1974, that thought was not far from my mind when
    942
    the Committee agreed to table that motion. It is a matter of disappointment that the Government did not have the courage to deal with those matters.
    The response of the Government will be similar to that which I received from the Government during the 1974–79 Parliament. No doubt they have received advice from the same officials, and the same considerations will apply, but if that is the case I must tell my hon. and learned Friend not to expect me in the same Lobby as him tonight.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to speak specifically to new clause 15—Dog Licences—

    `(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, the duty charged under the Dog Licences Act 1959 on licences for dogs shall be set at £10 per annum and shall be increased on 1 April of each year in line with the percentage increase in the retail prices index.

    (2) The duty provided for in subsection (1) above shall be collected by a local authority from owners of dogs living in its area and shall be used by the authority for the funding of a dog warden service and for other dog control purposes in its area.

    (3) No duty shall be charged under subsection (1) above in respect of:-

    (a) a dog kept and used wholly or mainly for guidance by a blind or partially-sighted person, if the owner of the dog obtains a certificate of exemption in respect of the dog under this section;

    (b) a dog whose owner has attained the statutory age of retirement;

    (c) a dog kept and used solely for the purpose of tending sheep or cattle on a farm;

    (d) a dog under the age of three months where that dog is kept by the person who at the time of its birth was the owner of the bitch which gave it birth;

    (e) a dog kept by such other person or for such other purposes as may be specified, in England or Wales by the Secretary of State for the Environment, or, in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland, by a statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

    (4) Where no duty is charged under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (3) above, the owner of the dog shall obtain from the local authority a certificate of exemption from duty in respect of the dog.

    (5) In subsection (2) above, "local authority" means a district council, a London borough council, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, or the Common Council of the City of London.

    (6) This section shall come into force at the end of a period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.',

    and in support of the clauses and amendment that are the subject of this debate.
    The debate in Committee confirmed that the Government have but one argument for changing the position that they adopted, on a provisional basis, during the consultations on this matter a couple of years ago. Their Green Paper, which was produced after many years of internal consideration, came to the clear-cut conclusion that the Government would prefer the abolition of the present national licensing arrangements and said that new discretionary powers should be given to districts and London boroughs. Thus, the proposal in new clause 4, proposed by the Opposition Front Bench, is on all fours with the view that the Government took about a year ago.
    The Government have not explained their about-turn in response to the weight of the evidence. They have not said what the weight of the evidence was, but if they were to do so it would confirm that 10 of the reputable organisations that submitted evidence, such as the RSPCA and others, came out clearly in favour of a national dog licence, and only two opposed it.

    943
    A substantial number of individuals have also made views known. They have come to believe that it is necessary to get rid of the dog licence for the twin reasons that the present position is clearly ludicrous—there is no dissent about that—and that it is illogical to make responsible dog owners pay for irresponsible dog owners because there will always be people who do not apply for or pay for licences. Indeed, in Committee one of the Minister's hon. Friends admitted to being an example.
    The fallacy of that argument is that there are many parallels in taxation policy where people are charged for the use or ownership of something, but where not everybody may pay. The example that comes most obviously to mind is that of the motor car. Not everybody who should do so pays the vehicle excise licence, but it is still the rule that the Exchequer benefits by collecting the money that goes into the pool to allow more money to be available for dealing with issues of transport and road policy. There are other examples.
    Mr. Tony Marlow: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there are even stronger arguments than the one that he is advancing. Most responsible dog owners, indeed all responsible dog owners, are concerned about animal welfare. They love their own dogs deeply and are concerned about those who do not properly cater for or look after their dogs. Most responsible dog owners would be happy to pay a higher licence fee if dogs were generally better catered for and looked after.
    Mr. Hughes: I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's point. I was here when he spoke yesterday, and I commend him for his speech on the subject and for his views. He has the additional merit of speaking from personal experience, which in this case, as in many others, is persuasive. Responsible dog owners are happy to pay the licence fee. I have not received any letters or representations from dog owners to say that they would not be happy about that, even if the fee were to be higher than the amount suggested —£10 is the most commonly quoted figure.
    Like the Minister's hon. Friends who have spoken against the Government's view, I ask the Government to change their view, because it is illogical to ask responsible dog owners to pay for the irresponsible. The reality is that the community as a whole will have to continue to pay for dog control exercises, the kennelling of stray dogs and animal welfare. That will always be the case because of the minority of people who are not responsible dog owners.
    Therefore, as the Government will argue tomorrow in relation to the poll tax, the fairest way would be a per capita payment. In this case it would be a per dog capita payment for the dogs that are owned, as opposed to a per human capita payment. Each contribution should be spent for the general benefit of the community.
    The difference between new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and myself on behalf of the Liberal party, and new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on behalf of the Labour party, is that the latter provides for a national system, but with varying amounts. I agree that there is likely to be some antagonism if, across a border, the amount is different. That will detract from arguments about the principle of the issue. However, new clause 15 argues for a nationally
    944
    fixed, but locally collected and locally spent, fee. It seems right that local authorities should have the prime responsibility for collecting and spending the money. It is better that they should do so and, indeed, they are willing to do so.
    I believe that the Minister accepts the general presumption that local authorities are in, as it were, the front line of dog control. He suggested in Committee that he supported the view that the responsibility for stray dogs, which is a separate but linked issue, should be taken from the police and handed to local authorities. I hope that he will expand on that and state that that is still the Government's view and that they intend to move in that direction soon.
    The Government's position would be more defensible if they were to say that they would replace the money that would be lost—small though it is, or much larger as it would be if a £10 licence fee were the norm — by additional money for local authorities specifically to enable them to set up dog warden schemes and the like. However, I have never heard that said and, clearly, the Government have not said it. Local authorities have a right to be suspicious that the little that they receive at the moment will be taken away and that their capacity to deal with what is a major problem in rural and urban areas —often a major problem of environmental nuisance—will be severely diminished.
    Ministers may have noticed that even the Kennel Club, an organisation which has, for some time, lobbied for the abolition of the dog licence fee, now says that it favours a tattooing system for the identification of dogs, for which there would need to be a registration system. Once that is in place, an administratively simple and cost-effective way of paying for the registration system would be through a licence fee. The Kennel Club is the only substantial single-interest body that has argued against the view proposed by my hon. Friends, the Opposition and some Conservative Back Benchers. It does not favour a licence, but favours an identification system. Therefore, even that body seems to have a qualified position.
    For reasons that seem illogical, the Government have decided to move away from the proper steps which they implemented, by trial, in Northern Ireland and which have proved adequately successful there, of having a system of collecting revenue that would be spent on dealing with the difficult but important issue of dog control and welfare. The Government are sadly misguided. We hope that an amendment, either in the form of the new clause that has been tabled by my party, or in the form of one of the other Opposition new clauses or amendments, will be accepted before the Bill completes its passage through the House.
    Mr. Jerry Wiggin:: One of the problems with the procedures of this House is that after an arduous period in Committee, when a subject comes back for further debate on Report, some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) feel that the debate is already over and that there is nothing more to say. It was a good thing that the debate was adjourned, because we have had some good speeches today from Opposition Members, who have promoted the new clause with much greater enthusiasm than did the hon. Member for Perry Barr himself.
    In 1979, when I had the honour to be appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I discovered to my astonishment, and

    945
    that of my fellow Ministers, that for some reason the fee for the dog licence was fixed by that Department, although the Department of the Environment had the local government responsibilities for dog licences and the Home Office had the overall responsibility for all licensing. Eight years later, I believe that the dilemma of the then Government has been resolved in the wrong way. I am not in any doubt that it is a question of a toss of the coin in such matters because I appreciate that, whichever position the Government adopted, they would have some critics.
    I remained of an open mind until quite recently when I became persuaded by the continual correspondence that I receive on this matter. It was not just one or two letters. Week after week, month after month, and year after year I have received letters from my constituents, especially those in the urban area, protesting about the complete lack of control over dogs in towns, in relation to dog mess, barking, lack of control over fierce dogs and other aspects. There is a substantial feeling that the issue must be resolved in the immediate future. Some of my councillors would agree that no single issue raises greater passion at local government level in Weston-super-Mare than that of dogs. Therefore, for many people, this is a much more serious issue than it may have sounded when we were debating it last night.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) has made most of the important points, so I shall not tire the House by repeating them. The dog licence is an additional form of taxation which, much to our cost, we have failed to increase year by year. The Government took a weak view on this — many years ago, I accept — and it has become increasingly more expensive to collect, and, in parallel, the problem of outof-control dogs has become worse.
    It is rare for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Farmers Union to agree on anything. When, for the first time in my memory, they do agree, backed by the British Veterinary Association and other responsible bodies, it is rather disappointing that the Government should take a contrary view.
    5 pm
    In defence of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government, may I say that the minds of the public have been considerably concentrated by the Government's firm decision. It was the announcement of that decision that led many bodies into an opposition in which they had not engaged before. Having done that, they have gathered a considerable amount of public opinion behind them. I fully accept that a more expensive licence of £5 or £10 would penalise the law-abiding dog owner who pays his licence, but I have not had any letters from dog owners saying that they did not think it desirable.
    I have just returned from Norway, and the Norwegians have a completely different attitude to dogs. They look upon owning a dog as an exceptional privilege. Indeed, as anyone who has bought food in Norway will know, it is also a costly privilege. The Norwegian people require no further incentives for looking after their dogs. If they did, it would become a matter of national behaviour. A case of dog cruelty achieves headline status.
    I shall listen with great interest to the argument about Northern Ireland dogs. My hon. and learned Friend will no doubt adduce some devious argument about why an
    946
    Ulster dog is different from an English or Welsh dog. I recall clearly that when the decision on that was made there was a sharp intake of breath at such courage from the Government. In fact, the measure went through with no difficulty. Licence fees are paid relatively well and, as has already been said, that is not so usual for Northern Ireland. It has enabled the proper control of dogs and wild packs no longer roam.
    I cannot support the new clause in its entirety for the reasons that I have given, but I shall vote for it because the Government have gone the wrong way. I join my hon. Friends in saying that I hope that in another place they will give further thought to this. I have not yet heard a speech in support of the Government's view.
    Mr. Elliot Morley: I do not want to repeat all the arguments about the desirability of a dog licence because they have been well and truly made. However, I have an interest because Scunthorpe borough council was one of the pioneers of the dog warden service. That service was introduced in response to local demand and the enormous problems caused by dogs.
    All hon. Members who have spoken so far have conceded that dogs can be a considerable nuisance. It is evident from the letters that I receive from my constituents that dog owners favour a licence on the terms set out in the new clause. Just as all smokers are often blamed for the failings of the irresponsible minority of smokers, responsible dog owners are blamed for the failings of an irresponsible minority of dog owners. The dog licence is a measure of control which is much needed, particularly in urban areas. It also gives some protection to the dogs.
    As has been mentioned, Christmas is traditionally the time when people buy puppies on the spur of the moment without taking into account the commitment that any pet requires. Indeed, some people collect dogs like others collect stamps, until they end up with a house full of them and that causes a nuisance through noise, smell and the problems in the streets. A properly funded dog warden service, with money going to local councils to fund it, is one way of tackling that problem.
    All the responsible organisations are in favour of a dog licence. I have before me a letter from the National Farmers Union, which adds its weight to those organisations. The letter was also sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). The NFU argues strongly for a dog licence and points to the problem of livestock savaged each year by pets that are allowed to roam.
    A dog licence is not the automatic solution to all the problems with stray dogs, but it is a step forward in tackling that problem. It is certainly a better solution than that proposed by the Government, which is no solution at all. The Government are missing an important opportunity to put the matter right and to tackle the problem. If they take that opportunity in the Bill they will have the support of all responsible dog owners and the majority of the British people.
    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: It is not uncommon for some major issues to pass calmly through the House, if not on the nod, certainly without the heat and light generated by this topic. But mention dogs, and calm goes out of the window and emotions — on both sides of the debate — take over. Last night confirmed that fact, even if the late hour was some excuse.

    947
    One accepts the need to protect livestock in rural areas, but I am not sure whether a licence is the way to achieve that. The problem is largely one for the urban areas. Let us agree on common ground. There is a need for a warden service to deal with strays and the public have a right to clean pavements and parklands free from dog soil. Both those objectives are, rightly, the responsibility of local government which needs the power to enact the necessary byelaws to meet that public demand and to enforce penalties where necessary.
    Why should that general provision, unique among other general needs within local authorities, require a special licence which needs a bureaucracy to police it in order to provide the resources to pay for it? We pay for many general services through our rates which we never use, and, perhaps because of our age, will never use, but we pay none the less. That general rule should apply in this case.
    I am puzzled why the Opposition should have tabled the new clause in this form, for deny it though he may, the heart of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was not in his speech last night, except for the customary passion for taxing everything that moves. None of the situations that he described would be diminished or solved by the imposition of a dog licence.
    Mr. Jeff Rooker: I said that, but the hon. Gentleman was asleep.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: No, that is precisely my point. The hon. Member listed what he objected to and then admitted that the dog licence was no cure. Why on earth, then, put in for a licence?
    Mr. Rooker: The point was that the licence provided the revenue to fund the dog warden scheme which would assist in dealing with those problems.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had clearly said that it would not, but perhaps we had better study Hansard again.
    The Opposition have realised that the 7s 6d tax is nonsense and have chosen anything between £10 and £20 to replace it. However, as they are fearful of adverse reaction, they seek to make some exclusions for the elderly, which is fine at first sight, but it means quite a few hon. Members can keep a pet free. Are the disabled, the unemployed, the family on a low income and the single parent any less in need of the comfort and protection that a pet can give? Are they less deserving than those people mentioned in the amendment or than some Members of this House?
    The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) pointed out the inadequacies of the exclusions in the new clause. By the time he had finished speaking, I was convinced that he had convinced himself that the clause would not deliver and that he would probably join the Government in the Lobby tonight. When one goes down the exemption route, there is no end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said last night, the cost of policing the system will make the policing of the banded community charge or local income tax a piece of cake.
    The abolition of the existing licence brings savings to the public purse. The immediate abolition means that the
    948
    public service will benefit by about £3 million. If that is so, may I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that some of that saving could be paid as block grant to the PDSA, the RSPCA and other bodies which do a wonderful job and would not necessarily be helped by the kind of licence fee mentioned in the clause.
    Many daft things are done by local authorities up and down the land, but the provision of wardens, clean pavements and clean park space would have universal support from ratepayers, whatever the ultimate system of local taxation. However, a separate dog licence would not have such support.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to declare an interest and say that, although I do not have a dog, I have a parrot and two tortoises. As far as I am aware, no proposal has yet been made to license such pets, but if such a proposal were made, I would pay the licence with great pleasure.
    I have received a number of letters about this subject. All have protested about the abolition of dog licences and that is why I want to intervene briefly. I cannot follow the Government's logic in respect of their proposals and that is why I support the new clause. The licence fee is too small and not worth collecting. In addition, too many dog owners fail to pay the licence, so the proposed solution is to scrap the licence.
    If we apply the logic of failure to pay, we can see the ridiculous situation that would develop. We do not know the precise number of people, although it is quite large, who fail to pay their taxes. They fail to pay their television licences. That includes the Prime Minister who has, as I understand it, 13 television sets in No. 10 Downing street, yet she does not have to pay any licence fee. That is not failure to pay, but she has been given a discretion so that she does not have to pay. Many people do not pay the television licence fee or the road fund tax for their cars. I have yet to hear any Conservative Member say that, because of failure to pay, we should scrap those taxes. The Government are in a difficult position when it comes to logic.
    5.15 pm
    I am raising this somewhat sniffy subject because, in the east end of London, many people keep dogs as pets. It is a tradition and, if anyone looks around the parks in the east end at weekends, he will see how many people keep dogs. They do so for a number of reasons, including companionship and protection of their property. The many burglaries, car thefts and street crimes in the east end encourage people to keep dogs not so much as pets but as protectors. That is why we have so many large and somewhat vicious dogs in the east end, but most of them have responsible owners. They are certainly far more responsible than the Earl of Leven.
    I refer hon. Members to early-day motion 432, tabled by several Labour Members, in respect of the conduct of the Earl of Leven and the sentence imposed by Inverness sheriff court, which states
    "That this House condemns the conduct of the Earl of Leven J.P., Lord Lieutenant of Nairnshire and Chairman of the Governors of Gordonstoun College,"—
    I understand that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales went there, so I hope that he did not learn anything from the Earl of Leven—
    "who fractured the skull of a terrier dog which had wandered onto his grouse moor, attacking the animal with such force that the instrument used, a walking-stick, broke; deplores the

    949
    leniency of sentence imposed by Inverness Sheriff Court; believes that £75 fines are unlikely to deter thugs and hooligans; and calls for the Earl of Leven to be stripped of all public offices."
    I am sure that dog lovers on both sides of the House will warmly endorse the words of early-day motion 432.
    Fortunately, the dog owners and the people of Newham do not follow such vile practices. The dog owners of the east end are responsible, but, unfortunately, problems arise from keeping dogs as pets. The immediate problem in an urban environment is the dog mess produced in car parks, streets, open spaces, parks and many other areas where children play and people go. That is very distressing.
    I find it distressing when I am walking to my newspaper shop in the morning to get my copy of The Daily Telegraph.—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is a serious point. I like to know what the Government are saying from morning to morning, so I buy a number of other newspapers. When I walk, to the newspaper shop just around the corner from my home in the London borough of Newham, I spend most of my time with my shoulders stooping and my eyes on the pavement. That is not merely because of the problems that I bear on my shoulders as a representative of an inner-city area. It is also to avoid stepping in all the piles of dog mess on the pavement. It is a serious problem which is accepted by Members on both sides of the House. I shall step lightly, as they say, on this matter, but it is a serious problem which brings many complaints to me, as the local Member of Parliament, and to local councillors.
    There are some advantages in having one's eyes transfixed on the pavement in an attempt to avoid the dog mess. The other day I found 1·20 on the short walk to the newspaper shop. When I reached the newspaper shop, I put that money in the box for cancer research because it is the only way that cancer wards and the Cancer Research Campaign will receive adequate funds. The Government will not provide the funds needed for cancer research. In this country, we rely on charity to deal with the serious aspects of society. When it comes to such matters as defence, there is no such thing as charity appeals or flag days —[interruption] I understand what you are indicating to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    There was an occasion when I walked round the corner and was faced with the terrible dilemma of seeing a £1 coin embedded in a dog turd. I was left with a problem. There was a natural, primitive, capitalist, acquisitive instinct and a need for hygiene. As it happened on that occasion, hygiene won. But I managed to find a small boy who, for a crack of 50p, was prepared to retrieve the coin. He washed his hands in my house, and we put the money in the cancer box.
    We know that 4,000 stray dogs are registered every week. That is appalling. We talk about being a nation of dog lovers. We are actually a nation of dog killers. Hon Members on both sides of the House will find that appalling. At any given moment, there are 500,000 stray dogs on British streets. About 200 stray dogs are destroyed every week. We are coming up to the Christmas period. Parents will be buying presents for their children. Unfortunately, regrettably, lamentably, many parents will buy puppies as pets for their children.
    Hon. Members who represent constituencies outside London, particularly constituencies with motorways going through them, know that I speak the truth when I say that
    950
    dogs are literally thrown out of cars on motorways. They are abandoned at the side of motorways. That is a tragedy, and it should make us all feel ashamed.
    We cannot just walk away from the problem. We cannot just say that, because people fail to pay the licence fee, we should abandon it. We should establish a properly funded dog warden scheme that is paid for by the licence fees that are paid by responsible dog owners. The new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) would bring in only a fraction of the annual costs of keeping a dog. Therefore, no responsible dog owner would refuse to pay the licence fee. It would enable us to fund a proper dog warden scheme. Therefore, I ask all hon. Members to support the new clause.
    Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) demonstrated the paucity of the anti-licence argument when he described stray dogs as an urban problem. If they are an urban problem, why is the NFU so opposed to abolition? I gently suggest to him that any hon. Member who has had the sad opportunity to see a flock of sheep being savaged by a wild dog knows that strays are not simply an urban problem.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) touched on the possible rabies problem. Hon. Members who were present in the Chamber late last night heard my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) give perhaps one of the most moving pieces of personal testimony that the House has heard for a long time. He described how his own child was affected by a parasite that was picked up from dog mess and, as a result, is now blind in one eye.
    It is a problem of control. The Government appear to recognise that fact. In their Green Paper, they said that they had carefully weighed the arguments, that the principal aim of abolition should be to promote responsible dog ownership, and that abolition would not best serve that purpose. In the words of the National Farmers Union, choosing abolition would be to throw away the means of financing proper dog control, the obvious way of tracing the owner of a stray, the potential deterrent to casual purchases, and, indeed, all hope of improvement in dog control in the future.
    The legislation envisaged by the Government would provide for registration schemes to include mandatory fee exemptions for guide dogs for the blind and working sheep dogs and discretionary exemptions and part-exemptions for other categories such as dogs owned by the elderly. Were that legislation being proposed by the Government, I and, I suspect, most of my colleagues and many Opposition Members would support it.
    The new clause porposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will have my support. Opposition Members were kind enough in Committee to give me their support when I invited my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to put forward his own proposals. I do not support all aspects of the proposed new clause. The exemptions are too wide and I am not certain that allocating all the revenue solely to a dog warden service is the right priority. I firmly believe that the prerequisite of any dog control system must be an efficient registration scheme. When we raised the matter in Committee, my hon. and learned Friend said:

    951
    "It is already a legal requirement that a dog should wear a collar with a plate or disc showing the owner's name or address while on a highway or in a public place… … There is provision for local authorities to make byelaws relating to the fouling of pavements and grass verges and to ban dogs from certain beaches and parks. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is also prepared to approve byelaws requiring the person in charge of a dog to clear up the mess deposited by the dog in certain places — the so-called poop-scoop byelaw …Roads on which dogs must be kept on leads can be designated. None of those provisions is dependent on licensing.
    Again, there is comprehensive legislation to afford the farmer protection under which he can gain redress from the keeper of the dog and, indeed, if it is the only way to stop an attack, as a defence, he may shoot the dog. Again I stress that that is entirely independent of licensing."
    In Committee, I challenged my hon. and learned Friend. Every one of the regulations that are presently available is dependent upon identification of a dog. Without an efficient registration system, it is not possible to identify an animal, and it is therefore not possible to bring a successful prosecution. I put that point in Committee. My hon. and learned Friend, who has established in this House a reputation for intelligence, courtesy, and, particularly, for precision, said:
    "I do not entirely accept that". [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1196.]
    If my hon. and learned Friend does not entirely accept that, being the precise gentleman that he is, I suggest that, by implication, he must accept part of it. The laws and byelaws upon which the abolitionist case has rested are worthless without a proper means of registration. Many reputable organisations have been named. They are wholly opposed to abolition. Apparently, only one organisation is in favour of abolition, and that is PRO Dogs. Speaking on its behalf last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said that licensing was not necessary and that, to control dogs, we need "identification and fines."
    How does one identify an animal and the owner of an animal without a registration system? The British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals favour a licensing scheme. The latter society is particularly relevant. In a letter which I suspect that most hon. Members will have seen, its director stated:
    "so far the new licensing scheme"—
    which this Government introduced in 1983—
    "has been a great success. Not only are dogs being looked after better now, but far fewer are suffering from the actions of irresponsible and uncaring owners. I personally"—
    this is, the director of the Ulster society—
    "feel that the changing attitude towards dogs in this country is very, very encouraging."
    5.30 pm
    In support of that sentiment, the National Farmers' Union says that it would like to see
    "the extension to the rest of the United Kingdom of the véry welcome and successful measures which the Government introduced in 1982–83 to control dogs in Northern Ireland, including a licence fee of £5.… We do earnestly believe that the Government has made the wrong decision on this matter and would urge you to assist in seeking a change of mind."
    That is what the NFU has written to many hon. Members, including members of the Standing Committee.
    952
    It was made plain in Committee that at this stage the Government have no desire to change their mind. There is a growing and very responsible body of opinion that believes that registration is not only necessary but possible. Tattooing has been mentioned. The British Veterinary Association has given a clear undertaking that its members could carry out painlessly the tattoing registration process and supply the necessary documentation to a central register, be it controlled by Government bureacracy or, as I would prefer, by the BVA itself or the Kennel Club.
    The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) thought that the fee proposed in the new clause was too high. In the context of the £200 to £300 that it costs to keep a dog properly fed and in receipt of proper veterinary care an additional £10 licence fee is not a great deal to pay in return for the service that would be provided by registration. Considerable distress is caused to even the most responsible of dog owners whose animals go astray. Dogs go after bitches in heat and the families live in considerable anxiety, often for some time, not knowing where the dog is, although it may be in safe care but unidentified. Registration would be a control factor and would also be of considerable value to dog owners. That is recognised by dog owners, of whom I am one.
    I said in Committee that I would table a new clause. I studied carefully the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Perry Barr. As I have said, I do not believe that it is perfect, but it is worthy of support from both sides of the House. This is not a party political matter. The new clause has sufficient meat in it to enable my hon. and learned Friend to think again and come back with suitable amendments. I hope that in another place the noble Lords will consider what has been said in this debate and in Committee and will introduce the necessary amendments. I look forward to supporting those Lords amendments when they come to this House.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): This has been an extremely interesting debate. The House has benefited particularly from the historical perspectives that were brought to our consideration of the issues by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who gave us the benefit of their experience, drew to the attention of the House the shifting sands of the different policies that Governments and Oppositions of both political parties have adopted on the matter in the past, and spoke of some of the surprises that they encountered when they first took on their responsibilities.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, who has explained why he cannot be with us, was a little unfair when he said that the Government were guilty of the same sin as the Labour Government in their consideration of the matter. He reminded the House that he, from the Opposition Benches, had espoused a policy similar to that espoused by the Opposition during our deliberations yesterday and today, but the Government then had refused to take action. That accusation cannot be levelled against this Government. We have decided to take action. We have decided to do away once and for all with the nonsense of the existing system, which has not found any friend on either side of the House during the debate. It is true, of course, that we have not achieved unanimous support for the action that we propose, but one cannot have everything.

    953
    There is far from being unanimity amongst our critics. In Committee there were at least four different proposals as to what the Government should do. I judge that during the debate almost as many alternatives have been advanced as there have been hon. Members who have spoken. We have heard proposals for a national system, a "Swansea for dogs", as it was aptly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). The Opposition propose a system under which local authorities would be free to determine the licence fee within prescribed limits. We have had the idea of local schemes, with a nationally determined licence fee, index-linked. We have also heard about what was described as a simple system, with licences and tags on sale in corner shops and post offices.
    None of those proposals addresses two fundamental points. The first, which is crucial to consideration of the issue, is that we do not need a licensing system to have an effective body of law covering the control and welfare of dogs. I shall not weary the House by listing again the various elements that exist in the present law. Indeed, a large number of them were put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), to whose persistence and diligence in the pursuit of his campaign I pay tribute. None of the extensive range of legislation in existence, and none of the need for action to be taken, depends in any way upon licensing.
    Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) were brought into operation, with the exemptions that it allows, approximately one third of dogs would not need a licence? Therefore, the whole basis of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve would fail. What we need is an effective identification scheme, not a licensing scheme.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's estimate sounds reasonable, but I cannot confirm it precisely. His point is accurate. Of course, there is an identification scheme in the law as it stands. Under the Control of Dogs Order 1930 a dog must wear a collar with a plate or disc attached, bearing the owner's name and address, when it is on a highway or in a public place. The penalty for noncompliance is a fine of up to £2,000. So the law is there. What no one has yet been able to establish during the debate is why a different law, designed to achieve the same objective, will be any more effective.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I do not understand. The Minister has said that if a dog in a public place does not have the necessary identification, a fine of £2,000 is applicable. If the dog does not have any means of identification, how can the law be enforced?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, with his customary shrewdness, has identified a difficulty in enforcing the present law. It is not a difficulty that is unique to the present law. That difficulty would be unique to any system of registration and licensing. If a dog that was found did not carry any means of identification, the very same difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has so shrewdly identified would arise, regardless of the system in force.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that if resources are available it is likely that fewer dogs will be left unregistered and that the consequential activities could be carried out more effectively? If no money is derived from a licence, no such resources will be available.
    Mr. Howard: I believe that that is a highly optimistic assessment. It is unrealistic to suppose that the resources that would become available—especially as a result of the new clause tabled by the Opposition, and subject to the limits that were pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown — would he anything like sufficient to provide an effective system along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hughes: The sum of £40 million would be raised.
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept that estimate. One must bear in mind the limitations described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown.
    Mr. Rooker: There are 6 million dogs.
    Mr. Howard: I do not believe that the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr, (Mr. Rooker) understood the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown.
    Local authorities are free to appoint dog wardens, and many of them do so. I am happy to confirm the undertaking that I gave in Committee. In fact, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) did not get it right when he reported it to the House this afternoon. I did not undertake to take powers away from the police and give them to local authorities. I gave an undertaking to consider giving local authorities additional powers parallel to those that the police presently hold. We are considering that undertaking, and if we come to the conclusion that that would be a sensible thing to do we shall take the appropriate steps in another place.
    If we consider the examples that were given by the hon. Member for Perry Barr during the debate yesterday evening, we can appreciate that the system that he has advocated would not get to grips with the problem. The House will recall that the hon. Gentleman gave us a vivid example of the postman who, having been bitten, had to return to the house to deliver a letter of complaint to the householder. In those circumstances, there was no difficulty in identifying the owner of the dog. I fail to see how things are improved if, in addition to having to return to the house to deliver a letter of complaint from the head postmaster, the postman has to make another visit, either before or after the incident—indeed, it may provoke a further incident—to deliver the licence.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) described, with an emotion that was more moving for its restraint, the effect on his child of toxicariasis. No one would seek to underestimate the significance of that disease, which causes about. 50 cases of eye damage every year. The risks can be reduced by regular wormings of dogs and the exclusion of clogs from children's play areas. Local authorities have the power to impose such a ban. Here again, the problem is not affected by the existence of a licence.
    The second fundamental point that the alternative proposals fail to address is enforceability and the consequence of a large increase in the licence fee. We can reasonably assume that the responsible and caring owner would buy a licence. However, it is by no means certain, to put it mildly, that there would be a significant effect on the irresponsible and careless owner. Presently, that latter group do not pay a fee of 37p, and it seems rather optimistic to suppose that they would more likely to pay a fee of £10 or £20. That assumption is at the heart of the various new clauses that have been tabled.
    Mr. Marlow: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, he must decide whether he is the chicken or the egg with regard to this argument. If a scheme is set up on the grounds advocated by the Opposition Front Bench there will be the necessary resources to pay for a system of dog wardens. That system of dog wardens would enforce registration, licensing and the collection of the fees. Therefore, the money would be available to ensure that those who do not pay the licence fee would be required to do so in the future.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Look at Northern Ireland.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Howard: I can only return to the answer that I gave earlier. I believe that it is wildly optimistic to suppose that the dog wardens who might be appointed in the circumstances that we are presently discussing would be able to clean up the dog mess, which has proved so tantalising to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), deal with dangerous dogs, which have bitten postmen and others, deal with stray dogs, and deal with those owners who do not license their dogs.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to Northern Ireland, but I believe that experience in the Province has demonstrated that the licensing fee has not had any significant effect on the number of stray dogs that have been found and impounded. The experience in Northern Ireland does not support the argument.
    Mr. Marlow: I know that my hon. and learned Friend is defending a prepared position, but before he reaches any conclusion about what measures to introduce in another place will he consider the scheme that is employed in the Medway towns? My hon. and learned Friend said that the dog wardens would be unable to cure all the ills and problems, but in those towns, which have an effective system of dog wardens, those problems have been resolved. It can be done.
    Mr. Howard: If such problems can be resolved in the Medway towns without the imposition of a licence, I do not see why they cannot be resolved elsewhere without such a licence.
    The local authorities are perfectly capable of dealing with the matter. If they have the necessary money as a result of economy in other areas—this is the case with councils in the Medway towns and there is no reason why councils elsewhere should not practice similar economies — they can use such available resources as are considered appropriate by their residents and voters to deal with that problem.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister believe that the objectives for which he has expressed support and which are commonly supported by the House—cleaning up dog mess, rescuing strays and the advancement of animal welfare—would be more, or less, likely to be advanced by the collection of £10 per dog? That collected sum could be £40 million. Are the objectives more, or less, likely to be advantaged by that available money?
    Mr. Howard: That is not by any means the only question, because a question of fairness enters into this matter. The real question is whether the burden of paying for the necessary measures to deal with the problems should rest upon all ratepayers or community charge payers in an area, or simply upon those dog owners who
    956
    are responsible enough to pay and who therefore shoulder the burden that those dog owners who are sufficiently irresponsible not to pay are not prepared to shoulder.
    Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
    Mr. Gale rose—
    Mr. Howard: I have given way twice to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North.
    Mr. Gale: A few moments ago, in response to a sedentary intervention, my hon. and learned Friend referred to the situation in Northern Ireland and suggested that there had been virtually no reduction in the number of strays. I am certain that my hon. and learned Friend would not wish to mislead the House. Therefore, he should consider what the director of the Ulster Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said:
    "In the years following the new legislation in Northern Ireland, the number of dogs licensed increased by almost 60 per cent. over the years immediately preceding the changeover. Significantly, the number of dogs destroyed has also decreased considerably.
    There are generally far fewer strays roaming the streets". Is my hon. Friend saying that the director of the Ulster Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is wrong?
    Mr. Howard: I am saying that the information available to my hon. Friend is different from that with which I have been supplied, so I cannot take that aspect of the matter further. What happened in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North will know, is that, when the working party was set up in 1976, it examined various matters and came to the conclusion that there was a particular problem in Northern Ireland which was much more serious than that which existed in the rest of the United Kingdom, so special measures had to be taken there.
    It is easy to identify, to wax eloquent upon and to be extremely witty and amusing about the various aspects of nuisance which have been, and are caused by, dogs in this country. That has played a prominent part in the speech of every hon. Member who has taken part in this debate, but it is not really the issue before the House, which is: given that local authorities have powers to deal with this matter and that we are prepared to consider extending those powers, should the resources that may be necessary to deal with it be provided by all the people of the area concerned, or by responsible dog owners, who are at present a minority of dog owners? There is no great positive basis for supposing that the number of people who would take out a licence if the fee were increased would increase. I invite the House to take the view that this would be an undue burden to place on responsible dog owners, which is why I ask the House to reject the new clause.
    Mr. Rooker: The Minister's response at the end of his speech was interesting. He rehearsed the argument about whether dog owners should fund the dog warden scheme, and contradicted the whole thrust of the Government's view on introducing charges for services — that those who use a service should pay for it. That argument is implicit in the Opposition's new clause, yet on this occasion the Government are rejecting it. So they are contradicting their stance on other matters.
    There is no requirement for the whole dog warden service to be funded by the licence. The new clause states that the money raised

    957
    "shall be allocated by the authority to the funding of a dog warden service".
    The point is that all the money from the licence must be used for funding the dog warden service, which does not stop a local authority adding to that money from its own resources. We would not want money from the dog licence to be used on other local authority services if there was no adequate dog warden scheme. I have made the point, as has every hon. Member on both sides of the House who has supported the new clause, that having a licence will not of itself solve the problem. The discussion has been about how to obtain the resources to assist in solving what is, by common consent, a major problem.
    I accept that—with the exclusions—we would not obtain, say, £10 per dog for the 6 million dogs in this country. We are not looking for £60 million. About 2 million dogs might be excluded, which would yield £40 million. If half the dog owners pay the licence, we will end up with £20 million. That is a lot more than the £900,000 that we get from today's dog licence, which represents a negative cost because one has to pay £3·5 million to collect it.
    Mr. Cryer: The Minister put the curious argument that an increase in the cost of a dog licence would not affect those who evade payment. The Government never use that argument against increasing the television licence fee. I have never heard them argue that the television licence fee cannot be increased because that will not encourage people to pay the licence. It is absurd.
    Mr. Rooker: That is right. This is an area in which the Government have abdicated their responsibilities. The Minister's speech showed that. He admitted that the Government had no answer. He tried to come up with an answer — that dogs will still require collars in public places under the law, and that failure to wear them will attract a fine. So the next time we find dogs in public places, we will tell them that they are not supposed to be there without collars, or they will be subject to fines. It would be better if the dog warden took the dogs in hand, being funded to do so by those who paid the licence.
    The new clause is not a perfect solution. I said in Committee that we should return to the matter on Report so that the House could make the decision. When the Opposition propose what is, by any stretch of the imagination, a substantial increase in taxation, it is an unwise Government who do not accept that gift and realise that they can, perhaps, obtain something from it. However, that is the Government's problem.
    I do not accept the Minister's argument—I have said this before, and I shall keep on saying it—that there is justification in having a dog warden scheme that is wholly funded by the poll tax. That will be the result if the dog licence is abolished. I hope that the other place will examine the matter and give us another opportunity to debate it.
    Having or not having a dog licence, at whatever cost, is not by any means a central plank of Government economic policy. The seriousness of the problem caused by dogs, which was illustrated last night and earlier today, has warranted a few hours' discussion. The House has spent fewer than three hours on the issue, and all that time has been warranted. What is not warranted and will not be understood by the public is the fact that we must have a whipped vote. I sincerely believe that if there were a free vote and the House could decide this matter, we would
    958
    vote to impose a dog licence of some sort to run a dog warden scheme of some sort, and I should he delighted at that.
    I invite Conservative Members to join us. This is not an issue on which the Government will fall; it is not a matter of confidence. It is not like the poll tax; it is not a massive issue that will cause trouble with the Whips. I ask Conservative Members for once to do something to benefit their constituents. The new clause is not perfect, but it will force the Government to re-examine the issue in another place.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 286.

    Division No. 113]

    [5.55 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Eastham, Ken

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Allen, Graham

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Alton, David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Anderson, Donald

    Fatchett, Derek

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Fearn, Ronald

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

    Ashton, Joe

    Flannery, Martin

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Flynn, Paul

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Barron, Kevin

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Battle, John

    Foster, Derek

    Beckett, Margaret

    Fraser, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Gale, Roger

    Blair, Tony

    Galloway, George

    Boateng, Paul

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Bowis, John

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Boyes, Roland

    George, Bruce

    Bradley, Keith

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Gould, Bryan

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Buchan, Norman

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Buckley, George

    Grocott, Bruce

    Caborn, Richard

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Haynes, Frank

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Henderson, Douglas

    Clay, Bob

    Hinchlifle, David

    Clelland, David

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Home Robertson, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Hood, James

    Coleman, Donald

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Corbett, Robin

    Howells, Geraint

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cox, Tom

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cryer, Bob

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Cummings, J.

    Hughes, Simon (Southward)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Ingram, Adam

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Irving, Charles

    Darling, Alastair

    Janner, Greville

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    John, Brynmor

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Dewar, Donald

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Dixon, Don

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Dobson, Frank

    Kennedy, Charles

    Doran, Frank

    Kilfedder, James

    Dover, Den

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Dunnachie, James

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Lambie, David

    Eadie, Alexander

    Lamond, James

    959

    Leighton, Ron

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Reid, John

    Lewis, Terry

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Litherland, Robert

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Livsey, Richard

    Rogers, Allan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    McAllion, John

    Rowlands, Ted

    McCartney, Ian

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Macdonald, Calum

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McFall, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McKelvey, William

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McLeish, Henry

    Short, Clare

    McTaggart, Bob

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Madden, Max

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

    Marek, Dr John

    Snape, Peter

    Marlow, Tony

    Soley, Clive

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Martin, Michael (Springburn)

    Steinberg, Gerald

    Martlew, Eric

    Stott, Roger

    Maxton, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Meacher, Michael

    Straw, Jack

    Meale, Alan

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michael, Alun

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Thomas, Dafydd Elis

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Turner, Dennis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Vaz, Keith

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wall, Pat

    Morley, Elliott

    Wallace, James

    Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Mullin, Chris

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Murphy, Paul

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Nellist, Dave

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wigley, Dafydd

    O'Brien, William

    Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

    O'Neill, Martin

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wilson, Brian

    Parry, Robert

    Winnick, David

    Patchett, Terry

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Pendry, Tom

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Pike, Peter

    Worthington, Anthony

    Prescott, John

    Wray, James

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Radice, Giles

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Raffan, Keith

    Mr. Ray Powell and

    Randall, Stuart

    Mrs. Llin Golding.

    Redmond, Martin

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Allason, Rupert

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Amess, David

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Amos, Alan

    Body, Sir Richard

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Boswell, Tim

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Ashby, David

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Atkins, Robert

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Atkinson, David

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Baldry, Tony

    Brazier, Julian

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's

    Batiste, Spencer

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Bellingham, Henry

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Bendall, Vivian

    Burns, Simon

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Burt, Alistair

    Benyon, W.

    Butler, Chris

    960

    Butterfill, John

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Cash, William

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Irvine, Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    Jack, Michael

    Chope, Christopher

    Jackson, Robert

    Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

    Janman, Timothy

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Jessel, Toby

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Colvin, Michael

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Conway, Derek

    Key, Robert

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Cope, John

    Knapman, Roger

    Cormack, Patrick

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Couchman, James

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Cran, James

    Knowles, Michael

    Critchley, Julian

    Knox, David

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

    Lang, Ian

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Latham, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Dicks, Terry

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Dunn, Bob

    Lightbown, David

    Durant, Tony

    Lilley, Peter

    Eggar, Tim

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Lord, Michael

    Fallon, Michael

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Farr, Sir John

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Maclean, David

    Forman, Nigel

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Forth, Eric

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Freeman, Roger

    Malins, Humfrey

    French, Douglas

    Mans, Keith

    Fry, Peter

    Maples, John

    Gardiner, George

    Marland, Paul

    Gill, Christopher

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mellor, David

    Gow, Ian

    Miller, Hal

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Gregory, Conal

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Grist, Ian

    Moss, Malcolm

    Ground, Patrick

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Grylls, Michael

    Mudd, David

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Neubert, Michael

    Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

    Newton, Tony

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Harris, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Onslow, Cranley

    Hayward, Robert

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Page, Richard

    Heddle, John

    Paice, James

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Hill, James

    Pawsey, James

    Hind, Kenneth

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Holt, Richard

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Portillo, Michael

    Howard, Michael

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

    Price, Sir David

    961

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Sumberg, David

    Rathbone, Tim

    Summerson, Hugo

    Redwood, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Renton, Tim

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Riddick, Graham

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Rost, Peter

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Tracey, Richard

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Tredinnick, David

    Ryder, Richard

    Trotter, Neville

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Scott, Nicholas

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Walden, George

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Waller, Gary

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Walters, Dennis

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Ward, John

    Shersby, Michael

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Sims, Roger

    Warren, Kenneth

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Watts, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wells, Bowen

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Wheeler, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Whitney, Ray

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Speller, Tony

    Wilshire, David

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset VI)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wood, Timothy

    Squire, Robin

    Woodcock, Mike

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Yeo, Tim

    Steen, Anthony

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Stern, Michael

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Stevens, Lewis

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Question accordingly negatived.

    Local Government Bill
      New Clause 6

        CONTRACTS COMPLIANCE IN RELATION TO PUBLIC SUPPLY OR WORKS CONTRACTS (No. 2)
        `(1) It is the duty of every public authority to which this section applies, in exercising in relation to its public supply or works contracts, any proposed or any subsisting such contract, as the case may be, any function regulated by section 17 to exercise that function with reference to the enforcement of the law by any appropriate agency and the promotion of equality of opportunity in employment.

        (2) The public authorities to which this section applies are those specified in Schedule 2 to this Act.

        (3) The contracts whic are public supply or work contracts for the purposes of this section are contracts for the supply of goods or materials, for the supply of services or for the execution of works.

        (4) A local authority may in pursuance of the functions regulated by this section, have regard to any of the following:—

        (a) the terms and conditions of employment by contractors of their workers, the arrangements for the training of their workforces, or the employment (in the case of an inner city area or region of high unemployment) of a reasonable percentage of their workforce from among the local unemployed which shall be determined by the authority;

        (b) the actual or potential membership of contractors of industrial, trade or professional associations, technical guarantee schemes or any other associations or schemes pertaining to their competence to perform the contract;

        962

        (c) in cooperation with the relevant local employment office, the employment by contractors of disabled people in accordance with the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

        (5) In this section, any term defined in section 17 (8) below shall having the meaning thereby ascribed to it.

        (6) In this section, 'inner city area' and 'region of high unemployment' shall have the meanings set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.

        (7) The provisions of sections 17 to 21 shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section.

        (8) This section shall have effect from the date of Royal Assent.'.—[Dr. Cunningham.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 301.

        Division No. 114]

        [6.11 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Eastham, Ken

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Allen, Graham

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Alton, David

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Anderson, Donald

        Fatchett, Derek

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Fearn, Ronald

        Armstrong, Ms Hilary

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

        Ashton, Joe

        Flannery, Martin

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Flynn, Paul

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Barron, Kevin

        Foster, Derek

        Battle, John

        Foulkes, George

        Beckett, Margaret

        Fraser, John

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Fyfe, Mrs Maria

        Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & FTdish)

        Galbraith, Samuel

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Galloway, George

        Blair, Tony

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Boateng, Paul

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Boyes, Roland

        George, Bruce

        Bradley, Keith

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Gordon, Ms Mildred

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Gould, Bryan

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Buchan, Norman

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Buckley, George

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Caborn, Richard

        Grocott, Bruce

        Callaghan, Jim

        Hardy, Peter

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Haynes, Frank

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Clay, Bob

        Henderson, Douglas

        Clelland, David

        Hinchliffe, David

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Cohen, Harry

        Home Robertson, John

        Coleman, Donald

        Hood, James

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Corbett, Robin

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Howells, Geraint

        Cousins, Jim

        Hoyle, Doug

        Cox, Tom

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Cryer, Bob

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Cummings, J.

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Illsley, Eric

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Ingram, Adam

        Darling, Alastair

        Janner, Greville

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        John, Brynmor

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Dewar, Donald

        Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

        Dixon, Don

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Dobson, Frank

        Kennedy, Charles

        Doran, Frank

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Dunnachie, James

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Lambie, David

        Eadie, Alexander

        Lamond, James

        963

        Leighton, Ron

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

        Reid, John

        Lewis, Terry

        Richardson, Ms Jo

        Litherland, Robert

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Livingstone, Ken

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Livsey, Richard

        Rogers, Allan

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Loyden, Eddie

        Rowlands, Ted

        McAllion, John

        Ruddock, Ms Joan

        McCartney, Ian

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Macdonald, Calum

        Sheerman, Barry

        McFall, John

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        McKay, Allen (Penistone)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        McKelvey, William

        Short, Clare

        McLeish, Henry

        Skinner, Dennis

        McTaggart, Bob

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Madden, Max

        Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

        Marek, Dr John

        Snape, Peter

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Soley, Clive

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Spearing, Nigel

        Martin, Michael (Springburn)

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Martlew, Eric

        Steinberg, Gerald

        Maxton, John

        Stott, Roger

        Meacher, Michael

        Strang, Gavin

        Meale, Alan

        Straw, Jack

        Michael, Alun

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Thomas, Dafydd Elis

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Turner, Dennis

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Vaz, Keith

        Morley, Elliott

        Wall, Pat

        Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

        Wallace, James

        Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Mullin, Chris

        Warden, Gareth (Gower)

        Murphy, Paul

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Nellist, Dave

        Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        O'Brien, William

        Wigley, Dafydd

        O'Neill, Martin

        Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Parry, Robert

        Wilson, Brian

        Patchett, Terry

        Winnick, David

        Pendry, Tom

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Pike, Peter

        Worthington, Anthony

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Wray, James

        Prescott, John

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Primarolo, Ms Dawn

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Radice, Giles

        Mrs. Llin Golding and

        Randall, Stuart

        Mr. Frank Cook.

        Redmond, Martin

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Body, Sir Richard

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Allason, Rupert

        Boswell, Tim

        Amess, David

        Bottomley, Peter

        Amos, Alan

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Arbuthnot, James

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Bowis, John

        Ashby, David

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Atkins, Robert

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Atkinson, David

        Brazier, Julian

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Bright, Graham

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Baldry, Tony

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Bendall, Vivian

        Burns, Simon

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Burt, Alistair

        Benyon,W.

        Butler, Chris

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Butterfill, John

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        964

        Carrington, Matthew

        Howard, Michael

        Carttiss, Michael

        Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

        Cash, William

        Howarth, G (Cannock & B'wd)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

        Chope, Christopher

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Irvine, Michael

        Clark, Sir W (Croydon S)

        Irving, Charles

        Clarke, Rt Hon K (Rushcliffe)

        Jack, Michael

        Colvin, Michael

        Jackson, Robert

        Conway, Derek

        Janman, Timothy

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Jessel, Toby

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Cope, John

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Cormack, Patrick

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Couchman, James

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Cran, James

        Key, Robert

        Critchley, Julian

        Kilfedder, James

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Davies, Q (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Knapman, Roger

        Day, Stephen

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Devlin, Tim

        Knowles, Michael

        Dicks, Terry

        Knox, David

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Lang, Ian

        Dover, Den

        Latham, Michael

        Dunn, Bob

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Durant, Tony

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Eggar, Tim

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Lightbown, David

        Fallon, Michael

        Lilley, Peter

        Farr, Sir John

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Lord, Michael

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Forman, Nigel

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Forth, Eric

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Maclean, David

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Freeman, Roger

        McNair-Wilson, M (Newbury)

        French, Douglas

        McNair-Wilson, P (New Forest)

        Fry, Peter

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Gale, Roger

        Malins, Humfrey

        Gardiner, George

        Mans, Keith

        Gill, Christopher

        Maples John

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Marlow, Tony

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Gow, Ian

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Mellor, David

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Miller, Hal

        Greenway, John (Rydale)

        Mills, Iain

        Gregory, Conal

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedhng)

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Grist, Ian

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Grylls, Michael

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hamilton, Hon A (Epsom)

        Morrison, Hon C (Devizes)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Moynihan, Hon C

        Hannam, John

        Mudd, David

        Hargreaves, A (B'ham H'll Gr')

        Neale, Gerrard

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Nelson, Anthony

        Harris, David

        Neubert, Michael

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Newton, Tony

        Hayes, Jerry

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Hayward, Robert

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Nicholson, Miss E (Devon W)

        Heddle, John

        Onslow, Cranley

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

        Page, Richard

        Hill, James

        Paice, James

        Hind, Kenneth

        Patnick, Irvine

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Holt, Richard

        Pawsey, James

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        965

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Sumberg, David

        Portillo, Michael

        Summerson, Hugo

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Price, Sir David

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Raffan, Keith

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Rathbone, Tim

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Redwood, John

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Renton, Tim

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Thorne, Neil

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Riddick, Graham

        Thurnham, Peter

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Tracey, Richard

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Tredinnick, David

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Trotter, Neville

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Rost, Peter

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Rowe, Andrew

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Ryder, Richard

        Walden, George

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

        Scott, Nicholas

        Waller, Gary

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Walters, Dennis

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Ward, John

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Warren, Kenneth

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Watts, John

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Wells, Bowen

        Shersby, Michael

        Wheeler, John

        Sims, Roger

        Whitney, Ray

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Widdecombe, Miss Ann

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Wilshire, David

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Speed, Keith

        Wolfson, Mark

        Speller, Tony

        Wood, Timothy

        Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

        Woodcock, Mike

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Yeo, Tim

        Squire. Robin

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Steen, Anthony

        Stern, Michael

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Stevens, Lewis

        Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

        Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

        Mr. Robert Boscawen.

        Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

        Question accordingly negatived.

      Clause 1

        DEFINED AUTHORITIES
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 21, at end insert
        `a parish council, a community council'.
        I expect that many Opposition Members will be concerned that the Government are proposing to impose compulsory competition upon the only level of local government not already covered by the Bill. We are proposing the amendment because not all parish or community councils are any longer the very small-scale operations which people commonly believe them to be. Some large parish councils operate certain services on a similar scale to smaller districts, and could benefit from competition in the same way as other local authorities. For example, the extent of some ground maintenance work undertaken by parish councils can be considerable, including parks, picnic areas and open spaces.
        There would be little logic in obliging a small district to go out to competition for such activities, while not
        966
        applying the duty to a parish or community council which was in fact operating them on a larger scale. Most parish councils will be unaffected by this provision if the £100,000 de minimis threshold which we have proposed is implemented, as I expect it to be. Even if we are talking about no more than a few dozen councils being affected, the amendment will ensure that there is a common approach to all local authorities. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the amendment is fully justified and will support it.
        Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister is right: Opposition Members are opposed to the inclusion of parish and community councils in the provisions of the Bill. We consider that parish and community councils are unsuitable for inclusion. As we are opposed to all local athorities and all bodies being included, we are opposed to the inclusion of community and parish councils in competitive tendering, but there are special reasons which apply to community and parish councils.
        We thought that the Government were being logical in leaving such councils out of the provisions of the Bill. We thought that the Government had recognised the bureaucracy that would be imposed on small community and parish councils. Whatever the Minister says about their size, parish and community councils are small compared with most local authorities and district councils. The bureaucracy imposed on local government by the procedure of competitive tendering and the need to submit all the necessary forms to the Secretary of State were such that, in view of the size and the budgets of community and parish councils, we thought that the Government had reasonably decided to leave them out of the legislation, but obviously they were left out as an oversight. The Government are so doctrinaire that they want to include everything, even though it will cost ratepayers more money than it will save.
        Most community councils are either in the north of England or in Scotland; there are few elsewhere. The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 defines the function of community councils as follows:
        "In addition to any other purpose which a community council may pursue, the general purpose of a community council shall be to ascertain, co-ordinate and express to the local authorities for its area, and to public authorities, the views of the community which it represents, in relation to matters for which those authorities are responsible, and to take such action in the interests of that community as appears to it to be expedient and practicable."
        Not many of those functions need to go out to competitive tendering. It is nonsense for the Government to put out to competitive tendering consultation and representation to the local authorities in whose areas the community councils operate.
        The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 provides about the financing of community councils:
        "islands and district councils may make such contribution as they think fit towards the expenses of community councils within their areas, may make loans to those councils, and may, at the request of such community councils, provide them with staff, services, accommodation, furniture, vehicles and equipment, on such terms as to payment or otherwise as may be agreed between the councils concerned."
        In other words, many parish and community councils have no major functions, no revenue-raising powers and no money, but they must still go out to competitive tender. That is nonsense. The Minister is right about the de minimis threshold of £100,000. "De minimis" means that any contract below that threshold does not have to go out

        967
        to competitive tender because the amount of money that the Government suppose might be saved by competitive tendering—and there are many examples of money being lost through competitive tender—would be less than the bureaucracy of going out to competitive tender. We believe that the threshold is too low. However, 90 per cent. of any function that any parish or community council may have to put out to competitive tender would be below that de minimis level. There is no doubt about that.
        The Government's doctrinaire attitude means that they will not let anybody or anything escape; they must impose their free market philosophy on even the smallest community or parish council, even if that is bureaucratic and will cost the ratepayers more money, just for the sake of making sure that the private sector can take any pickings from community and parish councils. Opposition Members oppose the amendment.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and I also oppose the amendment strongly — as do the organisations representing the parish and community councils. They feel aggrieved not least because the Government expressly said—this year—that they would not be included.
        Let me deal with the history of the measure. In the original 1985 Green Paper on competition in the provision of public services, the Government said explicitly that parish and community councils would not be included in the legislation to make competitive tendering compulsory. That statement was repeated in a letter, I think, from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—
        Mr. Chope indicated assent.
        6.30 pm
        Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman confirms that.
        The Minister wrote to the chairman of the National Association of Local Councils in March 1987 to confirm that parish and community councils would be left out of the provisions. The proposals went out in November for consultation. The Government left one week for consultation; the parish and community councils, of which there are 8,500, had one week to consider the matter. The consultations resulted in a mass of objections in principle. Subsequently the Government changed their mind.
        Even more surprising and appalling is the fact that the Government's reason, which was given by an official of the Department of the Environment to an official of the National Association of Local Councils on 10 December —I shall quote it almost verbatim—was that they had not been aware of the extent to which individual parish councils spend substantial sums on activities covered by the Bill. The Department of the Environment, which runs local government in England, and to an extent elsewhere, was not aware of what the parish and community councils were doing.
        The regular refrain is heard from the opposition parties that it is not a good thing that the Government have centralised powers and taken them away from local government. We argue regularly, vociferously, forcefully and, I believe, convincingly that it is impossible for a relatively few officials in Marsham street to know what is going on at county, metropolitan district, London borough and district level — let alone at parish, town and community level. That assertion is explicitly confirmed in the Government's response.
        968
        The first and most substantial argument against the amendment is that the Government are being thoroughly dishonest and are indulging in thoroughly bad practice. They are going against everything that democratic government should be about. They are rushing in at the last moment contrary to their express word, and they deserve to have the book thrown at them, and worse.
        We always try to anticipate what Ministers will say. The Minister may say, "If we are to include district, borough and county councils, it is illogical not to include parish and community councils." That is one argument. However, the Government are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am advised that 70 out of 8,500 parish councils provide services costing more than the 100,000 de minimis sum to which the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) referred. The argument may come back, "If there are only 70 councils in that category, why worry?" There are many reasons for worry and I shall address them now.
        First, the Government's real motivation may not be that it is not logical to exclude parish and community councils. The real motivation may have arisen from the consultations on sports and leisure facilities, which revealed, as they were bound to reveal, that many parish and community councils have parish, village or community halls which could fall within the provisions on competitive tendering.
        My second point is an important one and I should be grateful if the Minister would go further than he did in Committee. We do not yet know the exact nature of the relative cost-benefit advantage that the Government say requires them to legislate.
        The Minister will remember that in Committee Ministers commented a couple of times that if the costs to local authorities of complying with competitive tendering requirements were greater than the benefits that would result, there would be a case for exemptions. Clearly, that was a statement only of outline, because we did not receive any further information on it. Is the Minister yet in a position to say what the exemptions will be? If he is serious in arguing this complete about-turn, I hope that he will say that the Government will grant exemptions in cases in which the cost-benefit is negative or doubtful and that, although in theory and in law parish and community councils are to be brought within the terms of the legislation, the Government propose to exempt them because they can see the strong economic arguments against their inclusion.
        I ask the Minister to repeat the statement that he made in Committee, so that the whole House can hear it, that exemptions will be considered and that the Government support the idea of exemptions if the cost of competitive tendering is less than the benefit. Will he tell us what that will mean in practice? Why have not the Government introduced an amendment to that effect at this stage? Will the Government at least tell us that we shall get such an amendment in the other place and tell us its import?
        The expenditure of parish and community councils on services will very rarely exceed £100,000. In almost every instance it will cost more to put services out to competitive tender—tender specifications will have to be prepared, bids assessed and additional staff employed — than competitive tendering can possibly save. Do the Government accept the assertion that, even when parish and community councils come within the remit because

        969
        the sums that they spend do not fall below the £100,000 cut-off point, they are ripe for exemption because of that cost-benefit disadvantage?
        There will not be many private companies to do the work of tending open spaces in villages and remote rural communities. The experts will be the employees of the parish and community councils, who know the local area. They will tender for the work and win the contracts. Therefore, the tendering process will be a frightful waste of money. The Government say that they want to reduce the burden of taxation — whether through local government in the form of rates or otherwise, yet they now propose to impose an additional burden on this much-respected, much-loved tier of local government, which for many people is the closest to home.
        The National Association of Local Councils and the Association for Neighbourhood Councils oppose the amendment. I hope that it will be in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this debate to continue, if necessary—albeit for a relatively short time—so that we can hear what the Government have to say to justify their complete U-turn on this matter. This is the one provision on which there has been a complete U-turn within a matter of months. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can perhaps respond before the end of the debate. Like this lowest and most community-based tier of local government, my hon. Friends and I will strongly oppose the extension of the provision. The Government should be embarrassed to be making this proposal.
        Mr. Chope: First, let me deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). We are referring to community councils in Wales. If we were not doing so, the hon. Gentleman would have a point because the community councils in England would certainly not come within the scope of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will see that the amendment applies not to Scotland, but only to England and Wales.
        Mr. Allan Roberts: Where does it say that? The amendment states:
        "Page 2, line 21 (Clause 1), at end insert 'a parish council, a community council'."
        It does not say Wales, Scotland or England.
        Mr. Chope: If the hon. Gentleman looks at clause 1, and particularly at lines 19 and 20 on page 2 of the Bill, he will see that it states:
        "In the application of this Part to England and Wales, `local authority' in subsection (1) above means—".
        The amendment relates to subsection (1) in clause 1. I hope that I have been able to allay the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
        With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), it is true that the Government have taken a different opinion following information about the extent to which some parishes are spending on services that are subject to the competitive tendering provisions in the Bill. Many councils have expenditure in excess of £100,000. For example, Swanage had expenditure last year of £657,000. That is a large sum of money. Similarly, Stratford had expenditure in excess of £500,000. Several other authorities have many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of expenditure. We believe that it is reasonable and logical that the same provisions should apply to those councils as to other district councils.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: Why on earth, then, did the Minister and the Government say explicitly twice this year that they would not apply what they are now going to apply? Did the Government not know what parish and community councils did when they went to consultation and when the Minister wrote to the officer at the National Association of Local Councils? Did the Government have no idea at all about that?
        Mr. Chope: As the letter of 10 December to which the hon. Gentleman referred makes clear, the Government were not aware of the extent to which individual parish councils are spending quite considerable sums of money on activities covered by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government for not having that information. However, once we received the information, we reached what I hope hon. Members will believe is the logical conclusion—that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to apply to parish councils with larger amounts of expenditure.
        With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about extending the provisions of the Bill, I must state that village halls, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, do not come within the list of facilities that we have proposed should be covered if we add sport and leisure management to the provisions in the Bill. The proposed exemption of £100,000 has been put forward in a consultation paper on implementation. We did not say that we would amend the Bill generally. However, we said that we would consult about implementation and that is what we are doing now. We are still considering how we should propose implementation for parish councils.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister neglected to deal with one point. Why was the matter subject to one week's consultation?
        Mr. Chope: I am not sure of the exact length of time for consultation. My department wrote to the National Association of Local Councils on 6 November and it replied in a letter dated 9 December. The time span is considerably longer than one week. If the National Association of Local Councils had not replied within one week and the Government had said that it was too late and they would not allow any reply to be taken into account, that would have been unreasonable. We waited for more than four weeks for a reply. Having received the letter we considered the arguments in it. Of course, it was not the first time that we had heard those arguments because a number of individual parish councils had responded to our letter of 6 November.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that reply and at least that is now on the record. The Minister did not say that any council was in favour of the proposal so we are entitled to presume that no local authority responded by saying that it supported the Government's proposal. That would still have been the case had the consultation period been longer or shorter.
        In June this year, when a smaller percentage of the population than ever before voted for the Conservatives, the Government moved rapidly to the Right. They moved rapidly away from supporting local government. They moved to a position where they will be able to interfere more in local government at a lower level. To repeat a metaphor that was used earlier, the Government found themselves "grasping entrails further down". The amendment is evidence of that.

        971
        6.45 pm
        It is a sad day when the Government have to get their maulers on local parish and community government and insist that it must have the morality of Ministers in the Department of the Environment and in 10 Downing street. The local parish and community councils have done a good and well respected job. They resist and oppose the Government's proposal. If the Government insist on arguing for the amendment, I hope that the clause will be rejected in another place.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 200.

        Division No. 115]

        [6.45 pm

        AYES

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

        Allason, Rupert

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Amess, David

        Day, Stephen

        Amos, Alan

        Devlin, Tim

        Arbuthnot, James

        Dicks, Terry

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Ashby, David

        Dover, Den

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Dunn, Bob

        Atkins, Robert

        Durant, Tony

        Atkinson, David

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Fallon, Michael

        Baldry, Tony

        Farr, Sir John

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Batiste, Spencer

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Bendall, Vivian

        Forman, Nigel

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Forth, Eric

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Freeman, Roger

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        French, Douglas

        Body, Sir Richard

        Fry, Peter

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Gale, Roger

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Gardiner, George

        Bos well, Tim

        Gill, Christopher

        Bottomley, Peter

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Bowis, John

        Gow, Ian

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Brazier, Julian

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Bright, Graham

        Greenway, John (Rydale)

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Gregory, Conal

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Grist, Ian

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Burns, Simon

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Burt, Alistair

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Butler, Chris

        Hannam, John

        Butterfill, John

        Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Harris, David

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Cash, William

        Hayes, Jerry

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Hayward, Robert

        Chapman, Sydney

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Chope, Christopher

        Heddle, John

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Hill, James

        Colvin, Michael

        Hind, Kenneth

        Conway, Derek

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Holt, Richard

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Cormack, Patrick

        Howard, Michael

        Couchman, James

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Cran, James

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Critchley, Julian

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        972

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Renton, Tim

        Irvine, Michael

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Irving, Charles

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Jack, Michael

        Riddick, Graham

        Jackson, Robert

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Janman, Timothy

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Jessel, Toby

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Rost, Peter

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Rowe, Andrew

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Key, Robert

        Ryder, Richard

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Knapman, Roger

        Scott, Nicholas

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Knowles, Michael

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Knox, David

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Lang, Ian

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Latham, Michael

        Shersby, Michael

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Sims, Roger

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Lightbown, David

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Speed, Keith

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Speller, Tony

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Maclean, David

        Squire, Robin

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Steen, Anthony

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Stern, Michael

        Malins, Humfrey

        Stevens, Lewis

        Mans, Keith

        Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

        Maples, John

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Marland, Paul

        Summerson, Hugo

        Marlow, Tony

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Mellor, David

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Thurnham, Peter

        Miller, Hal

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Mills, Iain

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Tracey, Richard

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Tredinnick, David

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Trotter, Neville

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Moss, Malcolm

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Moynihan, Hon C.

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Mudd, David

        Walden, George

        Neale, Gerrard

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Nelson, Anthony

        Waller, Gary

        Neubert, Michael

        Walters, Dennis

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Ward, John

        Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

        Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

        Onslow, Cranley

        Warren, Kenneth

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Watts, John

        Page, Richard

        Wells, Bowen

        Paice, James

        Wheeler, John

        Patnick, Irvine

        Whitney, Ray

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Widdecombe, Miss Ann

        Pawsey, James

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Wilshire, David

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Portillo, Michael

        Wood, Timothy

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Woodcock, Mike

        Price, Sir David

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Raffan, Keith

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Rathbone, Tim

        Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

        Redwood, John

        Mr. Alan Howarth.

        973

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Haynes, Frank

        Allen, Graham

        Heffer, Eric S,

        Alton, David

        Henderson, Douglas

        Armstrong, Ms Hilary

        Hinchliffe, David

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Home Robertson, John

        Ashton, Joe

        Howarth, George (Knowsley)

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Hoyle, Doug

        Barron, Kevin

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Battle, John

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Beckett, Margaret

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Beggs, Roy

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Illsley, Eric

        Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

        Ingram, Adam

        Bermingham, Gerald

        John, Brynmor

        Blair, Tony

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Boateng, Paul

        Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

        Bradley, Keith

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Kennedy, Charles

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Lambie, David

        Buchan, Norman

        Lamond, James

        Buckley, George

        Leighton, Ron

        Caborn, Richard

        Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

        Callaghan, Jim

        Lewis, Terry

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Litherland, Robert

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Livingstone, Ken

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Livsey, Richard

        Clay, Bob

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Clelland, David

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Loyden, Eddie

        Cohen, Harry

        McAllion, John

        Coleman, Donald

        McAvoy, Tom

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        McCartney, Ian

        Corbett, Robin

        Macdonald, Calum

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        McFall, John

        Cousins, Jim

        McKay, Allen (Penistone)

        Cox, Tom

        McKelvey, William

        Cryer, Bob

        McLeish, Henry

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        McTaggart, Bob

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Madden, Max

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Darling, Alastair

        Marek, Dr John

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Dewar, Donald

        Martin, Michael (Springburn)

        Dixon, Don

        Martlew, Eric

        Dobson, Frank

        Maxton, John

        Doran, Frank

        Meacher, Michael

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Michael, Alun

        Eadie, Alexander

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Eastham, Ken

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Fatchett, Derek

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Fearn, Ronald

        Morley, Elliott

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

        Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

        Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

        Flannery, Martin

        Mullin, Chris

        Flynn, Paul

        Murphy, Paul

        Foster, Derek

        Nellist, Dave

        Foulkes, George

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Fyfe, Mrs Maria

        O'Brien, William

        Galbraith, Samuel

        O'Neill, Martin

        Galloway, George

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Parry, Robert

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Patchett, Terry

        George, Bruce

        Pike, Peter

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Primarolo, Ms Dawn

        Gordon, Ms Mildred

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Gould, Bryan

        Radice, Giles

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Randall, Stuart

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Redmond, Martin

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Grocott, Bruce

        Reid, John

        Hardy, Peter

        Richardson, Ms Jo

        974

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Rogers, Allan

        Thomas, Dafydd Elis

        Rooker, Jeff

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Turner, Dennis

        Rowlands, Ted

        Vaz, Keith

        Ruddock, Ms Joan

        Wall, Pat

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Wallace, James

        Sheerman, Barry

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Warden, Gareth (Gower)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Short, Clare

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

        Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

        Williams, Alan W. (Csrm'then)

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

        Wilson, Brian

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Winnick, David

        Snape, Peter

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Soley, Clive

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Spearing, Nigel

        Steinberg, Gerald

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Strang, Gavin

        Mr. Frank Cook and

        Straw, Jack

        Mrs. Llin Golding.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 26, leave out `islands'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 2, page 3, line 26, at end insert—
        '(7A) Work which would (apart from this subsection) fall within a defined activity shall not do so if it is carried out on or in connection with the carrying out of a defined activity on an island in relation to which the number of persons for the time being registered as being entitled to vote at a local government election by virtue of being resident therein shall be less than 1000.'.
        No. 6, in clause 6, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
        '(6) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a local authority may carry out functional work which falls within a defined activity without the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above having been fulfilled if it appears to him that the functional work will only be carried out on or in connection with the carrying out of a defined activity on an island situated within an islands area in Scotland.'.
        Mr. Home Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) is acutely concerned about the impact that the legislation is likely to have on the services provided by his local authority for his constituents. No doubt he will be seeking to catch your eye presently, Madam Deputy Speaker.
        The Bill will require local authorities to go through an elaborate set of procedures, designed by the Government to enable private contractors to muscle in on local authority services. It will be a wasteful and harmful exercise in many respects, but it will be downright absurd in its application to remote rural areas, particularly Scotland's three island areas. The islands councils will be required to advertise contracts, invite contractors to submit tenders and maintain a whole range of detailed records of those procedures. For a range of services on the islands it would be a waste of time. There is not the remotest likelihood of more than one contractor offering to do the work, and in many cases no contractor will tender, so the islands council will be compelled to go through procedures laid down in the Bill before continuing to provide the services that it has in the past.
        7 pm
        It might be helpful to give the House one or two illustrations of the sheer idiocy of the Government's

        975
        proposals for these areas. For example, the Scottish Office proposes to require the Shetland islands council to put its school and welfare catering out to competitive tender by October 1989. That will include the provision of 10 meals a day on the island of Fair Isle, nine on Fetlar, seven on Foula and four on the island of Papa Stour. Does anyone seriously think that a catering contractor will parachute four hot dinners a day on to the island of Papa Stour?
        Mr. James Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as Papa Stour does not have a proper landing strip, those meals will have to be parachuted in and that in adverse weather conditions that may be impossible?
        Mr. Home Robertson: I am worried about the hon. Gentleman's constituents on Papa Stour because they could go hungry for days on end as a consequence of this legislation.
        The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has an interest in refuse collection. Will Pritchards want to take over the islands' five refuse vehicles that operate in the massive area between Sumburgh Head in the south and the north of Unst in the north? I am glad to see the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield in his place. Will he want to take over the tractors and trailers that serve as refuse collection vehicles on the islands of Bressay, Foula, Fair Isle, the Skerries and Papa Stour?
        The Orkney islands council will apparently have to put its refuse collection service out to competitive tender by April 1989. Interestingly, it has developed a refuse disposal service on some of its smaller islands in partnership with private contractors, without being compelled to do so by this silly legislation. That is how the service has been extended to the 74 households on Eday, 28 households on Flotta, 52 on North Ronaldsay and 39 on Papa Westray.
        Does anyone seriously believe that Pritchards or any other contractor will bid to bring their refuse collection vehicles over from the mainland on ferries to those small islands and communities? I rather doubt that it will.
        Mr. Irvine Patnick: As I understand it, Orkney council has private refuse collection on the island of Westray while Skye and Lochalsh district council has contracted out its refuse collection on the island of Raasay and street cleaning at Glenelg. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some small places in Scotland are contracting out services?
        Mr. Home Robertson: Not only am I aware of that—I mentioned it a moment ago. It is absurd that small contractors operating in those areas are to be confronted with competitive tendering. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe that anyone on those small islands will tender for those operations? This legislation does not make sense for the areas that we are considering.
        Mr. Brian Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the natives of Glenelg will be fascinated to hear that its street cleaning arrangements have been the subject of earnest debate in the great mother of Parliaments? Does he agree that, since time immemorial, local authorities have made common-sense arrangements, whether with the public or private sector, and operated in a non-doctrinaire way? The idiocy of this legislation is that it will introduce a doctrinaire factor, and
        976
        non-political councils in places such as Glenelg or Raasay will be forced to make arrangements that are unsuitable for their needs.
        Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend has considerable experience in communicating with people in those areas. If we are talking about the same Glenelg, I suspect that it may come as a surprise to its residents that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) thinks that Glenelg is an island. —[Interruption.] It is always a pleasure to have the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) present during these debates.
        I move now to the experiences of the Western Isles islands council following the 1982 legislation on competitive tendering for road maintenance and gritting. I understand that on the island of Barra no contractor was willing to undertake this work. However reliable the Caledonian-MacBrayne ferries may be, I suspect that the people of Barra would not have been too happy about having to wait for a road gritter to come from Oban to clear the ice, so the council still provides that service.
        Mr. Patnick: Private contractors, farmers and similar people in places such as Sheffield, which the hon. Gentleman disparaged, contract out to the council for snow clearing and other services. When we discussed this matter in Committee, I gained the impression that Labour Members were saying that no services in Scotland could be privatised and that firms would not compete. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who joined the Committee and then left it, said that these proposals were rubbish and typical of the Conservative party and that people in Scotland were not interested, yet my research has revealed that some small services in Scotland are contracted out.
        Mr. Home Robertson: I do not know how many times I must say this to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman. He served on the Committee and listened to these points being made over and over again. It has been traditional in remote rural areas of Scotland to operate services on a pragmatic basis. Where there are private contractors who can do the job well, they are doing so, and where it is necessary for local authorities to do the job they are doing so. It is absurd to require local authorities to go through the rigmarole of contracting out and advertising when it will not add to the sum total of human knowledge or provision of services.
        The Montgomery committee, which the Government appointed to report on the government of the island areas of Scotland, specifically recommended that legislation should be subject to variation to take account of the special circumstances of island areas. This legislation is obviously not appropriate to the island areas, so why have the Government not paid any heed to the committee's recommendations?
        There is an interesting precedent. In 1984 the Western Isles health board was exempted from a requirement to tender for domestic and catering services because it was considered unrealistic to do so.
        The procedures in this part of the Bill represent a pointless and wasteful bureaucratic imposition on remote local authorities areas. Amendment No. 3 would exempt islands councils altogether; amendment No. 5 would exempt services on all islands with a population of less than 1,000 — I understand that that would cover a number of islands in the Strathclyde and Highland region,

        977
        in addition to the Western Isles, the Orkney islands and the Shetland islands — and amendment No. 6 would allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain services on certain islands in the islands councils areas. I must confess that I do not have confidence in that degree of rationality on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
        The three amendments make broadly the same point to avoid the most absurd implications of this irrelevant legislation in the island areas of Scotland. I hope that the Minister will at least undertake to give this matter further consideration before the Bill is dealt with in the House of Lords. I hope also that we shall have some sensible legislation for our rural and island areas.
        Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has forcefully illustrated the nonsense that could result if the Bill were enacted in its present form and applied without exemption to the islands areas of Scotland. As he stated, my amendments are somewhat different, but aim to tackle the same situation. Amendment No. 5 tackles the definition of defined activities and would take out of part I activities that are carried out in islands that have fewer than 1,000 local government electors. That is narrower in detail than the hon. Gentleman's amendment, although wider in that it would cover islands in Strathclyde, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and in the Highland region. However, my amendment would not include the mainlands of Orkney and Shetland.
        I have no doubt that when the Minister replies—it is always useful to try to anticipate his reply—he will refer to the de minimis provisions. As I understand it, £100,000 is to be proposed as the gross sum. One assumes that that will be the gross sum for, for example, the provision of school meals throughout particular local authority areas. Therefore, it would not make allowances for the individual islands that must be served. As the hon. Member for East Lothian pointed out, in the case of the Shetland islands council, a small number of school meals have to be provided for each of a large number of islands. Therefore, it does not make sense to have competitive tender provisions as are now envisaged. The hon. Gentleman thought that the provision of four school meals on Papa Stour was perhaps a record. He overlooked the two pupils in the school of Graemsay on Orkney, which would also have to come under the provisions.
        Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has missed out the island of Papa Stronsay, which, if I remember rightly, has one person. The main vehicle back and forth in my day used to be the Government boat.
        Mr. Wallace: I know of the hon. Gentleman's native knowledge of my constituency. There is not a school on Papa Stronsay, but I confirm that if it has a population of one it will fall within the definition of amendment No. 5.
        Obviously, we are dealing with services that are widely dispersed but delivered in small volume. In Shetland, although the cost of building cleaning for education and social work is not insignificant, being £450,000 and £250,000 respectively, the cost of the remainder, which is spread over 22 locations, amounts to only £89,500. If the Government do not accept any of the amendments that have been tabled, or any that may be put forward in another place, we will be asked to build up an enormous
        978
        administration, which would place an enormous burden on the local authorities which prepare the detailed specifications. Inevitably, that administration will be more expensive in island and rural areas, as we must also consider the costs of transport and supervision.
        We are being asked to do something which runs counter to what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill, which is more efficient local administration. If we are to achieve that, some exceptions must be made. Again I am trying to anticipate arguments, but it could be argued that there should be one detailed specification, which could cover all the work in one islands council area. If that were proposed by the islands councils, I imagine that it would not be long before some contractor or potential tenderer suggested that the councils were making it more difficult for a contractor to put in a tender. Clause 7, after all, refers to
        "the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition."
        Amendment No. 6, which relates to clause 6, is of fundamental importance. In some respects it could be argued that it duplicates clause 2(8), which gives a general exempting power to the Secretary of State. Together with the islands councils, to which the hon. Member for East Lothian referred, I am anxious that there should be such a clause because of the recommendations of the committee that sat under the chairmanship of Sir David Montgomery. Although I am sure that the Minister will have heard the recommendations before, I repeat that the committee reported:
        "We conclude that there may be circumstances in which Acts of Parliament should include a provision to allow the Secretary of State to vary their application to the island areas, and we recommend that such provisions should in future be considered in relation to all Scottish legislation at an early stage in its preparation."
        7.15 pm
        The Committee reported in April 1984. We waited a long time for the reply of the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), but in response to that recommendation he stated:
        "I accept recommendation 4, and will consider for future legislation whether it would be appropriate to ask Parliament to approve a power to vary the application of particular provisions in specified areas."
        We are asking that the present Secretary of State practise what his predecessor preached.
        There is a case for treating the island areas differently because of the cost and administrative burden and the possible expansion of the labour force. If a council is, within its administration, to encompass the client as well as the provider of services, the islands authorities feel strongly that an unreasonable burden will be placed on them. When the Minister replies, I shall be grateful if he will advise the House on what consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Montgomery report.
        The power would be permissive. Under my amendment, the islands councils would have to justify the case for each island and each activity. As has already been stated, refuse collection on the six Orkney islands of E day, North Ronaldsay, Papa Westray, Stronsay, Westray and Flotta is already performed privately. In those cases, the local authority maintains that it has used good, sound common sense. The authority has considered each island, its circumstances and the activity or function to be performed and has used common sense. Where it has been appropriate and sensible to use a private operator, it has

        979
        done so. Where it is far more sensible for the local authority to carry out the function, it has done so. There have not been any ideological barriers to introducing private contractors if that has made sense.
        If the Government do not make any concessions, they will be saying that we should create a huge bureaucracy to achieve what common sense could achieve far more practically. I hope that the Minister will make a constructive response and be prepared to move an amendment, possibly in another place, or at least meet representatives of the island authorities to discuss such matters before the Bill goes to another place.
        Mr. Calum A. Macdonald: As the House is to consider many amendments tonight, I shall try to make my remarks as brief as possible. In this amendment opposition Members do not oppose the general principle of the Bill which, as we understand it, aims to force local authorities to put out to tender various defined activities so that the result is a more cost-effective provision of those activities. However, in amendment No. 3 we seek to raise the question whether that principle can sensibly be applied to an area such as that covered by the islands authorities in Scotland.
        I draw the Government's attention to the fact that the Audit Commission's occasional paper No. 3, published in February 1987, and entitled "Competitiveness and the Contracting out of Local Authorities' Services", stated:
        "the assessment of long-run competitiveness will need to be faced on the facts of the local situation rather than on generalized assertions about the relative advantages of the private sector and direct labour".
        In other words, the Audit Commission emphasised the importance of the local situation in assessing the value of the general principle that the Bill seeks to promote. The importance of the local situation is nowhere more apparent than in the case of the islands authorities.
        The Montgomery report, which has already been mentioned, emphasised the need for a special and specific islands council perspective in local authority matters. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said that that point seemed to be implicitly recognised by the Government in 1984 when they specifically excepted the islands authorities from the provisions of the National Health Service circular in 1983 which required domestic and catering services in the NHS to be put out to tender. That seemed to be an implicit recognition of the unique situation of the islands authorities and of the fact that that principle is not applicable to them.
        The islands authorities are unique because they provide a complete range of local government services for a relatively small population over a relatively large geographical area. My constituency corresponds to the boundaries of the islands' authority for the Western Isles. It has a population of over 30,000 and an area of some 300,000 hectares. To provide the complete range of services for a small population over such a large geographical area, local authorities have developed a unique structure which, above all, emphasises the virtues of integration and flexibility.
        Many of the defined activities contained in the Bill are indistinguishable from other local authority activities. For example, the department of environmental health and consumer protection deals with an entire range of
        980
        cleansing services — not only the defined activities contained in the Bill, but items such as derelict vehicle disposal, waste disposal, looking after the abattoir at Stornoway, public conveniences, and so on. In doing that, it eliminates lines of demarcation within the department, allowing those various activities to share management supervision, personnel, and even, in some cases, plant and office space. By doing that, it achieves efficiency and low costs across the board. Despite the immense geographical difficulties in providing a service such as cleansing in an area such as the Western Isles, the cost of cleansing per head is one of the lowest in the country; that testifies to the success of the local authority's methods in providing those services.
        What will happen if, as a result of the Bill, artificial divisions are introduced between defined and non-defined activities? As has been pointed out, there will be a loss of administrative efficiency and the introduction of artificial lines of demarcation. If the council, as a result of tendering, lost control over some defined activities, the remaining activities would be less cost-effective because of the fixed costs of plant, buildings, manpower and so on. Costs presently shared between all those activities would then be shared between fewer activities, so that costs per unit of work would increase.
        On the other hand, if the council were successful in the tendering process and the defined activities remained in-house, there would be an even more ridiculous situation. Within the present tightly integrated streamlined structure, internal trading organisations would be set up, with vertical splits and demarcations being created, not only between the defined and other activities, but within the defined activities. The staff involved in the preparation, submission and operation of tenders would have to be separated from the staff in charge of the specification and the appraisal and supervision of contracts. That would lead to a grave loss in efficiency.
        A further loss would be the virtue of flexibility, which presently pertains to the way in which the islands council operates in tackling the specific problems of the area. One problem is not moving workers around from job to job, but rather moving them around a large geographical area. That has been tackled by having great flexibility within the work force so that when problems arise workers can be easily shifted around to tackle them. Such flexibility is of the essence in providing good services in a small, multipurpose authority.
        When those services are in-house, such flexibility is easy because staff who are directly under one command can respond immediately to new instructions to meet new problems and can be redirected. That ease of solving problems would fall by the wayside if the defined activities were contracted out and there would be a much less flexible system. Even small unexpected problems would cause communications problems and larger problems might mean that contracts would have to be renegotiated.
        That highly prized virtue of flexibility within the councils will be lost. For example, the Western Isles council prizes the fact that its repair and maintenance section has sufficient flexibility to respond immediately, particularly in emergencies, and need maintain only a minimum physical fleet. The loss of that flexibility will mean the inevitable increase of its fleet, which, in turn, will lead to higher costs for the local authority.
        Further costs will accrue because, given the present streamlined nature of the islands authorities, drawing up

        981
        detailed specifications for the proposed defined activities which are to be contracted out will involve the employment of new personnel. They will either have to be hired or perhaps even contracted out. They will give rise to the absurd situation whereby the drawing up of contracts will have to be contracted out simply because the authority runs such an efficient and streamlined ship at present. The supervision of contracts will almost inevitably require more personnel, which will also be inefficient.
        Because of the peculiar circumstances of the islands, the council employs some specialised equipment — a point not mentioned so far — which has been obtained at considerable cost and is intended to suit the particular needs of the islands. One humble example is the rubbish bins in the Western Isles. So many of the households are set so far back from the main road that it would be inefficient for the local authority to take its rubbish trucks up every small private road. Special bins are provided at considerable expense to every householder on the island. They are equipped with wheels so that householders can wheel them down to the main road, thus providing a more efficient collection of rubbish. The system has been highly successful. Other examples of such specialised equipment abound.
        What will happen to such specialised equipment as part of the tendering process? If the council has to dispose of such equipment, it will be a grave financial loss to the ratepayers who have sunk capital into the purchase of that equipment. If it is retained, but ends up being under-utilised because of the tendering process, it will again be a grave loss.
        The final absurdity of imposing the provisions of the Bill on the islands authorities is that it is all likely to be for naught. It is likely to be a mere academic exercise because there are grave doubts about whether suppliers exist within such a confined market to provide the kind of services that are provided by the council.
        After all the administrative work that has gone into the contracting-out process and the costs involved, there will be no change in the provision of services. It will end up being a gigantic waste of money. The islands authorities are in many ways model authorities, even according to the Government's own lights. They are non-political authorities. They have followed Government guidelines year after year. They are cost-efficient and have flexible and integrated work practices. The Bill will impose financial and administrative burdens, without any corresponding rewards, upon the authorities. It will increase their overheads and unit costs and will impair the efficient use of their manpower and physical resources. It will destroy the virtues of flexibility and integration that are so crucial in the islands context and will diminish their ability to deliver quality services.
        I beg the Government, therefore, to listen to the arguments made by the Opposition, to change the Bill before it reaches another place, to follow the precedent set by the Scottish Home and Health Department in 1983, to stop the present nonsense and to exempt the islands authorities.
        7.30 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The hon. Members for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) have argued ably on behalf of their constituents. I wish to speak to three of the
        982
        amendments, which seek varying degrees of exemption from the competitive process in respect of the islands and Scottish island authorities.
        I am convinced of the need to include all local authorities in the scope of the Bill, including the Scottish islands authorities. The only good reason for any exemption is when the cost of compliance with the competition requirements outweighs the possible benefits from the competitive process. That is, however, the purpose of the de minimis level, which the Scottish consultation paper suggested should be set at £100,000 of expenditure a year on any given service. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned one service which, if I heard him correctly, has been worth £89,500. That would be excluded under the terms of the consultation document.
        Mr. Wallace: I think that the Minister misunderstood me. That figure was for building cleaning. If one excludes educational and social services buildings, the rest, which was spread over 22 locations, was worth £89,500. However, the global sum is far in excess of £100,000,
        Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the cost of compliance with competition outweighs the benefits of the competitive process, that will be taken into account. The representations made by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents and those sent in by the islands council will be considered carefully with all the other responses, which are due by 31 January. It is reasonable to stipulate that any service involving expenditure above a given exemption level should be exposed to the competitive process, wherever that service is provided.
        Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Minister have any estimate of the costs or the manpower burdens to be placed on the islands councils as a consequence of the Bill? Does he accept the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that this would add extra burdens to the islands councils?
        Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is why we put out a consultation document, and we shall weigh with the utmost care every representation sent in. They must be in by 31 January, so there is plenty of time. The facts speak for themselves and they will be considered with great care.
        There is no need for competition to be confined to urban areas and examples can be found in remote parts of the country. Orkney islands council, for example, uses private contractors in the provision of a refuse collection service for its distant islands. The Government are fully aware of the special circumstances in which the islands councils operate, but private enterprise in the islands has to operate in the same circumstances and there is really no case for exemption for the islands authorities alone, on the grounds that it is more difficult or expensive to provide services in remote and isolated areas.
        Mr. Wallace: Are the refuse services in Orkney run by private contractors as a result of competitive tendering? The director of administration and legal services said in a recent letter to me:
        "the council considers all the factors relating to each Island before choosing the best solution for each Island so that the most efficient service is provided to the ratepayers at the most economical cost."
        Was there competitive tendering in the cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?
        Lord Douglas James-Hamilton: The direct labour organisation was not considered for refuse collection in the Orkneys. In almost all cases, the exception has been those islands with tiny populations; for example, in North Ronaldsay, which has 14 households, where there were more than two tenderers in the private sector. In each case the private contractor was a local licensed haulage contractor.
        The hon. Member for the Western Isles made a point relating to mainland Orkney rather than to the distant islands. After the reorganisation of local government, the new islands council put its refuse collection out to tender. It advertised nationwide, but there were no suitable applicants and the contract was awarded to the DLO. What the hon. Gentleman said about the matter being academic may turn out to be right, but I give him an assurance that the representations sent in by the islands council will be considered with great care.
        It is the Government's firm view that the opening up of services to competition can bring substantial savings and improvements in the standard of service, but the Government's policy is not enforced privatisation. The legislation will impose fair competition between local authorities' own work forces and the private sector. If an authority, including any of the three island authorities, can provide the best and cheapest service, it should continue to do so, but if the private sector can offer a better deal for the ratepayers and the consumers of the service, the local authorities should choose that option. The crux of the matter — whether the private sector can compete—can be established only by testing the market. Without that test, authorities cannot be sure that their present operation is the best available.
        With regard to amendment No. 5, it does not matter how small the population of any one island is. The purpose of the Bill is to subject those local authority activities defined in the Bill to the competitive process. The proposal is, as I have said, that there is only a case for exemption in respect of any de minimis provision applied to the whole of any local authority's activity. There is no case in support of selective exemption within the authority for specific groups or islands.
        With regard to amendment No. 6, nor is there any need for a power which would enable the Secretary of State to choose not to apply the competitive process to any particular island. This is the point about the Montgomery report. The Secretary of State already has the power under clauses 6(3) and 15(6) to make regulations applying competition to such authorities and with such exceptions as he may determine, and that is quite sufficient. The existence of the power does not mean that competition will not extend to the Scottish islands other than any exemption that they may gain by way of a de minimis provision. I assure Opposition Members that the representations from their constituency councils will be carefully considered.
        Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister has read that brief before. I do not think that he believed it then, and I do not think that he believes it now. Frankly, it is a load of rubbish. It is absurd to suggest that any useful purpose can be served by going through the competitive tendering exercise for running a tractor and trailer on the island of Papa Stour to clear the refuse from households in that area or to provide the four school meals that are provided every day on the island. I do not think that the Minister believes
        984
        that nonsense. We recognise that he must go through the exercise to remain part of the ludicrous Government. This proposal is one of the sillier manifestations of the Conservative party's policy.
        Mr. Bill Walker rose—
        Mr. Home Robertson: I shall not give way.
        We are not satisfied with the Minister's explanation. I should like to hope that the Government will heed the representations that have been made to them by the Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles councils. I have no doubt that the islands councils will clearly explain how irrelevant this proposal is. I cannot say that we have much cause for confidence in the minority administration in the Scottish Office.
        Amendment negatived.

      Clause 2

        DEFINED ACTIVITIES
        Mr. Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 8, at end insert—
        `( ) Before making an order under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate.'.
        Hon. Members will recall that in Committee my hon. Friend undertook to consider whether to bring forward an amendment to put it beyond doubt that the exercise of the power contained in clause 2(3) should be subject to consultation. It was said then that this was already the standard practice of the Department on these matters. Indeed, we have just come to the end of the consultation period on the addition of sport and leisure management, and we are in the process of consulting on phasing in and de minimis levels, and there will be other consultation exercises in connection with this Bill alone—all on a voluntary rather than a statutory basis.
        We have no desire to inflict upon local authorities totally unworkable legislation. We depend upon consultation responses to ensure that our competition proposals are viable in practice. That is the only way in which competition will be really effective and its benefits may be reaped by all.
        The amendment will require the Secretary of State to consult such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate before extending competition to other activities in the future. I believe that the amendment should reassure Opposition Members that we shall continue to ask for local government views on the issues that affect them in this part of the Bill, while giving the Secretary of State the flexibility to tailor consultation to the needs of the particular activities under scrutiny at the time.
        Mr. Wallace: I make a brief contribution to state that the concession is indeed welcome. We have talked to closed minds for most of the evening, but, for once, a mind has been open.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 7

        THE CONDITIONS
        Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 39, after 'work', insert 'free of charge'.

        985
        This amendment seeks to ensure that the detailed specifications which councils will need to prepare in order to go out to tender may be inspected free of charge. In Standing Committee, hon. Members agreed that inspection of the annual reports required by this Bill should be free of charge, and this amendment merely ensures consistency of approach to the other inspection right in this part of the Bill.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 8

        THE CONDITIONS: FURTHER PROVISIONS
        Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 7, line 37, at end insert
        '(5) If the Secretary of State so provides by regulations, the fifth condition shall not be treated as fulfilled unless—

        (a) in accordance with prescribed requirements there is prepared and certified a document which appraises and fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed with respect to responses falling within subsection (2) above and the bid referred to in subsection (3) above; and

        (b) at such time or times (prior to reaching the decision referred to in section 7(7) above) as may be prescribed, copies of that document are provided or made available in accordance with any prescribed requirements;

        and "prescribed" here means prescribed by the regulations.
        (6) Where any document is provided or made available in accordance with the requirements of regulations under subsection (5) above, the publication thereby of any defamatory matter in the document shall be privileged unless the publication is proved to be made with malice.'.
        Part I of the Bill is about competition, and, in order for competition to have the desired effect of creating genuine pressure for better value for money, it naturally contains provisions to ensure that competition will be open and fair. Apart from the general duty in clause 7 not to act in an anti-competitive manner, it contains certain specific duties, such as to meet financial objectives and to publish accounts showing whether they have been met, and powers to add further relevant duties, such as those in clause 8 dealing with the handling of tenders.
        This amendment is tabled in response to representations which have been made by various interested parties—and with which I wholeheartedly agree—to the effect that one of the most useful of all possible ways of ensuring fairness of competition is to enable all those concerned to see the tender appraisal on the basis of which councils are likely to take a decision to award work in house. The reference to a certified document reflects our belief that any such appraisal should be certified as fair by an appropriate officer.
        7.45 pm
        We have thought it right to introduce this notion also via an enabling power rather than as a set of duties spelt out on the face of the Bill. Essentially, that is because we realise that imposition of such a duty may be less straightforward than it seems. The last element of the amendment already recognises, and deals with, the possibility of the duty leading to the publication of material which might otherwise be construable as defamatory. Other issues could arise, and we therefore wish to approach the use of this power via consultation on a fully worked-up set of detailed proposals.
        Although I cannot anticipate what they will be, I can point out to the House that at least one authority—the
        986
        London borough of Wandsworth—already publishes its tender appraisals for service contracts because it sees them as simply one important element of open and accountable government, whether or not there is an in-house tender for the work. I understand that this practice has not given rise to any problems at all—the very opposite, indeed, since people can now read for themselves the basis on which these important decisions are made.
        I hope, therefore, and fully expect, that it will be possible to work up an entirely acceptable scheme on the basis of this power, and commend it to the House accordingly.
        Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he explained the amendment. It stopped my asking him a series of questions. I press him about the content of the proposed subsection (6). If the appraisal document simply tells the truth in respect of what is thought about a company's actions, I presume that it will not be defamatory. It is probably a legalistic point, but will the Minister enlighten us on it? I am not looking for problems. People want to know whether they can put the truth in appraisal documents without being defamatory. Therefore, they would not need the protection of privilege. We are not looking for barriers.
        Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is quite right.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 17
        LOCAL AND OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONTRACTS: EXCLUSION OF NON-COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
        Amendment made: No. 10, in page 16, line 46, leave out `18(10)' and insert `(Race relations matters)'. — [Mr. Howard.]
      Clause 18

        PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO OR CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 17
        Mr. Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 17, line 10, at end insert—
        '(2A) An order under subsection (1) above may include such consequential and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to he necessary or expedient.'.
        The ingenuity of some local authorities in dreaming up ways in which they might circumvent the provisions in part II of the Bill was discussed many times in Committee. As we pointed out, we have tried to cover all the practices that authorities currently adopt to discriminate against certain contractors or to protect their DLOs, but it would be unwise to assume that the provisions cater for all possible abuses of the contractual process which authorities may hit upon in the future.
        Clearly, therefore it must be sensible to avoid the need for further legislation every time an authority comes up with a new way to avoid the provisions, and clause 18(1) allows the Secretary of State, by order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to add to the noncommercial matters in clause 17(5). However, as at present drafted, the Bill does not allow the Secretary of State to make consequential or transitional provisions in any order under clause 18(1). For example, there is at present no power to require authorities to redraw select lists that have been drawn up by taking account of a matter which is

        987
        rendered non-commercial by an order under clause 18(1), and the purpose of the amendment is to correct that omission. I commend it to the House.
        Mr. Rooker: If ever there were a justification for voting against giving the Bill a Third Reading, it is embodied in the amendment. The Minister has told us all. The Government are trying to run every itemised detail of local government. Frankly, it does not matter how clever the whizz kids in Marsham street are, they will not defeat the 400 legitimate local authorities that are trying to serve their residents. The amendment is unnecessary, but, given the need to make progress, we do not intend to oppose it.
        Mr. Howard: It is not the intention of the Government to defeat any legitimate local authority. Where local authorities are prepared to act in such a way as to circumvent the provisions of the legislation these powers are necessary and will be used.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 14, in page 17, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 18.
        No. 20, in page 18, line 12, leave out 'subsection (10)' and insert 'section (Race relations matters)'.
        No. 22, in page 18, line 16, leave out 'subsection (10)' and insert 'section (Race relations matters)'. — [Mr. Howard.]

      Clause 20

        TRANSITIONAL DUTY OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AS REGARDS EXISTING LISTS
        Amendment made: No. 25, in page 19, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'section' and insert
        'authority's action was reasonably necessary to secure compliance with'.—[Mr. Howard.]

      Clause 27

        PROHIBITION ON PROMOTING HOMOSEXUALITY BY TEACHING OR BY PUBLISHING MATERIAL
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 27, line 27, after 'authority', insert
        'may undertake Sex Education in the course of which an awareness of different sexual orientations may be taught but the local authority'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 33, in page 27, line 30, leave out subsection (b).
        No. 34, in page 27, line 35, leave out 'either of the purposes' and insert 'the purpose'.
        No. 35, in page 27, line 35, leave out 'paragraphs' and insert 'paragraph'.
        No. 36, in page 27, line 36, leave out 'and (b)'.
        No. 47, page 27, line 38, leave out 'treating or preventing the spread of disease' and insert
        'care counselling and health education on AIDS and other diseases'.
        No. 37, in page 27, line 39, at end insert:—
        '(2A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against any homosexual person, or designed to protect the civil rights of any such person.'.
        No. 38, in page 27, line 39, at end insert
        `(2A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of providing
        988
        information, counselling or advice to any pupil at a school or other educational establishment maintained by the authority as to his personal or social development or any family relationship which can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect that development.'.
        No. 48, page 28, line 3, at end insert: —
        '(1A) Nothing in this section shall permit or encourage discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation'.
        Mr. Hughes: If I understand correctly, the Government do not intend to agree to amendment No. 32. Therefore, we shall force a Division so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to vote for the inclusion of the words in the amendment.
        At this stage I shall set out our views on the other amendments which are being considered. Amendment No. 33 is substantive and amendments Nos. 34 to 36 are consequential. My hon. Friends and I support amendments Nos. 47 and 48 in the name of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and amendments Nos. 37 and 38 which have been tabled by the official Opposition. If there are Divisions on any of those amendments, we shall support the amendments. So that hon. Members are clear, the amendment that I have moved and those that follow from it are supported by all my colleagues in the parliamentary Liberal party.
        Clause 27 is a late arrival in the Bill. It came by way of a new clause tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) which was supported by other Conservative Back-Bench Members. It was accepted, with an amendment, by the Minister for Local Government. Therefore, it comes before the House for the first time as part of the Bill.
        The history of the proposal is slightly longer. The derivation of the new clause was the Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill which was introduced into the other place by the noble Lord the Earl of Halsbury. It also appeared as a private Member's Bill in this House. It is interesting to recollect the view of the Government on the proposal then—which, as I think the Minister for Local Government will concede, is substantively, if not exactly, the same as clause 27.
        Lord Skelmersdale gave the Government's view in response to the Earl of Halsbury's speech on Second Reading. The Bill changed the law on two matters, the second of which was the matter that concerns us now. Lord Skelmersdale said:
        "Turning now to the second part of the prohibition we are all agreed that the most dangerous and pernicious effects of loosening sexual values are on children. Schools must approach the difficult task of teaching their pupils about sexual matters in a responsible and sensitive manner. We must ensure that children are not subject to insidious propaganda for homosexuality. Moreover, the physical and emotional dangers of promiscuity should be spelt out. Regrettably there have been instances—we have heard some referred to in this debate—of the use of unsound teaching methods and materials and the propagation of extreme and unrepresentative views of sexual ethics and mores in the main related to the presentation of homosexuality. The Bill seeks to make this illegal by prohibiting financial or other assistance being made available by local authorities for this purpose. Moreover, it refers to a very subjective word—namely, 'acceptability', a word which could occupy your Lorships, sitting in your judicial capacity, for hour after hour."
        In Committee the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and I raised exactly this point with the Minister. The definition in the second provision of the Bill has no qualification and has in it several words which are not defined in the Bill. It was the view of the Government as recently as less than a year ago, on 18 December last

        989
        year, in the other place that the word "acceptability", which we debated in Committee only last week, was capable of substantial debate and was very unfair.
        In another place Lord Skelmersdale went on to make two points which we raised in Committee. First, he said that the amendment that the Earl of Halsbury's original Bill would have introduced was better dealt with in the context of education legislation. He made the point that the Government had just legislated in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to provide that sex education be taught in schools and that the arrangements for the curriculum should include the views of parents and governors. Again I quote Lord Skelmersdale:
        "Under the new arrangements, all those responsible for the provision of sex education in county, voluntary and maintained schools will be required by law to ensure that any teaching offered is set within a clear moral context and is supportive of family life."
        He said later:
        "What all this means is that the Bill of the noble Earl seeks to prevent local education authorities from encouraging the promotion of homosexuality in schools at the very time that those same authorities are about to cease to have a direct role in determining the kind of sex education to be offered in schools."
        He therefore made the second point which was that not only is the word "acceptability" laden with possible interpretations but that the Bill was seeking unnecessarily to legislate in the education context. I do not quote all the points that the Minister made against the Bill, but he said:
        "Finally, on that aspect of the Bill, I should express reservations about how the wording of the Bill— with its prohibition of the promotion of homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship — might be interpreted in practice. The House will want to investigate, again in Committee, whether the meaning is clear or whether there is a risk that any teaching about homosexuality will effectively be outlawed. The Government's policy is that schools should be prepared to address the issue of homosexuality, provided they approach it in a balanced and factual manner, appropriate to the maturity of the pupils concerned. The issue cannot he ignored by schools when it is widely discussed in society and when pupils may well ask questions about it …
        The Government have made it quite clear that any teaching about homosexuality must never, in any sense, advocate or encourage it as a normal form of relationship. To do so would be educationally and morally indefensible. I appreciate that the noble Earl's Bill seeks to prevent only such abuses. I fear, however, that the distinction between these, and what I have described as proper teaching about homosexuality, cannot be drawn sufficiently clearly in legislation to avoid harmful misinterpretation. That is a risk we cannot take."
        That is what a Minister from the Department of the Environment said on 18 December 1986.
        Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        8 pm
        Mr. Hughes: In a moment.
        "in the Government's view, the Bill is unnecessary".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1986, Vol. 483, c. 334–6.]
        He went on to say that it was not a sensible way to proceed.
        Mr. Michael Brown: I sought to intervene because I wanted to ensure that the hon. Gentleman quoted the last sentence, and he has just done so.
        Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me earlier that that express statement of view was confirmed by the Government during the early stages of the passage of the Bill in the other place.
        On Third Reading in the other place, Baroness Hooper, speaking on behalf of the Government on 11 February 1987, said:
        "My Lords, this gives me a convenient opportunity to remind the House of the Government's position on the Bill".
        At the end of her speech, she said:
        "We do not therefore believe that the Bill is necessary or an appropriate method of dealing with this one small aspect of the problem". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 11 February 1987; Vol. 484, c. 708–9.]
        That is what two Ministers, from the relevant Department, said less than a year ago. They came out clearly against the Government's present position.
        We are used to Government about-turns. In a short debate that we had barely an hour ago, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment told us that, a few months ago, he had sent out a letter expressly saying that the Government would not legislate to impose competitive tendering on parish and community councils. However, tonight the Government moved an amendment expressly to include parish and community councils. Therefore, we are used to U-turns and misrepresentation from that Department of the Environment.
        I have dealt with the history of this matter and the Government's sordid role, and I shall now consider the issue of substance. In Committee I made it clear that the initial part of the clause that reads:
        "Local authorities shall not—
        (a) promote homosexuality or publish material for the promotion of homosexuality"
        had the support of the Liberal party. We believe that, using the dictionary definition — there is no other definition because the Government have not supplied one—that is a proper statement on what should be the role of local authorities. Members on both sides of the Committee accepted that there is a need to qualify that statement, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and I tabled amendment No. 32.
        That amendment is intended to make it expressly clear that a local authority
        "may undertake Sex Education in the course of which an awareness of different sexual orientations may be taught."
        It seeks not to undermine the initial part of the clause regarding the promotion of homosexuality, but to ensure that it is natural and, indeed, perfectly proper, for education to include education about different sexual orientations that are found in any community. Indeed, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise.
        The unqualified assertions in the three subsections of the clause are extremely dangerous. They represent a possible vehicle for misinterpretation that would be to the grave detriment of a non-discriminatory society or local government. My colleagues and I have two major criticisms. The first is that the original Bill and the clause are almost irrelevant to most of Britain in the sense that they are based on a few localised examples of abuse or possible abuse. The second is that the clause is damaging in its width, and the provisions that the Government intend to introduce to deal with the problem are also damaging. They are damaging to individuals who may well need the benefit of education, counselling, support

        991
        and the opportunity to meet and discuss with other people their own and others' sexual orientation. They are also damaging to our pluralist society.
        In Committee the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) asked whether there had been any evidence or suggestion of a local authority promoting homosexuality in Wales. The Minister could give no example. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of any example in Scotland. If we are wrong, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to correct us. However, I note that the Minister is no longer present; that shows his interest and the clause's importance to Scotland. Obviously, he does not consider that this is a matter of importance, or he would be on the Front Bench. He sat through the Committee proceedings, so presumably he could have managed to survive the final proceedings in the Chamber.
        The hon. Member for Spelthorne made an appalling speech when he moved the original amendment. He chose to give examples that were not truthful and, until I questioned him in Committee, he chose to imply that a certain publication had emanated from local authorities when, by his own admission, the specific publication of which he had spoken did not. That represents an unacceptable misrepresentation. It epitomises the way in which Conservative Members have sought to raise the spectre of local authorities, especially those supported by other political parties, campaigning for the mass transformation — if that is biologically and genetically possible — of the land into a cast of rampaging homosexuals. That was the implication of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
        Mr. Wilshire rose—
        Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
        The hon. Member for Spelthorne cited a second example—it has been dealt with by the hon. Member for Copeland — concerning the London borough of Ealing and a job advertisement. It concerned a worker for lesbian and gay rights, but the hon. Gentleman did not say that that advertisement had had all-party support within that borough. In the event, the post has not been filled.
        Mr. Eric Forth: They are all bonkers in Ealing.
        Ms. Clare Short rose—
        Mr. Hughes: I will give way, but first I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne because I have referred to him.
        The speech made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne represented a grave distortion of the argument, and it is that type of prejudice that we must ensure does not occur. Such a wide, badly drafted and unqualified clause is open to such prejudice. We have seen such prejudice evidenced by Conservative Members and that prejudice is now supported by the Government, despite the fact that a year ago they recognised the folly of such a position.
        Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Member has put words into my mouth. He challenged me on a dossier that I presented to the Committee. I was speaking about a book entitled "The playbook for kids about sex". I gave that example to the Committee to make the point that the book had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1983. I
        992
        was seeking not to say that it had been used in schools, but that it was available and had been challenged under existing legislation, yet the DPP had said that that legislation was not adequate to deal with the matter. That was all that I was seeking to illustrate, and the record shows that.
        Mr. Hughes: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech. However, in Committee he asked us all to consider a bundle of documents that he had produced. The Chairman of the Committee made it clear that the argument was about local government activities and that that was the only matter in order for debate in the Committee. I asked the hon. Gentleman:
        "Is the hon. Gentleman asserting that the 'The playbook for kids about sex' is a local authority publication?" — [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1202.]
        The hon. Gentleman replied "No, I am not." The whole argument was about publications by local authorities. The hon. Member for Spelthorne can explain his position when he comes, as he no doubt will, to his speech.
        Ms. Short: I think that it is important that the hon. Gentleman spells out what he has just alleged. He suggested that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) had attacked Ealing for having appointed a lesbian and gay rights worker. I understood the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to say that the appointment was supported by Conservative councillors in Ealing. If so, I should like him to say that clearly and loudly in the House tonight, so that we can deal with some of the nasty games that are being played here.
        Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady is quite correct. The hon. Member for Copeland, or someone on his behalf, made the inquiries that confirmed that the Conservative party in Ealing supported the proposal.
        I hope that the House does not want the role of local authorities to be to promote sexuality of any kind. Homosexuals do not happen as a result of campaigns for their promotion, just as heterosexuals are not suddenly brought into active heterosexualism by having a campaign on their behalf. I am not a biologist or scientist, but I know that that belief is founded on prejudice. If it is believed that, by allowing people to be informed of different sorts of sexuality, they are suddenly converted to those forms of sexuality—
        Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard the comment made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who said that all the councillors in Ealing were bonkers — that obviously included the Conservative members of the council. It might be worth having that on the record.
        Mr. Hughes: I did not hear that, but I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) is nodding his assent to the remark. For a moment, I thought that bonking and bonkers had to do with another activity, which might be appropriate to this debate. I do not know whether that is the first use of the word on the record, but I gather that it is in common parlance, so we should talk about it here, too.
        I do not believe that homosexuals want their sexuality to be promoted any more than anyone else does. They would argue not for discrimination in their favour, but for equal treatment with everyone else. They want their

        993
        sexuality to be accepted and to have equal access to jobs, housing, social and medical help, advice and particularly the sort of advice and counselling that take place during education and growing up.
        8.15 pm
        If the clause's aim is to protect the young, why are we not doing something about soft porn magazines, which are on sale in newsagents? Why are we not doing something about the matter raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) only last year—page 3 pictures in the popular newspapers? If we are trying not to promote different forms of sexuality, why do we not deal with television advertising, which often tries to sell products merely by appealing to people's sexual nature and motives? Why do the Government suddenly select this target, rather than another?
        Of course, there are always people who will take advantage of positions of responsibility in a sexual context. However, that is true across the whole range of sexual activity. There is no evidence of any greater incidence of crime against young people by homosexuals than by heterosexuals. Sadly, there is always the risk that some adults will abuse their sexual adulthood in relationships with the young. But that is not a result of the promotion or advancement of arguments about homosexuality's existence. Indeed, I would argue strongly that unless awareness of homosexuality and acceptance of homosexuals is taught in school, they will be taught away from the classroon, in private, in a more harmful way.
        That is why our amendments, and those tabled elsewhere, are important. I have heard informally that the Government plan to resist the amendments; but this prejudiced and bigoted late change of mind, which is presumably an effort to capitalise on a populist view and to gain the maximum political advantage from the scares and fears about AIDS and so on is something from which I hope they will resile. It is about time we had some principle on the issue, and not a sudden U-turn in the space of 12 months.
        The debate about the new section, as set out in clause 27, raises many questions of definition. The Minister conceded in Committee that there was no definition in the Bill of the words "promotion", "acceptability", "pretended" or "family". Subsection (1)(b), if unamended, would read as follows:
        "A local authority shall not — … (b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship by the publication of such material or otherwise".
        Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
        Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear." It is unacceptable to prevent the teaching that maintains that other people's relationships should be accepted by all civilised adults, whatever their personal views of the rightness or wrongness of those relationships.
        Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It depends on what one means by "civilised". I do not regard the practice of sodomy or buggery as being civilised.
        Mr. Hughes: I am not asking the hon. Lady to regard those practices, or any others, as civilised. I am merely asking her to live in England in 1987 where, just as in 1887, or 1787, those practices go on. From the beginning of time there have been, are, and will be people who are homosexual, living in such relationships, sometimes with children.
        Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Disgusting.
        Mr. Hughes: I defend the hon. Lady's right to think that it is disgusting, but I do not defend her right, on behalf of a minority Government, to legislate to pretend that it does not exist. If the hon. Lady made an effort to inform herself, she would realise that these things are not encouraged or discouraged by teaching that they should be accepted—just as other things that she might not like are accepted. There is theft in society: she might not like it, and it might be uncivilised. Burglary, robbery and even murder exist in society. They are uncivilised, but we must teach people that those sorts of things happen and, more importantly, that all our fellow adults should be entitled to make their own choices, provided that they do not try to intrude on the lives and lifestyles of others. That is why the definitions in the clause are extremely dangerous.
        Whatever our view about the morality of different sorts of sexual behaviour, and although there might be agreement in parts of the House about the immorality of certain sexual behaviour, we should allow local authorities as the agents of Government throughout Britain to teach that homosexuality is to be accepted. That is what this clause is about. Children, as they approach school-leaving age as young adults, should be taught about the risks in sexual relations and about the medical and other dangers. Those things should be taught as a regular and normal part of their curriculum. I shall give two examples, and I invite the Minister to say on what side of the line he comes down.
        The Government use the words "safe sex" in their advertising campaigns. Does a leaflet promoting safe sex for homosexuals, perhaps from the Terrence Higgins Trust, which is funded by the Government, count as promoting homosexuality? If not, where is the dividing line? What about the funding of help lines, counselling lines or centres promoted by local authorities for lesbian women or gay men? Given that local authorities have a duty to all their electors, they must have a duty to gay men and lesbian women.
        It is sad that we have to have this debate. If the Government had held to their principled position of less than a year ago, we would not need to have a debate such as this because the reactionary view propounded by some Conservative Back Benchers would be resisted just as it was resisted a year ago.
        However, things have changed. The tragedy is that at the last minute in Committee the Government took a new position and are now advancing a piece of legislation that they admitted was defective and that is generally regarded as dangerous. That was why in Committee I expressly said on behalf of my party that we would not support the proposition. That is why I now confirm that the amendments that I and my hon. Friends have tabled are the minimum necessary to make this legislation acceptable. It is quite wrong for local authorities to promote homosexuality, but the clause goes miles too far and should be amended to make it in any way acceptable to the House and to the country.
        Mr. Michael Brown: In Committee last week, I said that it was with great reluctance that I was prepared to go along with the new clause. I endorse a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The Standing Committee was bounced into accepting the new clause. The hon.

        995
        Gentleman has drawn our attention to the debate that took place almost a year ago this week when the noble Lord Skelmersdale who held office in the Department of the Environment made a speech.
        The point that the Minister must address is a simple one. I have a copy of the Bill that was introduced in the House of Lords and it is almost exactly identical to the Bill that is before the House. Even the wording is almost the same. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) who put her name to the new clause, is nodding assent. Therefore, we have it from my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston that the new clause which the Government accepted last Tuesday is exactly the same as the one in the Bill about which the noble Lord Skelmersdale spoke in another place. He said:
        "I fear, however, that the distinction between these, and what I have described as proper teaching about homosexuality, cannot be drawn sufficiently clearly in legislation to avoid harmful misinterpretation. That is a risk we cannot take.
        In these circumstances, in the Government's view the Bill is unnecessary." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1986; Vol. 483, c. 336.]
        By accepting the new clause, the Minister is saying that he is now prepared to allow an insufficient and incorrect line to be drawn in legislation. He is prepared to risk "harmful misinterpretation" whereas his predecessor said that it was a risk that the Government were not prepared to take. The Minister's predecessor said that the Bill was unnecessary, but the Minister says that it is now necessary. What has changed in the last year? Unfortunately, what has changed is a degree of populism that is becoming a symptom of a less tolerant society.
        Dame Jill Knight: What has changed, surely, is that the Bill as it was passed through all its stages in the other place without question. It came to the House of Commons and the Minister who was responsible for it at the time strongly supported the whole thinking behind the Bill of the need to protect children. However much my hon. Friend may think that that is not necessary, I am afraid that it is true.
        Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has very sincere reasons for wanting to see this legislation go through. I am merely drawing to the attention of the House the view of the Government that was reported in the House of Lords' Hansard. Again I pose the question, "What has changed?" Of course I accept that it is necessary to protect children and to ensure that irresponsible local authorities do not promote homosexuality. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey says, the clause has gone much further than that.
        While I go along with the objections of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgnbaston, I do not accept that only those objectives will be served by the enactment of the new clause. Therefore, I shall not vote with my hon. Friends against the amendments.—[Interruption.]
        Dr. John Cunningham: The new clause inserted in the Bill in Committee and the amendments tabled by the official Opposition—I specifically refer to amendments Nos. 37 and 38—raise fundamental issues of personal liberty and civil rights.
        Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. If people in the Strangers' Gallery continue to try to inhibit debate, I shall spy strangers.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No one interrupts debates in this Chamber, and I hope that there will be no reference to any interruptions from elsewhere.
        Dr. Cunningham: I hope that that rule applies tomorrow in the poll tax debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        As I say, the amendments raise fundamental issues of personal liberty and civil rights. The Opposition believe in equal rights and equal treatment for all people, including homosexuals. We are not asking for—nor do gay people demand—positive rights or preferential treatment. Equal treatment, however, is central to the civil liberties of all people as citizens. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was right when he said that the House is really debating standards of tolerance in a civilised society. It is obvious that if Conservative Members had their way, those standards of tolerance and dignity would be eroded and downgraded. The Minister should state at the outset of his response whether the Government intend to allow on the statute book a clause which may well infringe the civil liberties of many homosexual people.
        8.30 pm
        The amendments seek to set out clearly the priorities of the Opposition Front Bench in relation to the new clause tabled in Committee. The amendments make it clear, first, that we do not believe that any local authority has or should have a duty to promote homosexuality, but that this restriction relates solely to the promotion of homosexuality, and not to services or information to homosexual people or those personally close to them, such as their family or friends. "Promote" should not be taken to mean only "actively encourage, help and advise people to understand the circumstances they are in". Nothing in the new clause should be allowed to prevent or hinder the discouragement of discrimination against homosexual people, or to impinge on their civil rights.
        That position underlay the decision of myself and my hon. Friends on the Standing Committee not to oppose the clause, to the extent that it covered the promotion of an act, but to make it clear that we intended to seek amendments on Report, as we are now doing.
        In the light of the debate that took place in Committee, the amendments are all the more important. Without them the drafting of the clause could lead to widespread misunderstanding, indeed, fear, and could cause serious damage to the rights of homosexual people. In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said:
        "Nothing that I seek to change by the new clause has anything to do with homosexuals: it is about the act of promoting homosexuality; nothing that I want to say seeks to speak against the freedom of adults to follow their own beliefs and morals in private; and nothing that I intend to say seeks to encourage any person or body to discriminate against homosexuals."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1201.]
        If the hon. Gentleman believes that — I hope that he does—and if the Government believe that, they should accept amendments Nos. 37 and 38 and the hon. Member for Spelthorne should vote for them — even if the Government oppose them — if he is to stand by the intention of his words in Committee.

        997
        Amendment No. 37 would exempt from the ambit of the legislation any activity of a local authority, or funded by an authority, which is undertaken for the purpose of discouraging discrimination or desiring to protect the civil liberties of homosexual people. The problem concerns the meaning of "promotion" where a section of the population is disadvantaged in some way. The provision of information or services which contribute to the well-being of members of that section of the population are not intended to promote homosexuality, yet some could argue that they contribute indirectly to promotion in a wider sense, merely by improving the lot of the everyday lives of such people.
        The hon. Member for Spelthorne denied that his clause had anything to do with homosexual people, yet implicitly he argued the contrary when, as reported in col. 1204 of the Official Report, he stated that the production of positive images of homosexuals amounted to promotion. It is generally accepted in every other civilised society that an important aspect of discouraging any form of discrimination against any individual or group is the discouragement of negative images of the people concerned.
        Mr. Wilshire: Can the hon. Gentleman distinguish between negative images, positive images and neutral images? I ask him to consider that point.
        Dr. Cunningham: We all know what negative images are; we have seen them thoughout history. There were negative images of Jews and immigrants. Now we have negative portrayal of homosexuality. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he is really not fit to be a Member of the House.
        It is generally accepted that the important aspect of discouraging any form of discrimination is the discouragement of abuse of people, denial of equality of opportunity and denial of their civil rights. The clause would appear to include the prevention of such activity. Therein lies the nub of the difficulty with the term "promotion" and the wide terms which it appears to be intended to have. It need hardly he said that the risk that such an interpretation might be adopted by the courts should give rise to serious concern, and that is the main reason for amendment No. 37. If banning promotion means or carries the risk of meaning the banning of anti-discrimination activity, it would be a serious and retrograde step against civil rights in our society, which our amendment seeks to prevent.
        We can all agree with the words of Lord Skelmersdale who said last year:
        "we are all agreed that the most dangerous and pernicious effects of loosening sexual values are on children. Schools must approach the difficult task of teaching their children about sexual matters in a responsible and sensitive manner. We must ensure that children are not subject to insidious propaganda". —[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1986; Vol. 483, c. 334.]
        Amendment No. 38 deals with information, advice and counselling to pupils at schools and colleges. The hon. Member for Spelthorne said that the new clause
        "seeks to prevent local authorities promoting homosexuality, from teaching children about homosexual relationships as acceptable family relationships and from helping others to do so."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,. 8 December 1987; c. 1206.]
        If that is really the meaning of the new clause, it would require a local authority to advise its teachers that children seeking information, advice or counselling about their family circumstances, perhaps because a parent was
        998
        homosexual, would have to be told that the life of their family was not acceptable under the law. The psychological effect of any such response on a child is difficult to imagine, but one can only think that it would be appalling.
        I turn to the Government's contradictory position. The hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes and for Southwark and Bermondsey have raised the point, almost in identical words to those I had written in my notes. On 18 December 1986, almost exactly one year ago, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Lord Skelmersdale, speaking for the Government in the House of Lords, said that the very use of the word "acceptability" in the Bill being debated meant that the Government could not recommend acceptance of the Bill. That is the very issue we raised in the Committee, for the obvious reasons that I have just outlined.
        We must know what has made the Government change their mind. What events, influences and legal advice have brought the Government to find not only acceptable, but necessary, something that was totally unacceptable only 12 months ago? We do not have a shred of evidence from anyone to substantiate the argument for the use of the word "acceptability" in the clause, let alone any vestige of a case on which the Government could base such a volte face. We are led to the conclusion — perhaps the Minister of State can persuade us otherwise — in the absence of any evidence, that this U-turn is for the most base and contemptible politically opportunist reasons.
        I do not intend to requote every word of the noble Lord Skelmersdale's speech as it has already been put on record by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but he said:
        "Moreover, it refers to a very subjective word—namely, `acceptability', a word which could occupy your Lordships, sitting in your judicial capacity, for hour after hour." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1986; Vol. 483, c. 334.]
        Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that that comment was made a year ago. When hon. Gentlemen pressed the Minister for Local Government in Committee, he appeared to be content with a one-sentence, off-the-cuff answer about such a definition. He said:
        "I have said that I do not believe that it is part of a local authority's duty to glorify homosexuality or to encourage youngsters to believe that it is on an equal footing with a heterosexual way of life." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1228.]
        The Minister is not willing to introduce an amendment or put any definition in the Bill.
        Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I fear the worst of the Government's intentions. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments. If he does not, he will have a difficult job to explain to the House why he will not do so.
        When the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) spoke in the debate mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) he said that the recent provisions on sex education and a moral framework in the Education Act 1986 should be given time to work in practice, and that the code of practice under the Local Government Act 1986 should be issued first and be given time to take effect. The latter reason is almost laughable, except that these issues are not

        999
        funny. Even now, seven months later, the Government have not finalised that code of practice, of which there is now a fifth draft.
        Ministers should answer two questions to explain the Government's situation. What evidence do they have—which they did not have in May—that section 46 of the Education Act 1986 is not working in practice and is deficient, and what is that evidence, if there is any? Secondly, they should explain what has changed to make the code to which I have referred irrelevant to that process, and why is no time being allowed for it to operate in practice before yet more legislation is introduced? That code was introduced in previous legislation. It has never been published and given a chance to operate.
        Finally, some concern has been expressed by AIDS workers that the Government's amendment on AIDS—now subsection (2)—will not be sufficiently comprehensive. It would be useful, and indeed important, for Ministers to clarify whether care and counselling services would be affected by the operation of the clause.
        The exemption covers treating and preventing disease, but it is not clear whether that extends to wider care and counselling services. It must be clear that, without sympathetic advice and assistance and proper facilities for the care of infected people, efforts to arrest the spread of AIDS and improve awareness of it could be severely hampered, and that those with possible infection will be more reluctant than ever to come forward for advice and treatment. The Government would not wish—at least, I hope that they would not — to impede any assistance which local authorities or other agencies can give.
        I hope that my hon. Friends will give the Minister time to respond to those points and perhaps they will question him on his answers because we are entitled to know now why the Government have accepted those proposals, and why they have put the House into this position and what they intend to do about it.
        8.45 pm
        Mr. Harry Greenway: I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) or that of other Opposition Members. I question what they said on the basis of constituency experience and personal conviction.
        When Ealing council changed from Conservative to Labour in May 1986, there was a long and sustained campaign by the new council to have homosexual and lesbian relationships taught in schools as being as valid as heterosexual relationships.
        Ms. Short: Where is the evidence?
        Mr. Greenway: The evidence is in the rubric and the documents that were openly circulated by the council to parents and governing bodies. The council made no attempt not to be completely open in that discussion, and that was absolutely right. The evidence is there for all to see.
        The parents and grandparents of children in Ealing and other people came to see me in their hundreds and thousands to express their great concern about that policy and to express their opposition to it. I decided to promote a full discussion on it, and in February of this year I arranged a conference on the family, which was addressed
        1000
        by Cardinal Home, Bishop Maurice Wood, an Anglican bishop, representatives from the free Churches and leaders of the Sikh, Moslem and Hindu communities. There was a section on AIDS, addressed by Dr. Pinching, to try to give the conference the fullest possible profile, and that was right. The conference became a way in which parents, responsibly and without a lot of shouting, expressed their opposition to the policy of Ealing council, and that opposition was virtually unanimous.
        Children are vulnerable. I taught in schools for 23 years and saw that children are vulnerable at various ages. They are totally and continuously vulnerable between the ages of 5 and 12, and they continue to be vulnerable, sometimes to adulthood from the age of 13 years, as we know. It is essential that children are protected. I do not believe that the House would ever say that children should not be protected, and I know that Opposition Members will agree with that.
        Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; it is very unusual. I would certainly want to be protected from him. Did he think of inviting any gay groups from Ealing to the conference, which he carefully loaded to get the version of events that he wanted, to achieve the open debate that he said he was trying to encourage?
        Mr. Greenway: I did not invite gay groups, but it was open for them to attend. Indeed, I believe that some did attend, because they spoke and put their point of view. I do not object to hearing their point of view. However, the conference was essentially for parents and for the groups of people to whom I referred earlier. I am certain that all hon. Members would agree that children should be protected.
        Mr. Banks: From what?
        Mr. Greenway: From any insidious and dangerous influences, such as homosexuality.
        Dame Jill Knight: I wonder whether during my hon. Friend's conference he heard from parents such as those who contacted me when they wished to complain about the way in which their children were being dealt with in schools promoting homosexuality. Those parents were hit, spat upon, urinated on and one, who was pregnant, was punched very hard in the stomach. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has heard similar complaints from those poor parents, whose only wish was to protect their children and complain about what was happening to them.
        Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes her own point. I well remember my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) making a vivid speech about that very subject a few months ago.
        Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Greenway: No, I wish to make my speech.
        Ms. Short: Please.
        Mr. Greenway: The hon. Lady will have her opportunity.
        For the past 18 months all advertisements of teaching posts in Ealing have contained invitations to men and women of any sexual orientation — to gay men and lesbian women and the rest of it—to apply for posts. My constituents find that excessive and distasteful and think that it is a misuse of public money. I share their view.

        1001
        Only last week I received complaints in my surgery from parents who said that a homosexual recently appointed to a school makes up his face in school in front of the children, and they object to that. One has to support them. That is wrong. I do not believe that Opposition Members would say otherwise. If they do not support it, they should stand up and say that it is wrong.
        It was incorrect of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to say that the Ealing Conservatives supported the appointment of a lesbian and gay officer. The Ealing Conservatives believe that the gay and lesbian rights committee of Ealing council should never have existed and that it should be dissolved immediately. That committee spends money on promoting activities for homosexuals, and that must be wrong.
        Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Greenway: I shall give an example. In September that committee promoted two meetings for homosexuals.
        Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Greenway: No, I have already given way, and I want to be brief. That committee promoted two meetings for homosexuals and lesbians at a cost of £2,000. Only 12 people attended one of those meetings. Is that a correct use of ratepayer' money? The House should remember that Ealing ratepayers have had to pay an extra 65 per cent. to Ealing council this year and that many elderly and poor people are having to go without food to pay their rates. Their objections are massive. It is my duty to represent in the House those who object—
        Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Greenway: For the last time.
        Ms. Short: I am not sure that I completely believe the stories that the hon. Gentleman has told us. Earlier he told us that lie had been a teacher for 22 years. I ask him sincerely and honestly whether during his 22 years of teaching he was ever approached by a child who thought that he or she was a homosexual or lesbian who was disturbed and troubled by it and needed his advice and guidance. Did he ever give such guidance, and does he think that the sensible guidance that should be given in these circumstances should be made illegal by the proposals that he is supporting tonight?
        Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhonda): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Greenway: I have only just given way, but perhaps I may be allowed two in one.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: We had better have one intervention dealt with first.
        Mr. Greenway: In answering the hon. Lady, I may perhaps deal with the question of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is always courteous in the House.
        I was approached by children with all kinds of problems and I always found people to give them the counselling that they needed or coped myself, whatever it was. The hon. Lady says that I am telling stories. I am not; I am stating the facts. I have no interest in telling stories, nor do the people of Ealing. They have to deal with a fact that has hit every parent and grandparent—and many others—hard in the teeth. That has now been going on for nearly two years, and they have a strong point of view.
        1002
        They want the Government to do what the Bill does, which is to prohibit the teaching and promotion of homosexuality.
        Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Greenway: This will be the last time.
        Mr. Rogers: I am listening attentively to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He often refers to the interests of grandparents. As the father of four children and the grandparent of two, I am interested in children's safety and the pressures that they are under at school. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me precisely what he means when he says that people are teaching homosexual relationships in schools and that children need to be protected? Can he give me any instance of a child being in danger and needing protection? I seek this advice genuinely because the problem needs to be addressed seriously, but so far I have heard nothing except vague supposition.
        Mr. Greenway: In Ealing the schools have been invited to put on their notice boards invitations to children to ring gay and lesbian lines. That is wrong, because it is an incitement to children.
        I wish to bring my brief remarks to a close. Not many months ago Ealing council's education committee sent a letter home with children as young as five — some as young as four—in which was discussed the teaching that homosexual relationships were as valid as heterosexual relationships. Children of five, six and seven—or of any age — who carry about such material are carrying material which most of them would find offensive if they read it and which their parents certainly find infuriating. Some parents made bonfires of those letters. That is what they thought of them.
        I have mentioned the churches. The Roman Catholic, Jewish, Sikh, Moslem and Hindu religions are absolutely clear in their teaching on this matter. They teach that homosexuality is wrong and it is wrong to promote homosexuality among children. Children must be protected. The Church of England—
        Mr. Bruce Grocott: Tell the vicars that.
        Mr. Greenway: That is a sad comment and regrettably there is a lot in it.
        The Church of England has said that homosexual relationships fall short of the ideal. It must be the business of Parliament to protect our children and I will always stand by any measure that protects children. I support the Government strongly in this matter.
        9 pm
        Ms. Joan Ruddock: I believe that local government has no part to play in promoting any particular form of sexuality. I think that that is readily understood by councillors, local government officers and teachers. Therefore, clause 27 is unnecessary and should never have been tabled. If the word "promotion" has been or could be strictly defined, subsection (1) might have been innocuous and a mere reflection of the status quo, but it is clear from the proceedings in Committee that the Government are seeking to provide a catch-all prohibition that amounts to the denial of the reality of people's differing sexual orientation and differing social organisation.
        We should not be dealing with people's personal objections to other people's lifestyles or with any distaste,

        1003
        however acutely that may afflict hon. Members. We are part of a legislature which is supposed—I suggest—to uphold the freedom and dignity of the individual. That is a matter of the most fundamental human rights—the rights of the individual to express within the laws of the land his or her individual sexuality and still be recognised as an equal citizen. The charge levelled against local authorities is that they have recognised the existence of a minority and have devoted a tiny part of their resources to meeting the needs of that minority.
        Among those needs is the right of homosexual young people and adults to be recognised by society as they are — as human beings, with feelings, relationships and families. Recognition of lesbians and gay men is not a threat to those of us in the heterosexual majority. On the contrary, such is the all-persuasive and all-pervasive culture of heterosexuality in advertising and the media that it is homosexuals who have struggled habitually to become heterosexuals. They do not succeed, of course, but their attempt to meet society's expectations leads many, particularly the young, to despair and even to suicide attempts.
        Are we now to legislate to deny young people any explanation of the existence of homosexuality among perhaps 10 per cent. of the population? Are we to deny that the child born to a homosexual mother or father—and there are many of the latter—has family relationships? That is the road to bigotry and oppression.
        I want to refer briefly to the reason why I tabled amendment No. 47 which has not been selected. It refers specifically to care counselling and health education on AIDS and other diseases. As hon. Members are aware, there is no treatment for AIDS, but there is a highly respected and growing practice of care counselling which is of enormous value to those infected with the AIDS virus. Furthermore, health education and the prevention of AIDS depends on co-operation with gay and lesbian groups which, in turn, can function effectively only if funding is continued. It also depends on the distribution of explicit information which undoubtedly offends some Conservative Members.
        I should have preferred the wording in amendment No. 47 to be accepted. As it has not been, I specifically ask the Minister to tell us whether he believes that the points that I have made and the provisions to which I have referred and which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) are covered by the Government amendments.
        Mr. Howard: I will deal with the hon. Lady's point fully in my reply. However, the answer to the specific point that she has raised is yes. We take the view that the form of the amendment that she proposed would actually be more limited in the extent to which it would enable local authorities to provide assistance in relation to such diseases than the amendment that I moved in Committee.
        Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister. I trust that he recalls that I referred specifically to the need for effective gay and lesbian organisations to collaborate in the process, and to the consequent need for their funding to be continued.
        I am satisfied that amendment No. 48 is covered by those standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland.
        1004
        Finally, let me illustrate the problems that the Government have introduced in clause 27. My constituency lies within the London borough of Lewisham, which has a thoroughgoing equal opportunities policy. In a recent newsletter, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) stated that the borough had spent £3,500 on promoting homosexuality.
        Of what, hon. Members may ask, does that promotion consist? The borough has set up a consultative working party that has not voted to spend any money. It has funded two centres, one specifically to help young people with problems over sexual roles, and the other to help any person with problems related to his or her homosexuality. Without the addition of amendments Nos. 37 and 38 to clause 27, that small amount of help would be denied to the constituents—and ratepayers—of Lewisham.
        Since last week, I have received about 50 letters from my constituents, who are deeply concerned about the provisions of clause 27, and the repression and attacks that they believe will follow if the clause is passed unamended. However, there are undoubtedly many more people in my constituency who believe the ugly propaganda that has emanated from the Conservative Benches, and will not welcome what I have said. Indeed, local Conservative Members may even seek to exploit it.
        I know where my duty lies tonight, and where I believe the duty of the House also lies. It is a question of fundamental civil liberties, which bears heavily upon us. I am sure that hon. Members do not need to be reminded that it is in the treatment of its minorities that the real test lies of any nation's commitment to freedom and human rights. I hope that the Government will reconsider.
        Mr. Wilshire: When I arrived in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate, I was not sure whether it would be necessary for me to say anything. However, words have been put into my mouth, and motives put into my mind, by some of what has been said, and I want to put the record straight.
        The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that I had claimed that a document that I produced in Committee, purely to prove the point that existing legislation was not adequate, had been either produced or used by a local authority. The record will show that I made no such claim.
        The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) seemed to imply that my expressed belief that nothing in the new clause would be against homosexuals meant that if I said that I was against positive images of homosexuality, it followed automatically that I was in favour of negative images. I did not say that, and I do not say it now. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Copeland did not answer my question about the role of the third option — neutral presentation, and a neutral point of view.
        As the mover of the clause in Committee, I felt that it was crucial for me to listen carefully to everything said here and elsewhere, and to read everything that I had been recommended to read. My postbag is particularly instructive on the matter; I have received 12 letters from individuals, two of them supportive and 10 of them against. The significant point in the 10 letters opposing the clause was that three people said that they supported an attempt to prevent the encouragement of homosexuality, which was exactly what the new clause was doing.
        Ms. Mildred Gordon: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to a neutral approach. The new section 2A(1)(b) set out in clause 27(1) is not a neutral approach because it prohibits the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality, which must be a negative approach.
        Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is the duty of teachers to present to children the world and life as they are, and not to cover up the natural form of sexual and social life of at least 10 per cent. of the population of this country? Does he accept that, far too often, young children are presented, in school books and in pictures in school, with the vision of the normal, acceptable, happy family as comprising a married, white, middle-class man and women, with two prissy children who are clean, neat and tidy, yet the majority of children find that this does not relate to their household? Thereby, they are made to feel that they are outsiders and that they are inferior, which does great damage—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that if we have disturbances from the Gallery I have the authority to clear it. I hope very much that that will not be necessary, but I say to the House—the whole House will know this—that the Gallery is invisible to us on the Floor, and I look for good behaviour not only in the House but in the Gallery.
        Mr. Wilshire: To reply to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), I consider that part of the clause to be neutral. It seeks to prevent the promotion of an activity that should not be promoted in schools.
        The points that have been made and the matters that I have heard and read about can best be summarised by saying that they seek to suggest three things—first, that there is not a problem; secondly, that there should be no restraint on the presentation of factual information; and, thirdly, that the new clause is an attack on homosexuals. People who say that are wrong on each count.
        People who say that there is no problem fly in the face of the evidence — I presented that evidence to the Committee and it stands on the record. People who say that there are few local authorities involved and we should not be concerned—we heard that earlier—and that if there are only one or two local authorities concerned we should ignore them are talking nonsense; one is too many, and I make no apology for being concerned about one.
        The other argument that people use when saying that there is no problem is that even if these things are happening they cannot have any effect. Two central arguments are used by people promoting homosexuality: first, that people cannot be made to be homosexual and, secondly, that homosexuality cannot be changed. I have tried to look at the evidence for and against. There is a small amount of evidence to back up those claims and an equally small amount of evidence that they are not true. We should not allow to go unchallenged claims about matters that are opinions as though they are facts.
        There are those who say that there should be no restraint on the promotion of homosexuality or on its factual presentation. One of the letters that I received says:
        "If it is legal it can be promoted."
        We have heard claims that any restraint in this area is an attack on civil liberties. If that argument is followed, it will lead to an attitude of "anything goes" in this country. If it is right to encourage homosexuality, one
        1006
        might ask why it is not right to encourage racial hatred. I think that neither should be encouraged. The other argument—
        9.15 pm
        Mr. Tony Banks: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said — —[Interruption.] If lion. Gentlemen are interested, no it is not a badge of Lenin, it is a Sandinista badge — support your friendly Sandinistas.
        Will the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) repeat what he said? Did he actually say that promoting racial hatred could be as justifiable as promoting homosexuality? Does he think that homosexuality and racial hatred are equivalent?
        Mr. Wilshire: No, I said that it was equally wrong to promote either of them. All I was saying is that there are those who seek to adduce the argument that there should be no restraint and that anything goes. I do not believe that. I believe that both are equally wrong and wish that to be absolutely clear on the record.
        The final argument advanced against the clause is that it is an attack on homosexuals. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) quoted what I said in Committee, and I stand by it. The clause is not a criticism of homosexuals, an attack on private behaviour or a restraint on giving people help, for whatever reason, if they require it. The hon. Member for Copeland asked me why, if I thought that, I would not vote for the amendments. The reason is simply that nothing in the clause contradicts any of the things that I said. Therefore, the amendments are not necessary.
        Having listened to everything that has been said and having read everything that has been sent to me, I am absolutely clear in my mind that the things that the clause seeks to prevent are happening, that they create a problem and that there must be a limit on what people can do when they seek to encourage others to behave in a particular way. [Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order.
        Mr. Wilshire: There is absolutely no need for me to stand here and apologise for seeking to prevent local government from doing something that I know that it should not be doing. I see no need to apologise for making it less likely that people are confronted by homosexual propaganda. I see no reason to apologise for standing here and defending the family. The overwhelming majority of the people whom I represent would expect me to do no less.
        Mr. Chris Smith: I support the amendments of my hon. Friends and those tabled by the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I rise also to express my horror at clause 27 and to express my profound disquiet that the House and the Government have come to such a pass that sentiments of such intolerance, which is deeply damaging to the individual liberties of millions of citizens can appear before us.
        Sad to say, the Amendment Paper does not permit us to remove the clause in its entirety; would that it did. However, let us seek to amend it in the manner proposed so that at least some civilised values can be retained.

        1007
        First, I should like to say something about the practical fallacies of clause 27. What on earth, for example, do its originators mean by "promoting"? I shall give four examples. James Baldwin, one of the greatest writers of this century, who died about two weeks ago, wrote two books, "Giovanni's Room" and "Another Country", which undoubtedly celebrate the fact of homosexuality and the relationships of homosexuals. They also explore the torment that is faced by many because of the social pressures that are forced upon them as homosexuals. If a local authority places those books in a public library, will it be regarded by the courts as promoting homosexuality?
        Secondly, if a pub or club that caters for a principally gay clientele applies for a music licence and the local authority grants that licence, will that local authority be regarded by the courts as promoting homosexuality?
        Thirdly, if concerned or worried teenagers seek help or guidance from a teacher, or, indeed, see the advertisements for Gay Switchboard or Lesbian Line which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is so unhappy at seeing on a school noticeboard, and seek guidance about their fears, their sexuality or what they have come to learn about their parents' sexuality, is the giving of guidance, counselling and advice to such a worried or concerned teenager to be regarded as promoting homosexuality?
        Fourthly, if the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Merton, which are not controlled by the Labour party, fund, as they do respectively, the Gay Self-Defence Group and the Wimbledon Area Gay Society, are they promoting homosexuality as well?
        The originators of the clause have failed to recognise that there is a crucial difference between what they say they want to prohibit and what the actual impact of the clause will or can be. They say that they want only to prohibit the act, as they put it, of encouraging people to be homosexual. It is an absurd notion in any case. We are what we are. It is impossible to force or encourage someone into a different sexuality from that which pertains to them. What is needed is not to be involved in changing, persuading, forcing, encouraging people into different sexualities. What is important is to enable people to understand the sexuality that they have, and that cannot be changed.
        Furthermore, I know of no instance where an employee of a local authority has encouraged any person or child to be homosexual. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), in a now celebrated radio discussion last week, said that she could not give any examples of such encouragement because she had not brought her file with her to the studios.
        Dame Jill Knight: It might be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman spoke to one or two of his colleagues who have taken the trouble to write to me to ask for the information, which I gave them. I shall gladly give it to the hon. Gentleman now. The local authorities concerned are Haringey, Brent, Lambeth, Manchester, Ealing and there are others. There is overwhelming evidence, not least in the strong objection of parents in those local authorities, of what has been done to their children.
        Mr. Smith: I am afraid that I have to repeat my question. I am seeking actual examples where employees of a local authority have encouraged any individual person
        1008
        or child to be homosexual. I am afraid that a generalised list of local authorities is all that we have had so far from the Conservative Benches. That sort of generalised hearsay is not sufficient to base a fundamental attack on civil liberties.
        Mr. Wilshire: If an example is required, I shall repeat what I said in Committee. One of the books that was being bandied about in radio discussions was "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin". As far as I can see, there are some facts about that book which need to be repeated. First, the publishers of that book were grant-aided by the GLC, with ratepayers' money. Any hon. Member may refute that if he wishes to do so, but, as far as I can see, ratepayers' money was made available to that publisher, which I believe to be encouragement of the promotion of the book.
        The other piece of evidence is that this book was stocked in an ILEA teacher centre. Presumably one only stocks books in a centre in case teachers wish to use them. Those are the two pieces of evidence.
        Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has shown the fallacy of his argument in what he has said, because that book was never put in front of a pupil or used in a classroom in an ILEA school.
        Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend was not present for the freedom of the press debate the other week in which we discussed the matters raised by him and by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). They were known to be and had been found to be lies by newspapers. Those lies have now been picked up by certain people who have used them to create hatred and fear. Does it not bring into disrepute hon. Members who peddle those lies in that way?
        Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. It might help our debates on these sensitive and important matters if we based our arguments on facts rather than on general statements and assumptions which have appeared in the popular press and are immediately taken by some Conservative Members to be the truth, which they are not.
        The originators of the clause have said that they wish to prevent encouragement, but they have introduced a clause which will do much more than simply prevent such encouragement, which does not in fact occur and is, in any case, impossible. The clause will do much more.
        Mr. James Couchman rose—
        Mr. Smith: Time is limited, so I must proceed. Any form of advice or counselling, or work for, or provision of services to, the lesbian or gay community will, in the minds of local authorities, come to be seen to be prohibited.
        Mr. Couchman rose—
        Mr. Smith: I must proceed, as many of my colleagues wish to contribute to the debate. The difference between the way in which the originators of the clause say that they want it to be applied and the likely impact of the clause reveals the real motives of those who have introduced it. Those motives have now come into the open. Both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, some things have become sayable which were not sayable two or three years ago, and that worries me profoundly. That is the real tragedy of the clause and the emotions that underlie it.

        1009
        I believe that there are two motives. The first is the use of anti-gay sentiment for political ends. I shall say no more about that, because it is one of the most disreputable political activities in which anyone could indulge.
        Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
        Mr. Smith: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend.
        The second motive is a desire to change the climate so that to be gay or lesbian is to feel and to be treated as a second-class citizen. The climate has changed. There is more intolerance now than there was five or 10 years ago. The House cannot have failed to notice that last Saturday there was an arson attack on the offices of the Capital Gay newspaper, or that, during that same—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I heard the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) say that it was quite right that Capital Gay should have been fire—
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members should not behave in the House like that. [Interruption.] Order. I heard nothing — [Interruption.] Order. Was it unparliamentary?
        Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am quite prepared to affirm that it is quite right that there should be an intolerance of evil.
        Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us keep the temperature of the debate down. The whole House has strong feelings both ways on these matters. I call Mr. Chris Smith.
        Mr. Smith: Neither should it go unnoticed that, during the same weekend, teargas bombs were thrown into a crowded pub in Rochester. Nor should it go unnoticed that the number of queer-bashing attacks on gay men and lesbians has dramatically increased during the past year. I invite Conservative Members to condemn that sort of violence in exactly the same ringing tones in which they have condemned other forms of violence.
        Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Smith: I shall not give way. I must proceed.
        Will Conservative Members go further—perhaps the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) may be able to answer this question — and accept that, in a democratic society, all citizens should find equal acceptance and that second-class citizenship and second-class sexuality have no place in our sense of decent values?
        There is another underlying motive behind clause 27. In some ways, it is even more disturbing. It was revealed in a letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne to The Guardian on Saturday. He wrote:
        "may I answer the question (`will they be populist, or principled?') posed in your leading article … My actions were motivated wholly by the principle of supporting normality."
        Does he for a moment realise the profoundly undemocratic and anti-libertarian nature of such a concept as promoted or encouraged normality? I thought that only Soviet-style countries went in for uniformity of that kind. How uneasily does that concept sit with the democratic values that this House, of all Houses, is supposed to uphold.
        Mr. Wilshire: I shall he interested to hear how democracy or being undemocratic links with being in favour of supporting the majority. I should have thought that democracy and majority go together.
        Mr. Smith: Long ago, I was taught that democracy is as much about the equal rights of minorities as it is about reflecting the decisions of a majority. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman might do well to ponder for a moment the declaration of democratic values that was issued on 8 June 1984 by the heads of state and leaders of Government of the Group of Seven major democratic industrialised countries. It was signed by President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. At its outset, the declaration of democratic values, rightly and fundamentally, states:
        "We believe in a rule of law which respects and protects without fear or favour the rights and liberties of every citizen, and provides the setting in which the human spirit can develop in freedom and diversity."
        It is the protection of diversity that the House, our democratic values and the debate are all about. It is the protection of diversity that clause 27 and the motives that underpin it seek to undermine. I plead with Conservative Members that they should not go in for the all-too-easy, all-too-prevalent sport of gay bashing which is on the increase. Instead, they should acknowledge that true decency and morality exist in recognising and respecting the dignity of all citizens, no matter who or what they are. [Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I give one more warning about disturbances from the Strangers Gallery? It may not be generally known that clapping from the Strangers Gallery or even from the Benches is not permitted. If we have any further disturbances, I shall, with the deepest reluctance, clear the Strangers Gallery.
        Mr. Ken Livingstone: What I find particularly offensive is that an issue that affects between 2 million and 5 million citizens, depending on the number of lesbians and gay men, is being tacked on to one squalid little clause and bounced through in a Bill in the space of a few days. If Conservative Members wish to raise the rights of lesbians and gay men in society, it should he done through a major piece of legislation that is properly debated throughout the land.
        Conservative Members are responding to a wave of hysteria and bigotry that has been whipped up by the popular press. It has been absolutely disgraceful. Some people have the misfortune to believe what they read in the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and The Sun. They have come to accept that in some areas children are being taught how to be lesbians. It is easy for those outside who live with the day-to-day prejudice against lesbians and gay men to laugh it off, but that pernicious lie has bitten deep into the popular conscience.
        Nowhere have the hysteria and bigotry been whipped up more than on the issue of the book "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin". It filled acres of newsprint. What was the reality? One copy of one book in one teachers' centre that one teacher had taken out to read became the centre of a wave of hysteria that has turned it into a best seller. The people who published the book will probably want to make a donation to the popular press for advertising it. Should such nonsense be the basis of legislation?

        1011
        We are asked to believe that when the Minister replies he will clarify what "promotion" means. That will be nice. It will also be totally irrelevant. What the Minister thinks will not matter: it is what the judges think that matters. I had the misfortune to be the leader of the GLC when the judges decided that transport legislation which had been interpreted over a decade as allowing a subsidy to be paid, should be reinterpreted to mean that the service had to be run at a profit. We should not accept that it is up to the judges to define what we mean. We have a duty as legislators to pass legislation that is not open to misinterpretation.
        Mr. Tim Devlin rose—
        Mr. Livingstone: Let me put the reality of what we face here. I shall not give way. Conservative Members have all the time in the world to make reasoned contributions.
        I have here a letter from people who are employed indirectly by the Government. They are employed on project SIGMA, which is an attempt to discover the extent of the spread of AIDS among gay and bisexual men, and which is funded by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Medical Research Council, which is also Government funded. In a letter to the leader of the Labour party and myself they say:
        "We are specifically concerned about the … amendment to the Local Government Bill and generally alarmed by the growing atmosphere of violent anti-gay feeling of which it is a symptom and to whose exacerbation it is bound to contribute. We feel that the idea it invokes of 'promotion' is either so narrow as to render the amendment unnecessary or so wide as to make it a most potent threat to civil liberty and freedom of speech. We fear its effects on our work, our jobs and our lives."
        Those are the feelings of people who are working for the Government in trying to tackle the crisis of AIDS. That letter illustrates what they fear the amendment will cause.
        I also wish to deal with the reality of life for lesbians and gay men and to base it upon a survey that was the subject of massive attack by many Conservative Members. That survey was the result of a grant given to the Gay Teenage Group by the GLC to examine the problems of gay teenagers in London. That group conducted a major, in-depth survey of over 400 young homosexuals between the ages of 15 and 21. Its conclusions were published, but disappeared in the wave of other press interest in the aftermath of the election in 1983. Its conclusions were horrifying. It was not propaganda, but the result of scientific analysis of what happens to young lesbians and gay men living in the city.
        That survey showed that three out of five had been verbally abused, that one in five had been beaten up, that one in 12 had been sent to a psychiatrist, that one in 10 had been thrown out of their homes because of their sexuality and that one in 10 had been sent to a doctor in the hope that the doctor would cure them. However, the most horrifying statistic was that one in five of those young lesbians and gay men had attempted to commit suicide because of the anguish, loneliness and despair that they felt.
        All Conservative Members must ask themselves whether the Bill will increase that despair, or reduce it. Will the amendment encourage suicide, or reduce it? Will the amendment increase fear, or attempt to reduce that fear? I do not believe that anyone can have any doubt. Even if
        1012
        the language of the amendment had been neutral, the speeches that have been made in support of it have made its intent quite clear. Let us consider where young people turn to for advice. We are told that Conservatives are worried about the effects on children. Society is not geared to help someone aged 13 or 14 who realises that he or she is gay or lesbian. Whom do they turn to for advice? The survey conducted by the Gay Teenage Group showed that 42 per cent. of children who turned to their parents were rejected, were told that they were suffering from some sort of disease and were virtually excluded from the family. Parents are unable to cope with that situation.
        The survey revealed that at school 25 per cent. of young homosexuals felt isolated, that 21 per cent. suffered verbal abuse, that 12 per cent. were beaten up and that 7 per cent. felt ostracised. How will the amendment tackle that?
        We need to ask how we are to protect chidren, but we must also ask from whom we are protecting them. I was a member of the Inner London education authority for 13 years. Every example of child abuse in our schools was reported to the chairman of the schools committee, and in every example we were dealing with a heterosexual male teacher sexually assaulting girls—[Interruption.] That is the reality that we face.
        Dr. Michael Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise the House whether we have to sit here trying to do our business, listening to demonstrations from the Gallery, or will you do what you said you would do and clear the Gallery if there is any further applause?
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Speaker: I repeat what I said a moment ago. It would be with the greatest reluctance that I cleared the Gallery, because our debates here are open to the public and should be heard. As I have already said, this debate has been conducted in very good order on the Floor of the House. Equally, those in the Gallery must conduct themselves in good order. Finally, therefore, I say that if there is another disturbance, I shall have to clear the Gallery.
        Mr. Livingstone: The survey showed that children who were homosexual felt that they had had no assistance at school. So talk of promotion is nonsense.
        The figures that I gave for ILEA do not stand out from others, either. The FBI conducted a major survey more than a decade ago in America. Its conclusion was that well over 90 per cent. of all forms of child abuse were of a heterosexual nature. If we are worried about children, why, I wonder, are we not making the same efforts to tackle that? Why are we pandering to popular prejudice that comes in on the back of a wave of homophobia generated by the media?
        I shall take one quotation from the study by the Gay Teenage Group, which shows what the problem is for a young man who discovers that he is gay:
        "I remember an incident in the third year when some lad asked me if I was queer. I denied it of course and I immediately withdrew into my shell even further. I tried suicide with a bottle of"
        pills
        "a couple of nights later. It didn't work of course. It just made me ill for about a week. Nobody realised what I'd done and I didn't tell them."
        That is the reality that we face.

        1013
        Much of what has been said has been deeply offensive to millions of lesbians and gay men in this country. It is particularly obscene to hear their relationships dismissed as pretending. I know several lesbian mothers who have struggled to come to terms with the discovery of their lesbianism after marrying and having had children. They have had to face the problems of the divorce that follows, and have had to fight to keep their children, because they loved them. In many of those instances I have seen judges take a narrow-minded and bigoted view.
        To dismiss those relationships as pretence is incredibly unhelpful to the thousands of women who struggle to continue to be able to raise and care for their children. I have no doubt that the attacks on Capital Gay was a result of the climate to which the clause contributes. If the clause is carried, it will open the way to a load of homophobia and litigious fanatics trying to prevent open and honest discussion of people's real sexuality.
        If anyone feels that there is promotion, I ask him to give us examples. I am tired of debating with Conservative Members in radio and television studios and public meetings. When I ask them for examples of promotion, they always say that they have left them in the pile at home, or that they saw them in the paper. That is not an adequate basis for legislation. One does not legislate on the basis of gossip such as that—
        Mr. Couchman rose—
        Mr. Livingstone: I shall not give way.
        Mr. Couchman rose—
        Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
        Mr. Couchman rose—
        Mr. Livingstone: I invite the hon. Gentleman to make a speech when I have finished mine.
        There may be Conservative Members who think that the fears of members of the public who have been lobbying them in the House today are unfounded. I hope that they are right. Only 51 years ago Reichsführer Himmler issued the following decree. I shall read its words, and then we shall see if Conservative Members laugh:
        "Just as we today have gone back to the ancient German view on the question of marriages mixing different races, so too in our judgment of homosexuality — a symptom of degeneracy which could destroy our race—we must return to the guiding Nordic principle, extermination of degenerates."
        Many members of the public believe that the clause is one small step on a path that leads to that sort of end result.
        Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall be brief because last week in Committee the longer the debate went on, the more concerned I became about the new clause. [Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Gentleman a fair hearing.
        Mr. Pike: It was quite clear that the new clause added to the Bill at that stage was wide open to a variety of interpretations and represented a dangerous direction in which to move. The words "promote" and "acceptability" are wide open to interpretation and the signs from Conservative Members about the way in which they believe the clause should be interpreted will cause genuine fear about the direction in which we are moving.
        1014
        The Government gave their support to the new clause at a late stage because they overreacted to newspaper publicity about the actions of a small number of councils. In many cases those councils have been misrepresented. Even if the allegations were true, the money spent in that way is a tiny fraction of the money that is spent by local government in the areas concerned.
        It is quite clear that homosexuality cannot be promoted. People do not choose to be homosexual: either they are or they are not. That is important and should be recognised by the Government. It is wrong to say that if Wandsworth council decided tomorrow to advertise in the "Wandsworth Guardian" and to put on the hoardings that one sees when one crosses Battersea bridge the slogan, "Be gay today is the better way", thousands of people in Wandsworth would accept that recommendation and become homosexual overnight. If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendments they should think again about the full implications of the wording of clause 27. Even our amendments do not remove all the fears about the way in which this clause could be interpreted.
        In debate I rarely refer to letters from constituents, but I should like to quote from two letters. For obvious reasons, I shall not give the names and addresses. The first letter is from a constituent whom I know well. He holds a prominent position in the area, and in the initial part of his letter he expresses the fears about the new clause that was added to the Bill last week. He says:
        "My brother is gay and I am familiar with the … isolation and discrimination he suffers as a result. Many local authorities fund gay helplines, centres etc. as a means of supporting, helping, reaching out to these isolated and sometimes frightened people. This work is valuable as it can bring gay people together to help themselves understand their situation and develop ways of tackling their problems. It is imperative that this work continues to support this minority.
        Some may feel gays are 'promoting' homosexuality. I do not believe this is the case. They are not trying to persuade anyone to become gay but they need to publicise their existence and their activities because they are trying to reach other isolated and frightened gay people. Homosexuality is a fact of life … we should support the needs of a minority struggling against oppression and discrimination … and continue to help them organise in their areas."
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, we are not talking about an insignificant number of people. We are talking about a significant percentage of the population who are homosexual and we must recognise that fact and assess it.
        The second letter is from another constituent who is a college lecturer. The letter says:
        "I am a lecturer at a local College of Further Education and am constantly promoting discussion among my students about many issues, and always strive to break down prejudices and illconceived notions. If this Bill becomes law I will be prohibited from doing what I see as a vital part of my job, as any positive statements made about lesbians or gay men could be seen to be promoting homosexuality. I would certainly be unwilling to discuss the subject if I were obliged by law to dismiss it as a deviation. As a mother of two teenage girls I would also hope that if the subject was raised in their school that it would be dealt with in a manner that did not encourage bigoted attitudes. This clause would preclude that possibility. This clause means that a substantial minority of our community will be subject to worse oppression than at present and is to my mind a significant infringement of their human rights and civil liberties."
        I believe that those two letters very much summarise why we should accept the amendments. I sincerely hope that the Government will think again about the way in which clause 27 may be interpreted.

        1015
        The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) referred in an intervention to the protection of our children at school. We believe that our children at school have the right to be protected, but the record clearly shows that children suffer more of a threat from heterosexual oppression at school than from homosexual oppression, whether it be lesbian or gay. Those are the facts. If we want to deal with protection of our children, it must be dealt with in another way.
        It seems remarkable that the new clause should have been added to the Local Government Bill, not to an education Bill, where its implications will apply to state schools, not private schools. Does that mean that it is all right to promote homosexuality in a private school? The Government must answer that.
        I hope that the Minister, who I believe is a reasonable man, will recognise that the Government have moved with haste and that they must give more consideration to the legislation. If they are not prepared to accept the amendments, I hope that the Minister will give assurances that clause 27 will be looked at very closely in the House of Lords; that when it comes back to the House we will see changes to it which will make it acceptable; and that the Government will not take such a strong line, which would be a retrograde and regrettable step.
        Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I should like to say a few words, which I think are in order, following the speech by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I regret that he chose to raise the emotional level of the debate when we are debating something of great concern to many parents and people. For many years I, like him, was a member of the Inner London education authority, but I was also a professional teacher, and latterly an education officer. I came across examples of homosexual teachers who abused their position in schools in the London boroughs of Redbridge and Havering. I shall not give further details, but that took place. Those teachers, in the same way as heterosexual teachers who abuse children, had action taken against them by the authorities to prevent a reccurence, because a teacher is in a position of trust and every child must be protected.
        There is concern that the Labour party has moved away from its position when the matter was debated in Committee, when the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that Labour Members would not oppose the first part of the new clause, yet now it appears that they are supporting a radical change to clause 27. I am concerned that they take that attitude when there is grave concern. It cannot be denied that ILEA has as part of its resources guide materials that are considered suitable for use in secondary schools, colleges of further education, the youth service and adult education institutes that positively encourage homosexuality. The extracts referred to from "The Milkman's on his Way" show positive support for homosexuality as a lifestyle.
        We do not seek to deny that there are many homosexuals in the country. I do not want to preach, because it is invidious to do so, but an equally valid view is held by Christians, who hold to the teachings in the Old and New Testaments and believe that the homosexual act is intrinsically immoral and evil. That is a respectable view, even if Opposition Members do not accept it. We should not be browbeaten into accepting the argument that we
        1016
        should not seek to promote what most people believe to be the norm in our society, which is a heterosexual loving relationship. I am sorry if Opposition Members believe that the clause represents an attack on homosexuals in any way. It is intended as an attempt to ensure that what most people in this country—
        It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.
        Ordered,
        That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
        Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
        Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
        Mr. Bennett: Most people in this country believe that our schools should not be used as vehicles for proselytising homosexuality. That is what the clause seeks to prevent. It is a worthy clause and I hope that, in a spirit of moderation, the House will accept it.
        Mr. Howard: First, may I respond unreservedly to the invitation issued by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to condemn the incidents of violence to which he referred. Of course those incidents were outrageous and intolerable, and of course I condemn them without qualification.
        Those of us who served on the Standing Committee on the Bill will have been surprised by the difference in tone that has distinguished this debate from the discussion of the clause in Committee. It is a fact that when the matter was debated in Committee the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is the Opposition spokesman, declared his intention to vote for the clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, the hon. Gentleman did. The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike), both of whom have denounced the clause in passionate speeches today, did not vote against it in Committee. In fact, it was accepted by the Committee without a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
        Dr. Cunningham: Just so that we may have on the record all the facts about what transpired in Committee, perhaps the Minister will be good enough to acknowledge that I said on behalf of the Labour party that we would table amendments to the clause on Report. That is what we have done.
        Mr. Howard: I was coming to that. It is true that the hon. Gentleman said that amendments would be tabled—there is no secret about that—and we shall consider those amendments. I shall explain to the House why I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote for the amendments. There is an important difference between accepting a clause without Division while saying that amendments would be tabled on Report, and the kind of attitude that has been expressed on the Floor of the House this evening.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: Just so that I can be very sure that the Minister does not mischievously misrepresent my view or that of my party, may I remind him of the very words with which I ended my speech and ask him to accept that that was, and remains, our position? I said:
        "It is reasonable that we should have a clause entitled `prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material' and if the clause were limited to that I would support it. But it is not limited to that, so I shall not support it."
        Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has made his position clear. However, I repeat that there is a difference between a calm and rational discussion of the scope and effect of amendments which relate to the precise scope of a clause of this kind and the sort of passionate root and branch denunciation of any attempt to legislate on these matters that we have heard from the Opposition this evening.
        When I began my observations in Committee I moved an amendment to the clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I began by devoting myself to a speech made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). He had made a very reasonable speech, in which he said:
        "If the new clause says that local authorities should not promote homosexuality, I shall support it … If it means that the promotion of sexuality of any kind should not be promoted in school, I shall support it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1207–18.]
        He went on to express a number of reservations about the clause. When I began my remarks I said that I hoped that I would succeed in satisfying the hon. Gentleman's reservations so that he could vote for the clause then before the Committee. I hope this evening—although I confess with somewhat less optimism than I had in Committee—by reasoned discussion of the effect of the amendments tabled to the clause, to show the House that some of the attacks on the clause and the alarms expressed in relation to it, and the fears, anxieties and reservations that have been voiced by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), are misplaced.
        I was expressly invited by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and one or two other Opposition Members to cite examples and I shall start with that. I had not intended to use examples, because the examples were referred to in Committee and are there for all to read. However, doubts have been expressed about whether there is any mischief that must be dealt with in legislation. I shall confine myself to two examples of material that has emanated from the London borough of Haringey.
        Amongst other things, the London borough of Haringey has published a leaflet containing an approved reading list. One book on the list calls for a ban on the wearing of wedding rings by teachers and on teachers talking to their pupils about their husbands and wives. Another book entitled "Young, gay and proud" is recommended as suitable reading for children aged 13 and older. The leaflet describes it as "very helpful to everyone." It describes homosexual acts in considerable detail. It was available in Committee, and I said that I could not believe that any Member of the Committee would regard that material as suitable reading for children aged 13.
        I confine myself this evening to those two examples, and I remind the House against that background of the two key elements in clause 27. First, the clause is entirely concerned with the activities of local authorities. Secondly, it is concerned with the promotion by a local authority, or by persons assisted by it, of homosexuality, and the promotion of the teaching in schools that homosexuality is acceptable as a pretended family relationship. Nothing in clause 27 will put a homosexual at a disadvantage compared with any other person.
        The provisions in subsection 2A(1) (b) are concerned with the promotion by local authorities of teaching of the
        1018
        acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship, and the need for that subsection has been questioned. However, we think that it is necessary. We do not think that it is damaging. It is the influence of local authorities on what goes on in schools that has given rise to much, if not most, of the public concern about the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities, and we wish to make it clear that the promotion of teaching in schools of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship is not to be permitted.
        I endeavoured to explain to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and others the precise purpose of the subsection when the clause was first debated in Committee.
        Dr. Cunningham: Will the Minister explain to the House in detail why, only a year ago, Lord Skelmersdale — on behalf of the Minister's Department — rejected such legislation precisely because of the inclusion of the word "acceptability", and why his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), a former Minister in the Department, was saying much the same thing on behalf of the Government? What has changed since then?
        Mr. Howard: I shall deal with that point in due course, but I want now to deal with the amendment in detail.
        Sir Rhodes Boyson: Just before the general election there was a similar debate in the House, when I supported what is now in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was present on the Friday morning when I made it perfectly clear that my view was exactly the same as that of the Minister and other Conservative Members who are in the Chamber now.
        Dr. Cunningham rose—
        Mr. Howard: I shall give way in a moment —although perhaps I should sit down so that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) can give way to the hon. Gentleman.
        My right hon. Friend is effectively right in what he says. However, if the hon. Member for Copeland wishes to continue with his point, I shall give way.
        Dr. Cunningham: It is a matter of record in the Official Report that the right hon. Member for Brent, North, speaking for the Government of the time, said that there were reservations and that the proposals were "premature".
        Sir Rhodes Boyson rose—
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister will have to give way to the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson).
        Mr. Howard: I give way to my right hon. Friend, but I should like then to get on with discussing the amendments.
        Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am always delighted when the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has my speeches besides him. Nothing could be better reading at any time. I do not have it with me, but in the speech to which the hon. Gentleman referred I was talking about the Government's previous attitude. In May, when we debated the Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill, I defined exactly what our attitude was then. The hon.

        1019
        Member for Copeland is talking in the past tense. I supported what I had said, and it was put to a vote that morning.
        Mr. Howard: I endeavoured to explain to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others in Committee, when the clause was first debated, that the precise purpose of the new section 2A was to put into legislative form the principle set out in the recent Department of Education and Science circular on sex education that homosexuality should not be portrayed as the norm. It is not right for pupils to be taught, in any school, that homosexuality is the norm. It is even less acceptable for local authorities to promote such teaching.
        10.15 pm
        Debating the section word by word, armed with a dictionary, does not help. The words comprise a coherent phrase, with several elements, and they encapsulate, in a way that the courts will be able to interpret according to the circumstances of each case, the mischief that we are addressing.
        I recognise that there may be a need for teachers to touch on the subject of homosexuality in the classroom.
        Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister define, for those of us who are not au fait with English educational definitions, what is meant by maintained schools? Does it exclude Eton, Harrow, Rugby or Winchester, from which Conservative Members come? [Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) allow his hon. Friend to ask his question?
        Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister say, with regard to schools that come under the Education (Scotland) Act 1981, what the effect will be on Gordonstoun, which is not an unknown school for members of the royal family? Will these practices be condemned, or will they go unquestioned in those schools?
        Mr. Howard: I dealt with this matter in Committee. The Bill deals with local authorities, and clause 27 deals with the actions of local authorities and local education authorities. I said that if a case were made out for it to be extended in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested that would be considered by the Government.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Howard: No, I must explain the Government's attitude to the amendments.
        In the Government's view, objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, in the way that I suggested a short time ago, would be perfectly proper, because it is not promotion of homosexuality. Therefore, it is not necessary to qualify the prohibition in the way proposed in amendment No. 32. Nor is it necessary to make a clarification of the kind proposed by the hon. Member for Copeland in amendment No. 38. To suggest that pupils must continue to be given the advice, information and counselling that they need about homosexuality is different from being taught that homosexuality is acceptable as a pretended family relationship.
        There is nothing in clause 27 that will prevent the legitimate provision of information, advice or unbiased
        1020
        counselling of pupils, but activities conducted by local authorities in a biased way or in a way that presents as a norm a sexual orientation that is not the norm would be stopped by clause 27. We believe that to be right.
        I dealt earlier with amendment No. 47, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Deptford. Care, counselling and health education on AIDS and other diseases are part of the treatment or the prevention of the spread of disease. Therefore, I do not propose to advise my hon. Friends to accept the amendment, as it is unnecessary. As I said, it is more limited in its scope than the present provisions of the clause.
        We are all against discrimination. We all want to protect civil rights. However, I ask the House to look more closely at amendment No. 37. On closer examination, it would provide a Trojan horse which, in the guise of something to which we all subscribe, would remove much of the effect of the clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), which was accepted in Committee, not only by the Government, but, as I said earlier, by the Opposition. I accept that using the clause as a Trojan horse may not be the intention of the hon. Member for Copeland, but I am less sure about some of his hon. Friends.
        Mr. Allan Roberts: If the Minister will not accept the amendment, will he give an assurance that the clause will not, and indeed could not, be interpreted to say that local authorities were promoting homosexuality by licensing clubs, bars or venues used mainly by gay clientele?
        Mr. Howard: That was one of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who put it in the context of a music licence. Local authorities have a duty to grant music licences and to consider properly applications for music licences in accordance with the law. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, in our understanding of the matter, the clause would not, in any way, affect the carrying out by local authorities of those duties.
        I return to amendment No. 37, which is concerned not with discrimination by local authorities but with the attempts of local authorities to discourage discrimination by others. The amendment, therefore, becomes a busybody's charter. It deals, not with local authorities' own decisions, but with meddling with other people's conduct of their own business. More important, I draw the attention of the House to the phrase, "the doing of anything", which is a wide phrase. It can cover the promotion of homosexuality. In other words, the amendment is saying that a local authority can promote homosexuality if its purpose in doing so is to discourage discrimination or to protect civil rights.
        Let us consider some of the things that some local authorities have considered doing, or might consider doing, with those intentions. We need look no further than the report of the annual conference of the Labour party in 1985. In 1985 the Labour party conference voted
        "to call upon Labour local authorities to adopt practices and policies to prevent discrimination against lesbians and gay men"
        What did the Labour party recommend under that heading? We need to look no further than the third item, which states:
        "to support financially and otherwise special lesbian and gay 'phone lines, centres and youth groups".
        I draw the attention of the House to the last two words, "youth groups". There could be no clearer notice of what

        1021
        we can expect to see some local authorities continuing to do if we accept the amendment. The Labour party conference voted to support homosexual youth groups and to prevent discrimination against homosexuals. Therefore, the amendment would be a licence for local authorities to continue precisely the sort of activities against which the clause is directed. In the Government's view, if the Opposition's amendment were concerned directly with discrimination by local authorities, it would be unnecessary. As it stands, clause 27 will not provide any justification for a local authority discriminating against homosexuals. However, given the way in which the amendment is drafted, it would enable local authorities to circumvent the provisions of the clause and to permit the practices that have caused so much public concern.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) has dealt with the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Copeland and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) about what happened a year ago. The fact is that those matters have given rise to widespread public concern. We have sought to deal with them in a way that reflects that concern, but still provides necessary safeguards. For those reasons, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the amendments and the new clauses that have been tabled by Opposition Members.
        Dr. Cunningham: The first thing that I want to do is to reject as contemptible the Minister's sickening and, I suspect, deliberate, misrepresentations of the Labour party's position. As I made clear in Committee and again tonight, it is not and never has been the responsibility or the duty of a local authority or a local education authority to promote homosexuality, and it has never been Labour party policy that they should do so, either. The Minister has now heard me say that three times—twice tonight and once in Committee—so I can only conclude that his misrepresentations of the Labour party's position is deliberate and for the basest of political motives.
        Mr. Howard: I made no comment about Labour party policy. All I did was to quote a resolution which was passed by the Labour party conference in 1985. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that that resolution was passed at that conference?
        Dr. Cunningham: The Minister's slick barrack-roomlawyer approach—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall. The Minister is not doing anything for his reputation outside the House.
        The Minister is not so clever as to have noticed that we deliberately moved amendments which did not remove the part of the clause which made it clear that a local authority shall not promote homosexuality. We deliberately did not seek to change that part of the clause—that is what is so dishonest about the Minister's misrepresentation of the circumstances. We could easily have done so but we did not because that is not our policy position.
        I also reject what the Minister said about the, to use his words, "Trojan horse" amendments. No such intention or decent and proper interpretation can be put on the purpose or nature of the amendments that we tabled and on which we shall vote.
        I regret to say that the performance not only of the Minister but of a number of his hon. Friends has done nothing to enhance the reputation of the House —nothing at all. He knows as well as we do that we are
        1022
        talking about the realities of our society—not only of society outside the House, but inside the House, including the Conservative Benches. He knows that very well, and I dare say that a number of his hon. Friends feel as sick as we do at his performance.
        Mr. Tony Banks: I must confess immediately that I do not think that I have ever felt so frightened in the House as I do now. [Interruption.] That is the reason. If this clause goes through, the House will have taken a dangerous step down the road of intolerance.
        There is no doubt in my mind that the clause is a bigots' charter. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are frightened about the implications of the clause, and many will not have the courage to stand up and say so clearly.
        I am not gay, but I know one thing, and it is that, if I were, I hope that I would be able to stand up and say so without any fear of intimidation or threat, either from within the House or from outside in society generally. There are many gay hon. Members on both sides of the House who, I am afraid, do not have that courage. It is not their fault. The intimidatory nature of society prevents them from saying that homosexuality is a perfectly normal state for any human being, if that person is homosexual. That is the important point. The clause talks about promoting homosexuality. Hon. Members know that one cannot promote homosexuality. It is a way of life, and it is one that many millions of our fellow citizens actually enjoy, or try to enjoy, but they face discrimination at all levels in society. Seeing what is going on in the House tonight, they will undoubtedly be far more afraid, if the clause goes through, than they were before.
        10.30 pm
        I see this as unalloyed Fascism. In many ways, I perhaps feel what somebody who was aware of what was going on in Germany in the early 1930s would have felt. It is the beginning of a nasty, insidious movement with which the Tory Government are now prepared to go along.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) read a statement that I hope many hon. Members found chilling. Conservative Members remember exactly what the Nazis did to homosexuals. They did to them what they did to Jews, gipsies and Communists. They herded them into concentration camps and liquidated them. I am not suggesting that a majority of Conservative Members would actually want to open up concentration camps, but I suspect that a significant minority would, and that is why the clause is so dangerous.
        I should like to ask the Minister one specific question. He did not actually answer any of the points made by Opposition Members. The Minister knows that, if the Bill is passed, at some stage lawyers and judges will have to interpret what "promotion" means. The Minister has not given a lead. He could give a lead. Of course, judges cannot read Hansard to see what was in a Minister's mind when he made a speech and moved a certain clause. They can interpret legislation only as it is written. The Minister knows that this is too widespread — too diffuse — to make it possible to have an intelligent interpretation of the word "promote".
        Let me ask the Minister a specific question about the arts. The clause adds censorship and attacks freedom in the same way in which it attacks civil rights. For example, all gay theatre companies are touring companies. They

        1023
        perform in local authority theatres or local authority-funded theatres. For example, Gay Sweatshop Theatre Company is the leading gay theatre in this country. [Interruption.] That sort of babble only confirms my worst suspicions of today's Conservative party. Its members are intolerant, bigoted, and they are not even prepared to sit and listen without hissing and making animal-type noises. That is an insult to animals. [Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a long debate. I sense that the House wants to come to a conclusion.
        Mr. Banks: Let me ask the Minister a question. During the past year, Gay Sweatshop has played in local authority theatres in Liverpool, Stockton, Reading, Birmingham, Camden, Oxford, Bristol, Manchester and York. What happens when its members perform in one of those theatres? Will the local authority — [Interruption.] Obviously, my comments amuse the Crawley food mountain. I hope that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) will listen carefully to what I say.
        Will that local authority be challenged in the courts for funding a gay theatre group or allowing a gay theatre group to put on a performance in a theatre? Will the Minister make that absolutely clear?
        The clause is dangerous. It is Fascist in its intent. Many Conservative Members are too stupid to realise that, too frightened to get up and say so, or too evil and should not be Members of the House.
        Miss Joan Lestor: I want to ask the Minister a straight question; I will sit down if he will do me the courtesy of answering it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that we shall have a great deal of trouble because of the word "promotion". If a teacher who is homosexual or lesbian tells the children in the class that he or she is thus, will that in the mind of the Minister be regarded as promoting homosexuality?
        Hon. Members: Answer.
        Mr. Howard: Of course, I will answer the question. The answer is what anyone who had considered the clause carefully and thought about what it means would expect. The answer would depend on the circumstances and the context in which that was said. If Opposition Members do not see that in some circumstances and in some contexts that could amount to the promotion of homosexuality and is not something which should be dealt with in this way, that reveals more than anything else about the need for the legislation.
        Miss Lestor: I am grateful to the Minister. It is because I knew that he could not say a straight yes or no that the use of the word "promotion" is so dangerous. There are Conservative Members who believe—and I have heard them say so — that people who are lesbians or homosexuals should not be allowed in our schools. That is one danger of the Bill.
        Hon. Members are missing some important points. I spent 18 months when I was not a Member of the House studying child sexual abuse. During that time many adults aged 40 to 50 came to me and said that as children and young people they had been sexually abused, not by school teachers but mostly by married men hiding themselves and
        1024
        their inclinations within the cloak of the family. They had been abused by their fathers, uncles and near relatives. They had never told anyone before because they thought they would not be believed, because they were ashamed or because they felt degraded. Those people are now beginning to come forward. We know that one in 10 children suffer some form of sexual abuse.
        Mr. Tim Devlin: We do not know that.
        Miss Lestor: Just a moment. According to the MORI poll and other polls that have been done a minority of that one in 10 suffer sexual abuse within the family or from somebody known well to them. That is why we have encouraged school teachers, health visitors and others to open up the whole subject within schools and to encourage young people who are thus abused, who are confused and frightened by their experiences, and who are not sure what their sexuality is because of those experiences, to come forward and talk about it and to be counselled. We have encouraged other young people who are confused about their sexuality for different reasons also to come forward.
        If the clause is passed without amendment many teachers will be worried about the role that they can adopt when dealing with young people. At some stage it is likely that someone will have to say to a young person, "You will have to accept your homosexuality. That is what you are." Teachers are nervous that they will not be allowed to say that.
        We have opened up the problem of sexual abuse, we have encouraged young people to come forward at school with their problems and we have brought specialists into schools to talk to children about the subject. I believe that the word "promotion" will lead us back to the path of darkness and despair that was suffered by the 50-year-olds that I have met. I believe that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) should be ashamed of herself for sanctioning arson—
        Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that intolerance is growing and I said, "Quite right." I believe that intolerance of evil should grow.
        Mr. Corbyn: I realise that the House is coming to the end of a long debate. However, I believe that there is an extremely serious subject and it is right that any hon. Member who wishes to make a contribution should do so. We should also seek to put forward some of the views that have been made known to us in the past few days.
        My constituency has a number of lesbian and gay organisations and the local authority is prepared to put forward policies opposing any form of discrimination on the ground of sexuality. For the past five years, it has been hounded by the local and national press for that policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) — a very courageous and brave Member —came out on this subject and was hounded unmercifully by the gutter press and by political parties that are unfortunately represented on the Opposition and Government Benches. I am proud to say that, in the past five election campaigns, the people of Islington have been prepared to reject the path of bigotry. In June, my hon. Friend was re-elected with an increased majority.
        Since the clause emerged — it did so suddenly last week — I have received — in common with other hon.

        1025
        Members, I am sure—a large number of anguished letters and distressed phone calls from people —previously frightened—who had been prepared to come out as gay and lesbian. They suddenly saw that, in the clause, the light of oppression burnt fiercely. They realised that they would be in physical danger. They have witnessed the attacks on gay book shops and gay clubs and have witnessed the degree of Fascism that is aroused by such clauses moved by Conservative Members.
        It was no accident that last summer, an Asian shop in Hackney was burnt down the day after The Sun claimed that Tamils arriving in Britain were about to swamp our society. It was no accident that, given the press publicity of the past few days, a gay organisation was attacked last weekend.
        During the weekend I had phone calls and letters from many people who were concerned that politicians should stand up against the filthy tide initiated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) who introduced the clause. On Sunday there was a special meeting of the London Labour party that I have the honour to serve as vice chair. I am pleased to say that that region —in the past it has attracted some odium from the press for supporting the policy of positive images regarding gay and lesbians—reiterated that policy and reaffirmed its position. It called for opposition to all that has been included in the clause.
        Most Conservative Members are listening carefully to what I am saying, because they are beginning to realise that if the clause is passed unamended, we shall be introducing into our society a degree of censorship that will be a legal minefield for years to come. Such censorship will create fear in librarians, theatre managers, film directors, writers, publishers and booksellers, as well as in all sorts of other people who want the freedom to disseminate information and views. The House—a democratically elected assembly — will be giving the green light to a degree of intolerance that should not be accepted, here or anywhere else.
        10.45 pm
        I ask hon. Members to think for a moment before they vote. They know about the way in which the media have manipulated this issue, about the self-fulfilling prophecies and lies peddled by the Murdoch press and others, and about the fears about the alleged promotion of homosexuality in schools, of which there is not one shred of evidence. They know how, a week later, a telephone opinion poll is presented, claiming to support the views that have already been put forward by that same press. The House has a duty to protect the rights of people in our society, whatever their sexuality and opinions on these matters. If we approve the clause, we shall be doing precisely the opposite; so I appeal to the House to reject the clause, which is the start of a slippery slope to all intolerant and discriminatory atmosphere in this and so many other areas of our national and local life, and in society as a whole.
        Ms. Diane Abbott: It cannot be correct or responsible for the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) to say that it is quite right that intolerance should be growing. It can never be an appropriate attitude for hon. Members to applaud the growth of intolerance. We know whither fears and intolerance lead.
        1026
        This is an illiberal, intolerant Bill. It is based on a complete misapprehension of what goes on in schools and of the policies of some local authorities. It is based, in short, on recycled Conservative election smears. It will lead to an increase in human misery. It is irresponsibly widely drafted, and will cause all sorts of problems in the interpretation for local authorities throughout the country.
        The tone and attitude of Conservative Members does them no credit. The intolerance behind the Bill should give every responsible Member cause for fear and alarm. I urge every hon. Member to look to his principles and conscience and to vote down the clause by voting for the amendment.
        Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Like you, Mr. Speaker, some time ago, I, too, sense that the House would like to move to a resolution of the issue. I certainly do not want to detain the House, but I hope that hon. Members will allow me a few moments to identify some of the main themes of the debate over the past two and a half hours, for the benefit of those who did not hear them.
        It is regrettable that a matter of this importance has come before us after only a short Committee hearing of about two hours, followed by this two-and-a-half-hour debate. As someone said earlier, there is a suspicion that the House is being bounced into coming to a conclusion on this issue, and that is a matter for regret.
        This is difficult and emotional ground for the House and it is difficult to get the checks and balances right. We must, for example, be prudent about the language that we use and we must be careful to eschew bogey men, caricatures and prejudice on both sides of the argument. The debate has been important, but I am saddened at the fact that we have not had more thoughtful consideration of the underlying implications of the clause.
        We are essentially discussing civil liberties and civil rights more than we are discussing any particular sexual orientation. The Government have put forward the proposition that the Bill is necessary to deal with alleged irresponsible actions by local authorities and to protect children. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the arguments advanced by the Opposition parties. In particular, I draw his attention to the courageous and powerful speech by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). His speech will repay careful study.
        In particular, the Minister has not answered any of the questions that have been asked in the debate, and especially the question about why the Government have changed their position from what it was 12 months ago. The evidence is that they have changed, but the Minister gave no reason why that should have happened. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asked about a series of examples of the kind of behaviour that may or may not be caught by the provisions of clause 27. The Minister gave no satisfactory answer to that; nor did he give a satisfactory answer to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor).
        The interpretation of words in the clause such as "promotion" and "pretended families" is still an outstanding question and I hope that members in the other place will look carefully at that. If the Minister had given an assurance on those important points and if Conservative Members had responded to the debate on the

        1027
        amendment in a more positive way, we would have been prepared to withdraw amendment No. 32. That amendment merely seeks to provide that authorities
        "may undertake sex education in the course of which an awareness of different sexual orientations may be taught by the local authority".
        It is crucial that that amendment be made in order to avoid difficulties and confusion that the debate has anticipated. The Minister has given no assurances upon which we can rely. Therefore, I invite the House to vote positively in favour of amendment No. 32.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 309.

        Division No. 116]

        [10.52 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Fearn, Ronald

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Allen, Graham

        Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

        Alton, David

        Flannery, Martin

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Flynn, Paul

        Armstrong, Ms Hilary

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Foster, Derek

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Foulkes, George

        Ashton, Joe

        Fraser, John

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Fyfe, Mrs Maria

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Galbraith, Samuel

        Barron, Kevin

        Galloway, George

        Battle, John

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Beckett, Margaret

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        George, Bruce

        Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Blair, Tony

        Gordon, Ms Mildred

        Boateng, Paul

        Gould, Bryan

        Boyes, Roland

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Bradley, Keith

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Hardy, Peter

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Buchan, Norman

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Caborn, Richard

        Haynes, Frank

        Callaghan, Jim

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Henderson, Douglas

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Home Robertson, John

        Clay, Bob

        Hood, James

        Clelland, David

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Cohen, Harry

        Howells, Geraint

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hoyle, Doug

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Corbett, Robin

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Cousins, Jim

        Illsley, Eric

        Cox, Tom

        Ingram, Adam

        Cryer, Bob

        Janner, Greville

        Cummings, J.

        John, Brynmor

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Kennedy, Charles

        Dalyell, Tam

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Darling, Alastair

        Lambie, David

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Lamond, James

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

        Leighton, Ron

        Dixon, Don

        Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

        Dobson, Frank

        Litherland, Robert

        Doran, Frank

        Livingstone, Ken

        Eadie, Alexander

        Livsey, Richard

        Eastham, Ken

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        McAllion, John

        Fatchett, Derek

        McAvoy, Tom

        1028

        McCartney, Ian

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Macdonald, Calum

        Rogers, Allan

        McFall, John

        Rooker, Jeff

        McKay, Allen (Penistone)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        McKelvey, William

        Ruddock, Ms Joan

        McLeish, Henry

        Sedgemore, Brian

        McTaggart, Bob

        Sheerman, Barry

        Madden, Max

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Marek, Dr John

        Short, Clare

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Martin, Michael (Springburn)

        Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

        Martlew, Eric

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

        Maxton, John

        Snape, Peter

        Meacher, Michael

        Soley, Clive

        Meale, Alan

        Spearing, Nigel

        Michael, Alun

        Steinberg, Gerald

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Stott, Roger

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Strang, Gavin

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Straw, Jack

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Morley, Elliott

        Thomas, Dafydd Elis

        Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

        Turner, Dennis

        Mullin, Chris

        Vaz, Keith

        Murphy, Paul

        Wall, Pat

        Nellist, Dave

        Wallace, James

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Walley, Ms Joan

        O'Brien, William

        Wareing, Robert N.

        O'Neill, Martin

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Parry, Robert

        Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

        Patchett, Terry

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Pendry, Tom

        Wilson, Brian

        Pike, Peter

        Winnick, David

        Prescott, John

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Primarolo, Ms Dawn

        Worthington, Anthony

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Wray, James

        Radice, Giles

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Randall, Stuart

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Reid, John

        Mr. Simon Hughes and

        Richardson, Ms Jo

        Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Allason, Rupert

        Bowis, John

        Amess, David

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Amos, Alan

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Arbuthnot, James

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Brazier, Julian

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Bright, Graham

        Ashby, David

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Atkins, Robert

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Atkinson, David

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Burns, Simon

        Baldry, Tony

        Burt, Alistair

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Butler, Chris

        Batiste, Spencer

        Butterfill, John

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Beggs, Roy

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Bellingham, Henry

        Carrington, Matthew

        Bendall, Vivian

        Carttiss, Michael

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Cash, William

        Benyon, W.

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Chapman, Sydney

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Chope, Christopher

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Body, Sir Richard

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Boswell, Tim

        Colvin, Michael

        Bottomley, Peter

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        1029

        Cope, John

        Janman, Timothy

        Cormack, Patrick

        Jessel, Toby

        Couchman, James

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Cran, James

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Critchley, Julian

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

        Key, Robert

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Kilfedder, James

        Day, Stephen

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Devlin, Tim

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Knapman, Roger

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Dover, Den

        Knowles, Michael

        Dunn, Bob

        Knox, David

        Durant, Tony

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Eggar, Tim

        Lang, Ian

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Latham, Michael

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Fallon, Michael

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Farr, Sir John

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Lightbown, David

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Lilley, Peter

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Forman, Nigel

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Forth, Eric

        Lord, Michael

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Freeman, Roger

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        French, Douglas

        Maclean, David

        Fry, Peter

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Gale, Roger

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Gardiner, George

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Gill, Christopher

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Malins, Humfrey

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Mans, Keith

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Maples, John

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Marland, Paul

        Gow, Ian

        Marlow, Tony

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Greenway, John (Rydale)

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Gregory, Conal

        Mellor, David

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Grist, Ian

        Miller, Hal

        Ground, Patrick

        Mills, Iain

        Grylls, Michael

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Hampson. Dr Keith

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hannam, John

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Harris, David

        Moynihan, Hon C.

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Mudd, David

        Hayes, Jerry

        Neale, Gerrard

        Hayward, Robert

        Nelson, Anthony

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Neubert, Michael

        Heddle, John

        Newton, Tony

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

        Hill, James

        Onslow, Cranley

        Hind, Kenneth

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Page, Richard

        Holt, Richard

        Paice, James

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Patnick, Irvine

        Howard, Michael

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Pawsey, James

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Portillo, Michael

        Irvine, Michael

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Jack, Michael

        Price, Sir David

        Jackson, Robert

        Raffan, Keith

        1030

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Redwood, John

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Riddick, Graham

        Thorne, Neil

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Thurnham, Peter

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Tracey, Richard

        Rost, Peter

        Tredinnick, David

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Trippier, David

        Ryder, Richard

        Trotter, Neville

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Scott, Nicholas

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Walden, George

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Waller, Gary

        Shersby, Michael

        Walters, Dennis

        Sims, Roger

        Ward, John

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Warren, Kenneth

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Watts, John

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Wells, Bowen

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Wheeler, John

        Speed, Keith

        Whitney, Ray

        Speller, Tony

        Widdecombe, Miss Ann

        Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Wilshire, David

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Steen, Anthony

        Wolfson, Mark

        Stern, Michael

        Wood, Timothy

        Stevens, Lewis

        Woodcock, Mike

        Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

        Yeo, Tim

        Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Summerson, Hugo

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Amendment proposed: No. 37, in page 27, line 39, at end insert—
        `(2A) Nothing in sub-section (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against any homosexual person, or designed to protect the civil rights of any such person.'. — [Dr.Cunningham.]
        Question put, That the amendment be made:–
        The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 309.

        Division No. 117]

        [11.04 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Boateng, Paul

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Boyes, Roland

        Allen, Graham

        Bradley, Keith

        Alton, David

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Anderson, Donald

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Armstrong, Ms Hilary

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Buchan, Norman

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Buckley, George

        Ashton, Joe

        Caborn, Richard

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Callaghan, Jim

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Barron, Kevin

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Battle, John

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Beckett, Margaret

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

        Clay, Bob

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Clelland, David

        Blair, Tony

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        1031

        Cohen, Harry

        Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

        Coleman, Donald

        Lewis, Terry

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Litherland, Robert

        Corbett, Robin

        Livingstone, Ken

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Livsey, Richard

        Cousins, Jim

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Cox, Tom

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Cryer, Bob

        Loyden, Eddie

        Cummings, J.

        McAllion, John

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        McAvoy, Tom

        Cunningham, Dr John

        McCartney, Ian

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Macdonald, Calum

        Darling, Alastair

        McFall, John

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        McKay, Allen (Penistone)

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

        McKelvey, William

        Dixon, Don

        McLeish, Henry

        Dobson, Frank

        McTaggart, Bob

        Doran, Frank

        Madden, Max

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Eadie, Alexander

        Marek, Dr John

        Eastham, Ken

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Martin, Michael (Springburn)

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Martlew, Eric

        Fatchett, Derek

        Maxton, John

        Fearn, Ronald

        Meacher, Michael

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Meale, Alan

        Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

        Michael, Alun

        Flannery, Martin

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Flynn, Paul

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Foster, Derek

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Foulkes, George

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Fraser, John

        Morley, Elliott

        Fyfe, Mrs Maria

        Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

        Galbraith, Samuel

        Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

        Galloway, George

        Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Mullin, Chris

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Murphy, Paul

        George, Bruce

        Nellist, Dave

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        O'Brien, William

        Gordon, Ms Mildred

        O'Neill, Martin

        Gould, Bryan

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Parry, Robert

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Patchett, Terry

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Pendry, Tom

        Grocott, Bruce

        Pike, Peter

        Hardy, Peter

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Prescott, John

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Primarolo, Ms Dawn

        Haynes, Frank

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Radice, Giles

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Randall, Stuart

        Henderson, Douglas

        Redmond, Martin

        Hinchliffe, David

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Reid, John

        Home Robertson, John

        Richardson, Ms Jo

        Hood, James

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Rogers, Allan

        Howells, Geraint

        Rooker, Jeff

        Hoyle, Doug

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Ruddock, Ms Joan

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Illsley, Eric

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Ingram, Adam

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Janner, Greville

        Short, Clare

        John, Brynmor

        Skinner, Dennis

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

        Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

        Kennedy, Charles

        Snape, Peter

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Soley, Clive

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Spearing, Nigel

        Lambie, David

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Lamond, James

        Steinberg, Gerald

        Leighton, Ron

        Stott, Roger

        1032

        Strang, Gavin

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Straw, Jack

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Thomas, Dafydd Elis

        Wilson, Brian

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Winnick, David

        Turner, Dennis

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Vaz, Keith

        Worthington, Anthony

        Wall, Pat

        Wray, James

        Wallace, James

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Warden, Gareth (Gower)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Mrs. Llin Golding and

        Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

        Mr. Frank Cook.

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Cope, John

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Cormack, Patrick

        Allason, Rupert

        Couchman, James

        Amess, David

        Cran, James

        Amos, Alan

        Critchley, Julian

        Arbuthnot, James

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Ashby, David

        Day, Stephen

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Devlin, Tim

        Atkins, Robert

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Atkinson, David

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Dover, Den

        Baldry, Tony

        Dunn, Bob

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Durant, Tony

        Batiste, Spencer

        Eggar, Tim

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Beggs, Roy

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Bellingham, Henry

        Fallon, Michael

        Bendall, Vivian

        Farr, Sir John

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Benyon, W.

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Forman, Nigel

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Forth, Eric

        Body, Sir Richard

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Boswell, Tim

        Freeman, Roger

        Bottomley, Peter

        French, Douglas

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Fry, Peter

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Gale, Roger

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Gardiner, George

        Bowis, John

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Gill, Christopher

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Brazier, Julian

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Bright, Graham

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Gow, Ian

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Greenway, John (Rydale)

        Burns, Simon

        Gregory, Conal

        Burt, Alistair

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Butler, Chris

        Grist, Ian

        Butterfill, John

        Ground, Patrick

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Grylls, Michael

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Cash, William

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Hannam, John

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

        Chope, Christopher

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

        Harris, David

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Hayes, Jerry

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Hayward, Robert

        Colvin, Michael

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Heddle, John

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        1033

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

        Hill, James

        Onslow, Cranley

        Hind, Kenneth

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Page, Richard

        Holt, Richard

        Paice, James

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Patnick, Irvine

        Howard, Michael

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Pawsey, James

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Portillo, Michael

        Irvine, Michael

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Jack, Michael

        Price, Sir David

        Jackson, Robert

        Raffan, Keith

        Janman, Timothy

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Jessel, Toby

        Rathbone, Tim

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Redwood, John

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Riddick, Graham

        Key, Robert

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Kilfedder, James

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Knapman, Roger

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Rost, Peter

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Knowles, Michael

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Knox, David

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Scott, Nicholas

        Lang, Ian

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Latham, Michael

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Lightbown, David

        Shersby, Michael

        Lilley, Peter

        Sims, Roger

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Lord, Michael

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Speed, Keith

        Maclean. David

        Speller, Tony

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Steen, Anthony

        Malins, Humfrey

        Stern, Michael

        Mans, Keith

        Stevens, Lewis

        Maples, John

        Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

        Marland, Paul

        Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

        Marlow, Tony

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Summerson, Hugo

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Mellor, David

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Miller, Hal

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Mills, Iain

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Thorne, Neil

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Thurnham, Peter

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Tracey, Richard

        Moss, Malcolm

        Tredinnick, David

        Moynihan, Hon C.

        Trippier, David

        Mudd, David

        Trotter, Neville

        Neale, Gerrard

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Nelson, Anthony

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Neubert, Michael

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Newton, Tony

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        1034

        Walden, George

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Walker, Bill (Tside North)

        Wilshire, David

        Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Waller, Gary

        Wolfson, Mark

        Walters, Dennis

        Wood, Timothy

        Ward, John

        Woodcock, Mike

        Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

        Yeo, Tim

        Warren, Kenneth

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Watts, John

        Wells, Bowen

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wheeler, John

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and

        Whitney, Ray

        Mr. Richard Ryder.

        Widdecombe, Miss Ann

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Amendment proposed: No. 38, in page 27, line 39, at end insert—
        '(2A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of providing information, counselling or advice to any pupil at a school or other educational establishment maintained by the authority as to his personal or social development or any family relationship which can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect that development.'.—[Dr. Cunningham.]
        Question put, That the amendment he made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 306.

        Division No. 118]

        [11.13 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

        Allen, Graham

        Dixon, Don

        Alton, David

        Dobson, Frank

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Doran, Frank

        Armstrong, Ms Hilary

        Eadie, Alexander

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Eastham, Ken

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Ashton, Joe

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Fatchett, Derek

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Fearn, Ronald

        Barron, Kevin

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Battle, John

        Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

        Beckett, Margaret

        Flannery, Martin

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Flynn, Paul

        Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Foster, Derek

        Blair, Tony

        Foulkes, George

        Boateng, Paul

        Fraser, John

        Boyes, Roland

        Fyfe, Mrs Maria

        Bradley, Keith

        Galbraith, Samuel

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Galloway, George

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        George, Bruce

        Buchan, Norman

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Buckley, George

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Caborn, Richard

        Gordon, Ms Mildred

        Callaghan, Jim

        Gould, Bryan

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Carl Me, Alex (Mont'g)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Hardy, Peter

        Clay, Bob

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Clelland, David

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Haynes, Frank

        Cohen, Harry

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Corbett, Robin

        Henderson, Douglas

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hinchliffe, David

        Cousins, Jim

        Home Robertson, John

        Cox, Tom

        Hood, James

        Cryer, Bob

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Cummings, J.

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S' heath)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Howells, Geraint

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Hoyle, Doug

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Darling, Alastair

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        1035

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Pendry, Tom

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Pike, Peter

        Illsley, Eric

        Primarolo, Ms Dawn

        Ingram, Adam

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Janner, Greville

        Radice, Giles

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Randall, Stuart

        Kennedy, Charles

        Redmond, Martin

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Reid, John

        Lambie, David

        Richardson, Ms Jo

        Lamond, James

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Leighton, Ron

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

        Rogers, Allan

        Lewis, Terry

        Rooker, Jeff

        Litherland, Robert

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Livingstone, Ken

        Ruddock, Ms Joan

        Livsey, Richard

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Loyden, Eddie

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        McAllion, John

        Short, Clare

        McAvoy, Tom

        Skinner, Dennis

        McCartney, Ian

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Macdonald, Calum

        Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

        McFall, John

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

        McKay, Allen (Penistone)

        Snape, Peter

        McKelvey, William

        Soley, Clive

        McLeish, Henry

        Spearing, Nigel

        McTaggart, Bob

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Madden, Max

        Steinberg, Gerald

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Stott, Roger

        Marek, Dr John

        Strang, Gavin

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Straw, Jack

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Martin, Michael (Springburn)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Martlew, Eric

        Thomas, Dafydd Elis

        Maxton, John

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Meacher, Michael

        Turner, Dennis

        Meale, Alan

        Vaz, Keith

        Michael, Alun

        Wall, Pat

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Wallace, James

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Morley, Elliott

        Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

        Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

        Wilson, Brian

        Mullin, Chris

        Winnick, David

        Murphy, Paul

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Nellist, Dave

        Worthington, Anthony

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Wray, James

        O'Brien, William

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Parry, Robert

        Mrs Llin Golding and

        Patchett, Terry

        Mr. Frank Cook.

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Benyon, W.

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Allason, Rupert

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Amess, David

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Amos, Alan

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Arbuthnot, James

        Body, Sir Richard

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Boswell, Tim

        Ashby, David

        Bottomley, Peter

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Atkins, Robert

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Atkinson, David

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Bowis, John

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Baldry, Tony

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Batiste, Spencer

        Brazier, Julian

        Beggs, Roy

        Bright, Graham

        Bellingham, Henry

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Bendall, Vivian

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        1036

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Heddle, John

        Burns, Simon

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Burt, Alistair

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Butler, Chris

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Butterfill, John

        Hill, James

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Hind, Kenneth

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Holt, Richard

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Cash, William

        Howard, Michael

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Chope, Christopher

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Colvin, Michael

        Irvine, Michael

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Jack, Michael

        Cope, John

        Jackson, Robert

        Cormack, Patrick

        Janman, Timothy

        Couchman, James

        Jessel, Toby

        Cran, James

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Critchley, Julian

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Key, Robert

        Day, Stephen

        Kilfedder, James

        Devlin, Tim

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Knapman, Roger

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Dover, Den

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Dunn, Bob

        Knowles, Michael

        Durant, Tony

        Knox, David

        Eggar, Tim

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Lang, Ian

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Latham, Michael

        Fallon, Michael

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Farr, Sir John

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Lightbown, David

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Lilley, Peter

        Forman, Nigel

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Forth, Eric

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Lord, Michael

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Freeman, Roger

        Macfarlane, Neil

        French, Douglas

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Fry, Peter

        Maclean, David

        Gale, Roger

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Gardiner, George

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Gill, Christopher

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Malins, Humfrey

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Mans, Keith

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Maples, John

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Marland, Paul

        Gow, Ian

        Marlow, Tony

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Greenway, John (Rydale)

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Gregory, Conal

        Mellor, David

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Grist, Ian

        Miller, Hal

        Ground, Patrick

        Mills, Iain

        Grylls, Michael

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hannam, John

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Harris, David

        Moynihan, Hon C.

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Mudd, David

        Hayes, Jerry

        Neale, Gerrard

        Hayward, Robert

        Nelson, Anthony

        1037

        Neubert, Michael

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Newton, Tony

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Onslow, Cranley

        Shersby, Michael

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Sims, Roger

        Page, Richard

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Paice, James

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Patnick, Irvine

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Pawsey, James

        Speed, Keith

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Speller, Tony

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Portillo, Michael

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Steen, Anthony

        Price, Sir David

        Stern, Michael

        Raffan, Keith

        Stevens, Lewis

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

        Redwood, John

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Summerson, Hugo

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Riddick, Graham

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Rost, Peter

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Ryder, Richard

        Thorne, Neil

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Thurnham, Peter

        Scott, Nicholas

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        1038

        Tracey, Richard

        Watts, John

        Tredinnick, David

        Wells, Bowen

        Trippier, David

        Wheeler, John

        Trotter, Neville

        Whitney, Ray

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Widdecombe, Miss Ann

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Wilshire, David

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Wolfson, Mark

        Walden, George

        Wood, Timothy

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Woodcock, Mike

        Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

        Yeo, Tim

        Waller, Gary

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Walters, Dennis

        Ward, John

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

        Mr. Robert Boscawen,

        Warren, Kenneth

        Mr. Alan Howarth.

        Question accordingly negatived.

      Clause 31

        ARRANGEMENTS UNDER EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACT I973
        Amendments made: No. 26, in page 28, line 39, at end insert:
        '(ab) a body corporate established by an order under section 67 of that Act".'.
        No. 27, in page 28, line 41, leave out
        `concerned, on the day the authority'
        and insert
        `or body concerned, on the day the authority or body'.—[Mr. Chope.]

        Local Government Bill
        Order for Third Reading read.
        11.27 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        This was the first Bill to receive a Second Reading in this Parliament. It will not be the first to receive its Third Reading and that is because we had 100 hours deliberating it in detail in Committee in 29 sittings. That was a thorough consideration of the Bill.
        The two main provisions of the Bill concern compulsory competitive tendering and the outlawing of anti-competitive contract compliance clauses. It is significant that both those subjects were the subject of early day motions supported by many of my hon. Friends in the previous Parliament.
        It is the Government's established policy to ensure that we obtain better value for money in local government. The Bill will facilitate that and it deserves the strong and enthusiastic support of the House.
        11.29 pm
        Dr. John Cunningham: This may not be the first Bill to receive its Third Reading in this Parliament—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order.
        Dr. Cunningham: However—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting for five minutes while the Strangers' Gallery is cleared.
        Sitting suspended at 11.30 pm.
        11.35 pm
        Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.
        Dr. Cunningham: The Under-Secretary of State said that this was the first Bill to complete its stages in the House this session. There will be few Bills more obnoxious than this one. It takes powers away from local authorities, it curbs their rights to use the media, it supports the Fascist apartheid regime in South Africa. [Interruption.] The Bill specifically brings aid and comfort to the apartheid regime in South Africa. It has the unique distinction of undermining civil rights abroad and doing exactly the same at home. Few Bills going through the House have that unique obnoxious facet. We are totally opposed to all its aspects, and we will divide the House on Third Reading.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I endorse what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said. there are four parts to the Bill, all of which are equally unacceptable to these Benches. We oppose competitive tendering being compulsorily imposed on local government, not because it is bad, but because the Government are compelling local authorities to do it according to the Government's wish. Hon. Members are not alone in opposing that aspect of the Bill, because competitive tendering is opposed by all the organisations of local government outside the House. It is also opposed by the Audit Commission, by academics and around the land.
        The Minister said in relation to previous debates this evening that we are all against discrimination, yet it is clear in part II that the Government are prepared to
        1040
        countenance discrimination at home in relation to those with disabilities, ethnic minorities and women, and abroad particularly in relation to South Africa. By preventing local authorities from taking a moral stand on South Africa the Government have declared their true intentions and true colours and their willingness to sustain that regime.
        On housing, the Government are preventing schemes that should have been able to go ahead, and they are preventing local authorities from being able to sell properties to housing associations at a reasonable price.
        In the last part of the Bill the Government are adding to restrictions on local authority publicity, for which they have given no justification. Tonight they have evidenced their clear prejudice on matters of discrimination in relation to homosexuals and homosexuality, and, to cap it all, they are even to abolish the dog licence.
        The Bill should be rejected. It enshrines more selfishness in the law of the land and confirms the dogma and prejudice for which the Government will be particularly remembered. Their morality is not the morality of the Opposition or of the country. The Bill must be resisted, and I hope that it will be defeated before it completes its passage through the House.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 215.

        Division No. 119]

        [11.40 pm

        AYES

        Adley, Robert

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Burns, Simon

        Allason, Rupert

        Burt, Alistair

        Amess, David

        Butler, Chris

        Amos, Alan

        Butterfill, John

        Arbuthnot, James

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Ashby, David

        Carttiss, Michael

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Cash, William

        Atkins, Robert

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Atkinson, David

        Chope, Christopher

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Baldry, Tony

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Colvin, Michael

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Conway, Derek

        Bellingham, Henry

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Cope, John

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Cormack, Patrick

        Benyon, W.

        Couchman, James

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Cran, James

        Bitten, Rt Hon John

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Body, Sir Richard

        Day, Stephen

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Devlin, Tim

        Boswell, Tim

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Bottomley, Peter

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Dover, Den

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Dunn, Bob

        Bowis, John

        Durant, Tony

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Eggar, Tim

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Brazier, Julian

        Fallon, Michael

        Bright, Graham

        Farr, Sir John

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Forman, Nigel

        1041

        Forth, Eric

        Lord, Michael

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Freeman, Roger

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        French, Douglas

        Maclean, David

        Fry, Peter

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Gale, Roger

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Gardiner, George

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Gill, Christopher

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Malins, Humfrey

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Mans, Keith

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Maples, John

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Marland, Paul

        Gow, Ian

        Marlow, Tony

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Greenway, John (Rydale)

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Gregory, Conal

        Mellor, David

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Grist, Ian

        Miller, Hal

        Ground, Patrick

        Mills, Iain

        Grylls, Michael

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hannam, John

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Harris, David

        Moynihan, Hon C.

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Mudd, David

        Hayes, Jerry

        Neale, Gerrard

        Hayward, Robert

        Nelson, Anthony

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Neubert, Michael

        Heddle, John

        Newton, Tony

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

        Hill, James

        Onslow, Cranley

        Hind, Kenneth

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Page, Richard

        Holt, Richard

        Paice, James

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Patnick, Irvine

        Howard, Michael

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Pawsey, James

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Portillo, Michael

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Irvine, Michael

        Price, Sir David

        Jack, Michael

        Raffan, Keith

        Jackson, Robert

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Janman, Timothy

        Rathbone, Tim

        Jessel, Toby

        Redwood, John

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Riddick, Graham

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Key, Robert

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Kilfedder, James

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Knapman, Roger

        Rost, Peter

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Ryder, Richard

        Knowles, Michael

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Knox, David

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Scott, Nicholas

        Lang, Ian

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Latham, Michael

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lightbown, David

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Lilley, Peter

        Shersby, Michael

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Sims, Roger

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        1042

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Trippier, David

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Trotter, Neville

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Speed, Keith

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Speller, Tony

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Squire, Robin

        Walden, George

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Steen, Anthony

        Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

        Stern, Michael

        Waller, Gary

        Stevens, Lewis

        Walters, Dennis

        Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

        Ward, John

        Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

        Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Warren, Kenneth

        Sumberg, David

        Watts, John

        Summerson, Hugo

        Wells, Bowen

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Wheeler, John

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Whitney, Ray

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Widdecombe, Miss Ann

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Wilshire, David

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Wood, Timothy

        Thorne, Neil

        Woodcock, Mike

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Yeo, Tim

        Thurnham, Peter

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Tracey, Richard

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and

        Tredinnick, David

        Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Cummings, J.

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Allen, Graham

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Alton, David

        Dalyell, Tam

        Anderson, Donald

        Darling, Alastair

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Armstrong, Ms Hilary

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Dixon, Don

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Dobson, Frank

        Ashton, Joe

        Doran, Frank

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Eadie, Alexander

        Barron, Kevin

        Eastham, Ken

        Battle, John

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Beckett, Margaret

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

        Fatchett, Derek

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Fearn, Ronald

        Blair, Tony

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Boateng, Paul

        Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

        Boyes, Roland

        Flannery, Martin

        Bradley, Keith

        Flynn, Paul

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Foster, Derek

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Foulkes, George

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        Fraser, John

        Buchan, Norman

        Fyfe, Mrs Maria

        Buckley, George

        Galbraith, Samuel

        Caborn, Richard

        Galloway, George

        Callaghan, Jim

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        George, Bruce

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Gordon, Ms Mildred

        Clay, Bob

        Gould, Bryan

        Clelland, David

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Cohen, Harry

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Coleman, Donald

        Grocott, Bruce

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Hardy, Peter

        Corbett, Robin

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Cousins, Jim

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Cox, Tom

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Cryer, Bob

        Henderson, Douglas

        1043

        Hinchliffe, David

        O'Brien, William

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Home Robertson, John

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Hood, James

        Parry, Robert

        Howarth, George (Knowslay N)

        Patchett, Terry

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Pendry, Tom

        Howells, Geraint

        Pike, Peter

        Hoyle, Doug

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Primarolo, Ms Dawn

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Radice, Giles

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Randall, Stuart

        Illsley, Eric

        Redmond, Martin

        Ingram, Adam

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Janner, Greville

        Reid, John

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Richardson, Ms Jo

        Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Kennedy, Charles

        Rogers, Allan

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Rooker, Jeff

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Lambie, David

        Rowlands, Ted

        Lamond, James

        Ruddock, Ms Joan

        Leighton, Ron

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Lewis, Terry

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Litherland, Robert

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Livingstone, Ken

        Short, Clare

        Livsey, Richard

        Skinner, Dennis

        Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

        Loyden, Eddie

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

        McAllion, John

        Soley, Clive

        McAvoy, Tom

        Spearing, Nigel

        McCartney, Ian

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Macdonald, Calum

        Steinberg, Gerald

        McFall, John

        Stott, Roger

        McKay, Allen (Penistone)

        Strang, Gavin

        McKelvey, William

        Straw, Jack

        McLeish, Henry

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        McTaggart, Bob

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Madden, Max

        Thomas, Dafydd Elis

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Turner, Dennis

        Marek, Dr John

        Wall, Pat

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Wallace, James

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Martin, Michael (Springburn)

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Martlew, Eric

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Maxton, John

        Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

        Meacher, Michael

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Meale, Alan

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Michael, Alun

        Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Wilson, Brian

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Winnick, David

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Morley, Elliott

        Worthington, Anthony

        Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

        Wray, James

        Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

        Mullin, Chris

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Murphy, Paul

        Mr. Frank Haynes and

        Nellist, Dave

        Mr. Frank Cook.

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed.

        Rate Support Grant (Wales)
        11.52 pm
        The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move,
        That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1988–89 (House of Commons Paper No. 142), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
        Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient for the House if we also discuss the following motions:
        That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 158), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
        That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1985–86 (House of Commons Paper No. 159), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
        Mr. Walker: Hon. Members will have had an opportunity to examine the reports and my statement to the House—
        Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Strangers Gallery has been cleared, but hordes of Welsh people would have been in the Gallery to listen to this debate on this important order. Therefore, I wonder whether the Gallery could be reopened so that the Welsh people can listen to the debate, or whether you would consider it wiser to adjourn until 1 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. We could have a debate for one and a half hours and then start Wednesday's proceedings at half-past 2. Perhaps we would then have a better response. Obviously my peroration must wait for another occasion because all my constituents have been turfed out of the Gallery.
        Mr. Speaker: I can give the hon. Gentleman some comfort. I have already asked the Serjeant at Arms to reopen the Strangers Gallery. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman gets up to make his brief contribution to the debate the Gallery will fill.
        Mr. Walker: I am sure that we are all relieved that what will become a Gallery crowded with the constituents of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) will be able to witness the debate.
        Hon. Members have had an opportunity to examine the reports and my statement to the House last week, which summarised my decisions. They will know that for 1988–89 I have provided for fair and realistic increases in all the key components of the settlement—increases which exceed the projected increase in costs for the economy as a whole. In retaining broadly the same block grant mechanism as last year, I have also introduced a high degree of stability to the rate support grant system. Consequently, on the basis of this settlement, councils will have a sound basis for planning and developing their services over the coming year.
        It is, I know, inevitable that Opposition Members will say that the settlement is not good enough; they always do. It would be remarkable if they did not. But the record speaks for itself. The level of local government current expenditure since 1979–80 has increased in real terms by £152 million, or 11 per cent. During the years when Opposition Members controlled the purse strings, it fell in real terms by £58 million, or 4 per cent. Grant, too, has been set at the generous level of £1,256 million—about £1,200 per household.
        Mr. Michael Foot: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has his figures at his fingertips. Exactly how much money has been taken from Wales in rate support grant since 1979? Knowing that will enable us to put in proportion all the other figures that he gives. If he gives us the whole figure, without equivocation, that will assist us and the debate.
        Mr. Walker: I shall certainly be happy to refer to those exact figures. I shall also give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for the reduction in grant that took place when he was a member of the Cabinet. The two sets of figures will compare well. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be proud of what he achieved during that period. I shall be pleased to give him both sets of figures in my final remarks. When the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet, local government expenditure fell in real terms.
        Mr. Foot: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give me the figure I asked for? Any other figures that he likes to bring up are OK with me, but how much has been taken from Wales since 1979?
        Mr. Walker: We have not taken anything. Although the percentages have come down in cash terms, I shall be happy to give the right hon. Gentleman the figures, in real terms, that he wants. I hope he is proud of the figures I have just given — local government expenditure fell in real terms when he was a member of the Cabinet, and has risen in real terms during the time that I have been a member of the Cabinet. I hope he will reflect carefully on that.
        Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend seen the figures for total public expenditure in Wales, which show that we receive £108 per head, compared with £94 per head in England?
        Mr. Walker: That is true on any figures or comparisons.
        This, however, is not just a debate about numbers or the technicalities of the present rate support grant system. It is a debate about local government in Wales, about the provision of services, about the efficiency and effectiveness of those services, about the responsibilities which councils have to safeguard the interests of ratepayers by budgeting responsibly and about the need for local authorities to be sure that the importance of their role is recognised and supported by the Government and this House.
        I must say that I have been impressed and encouraged in discussions with the leaders of Welsh local authorities, and in particular with their representatives at meetings of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, by their sense of purpose and determination to ensure that the services they provide reflect the needs of their communities. That does not mean that expenditure on those services must increase before they can develop further. The authorities know that they have a duty to secure efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services. They also know that they have a responsibility to exercise sound stewardship over the use of the resources which they spend on behalf of their electorate. There is an overall budget of £1,894 million, which amounts to £1,800 per household in Wales. When we reflect that that is so, we might also bear in mind that the domestic household rate contribution is, on average, £300. We must recognise that this is an important part of their role.
        I am confident that in responding to this settlement all councils will recognise that it will give them real and
        1046
        tangible support in providing the services that are essential to their communities and to Wales. In doing so, it is important that councils should plan those services and set their budgets in a way that is sensitive to the needs of their domestic and business ratepayers and complementary to the work that is being done to encourage and foster economic development in Wales.
        Local authorities have a unique and important role in the ongoing process of economic regeneration, but expenditure by councils on important infrastructure work will not be as beneficial to their communities if rates are increased by an unreasonable amount.
        Sir John Stradling Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend publish his projections for local authority rate rises for 1988–89 for spending in line with the settlement? That would be helpful to all concerned.
        Mr. Walker: I shall make those figures available. I shall see that they are placed in the Library.
        Sir Raymond Gower: Will they give details of the effect on each authority?
        Mr. Walker: They will reflect on each county and district authority. It is important that central and local government and the people of Wales work together in partnership to foster the interests of the whole Principality. I am especially conscious of the special needs of areas such as the south Wales valleys. I have already said that I shall bring forward in the new year my proposals for tackling the problems of the valleys. The local authorities concerned will have a vital role to play. In moving towards a new local government finance system, it is highly desirable that all concerned should be satisfied that the method for establishing the expenditure needs of local councils is sound.
        Mr. Ted Rowlands: About three paragraphs ago, as the Minister struggled through his brief, he said that there would be a valleys initiative,. Do the rate support grant figures include the valleys initiative, or will that initiative be additional?
        Mr. Walker: I am preparing a range of measures for the valleys, some of which will involve local government. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures that we published about the rating effects of these proposals for the valleys, he will see that the valleys have done fairly well out of this settlement. I repeat that there will be a range of measures, some of which will be unconnected with the rate support grant. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome those other aspects with great enthusiasm.
        The present arrangements have been developed over the years in conjunction with the local authority associations and generally provide an equitable basis for distributing grant. They take due account of factors which reflect differing needs throughout the Principality, including those of councils in sparsely populated areas and of councils in urban areas, including the valleys. In dealing with any system of this kind, there is always political pressure for changes to be made to secure a better result for a particular council. There is always room for improvement to reflect genuine changes in circumstances and I have asked my officials, in conjunction with the local authority associations, to continue to review the existing arrangements with this in mind. This settlement is both fair and realistic.
        Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman says that the settlement is fair and realistic and he has used the word "sensitivity". May I refer him to the problems in Wales, and especially those in Clwyd and in my constituency, about the provisions of speech therapy services? I have met many parents who are very worried about the lack of speech therapists. Given the massive budget that he has outlined, would he be prepared to look especially at the worries of parents who say that there are insufficient speech therapists in Clwyd and in my constituency?
        Mr. Walker: I understand the anxieties in that respect. In the specific and supplementary grant estimates and in the provisions on education and the like, perhaps additional activity on that can be generated. I am interested in the subject because for some time I have been a trustee of a trust for charitable work for the dyslexic child. I am aware of the real problems connected with speech disadvantage and of the important work done by speech therapists.
        As I say, this settlement is both fair and realistic and should enable local authorities to play a crucial and exciting role in conjunction with central Government in Wales. It reflects my firm commitment and support to local government, and it gives local authorities the means to continue to play an important role in Welsh life. I am sure that local authorities in Wales will respond to this opportunity in a responsible way, by setting budgets and rates at a reasonable level. If they spend in line with the settlement, rates should rise on average by no more than 1·3 per cent.
        Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in order to get the desired rate effect it will be necessary for the wage increases negotiated for both manual and white collar workers to be largely absorbed by efficiency increases? Will that mean that there will have to be redundancies and loss of jobs to balance the figures, to get the rate increases to which he referred?
        Mr. Walker: When I have spoken to the local authorities, they have argued that the increases will enable them to obtain greater productivity and improve efficiency. They cannot have it both ways. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that improved efficiency may cause a change in the nature of employment, but it would be an absurd local authority which said that it would go in for more inefficiency in expenditure in order to employ more people on an inefficient basis. It is important that high standards of efficiency are obtained in local government. I believe that local authorities accept that. If the high wage increases do not bring an improvement in productivity, there is a considerable argument that the adverse effect on jobs of inflationary wage increases without an improvement in productivity could be considerable, particularly in the Principality. I hope that in future negotiations consideration will be given to the impact of those negotiations. The settlement should commend itself to the House.
        Mr. Alan Williams: It is my wish for as many Back Bench colleagues as possible to take part in the limited debate, and, as I stated most of my objections, which remain unchanged, during the Minister's statement, I will try to be brief so as to facilitate other contributions.
        The Secretary of State will appreciate that the debate has come close on the tail of the statement—literally
        1048
        one week later. The local authorities are still assessing the impact, but the Minister will be aware that, on behalf of the counties, Mr. Tettenborn has gone on record as saying that, as we forecast last week, his projection is that the settlement will cause a combination of rate rises and service cuts. The district councils have forecast that about 15 of the 37 districts will have rates increases in excess of 10 per cent. —higher than the Secretary of State's forecast. Only today they suggested that the average rise will be somewhere between 7 and 9 per cent., which is substantially higher than the going rate and, again, substantially higher than the Secretary of State has suggested.
        I said in my response to the Secretary of State's statement that local authorities tend to have a better track record of forecasting than the Welsh Office. Only last year my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) forecast to the Minister's predecessor that the increases would be between 10 and 20 per cent. He was assured categorically by the then Secretary of State that in no case—not just in a few cases—would the rate bill in districts increase by anything like 10 to 20 per cent., yet 10 districts exceeded 10 per cent. and two districts exceeded 20 per cent.—21 per cent. in Dynevor and 26 per cent. in Colwyn.
        The Secretary of State has made the point that successive spokesmen at the Dispatch Box have made. We look to local authorities to achieve savings through efficiency. No one objects to greater efficiency, but one must recognise that it is not an unlimited path which can be followed. It is not possible to go on deducting hypothetical sums year after year and expecting councils to meet those deductions through extra efficiency.
        Let me demonstrate that assertion in the simplest way. About 70 per cent. of local authorities' costs are labour costs, and to achieve increased efficiency they would need reorganisation, mechanisation or computerisation. The essence of all three courses, which are managerial decisions, is that capital investment is needed. Only a week before the Secretary of State made a statement whose terms were contingent on increased capital investment to allow increased efficiency, he came forward with a capital programme that actually cut the capital allocation by £10 million.
        The Secretary of State cannot have it all ways. If he wills efficiency, he must equally will the means to enable councils to make the investment to make greater efficiency possible. There are limits to how much one can achieve by the simple process of axing manpower without putting in place services of a different kind—computerised and so on—to ensure that the services necessary to our people can be sustained.
        We hear about all manner of algebraic formulae when we discuss the rate support grant. However, the critical formula—what matters to our people in Wales —remains the sum that is available to spend in relation to the present quality of services and the quality of services to which they are entitled to aspire. As I said last week, it is no good using the slick Treasury formula of real increases based on simple cost-of-living assessments. According to the Chancellor, the cost of living will increase by 4·5 per cent. in the next year. That is his prophesy, not ours. That means that the average family needs an extra 4·5 per cent. to stand still. There is a tendency to assume that the cost-of-living index is a universally applicable yardstick of cost increases. Let us remember that when we

        1049
        talk of real increases, we are talking about increases in the cost of living geared to the average spending pattern of the average family. But we are talking about nothing of the kind tonight; we are talking about labour-intensive services in county and district councils.
        The Secretary of State knows—his officials, in conjunction with council officials agreed this—that to meet higher cost increases £60 million more than he has allowed for would be needed to enable councils simply to sustain the quality of services that they offer at the moment. Most hon. Members will recognise that it is too much to expect local authorities to deliver that £60 million through extra efficiency this year. That would not have been possible even if the capital investment had been made available to local authorities to enable them to install new systems; in fact, that capital investment has been denied them.
        It is important that the people of Wales do not allow the Government to use the counties and districts as their bodyshield to take the blame for the cuts that they have imposed. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the people of Wales that the councils have been placed over a barrel by the combination of his statement last week with the penalty system that the Government are operating concurrently? Will he make it clear to those who say that, despite the £60 million shortfall, there need be no cuts in services, that under this vindictive penalty system—the so-called negative marginal grant system — if councils tried to spend ratepayers' money to make up the shortfall that he announced last week, they would need to raise not just £60 million but a further £30 million to make up for the fine that would be imposed on them by the Government in the form of cuts in their grants? In fact, to make up the shortfall imposed by the Government, they would need to raise £90 million extra from the ratepayers and that would mean an extra 30p on the rates.
        Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am struck by the right hon. Gentleman's conversion to the benefits of efficiency. He then suggested that cuts were being made in services. How can he square those two points with the third fact that is emerging of a significant increase in staffing levels in Welsh local authorities that is predicted to continue? How can he square those three points?
        Mr. Williams: I invite the hon. Gentleman to participate in the debate that will take place tomorrow and on Thursday on the Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill. He will find that, as a result of the poll tax being introduced by the Conservative party, it will he essential as I hope to show tomorrow—for local authorities to recruit on a substantial scale to meet the requirements that the Government will be imposing on them by changing rating systems.
        A week ago I suggested to the Secretary of State that as the extra spend allowed in Wales this year is only 5.3 per cent. compared with 7 per cent. in England, that means that our authorities are losing a possible £27 million of spending power because they will not have the same 7 per cent. formula. The Secretary of State shook his head last week in disapproval and he shakes his head again tonight. He did not give a detailed answer to that point. If that is wrong, it should be exposed and explained. However, I understand that there will be a £27 million shortfall and I should welcome an explanation from the Secretary of State about that. I recognise the problems of making a
        1050
        statement, but last week hon. Members asked about 24 questions during the statement and the Secretary of State addressed only eight of them.
        During the statement I stressed that the Government grant as a proportion of expenditure has fallen this year from 66·7 per cent. to 66·3 per cent. That is a cut of only £6 million, but it is another cut. However, the Secretary of State was unable to answer the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) about the loss to Wales. When we consider the percentage of grant that was paid in 1978–79, we see that the cumulative loss to Wales has been £750 million. As I said, it is not just that we have lost £750 million. That money has to be raised from the ratepayers to sustain services and is not available for other necessary spending in Wales.
        Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that central Government spending on education in Wales has decreased by 10 per cent. since 1979 while spending by local government has increased by 44 per cent.? Local government has to make up the shortfall that we see in crumbling buildings, the shortage of books and the many services to which parents have to contribute.
        Mr. Williams: Exactly. As my hon. Friend has said, it comes back to the families, households, parents and children. The £750 million cut on a household basis means that every household in Wales has lost more than £700 worth of Government grant since the Government came to office and began to cut back their percentage of RSG.
        That is happening in an area of Britain with the lowest household income, an area with 42 per cent of its households—households, not individuals —on annual incomes of less than £4,000 a year. The Government have taken the equivalent of £700 from each of those households. Considering the way in which Wales has been deprived in the past, why on earth did the Secretary of State have to deprive us further?
        12.20 am
        Sir Anthony Meyer: I start from a premise that is not so dissimilar from that of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—it was a pleasant change to hear him in a more measured mood tonight—though I come to very different conclusions from him.
        I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the settlement that he has achieved for Wales. It is substantially better than the one that England has had, and I know that much of his success has been due to the way in which he fought his corner in the Cabinet, as did his predecessor, my noble Friend Lord Crickhowell. My right hon. Friend has been the more able to get a good result because of the sensible and co-operative attitude adopted by Welsh local authorities at virtually every level. What is more, they have responded to my right hon. Friend's clear readiness to work in partnership with them.
        My right hon. Friend brings to his job an even greater readiness than did his predecessor to recognise the indispensable part that public funding can play in attracting private investment and the part that a lair level of rate support grant can play in enabling local authorities to do their job better, though I recognise that there is a valid argument between the two sides of the House about what constitutes "a fair level". Thanks also to my right

        1051
        hon. Friend, Wales has largely avoided the constant acrimony that has bedevilled relations between central and local government in England.
        There is always scope for more efficient management by local authorities. Nowhere is this more evident than in education, but here we come up against a difficulty that is partly of the Government's making. A lot of rather glib talk about parent power and the right to choose is making it far more difficult for local education authorities to carry through schemes which necessarily involve closing down some schools and changing the nature of others. These closures will always be fiercely fought by the parents concerned and by the local councillors on the education committee.
        Furthermore, local authorities have a valid argument when they claim that their costs have gone up more than the rate of inflation, because their operations are highly labour-intensive and wage rates, which are nationally bargained and over which they exercise no control, have risen well ahead of inflation. And local authorities do not have the same possibility of streamlining their labour force as manufacturing industry enjoys. Indeed, there are now really serious shortages in several departments. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) talked about speech therapists. In Clwyd we have a dramatic shortage of social workers in many areas of the county.
        None of this is any reason for relaxing the pressure on local authorities to increase their efficiency, both by cutting costs and by finding ways of generating revenue, but it is important to recognise, as my right hon. Friend manifestly does, that there are instances where a capital allocation now, or a tapering subsidy, may enable a local authority to make worthwhile savings or produce substantial revenues later, and the RSG properly takes account of this possibility, and should go on doing so.
        A case in point is the Bodelwyddan castle project, which my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) criticises so strongly. I make no complaint about that, and it is right that Clwyd county council should be kept under the most relentless scrutiny to ensure that the project is being carefully managed. None the less, this is a project that will do a great deal to enhance the tourist image of north Wales. Although it is within my constituency, the benefits from it, situated as it is alongside the A55 expressway, will fan out along the coast. It will provide the perfect stopping place for families travelling further west along the coast, as well as an ideal excursion for those spending their holidays in north-east Wales and day visitors to the area. In short, it will be of benefit to north Wales, even to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn.
        12.25 am
        Mr. Richard Livsey: The Secretary of State has tried to paint an optimistic picture of his rate support grant settlement for 1988–89. That is his privilege, but he should not expect other hon. Members to agree with his conclusions.
        The right hon. Gentleman's spending plans affect many of our constituents in their daily lives. Three sectors are affected: first, there is the effect on services; secondly, there is the impact on capital expenditure; and, thirdly, there is the resulting effect on rates.
        1052
        With regard to the effect on services, the education system is under stress, and the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) mentioned some of the effects of that. Social services in many local authorities are near to breaking point. If that is contrasted with the budget for the police force—which we all support—we see that it has received a larger slice of cake than some of the other sectors that need the resources.
        In Powys the block grant has fallen as a proportion over the past 12 years by 15 per cent. In the past eight years it has fallen by 10 per cent. Labour costs account for two-thirds of all costs. The grant-related expenditure formula is not a fair measure statistically and it is centrally assessed, yet there is great variability in factors operating in Wales.
        Wage settlements have impinged on expenditure. For example, manual workers' wages have increased by 10 per cent., wages for home helps by 18 per cent., and teachers' wages by between 8 and 9 per cent. When one compares the two thirds of local authority costs which are labour costs with the 4·3 per cent. increase in costs in the Secretary of State's statement—only 1 per cent. on top; in other words, a 5·3 per cent. increase—one finds that there is an immense gap between the increases in labour costs and the award made. In this light the award is seen to be not so generous, and it puts councils under pressure.
        The block grant will remain at two-thirds of expenditure of local authorities in Wales. Approximately £5 million has been lopped off it this year. In July 1987 Powys was expecting to receive £200,000 more than it will receive under the award.
        Mr. Alex Carlile: Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures show that yet again the Government have failed to have proper regard to the sparseness of the population of rural mid-Wales? As a result, we are facing cuts in education, which we can see in our schools, and cuts in hospital services.
        Mr. Livsey: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State should have a super-sparsity factor for areas of little population.
        The effect of the settlement on capital expenditure programmes must not be ignored. The Secretary of State knows from my remarks in the Welsh Grand Committee my views on the inadequacies of the Welsh Office's roads programme. However, housing is one of the weakest points of Government policy in Wales. There was a drop in the housing capital allocation from £154 million to £145 million, which was a 10 per cent. drop in real terms. We heard about that matter from the Welsh Office of the Association of District Councils today.
        Forecasts are based on a continuing buoyant level of council house sales. During the Secretary of State's statement last week, three of us asked why more council house receipts could not be spent at above the 15 per cent. level that is allowed. The Secretary of State did not respond to that question because, I believe, he does not believe in his own Government's policy.
        Receipts from council house sales now play an important part in the financing of local government and are an accounting device. There should be a gradual phased allowance of more council receipts being spent on new housing stock. The figures before us depend on more council receipts, when so far in the current year the take of council receipts has fallen short of the Welsh Office's

        1053
        own target. We believe that those council receipt targets cannot be increased. The scope is not there. Much of the stock has already been sold, and when one considers average incomes in Wales, one realises that the possibility of people buying their own council houses is now slight.
        Finally, how will the Secretary of State's settlement affect the rates? Without question, they will increase and by more than any of us would like. The Government's penalties for that will not help. We accept that efficiency measures will play a part, but they cannot be expected to play all the part. The block grant percentage is continuously reducing, yet local authorities must still provide and maintain services. It is ratepayers who suffer. In my constituency in Powys the ratepayers' contribution to running the authority has increased by over 50 per cent. during the eight-year period during which the block grant has declined by over 10 per cent. The fact is that Government policy is having a direct bearing on rate increases, which affects the very people whom the Government least wish to penalise. As a former lecturer, one is tempted to write on the bottom of the report, "Must do better."
        12.31 am
        Mr. Gwilym Jones: I was struck by the contributions of the two opening speakers in the debate. Naturally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State started with a measured, positive and realistic approach to the rate support settlement for 1988–89 and local council spending in general. It must have been persuasive, because seemingly in reply we had a measured, positive and realistic contribution from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). Indeed, I was fascinated to note that he appeared to be going against all the previous arguments that we have heard from Opposition Members on the subject of local council spending. Fascinatingly, he turned that on its head and is now a convert to the cause of efficiency, but efficiency achieved by "extra investment". Again, that is the simple answer, "Throw more money at the problem and it will disappear.
        I was disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman could not answer my intervention when I asked him to draw together his conversion to efficiency, his allegation about cuts and the fact that currently there is a significant increase in staffing in local government in Wales. I appreciate that I caught the right hon. Gentleman on the hop—
        Mr. Alan Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman want the answer now?
        Mr. Jones: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman must at least be aware that to cut 5,000 jobs in the Department of Health and Social Security the Government transferred responsibility for housing benefit and DHSS benefits to the local authorities. Therefore, the local authorities had to take on extra people to do the work. It was quite logical and inevitable.
        Mr. Jones: I am afraid that once again the right hon. Gentleman has shot himself in the foot. He previously resorted to spurious claims about extra staffing for the community charge, but that is no justification for this current year, nor is there any need for any local council to employ any extra people or spend any extra money during
        1054
        1988–89. He is now resorting to talking about history. I am talking about the current year and the extra staffing that is taking place at the moment.
        My right hon. Friend made the point that, inevitably, Opposition Members will say that the settlement is not good enough. He could not have said a truer word. The stock approach that is always trotted out is that it is not enough. Even if the Opposition's demands are realised, the ultimate answer is that it is too little and too late.
        Surely we have all come to curse the advent of the word processor, which churns out such stock answers one after the other. If we think more deeply about the matter, we note that local council expenditure has increased by 11 per cent. in real terms under this Government. The Opposition say that that is not enough, yet when they were in office it was even less. When that is related to the fact that under the previous Labour Administration local council spending in Wales fell in real terms by 4 per cent., their failure is compounded. Where is the admission from the Opposition? Where is the apology? But that is not a unique approach. There sit the representatives of the only Government ever to cut the Health Service. What answer do they have to that? They scream, "Cut, cut, cut, cut," in the hope that they will be believed, but they certainly will not be.
        My right hon. Friend projected that rates should on average rise by no more than 1·3 per cent. if local councils follow through. I am not sure that I share his confidence if such is an authoritative prediction. Such a prediction would assume wise spending on all the important priorities of local councils. It would also assume a universal concern for the burden on the ratepayers.
        The Labour group on Cardiff city council is already considering proposals for a double figure rates increase next April. Unfortunately, that will be approximately 10 times more than the projection mentioned by my right hon. Friend. In Cardiff we have an unbalanced council. I fear that the Labour group will be able to have its way on that exorbitant increase because it will be able to rely on its fellow Socialists in the LSD alliance, or whatever it will be called by that time.
        Like the right hon. Member for Swansea, West I fear that that will be the case with many other councils in Wales. I advance just one reason for that. Next year will not be local election year. The local councils in Wales will not have to face the electorate and there will not be the same regard as in an election year.
        I am afraid that I know the system all too well in Cardiff, because in the off years we have had peak increases of 26, 54, and 94·5 per cent. It is only because of the Government's success in reducing inflation that the last peak was as low as 26 per cent. However, sadly, that was about six times more than the going rate of inflation, when the previous peak of 94·5 per cent. was only about four times the growing rate of inflation.
        I welcome my right hon. Friend's settlement. I congratulate him on what he has achieved in fighting his corner in Cabinet. We should all join him in imploring the local councils of Wales to follow through in achieving rate increases of no more than 1·3 per cent.
        12.37 am
        Mr. Paul Murphy: In the media release last week and his speech tonight, the Secretary of State said that the rate support grant settlement is fair, reasonable

        1055
        and realistic. Indeed, he goes further than that. He refers to the Welsh local authorities as being better than their English or Scottish counterparts.
        I only wish that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) felt the same way about the local authorities in Wales. I suspect that he does not, because the majority of those local authorities are Labour controlled and they are still reasonable authorities, much better than any Conservative examples, because they do not exist in the Principality of Wales.
        What is certain is that the local authorities in Wales, and district councils in particular, have for the past few years kept their rates and expenditure at a reasonable level and have effectively achieved the unachievable— maintaining services at a good level while having to comply with the sort of restrictions that we have seen over the past few years from the various rate support grant settlements. Much good it has done them. Their reward, year by year—and again this year—in the rate support grant settlements has been a decrease in the amount of grant that they have received.
        The aggregate rate support grant settlement for the whole of Wales has been reduced by about £5 million, but the effect on individual Welsh local authorities has been even more severe. Five years ago, when Lord Crickhowell was Secretary of State for Wales, 60 per cent. of Torfaen's expenditure was met by the rate support grant settlement. In 1988–89 it is below 50 per cent.
        The rate support grant settlement is unrealistic because it does not take into account the impact of inflation on local authorities. Moreover, it does not take into account the fact that 54 per cent. of the budget of many local authorities in Wales is swallowed up by items over which they have no control. Last year there was a 10·7 per cent. pay increase for manual workers and an increase of nearly 9 per cent. for craftsmen, but this year's rate support grant settlement provided for an inflation rate of only 5 per cent.
        The Secretary of State says that local authorities in Wales should be reasonable and that they should impose rate increases of less than 2 per cent., yet the committee for the Welsh district councils has said within the last few days that if services are to be maintained at their present standard many Welsh local authorities will have to impose rate increases of over 10 per cent. Most of those local authorities are valley authorities that suffer the greatest amount of deprivation in Wales. Their rates will have to be increased by that amount just to ensure that the services that are so vital to the people who live in those areas are maintained—not even improved, as they should be.
        The Secretary of State says that rents will have to be increased by over 1·60 a week and that the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue accounts of district councils must be reduced. Many of the pensioners' schemes in the valley communities and elsewhere rely on that income. If the Secretary of State so desired, he could, at a stroke, change the face of Welsh housing, which needs to be changed a great deal. He could release the money that is lying in the coffers of local authorities. The Secretary of State could build new houses with those capital receipts and provide homes for the homeless. I asked a question a few weeks ago about the number of people in Wales who are waiting for houses, and I was told by the Under-Secretary of State that those figures are not kept. How can the Secretary of State know how many
        1056
        houses are needed in Wales if he does not know how many people are waiting for houses? If the Secretary of State released that money for improvements and repairs, he would ease the burden on the housing revenue accounts, and rent increases would be unnecessary.
        I was the chairman of my local authority's finance committee for eight years. The Conservative party was in office for seven of them. Throughout those seven years there was continuous underfunding of the services that are provided by Welsh local authorities. The rate support grant settlements are bedevilled by unfathomable figures and meaningless jargon. The poll tax will make no difference to what has happened in recent years. This rate support grant settlement is no credit to the Secretary of State for Wales. It sells Wales short.
        12.45 am
        Mr. Keith Raffan: The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) made the point, although he may not have meant to, of the importance for local authorities to secure moderate wage increases. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have strayed onto the subject of home improvement grants, considering the last Labour Government's appalling to disgraceful record on that issue. In just one year of this Government we spent more on home improvements than the previous Labour Government did in the whole of their term of office.
        As my right hon. Friend is aware, two of the local authorities covered in whole or in part by my constituency, Delyn borough council and Clwyd county council, lose out in the settlement as a result of changes in grant-related expenditure. On the other hand, Rhuddlan borough council, part of which is in my constituency, gains significantly. Clwyd county council loses out primarily because of a reduction in the number of further education students. I spoke this afternoon to the county treasurer, Mr. Dalby, and I shall be raising in writing on his behalf several detailed, complex points with my right hon. Friend. Delyn borough council also loses out because of data changes to do with lower capital allocations and a large European regional development fund grant, but the council's chief executive is aware of and appreciates the reasons why.
        As my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, the debate is not just about this particular rate support grant settlement; it is also about local government in Wales and the efficiency and effectiveness of local government services. I am fortunate to represent in whole or in part two reasonably good to outstanding local authorities, Rhuddlan borough council and Delyn borough council. I only wish that Clwyd county council would emulate them.
        I know that a certain hon. Gentleman—perhaps two as they are sitting together, the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), who represent parts of Clwyd — would agree strongly with that remark.
        Mr. Martyn Jones rose—
        Mr. Raffan: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Certainly the hon. Member for Wrexham in a previous rate support grant debate, went as far as to describe Clwyd county council as "rotten".
        Mr. Martyn Jones: I remind the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) that Clwyd county council is run by a coalition of independents and Tories.
        Mr. Raffan: We are well aware that the council is, sadly, run by its officers, it being a hung council. The hon. Member for Wrexham is nodding in agreement with me. Perhaps he can sort out the differences on the Opposition Benches; I hesitate to intrude in a family Labour party quarrel between the hon. Members for Wrexham and for Clwyd, South-West, but as they are sitting next to each other perhaps they can sort it out between themselves.
        I wish to make three specific points on how the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of local government in Wales can he improved, using Clwyd as an example. First, in relation to manpower, all local authorities need to bear in mind the words of my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment who said in the debate yesterday that unemployment can only be tackled through the creation of new jobs in the wealth-creating sector of the economy. Local government is part not of the wealth-creating sector of the economy, but of the wealth-consuming sector.
        Nothing has a more dramatic impact on current spending, and so on rate rises, than increases in local government manpower. I am sure that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West will listen closely to my next point. Clwyd is to be commended for reducing the number of full-time employees by 734, or 8·2 per cent., between September 1979 and September this year, but the beneficial effect of that has been undermined by the parallel increase in part-time employees during the same period—up by 953 or 16·5 per cent. That has had the effect in full-time equivalent terms of diminishing the reduction in manpower to 327, or 2·9 per cent.
        More can be done to reduce manpower. There is particular need for the Audit Commission to study more closely the duplication by, and overlap between, the activities of different tiers of local government. I believe that the Opposition are "unitarians" in local government terms, and presumably one of the reasons for that is their belief that there is overlap between the different tiers.
        In Wales as a whole there has been an increase, however slight, in the number of full-time equivalent local authority staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) has said, in the second quarter of this year compared to the second quarter of last year. That continues the increase of recent years and is a cause for concern. To ensure maximum efficiency, there is a need for all local authorities closely to monitor and to control their staffing levels.
        My second point relates to surplus school places. As at October this year, there were 11,235 surplus places in primary schools in Clwyd. The current number at secondary level is not available, but, as of last year, it was 4,075, and, because of falling rolls, the county council expects it to rise to 9,200 by 1990.
        The cost of keeping 15,000 school places empty is £2·3 million, or nearly 5p on the rates. Removing even a fraction of them would produce substantial revenue savings that could be redeployed with great advantage elsewhere in the education budget. What is true of Clwyd is true of Wales as a whole. There are more than 125,000 surplus school places in the Principality.
        Dr. John Marek: I am a little perplexed about the hon. Gentleman's comment about surplus school places. In my constituency, there are many classes with more than 30 children in them. Clearly there are reasons for that in rural and urban areas. Instead of talking about surplus places, why does not the hon.
        1058
        Gentleman talk about cutting class sizes? I asked the same question of the Secretary of State. Why could he not, as a matter of policy, set a class size of no more than 26 pupils? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?
        Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman answered his own question. There are urban primary schools in my constituency in which class sizes are even higher than 30. But if we remove some of the surplus places, particularly in rural areas, the money saved can be redeployed to reduce the size of cramped and overcrowded classes in certain primary schools. Redeploying money saved by removing surplus places is an excellent way in which that could be done.
        As I said, what is true of Clwyd is true of Wales as a whole. There are over 125,000 surplus school places, costing nearly £20 million to keep empty.
        My third and final point relates to the revenue implications of capital expenditure. Loan charges in Clwyd have risen from £324,000 in 1982–83 to £780,000 in 1987–88. Total loan charges over that five-year period have amounted to £3,683,000. Local authorities must restrict major capital projects to statutory obligations, otherwise statutory services will suffer severely.
        I had hoped to get through my speech without mentioning Bodelwyddan castle. It was a challenge that I had set for myself. But as the matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), the House will not be surprised to hear that I express my disagreement with him. It is a wrong priority to spend £4·5 million on that project by 1991, with resultant loan charges, debt repayments and running and maintenance costs of over £500,000 a year. That could well be at the cost of 34 additional primary school teachers.
        My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been unduly modest in describing this as a fair and reasonable settlement. Wales's share of the total grant for England and the Principality has steadily increased from 7·25 per cent. under Labour to 8·4 per cent. under the Conservative Government. Wales has done well again this year. My right hon. Friend has continued his predecessor's line record. The figures that he gave for local government expenditure in Wales, which has increased in real terms by £152 million, or 11 per cent. under this Government, is in stark contrast to the Opposition's record. The £56 million drop in local government expenditure in Wales under the last Labour Government — that 4 per cent. Drop —torpedoes the speech of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and all the sanctimonious utterances from the Opposition on local government expenditure.
        12.53 am
        Mr. Allan Rogers: I shall briefly address the issues and, in particular, the Secretary of State's remarks about the reasonable and fair settlement. Those of us who live in Wales know that it is not a reasonable and fair settlement.
        We hear Conservative Members juggling the figures, but those of us who live in the valleys know the reality of local government and local government expenditure. We have schools that have not been painted for years. We have roads in a deplorable state. We have houses that desperately need improvement grants. I pay tribute to the Government for giving substantial amounts to improve houses in the valley communities. But why have they cut

        1059
        that money? The number of houses in the Rhondda that need improvement grants is 18,000. So 18,000 pre-1919 houses in one constituency are waiting for improvement. The Secretary of State says that the figures are reasonable and fair but we look on that statement with scepticism.
        Mr. Martyn Jones: The same position appertains in north Wales and in Clywd, which has already been discussed tonight. Clywd county council, through the Tory chairman of the social services committee, has asked for more money. He and a colleague voted with the Labour group because they felt that the social services were so badly stretched that danger point had been reached.
        Mr. Rogers: I am sure that the position is the same in north and mid Wales as it is in the valley communities.
        Perhaps the Secretary of State can answer some points when he replies. Are we to assume that all moneys for the valleys initiative are to be new and separate moneys and are not included in the grant? Will the Secretary of State make more money available for the reclamation of derelict land by local authorities apart from other money available elsewhere?
        The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) intervened earlier to draw out from the Secretary of State that Welsh local authorities received £104 per head in grant as opposed to £98 in England. I wish that the hon. Member would start scrapping for Wales and that he would be a little partial. Although he is a translated Londoner he should remember that he represents a Welsh constituency. He should start fighting for his Welsh constituents instead of intervening with such fatuous remarks.
        12.56 am
        Mr. Nicholas Bennett: It is typical of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that he not only gets wrong what I said, but sees it as an insult to Wales. I was merely pointing out that, far from being hard done by, we are doing better in terms of public expenditure per head than local authorities in England. That is something of which we can be proud, because it means that the Secretary of State for Wales and his predecessors have fought hard to ensure that Wales gets a larger percentage of expenditure than England.
        That is borne out by the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) has given. Since 1981 the Welsh share of the total grant for England and Wales has risen from 7·4 per cent. to 8·3 per cent. and it will rise again in 1988–89 to 8·4 per cent. The reasons are clear. Local authorities in Wales have a better record on expenditure than England and Scotland, and that has been rewarded. Spending in Wales has risen by 11 per cent. more than inflation since 1979 compared with 17 per cent. in England. Rates in Wales have risen by about 15 per cent. more than the rise in the RPI in Wales, compared with over 48 per cent. in England since 1979. So we have a good record in Wales on local government expenditure. We can be proud of that. In addition, we get 66 per cent. in grant compared to 46 per cent. in England. That ought to be remembered.
        Given the figures for the coming year, it should be possible for Dyfed county council to reduce its rates bill by 2·1 per cent., Preseli to reduce its rates by 2·6 per cent., and South Pembroke to cut its bill by 2·7 per cent. if they
        1060
        follow the guidelines in the Government statement. I shall be looking, as I am sure all my constituents in those local authority areas will, to see that that happens.
        There are some ominous signs in regard to Dyfed county council. In recent years it has constantly ignored Government guidelines; it put its rates up by 7 per cent. last year and by 19 per cent. the year before. I noticed in the local newspapers recently that the chief officers in Dyfed have been awarded quite substantial increases in pay. That has caused concern among local electors and throughout Pembrokeshire.
        Out of the three old counties of Dyfed, South Pembroke provides the most rate income, yet we do not get a fair share of the services that are provided by Dyfed. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) shares the concern in Pembrokeshire about the number of county council services that are being drawn towards the centre, in Carmarthen, to the detriment of his constituents and mine. If the county council is anxious that support is given to everyone in the county it does not do much good to start centralising services in the area represented by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) where unemployment is only 6 per cent. compared to levels of 24 per cent. in Fishguard and 17 per cent. in my constituency. If the county council is contemplating any further centralising moves, I hope that it will consider the effect of such moves on local unemployment.
        I believe that the present settlement is good for education. The RSG provision for education in 1988–89 will be £830 million, which is 8.7 per cent. higher than the revised provision for the current year, which in turn, was 17 per cent. higher than the final settlement for 1986–87. Therefore, since 1979–80 educational expenditure in real terms, has increased by 22 per cent. in the primary sector and by 31 per cent. in the secondary sector. That illustrates the Government's commitment to ensuring that we get the best education for the children whom we represent.
        The current expenditure of local authorities on the maintenance of school buildings has risen from the 1978–79 level of £53·85 per pupil at constant prices, to £60·5 per pupil in the current financial year. That demonstrates the Government concern to do something about the old primary schools and some of the older secondary schools in Wales that need repair.
        We should also consider the provision of money for the local education authorities training grant schemes. In the current year the provision is £11·86 million and it will increase to £12·28 million. However, I am sure that all hon. Members are worried that Her Majesty's inspectors recent report on in-service training in Wales, showed that there were serious deficiencies in the way in which some of the money had been spent. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will consider carefully how that money is spent in the coming year so that the recommendations of the HMI report are adhered to and we get the best value for the £12 million that will be spent.
        1.2 am
        Mr. Paul Flynn: The reward that has been handed out to the Welsh local authorities will not be welcomed in Newport. If this settlement is judged a reward by the Government, I am sure that the Newport authority would prefer to be punished.
        When the Government figures were first introduced I asked what the settlement would be for Newport. I gave

        1061
        precise figures and asked for them to be confirmed, but I received no answer. Let us consider what the settlement will mean for that authority. As a result of essential increases following the wage negotiations relating to the teachers' strike and capital expenditure—most of it in Newport—on job creation and encouraging new work, it has been estimated that, to stand still and cope with inflation Newport expenditure must increase by 7·5 per cent. That is the figure that has been given by the authority's treasurer.
        We have heard about various figures—4·3 per cent. and 5·63 per cent.—but Newport has fared badly. Over a long period this council has been acknowledged by all parties to be efficient and to be providing good value and cost-effective services. However, Newport has not done well and its reward is a princely increase of 1·9 per cent. compared to last year's settlement. As a result, there must be a rates increase of 9·3 per cent. if the council is to keep up with inflation, but if it seeks to continue its valuable work on job creation and capital schemes the district rate must increase by 10 per cent. The Secretary of State must acknowledge that. We have heard many fine words, but what is this? Is it a confidence trick? We have heard the fine promises, but now we see the reality.
        I should, perhaps, have started with a word of croeso to the Government Front Bench. We have had some eight hours of debate in this black December for local authorities in Wales, and tonight the awful, destructive Local Government Bill was finalised. To its eternal shame, the Welsh Office Front Bench put in not a single appearance during the past two days. Even more remarkable has been the characteristic caricature of tabloid press-type local government from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). It is a myth and a fiction. Throughout the 100 hours in Committee, we asked time and again for examples of free-spending authorities in Wales—all those authorities for which the Government had to bring in the weapon of the Local Government Bill. That extra bureaucracy and expense, that wholly alien and malicious irrelevance to Wales, will be used to punish the authorities. Again and again I have asked questions, and the Minister has not uttered a single word during all those hundred hours. It must be a record for a Minister to have stayed mute for a hundred hours without earning his salary.
        The Bill and the poll tax legislation that is coming this week are wholly irrelevant to Wales. This is a bad day for local government and for Wales. We are witnessing the schizophrenia of the Welsh Office. We have heard fine words and double talk from the Secretary of State. We have seen the double think and tonight we have the double cross.
        1.6 am
        Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The Secretary of State talked about the valley initiatives. I am pleased to hear of any initiatives, provided that they represent additional resources given to Wales to deal with the many problems facing those valley communities. However, I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind that there are special problems in the rural parts of Wales. Following his initiative for the valleys, we would like to welcome the Secretary of State to the rural areas of Gwynedd and Powys, to see the real deprivation in those parts and the
        1062
        hidden problem of rural depopulation. We are losing so many young people because of the lack of proper facilities, services and job opportunities.
        Has the Secretary of State allocated resources for implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in Wales, which will cost between £7 million and £10 million? Has that been included in the formula for this year? The people of Wales will be extremely disappointed and angry if, yet again, provision has not been made for the implementation of that important Act.
        Has provision been made in this year's grant for the considerable extra expenditure that many local authorities will incur as a result of this year's severe flooding in Wales —both for the immediate and long-term problems that the flooding highlighted? Much structural work will have to be done to provide proper facilities to ensure that such flooding does not happen again.
        I want to make a special plea on behalf of the social services budgets of local authorities—especially for the concept of care in the community. The pressure on health authorities as a result of cuts in their budgets has a knock-on effect on social services departments. In Gwynedd, for example, cuts in the health authority budget will mean that there will be fewer beds for the elderly, in the acute, rehabilitation and long-stay sectors. That will inevitably mean that more people will have to be cared for in their homes. It must be remembered that 18·5 per cent. of Gwynedd's population are aged 65 or over and that 8·2 per cent. are over the age of 75. That is higher than the national average. This will increase demands on the social services and mean that we will need more social workers and more home carers. This year Gwynedd has seen a real cut in provision for social services and home carers. The Secretary of State should bear that in mind. Perhaps when he is winding up the debate he will tell us whether that has been taken into account.
        My final point is about local authority smallholdings. I should like to see local authorities being given allocations to ensure that they have more starter farms. The important first step for many young people entering agriculture is the small farm, the smallholding, and I ask the Secretary of State whether that sort of allocation could be made available to local authorities.
        1.10 am
        Mr. Roy Hughes: The Secretary of State has again proclaimed that the settlement is fair and realistic. That argument has been rebutted by the Opposition on numerous occasions. Our county councils think that the settlement is neither fair nor realistic, and they are at the sharp end of affairs in local government.
        It has been said many times that charity begins at home. I know that because of various pay awards Gwent county council has been under considerable financial strain. The teachers were awarded 16 per cent. overall, but the first full year of that settlement is next year. The money has to be found because teachers, who perform such a worthwhile task in our society, have fallen well behind in the pay league. We can add to that settlement the pay award for manual workers. It was 12 per cent. and took effect from July. Administrative staff and the police and fire brigade received 7 per cent. That took Gwent's inflation rate to 11 per cent. However, the rate support grant settlement to our counties is only 6·3 per cent. and that includes what is known as the special allocation. Yet again, the Welsh

        1063
        counties are being unfairly penalised, not because they have been extravagantly spending taxpayers' money, but because of national pay awards and the Government's mean and shortsighted approach to local government affairs.
        The public expenditure levels of the Welsh Office do not keep up with the inflation rate faced by our county councils. What is more, this rate support grant settlement does not make adequate provision for the services that the councils have to provide, including roads, schools and social services. The picture is equally dismal when we consider the district authorities in Wales. I can best illustrate that by citing the case of Newport which has already been lucidly brought out by hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
        Newport's grant-related expenditure assessment—the Government's own assessment of what authorities should spend to provide a standard level of service— has increased by only 1·9 per cent. compared with last year. That was the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West and is well below the general level of pay and price inflation. If the Newport authority were to maintain services at their existing level for next year and meet the costs from the capital expenditure programme, it would face an increase in expenditure of between 9 and 10 per cent.—much higher than the 4·8 per cent. allowed in the statement and much higher than the increase in Newport's grant-related expenditure assessment.
        I turn to the tragedy of Welsh housing. I read this week that 200 families per week are becoming homeless in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) pointed out that it is time for the Government to release the assets from the sale of council houses, because we badly need a massive housing drive in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out that no less than £750 million in rate support grants has been withheld from local authorities over the past eight years. This is a deflationary packet if ever there were one. Is it any wonder that the Government, in their submission to the EEC 12 months ago, pointed out that Wales had the lowest economic activity rate in the whole of Britain?
        The Government continue to rob Wales. Following the appointment of a new Secretary of State, we thought that there might be some improvement, but we have found that the leopard has not changed its spots. Is it any wonder that the number of Conservative Members in Wales has been reduced to a rump and that they could not even produce a Secretary of State out of their own ranks?
        Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will be delighted that Mr. Speaker made the decision to open the Galleries, so that the people of Wales could flock in such considerable numbers to hear the various contributions of Opposition Members.
        I start by answering the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who compared what he said was the 5·3 per cent. increase in Wales with the 7·4 per cent. increase in England. I am afraid that he is not comparing two similar figures. One figure applies to the increase in budgets, while the other provides for the increase in provision. If he wishes me to give the comparison with the 5–3 per cent., I am glad to say that
        1064
        the English figure is 3·9 per cent., not the 7·4 per cent. that he suggested. He asked me to correct him, and I am delighted to do so. I am sure he will be satisfied that his figures have been corrected in that way.
        I have also been asked to compare the figures of what has happened in various years under various Governments, and I am willing to do that. The whole tone of the debate from Opposition Members has been, "We think the rate support grant is not big enough; that local government expenditure should be bigger," and they are condemning the Government for not achieving those objectives. The simple comparison is that in the lifetime of this Government we have increased local government expenditure in Wales in real terms by 11 per cent., whereas the Labour Government decreased local government expenditure in real terms by 4 per cent.
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan: When the right hon. Gentleman says an increase "in real terms", will he tell the House whether he means an increase above the retail prices index, because we know that local government does not buy the same basket of goods as the retail customer.
        Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to say that the position is worse than the retail prices index, he must be ashamed that, under a Labour Government, it went down by 4 per cent. If he is suggesting that the grant should be increased by more than the rate of inflation, he must remember that the figure went down under a Labour Government. Perhaps he would like to have the figures for the rate support grant for the last years of the Labour Government of which he is such a keen supporter. In 1976–77 it was £585 million, in 1977–78 it was £535 million, and in 1978–79 it went down to £512 million. That was the result of action by a Government supported by Opposition Members who now complain about poverty, bad housing and terrible conditions in Wales and say that more should be done for Wales. Opposition Members sat there supporting a Government who reduced local government expenditure and the rate support grant. They now have the audacity to condemn us for not increasing it enough.
        The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) referred to housing. Has he no feeling of shame about the last Labour Government's unbelievably bad record on house improvement? Is he not delighted that we are increasing grants for housing improvements by a further £7·5 million? Anyone who knows the problems of housing in the valleys and in Wales generally knows the desperate need for a substantial house improvement campaign. The comparative figures are remarkable. This Government have been spending £92 million a year on house improvement. The Labour Government spent not £92 million, but £29 million, on house improvements. These are the people who describe their passion for good housing and who have the audacity to complain that more is not being done on housing. In every respect, the figures in this rate support grant are better than those granted to England. Out of £1,800 per household expenditure, only £300 will come out of the domestic rating system. It is a generous settlement. It is one—
        It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
        Question agreed to.
        Resolved,

        1065
        That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1988–89 (House of Commons Paper No. 142), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

        LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (WALES)
        Resolved,
        That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 158), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
        That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1985–86 (House of Commons Paper No. 159), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

        Liaison Committee
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        That Sir Antony Buck, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Frank Field, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, Mr. David Howell, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Ron Leighton, Sir Ian Lloyd, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Michael Mates, Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Kenneth Warren, Mr. John Wheeler and Mr. Jerry Wiggin be members of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr.Lightbown.]
        Hon. Members: Object.

    RAF Carlisle (Staff Transfer)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.
    1.23 am
    Mr. Eric Martlew: I apologise for keeping the House up even longer. The important matter that I bring to the attention of the House concerns the proposed transfer of the RAF unit DDSM 15 from RAF Carlisle to Harrogate. Although the unit is outside my constituency—it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—many of the 70 employees whose jobs will disappear are my constituents and they have asked me to make representations on their behalf. I understand that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has received similar representations and wishes to speak in the debate. I welcome his support.
    The work carried out by DDSM 15 consists of ordering and purchasing all the necessary spare parts for the American-built aircraft in service with the RAF. That represents 30 per cent. of all the aircraft in service with the RAF and that figure will soon be increased by the Government's decision to order AWACS. Therefore, the decision is vital to the people in my area, and it is also 'vital that we do not take a decision that may he detrimental to the country's defences.
    I want to examine why the unit was placed at Carlisle in the first place. The decision was taken during the 1960s to disperse jobs to areas of high unemployment. The number of unemployed people in my constituency then was half what it is today. When unemployment has doubled in my constituency why in 1987, are we talking about transferring jobs that were brought to the area to reduce unemployment in the first place? It is bad enough that we are talking about it.
    There could be some obscure logic in the proposal it' the Government wanted to transfer the jobs to an area of even higher unemployment. I hope that the Minister is listening to me. The official unemployment rate in my constituency is 10·3 per cent., although I could argue that the real figure is 13 per cent. The jobs are intended to be transferred to Harrogate which is one of the few bright spots for employment in the north of England. Unemployment in that area is at the relatively low level of 6·1 per cent.
    No wonder that my constituents and the people in the surrounding area feel very aggrieved at the Government's decision to take away job opportunities and send them to what my constituents consider to be a much more prosperous area.
    This is not the first time that the Government have considered these proposals. They were considered twice before. As a result of their need to build empires over the years, civil servants have tried to implement the transfer to Harrogate. The first occasion was in 1974 when my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) was the Minister responsible. I have spoken to him and he said that he remembers the case well. There was no justification at the time for the transfers and it was simply a matter of the civil servants wanting everything under one roof. It was also considered by the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) when he was the Minister responsible. Although the right hon. Gentleman cannot recall the matter, I have no doubt that the reason why the proposal was turned down on that occasion was the same:

    1067
    there was no justification for it. The proposal has been turned down by a Labour Government and a Conservative Government.
    When I went to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is the Minister responsible for the proposal, early in November I was concerned to discover that within a week of his taking the decision he was not aware that the proposal had been reviewed by the Conservative Government in 1979. In fact, I had to tell him what had happened. I am worried about how well the Minister was briefed before he was prepared to take the decision.
    I want to consider the consultants' report produced by Peat Marwick McLintock on whose recommendations the Minister is acting. I also want to comment on the letter from the Minister announcing the decision about the transfer. After spending 20 years in industry and 15 years in local government, I have seen many management consultant documents. They were not on the same subject, but the format was the same. The recommendations are usually very scientific. On odd occasions I have witnessed the decisions and comments based on unscientific generalisations and statements similar to those made in this case. Normally statements are not backed up by facts because the clients have insisted that the decision is going ahead. I cannot see why a reputable company such as Peat Marwick McLintock, which considered DDSM 15, should produce such proposals. Indeed, page 19 of the study states:
    "Our study shows there is no significant cost advantages in moving DDSM 15 to Harrogate, the justification is in the non quantifiable benefits."
    It does not refer to any cost benefits. Indeed, if a report such as that went to the board of any major company—I am thinking of a famous supermarket chain—it would go straight into the waste bin because it contains no facts.
    The report says there could be staff reductions of 20 if the transfer goes ahead, but at no point does it say where those job savings would be made. It then says that the transfer could cost £585,000, but that does not take into account the heavy costs involved in early retirement payments that would have to be made before redundancy could be offered.
    In his letter of 19 November, the Minister takes up the theme of financial savings through a reduction of 20 jobs, but says that the transfer costs would not be £585,000 as suggested by the consultants but the much lower figure of £335,000. In fact, the proposed transfer would increase the numbers employed at the unit, according to the consultants, who say
    "A requirement to accommodate 75 DDSM 15 staff at Harrogate could, under the worst assumption, result in additional accommodation."
    The Minister, however, wrote saying:
    "DDSM 15 represents some 70 of the 1,100 staff employed at RAF Carlisle."
    In fact, the figure of 1,100 is wrong because it should be 980. But I agree with the figure of 70. That number are employed at Carlisle. In other words, if they go to Harrogate, according to the consultants, there will be 75 staff. So if there are 70 now and there will be 75, that is not a saving of 20 staff but an increase of five. In other words, the report is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense.
    At present the unit is satisfactorily accommodated at RAF Carlisle. That will be abandoned, even though it is
    1068
    a good building. The consultants talk about additional temporary or semi-permanent accommodation. I think I see the Minister shaking his head in dissent. I assure him that that is what the report claims. The consultants also say that a new office block will be required in the 1990s, and we are only three years away from the 1990s.
    The Minister claims in his letter that there will be no loss of efficiency during the transfer period. In fact, the unit at Carlisle is more efficient now than the unit at Harrogate. The sum of the experience of the people employed at Carlisle amounts to 250 years, much of which will be lost when they refuse to transfer.
    The people employed at the unit in Carlisle are not dealing with civil servants in other parts of the country. They deal in the main with representatives of American aircraft companies. Those personal contacts are vital, and if they are lost the efficiency and ability of the unit to respond will be lost, and that must, for two years, affect the efficiency of the RAF.
    The Minister then talks about a problem of communications. If that was not a problem in 1974, when the matter was reviewed, and it was not a problem in 1979, when it was reviewed again, why now, when we have all the electronic technology at our disposal and better roads, should it be a problem? Much play is made about the 100 miles between Harrogate and Carlisle, but the main communications in this case are between this country and America. Communications between DDSM 15 and suppliers in the USA span a distance of up to 5,000 miles, so why is there such a major problem with a distance of only 100 miles?
    I am sure that the Minister will reconsider the matter. When he does so, he will decide, like his predecessors, that there is no moral reason for the transfer. Is it not immoral to take jobs away from an area that has over 10 per cent. unemployment and give them to another area that has 6 per cent. unemployment? Further, to say that that is being done on the grounds of efficiency, with no care for the effects that it will have on the community, is also immoral.
    No financial saving will be made because, as the report says, five extra staff will be employed. Extra costs will be incurred for accommodation. There is no defence reason for the transfer because it will weaken, for up to two years, the RAF's ability to respond.
    The Minister should come to the same conclusion as the two previous Ministers. They were wise men — it is a seasonable time of the year—and if the Minister takes this decision he could become the third wise man. If he does not, my constituents will think that he is one of the brass monkeys.
    I hope that the Minister will accept that the decision that has been made is wrong and that he will let the people of DDSM 15 get on with doing the job for which they received commendations from the Government during the Falklands war.
    1.36 am
    Sir Hector Monro: I am glad that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) obtained this debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to say something on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), in whose constituency the RAF unit lies.
    I have grave concern about the employees affected by this decision, grave concern about the efficiency of supplies to the RAF of United States' aircraft spares

    1069
    subsequent to this operation, and grave concern that the Peat Marwick McLintock report does not justify the upheaval. I doubt whether savings will be made if the transfer takes place, and the hon. Member for Carlisle highlighted some of the problems.
    I read the executive summary of the consultants' report, and paragraph 46 says that there will be no cost savings. Volume 1, paragraph 9 of the more detailed report says that the move cannot he justified on cost saving factors. Such cost saving factors seem to be the basis of my hon. Friend's decision. Paragraph 45 casts grave aspersions on accommodation at Harrogate.
    The hon. Member for Carlisle highlighted the statement in the report that in the 1990s it is likely that the Government will have to purchase or construct accommodation in the Harrogate area. There are doubts about the availability of married quarters, and the report comments on the present layout of the site at Harrogate.
    The move from Carlisle, where there is space and accommodation, does not seem to be a step towards practical efficiency. It needs much imagination to believe that a possible saving of £250,000 per year can be made in this new, expensive purchase or building programme.
    My hon. Friend is hard pushed to justify the move, and particularly to bring into consideration the distance of 100 miles between Carlisle and Harrogate. Everybody knows that it is only about two hours away by road. Surely with the communications that the hon. Member for Carlisle mentioned, a distance of 100 miles should not come into the argument. It is much more important that we look at what will happen to the people involved.
    My constituency of Dumfries is just north of the border and of the RAF maintenance unit. We do not have an RAF station or an Army depot. The Ministry of Defence is entirely absent except for an outstation and the CAD Longtown station at Eastriggs. However, the loss of any Ministry of Defence jobs is significant and serious. We have suffered two blows in recent months—the DDSM 15 decision that we are discussing and the Royal Ordnance decision to close the factory at Powfoot in the middle of my constituency. It is a double blow to lose 200 jobs in an area of high unemployment when we are looking to the Ministry of Defence to help provide jobs. It is unacceptable that that should happen.
    My right hon. Friends the Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Ayr (Mr. Younger), as Secretaries of State for Defence, have both highlighted the importance of keeping jobs in the north, which is an area of high unemployment, but now we are to lose jobs to an area of much lower unemployment which is further south.
    My hon. Friend the Minister has been good enough to see my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, the hon. Member for Carlisle and me. We have read the Peat Marwick McLintock report, and the case for going to Harrogate is not cast-iron. Too many questions remain unanswered and the report contains too many uncosted suggestions, especially about accommodation. I forecast that there will not be a manpower saving but that we shall have a redistribution of the labour force from Carlisle to Harrogate and nothing towards the efficiency of the unit. As we know, the arrival of the AWACS aircraft in a year or two will add enormously to the amount of spares that will need to be carried at Carlisle. I note from my hon. Friend's letter to Members of Parliament, dated 19 November, that that will not begin until 1989, so my hon. Friend has time to reconsider.
    1070
    In total 70 jobs are involved. My hon. Friend hopes that 20 will be transferred; 24 people are to be made redundant and 26 jobs have a question mark against them. Are they to be lost through natural wastage? What is to happen to the 26 that are not accounted for? Surely, if the move is to take place — I press upon my hon. Friend that it should not happen and that he should change his decision— can he not ensure that the 50 people who might lose their jobs at the maintenance unit at Carlisle are guaranteed jobs in other parts of that large RAF station or at the CAD Longtown station nearby or elsewhere in Ministry of Defence employment in the area?
    It is unacceptable to me that many of my constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and those of the hon. Member for Carlisle should lose their jobs under these circumstances. I ask my hon. Friend to look again because there will be a knock-on effect. What will happen the the MT section or to the signal section. It is really a case of people mattering. The people who will lose their jobs really do matter. I do not think that the Ministry of Defence has considered the constituents of the three Members of Parliament who are present tonight and who are concerned about the future. I ask my hon. Friend to think again and reverse his decision.
    1.43 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) for raising this matter this evening, because the debate gives me the opportunity to explain to the House how my Department is dealing with a matter which is understandably of great concern to the hon. Member for Carlisle and to my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). They have all taken a close interest in this matter and I understand why, because it is of concern to their constituents. The issue is one on which we have to find a proper balance between improving value for money in the use of defence resources and responding to the legitimate concerns of our staff.
    The theme of value for money is central to the Government's approach to the defence budget. We apply it in defence procurement, as we set out in 1983 in an open Government document, through a more commercial approach, greater use of competition at all levels and a broadening of our base of suppliers. We apply it in support, supply and maintenance services by the use of contracting out, privatisation and partnership with private enterprise. We apply it, too, in the management of the Department. The key to success is changing attitudes and developing our management practices. I am sure that the hon. Member for Carlisle will understand that from his own management experience.
    I acknowledge gladly the quality of the staff throughout the Department and it is the responsibility of Ministers and senior management to give the staff the best opportunity to get their jobs done as effectively as possible.
    There are three particular points which I should make clear from the outset. The first is that the proposal to transfer work from Carlisle to Harrogate does not in any way cast doubt on the motivation or performance of the present staff at Carlisle. It arises simply for reasons of

    1071
    efficiency and value for money which are outside their control because they relate to the whole organisation of which they at Carlisle are a part.
    Secondly, the proposal that we are debating tonight relates not to the depot—No. 14 maintenance unit—at RAF Carlisle, but only to the group of supply management staff in the Royal Air Force department who are currently based at the station.
    Thirdly, I have not yet taken any final decision on the proposal, because, in accordance with our normal practice, we are consulting the trade union representatives of the staff concerned about it. I can assure hon. Members that we take those consultations very seriously, and their outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion. The trade union side has asked that the period of consultation be extended so that it can consider its position at a meeting to be held at Carlisle on 14 January. Though we have been happy to accede to that request, it means that I shall not be in a position to reach a final conclusion before the end of January at the earliest.
    Let me briefly explain in the time that is available some of the background to the issue that we are debating. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to the function of DDSM 15 and the fact that it is based at Carlisle, whereas the rest of the supply management organisation is based at Harrogate.
    Mr. Martlew: What will happen to the unit that looks after the Tornado?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
    Mr. Martlew: Is it not the fact that it is being left as it is and is not being brought into the Harrogate unit?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot reply at this moment about the unit to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. One complication is that we have 11 deputy directorates with more numbers attached to them.
    The basic point about the directorate being at Carlisle was originally that they should be located alongside the items for which they were responsible. The RAF supply organisation deals with about 1·7 million separate items of equipment, including complete ranges of items— for example, aircraft spares. The staff at Carlisle are responsible for about 200,000 of those items, most of which are stored at the maintenance unit at Carlisle. However, many other commodities at Carlisle are dealt with by the staff at Harrogate.
    The staff group at Carlisle was set up in the 1960s to source equipment which was to be stored at that unit. At that time, RAF provisioning activity relied heavily on local depot records, so it made sense to put the provisioning staff next to the depot where the stores were kept. In recent years, depot records have become less important as the emphasis has switched to central computer control, and the need to have provisioning staff alongside the depot has largely disappeared. Indeed, the provisioning staff who were based at another depot were transferred to Harrogate some years ago.
    As the hon. Gentleman has said, the transfer is not a new idea. It has been considered on several occasions in the past. What is new in the present situation is that the proposed transfer needs to be seen as part of a much wider
    1072
    reorganisation of RAF supply management, which is being undertaken following a six-month study by a firm of consultants. The object of that reorganisation is to seek better value for money from the RAF provisioning system as a whole. The size of the benefits that we can achieve through this process will be apparent when I say that we estimate that each improvement of 1 per cent. in the efficiency of the purchasing process will save us at least £10 million per annum.
    Clearly, if savings of this magnitude are available, we must do all we can to achieve them. The clear advice we have from the consultants— and it is advice which I would endorse from my own commercial experience—is that the move of DDSM 15 (RAF) to Harrogate, and its fuller integration into the supply management organisation as a whole, has to be seen as an integral part of that process.
    There has been some misunderstanding about the nature of the consultants' recommendations. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and the hon. Member for Carlisle referred to that point. In the course of their study, the consultants had neither the time nor the facilities to produce fully validated costings of every aspect of their proposals for the entire RAF supply management organisation. On the information which was available to them, they believed that the proposed transfer was justifiable on wider management rather than direct cost grounds. We have since been able to look at the proposal in more detail and, as I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and to the hon. Member for Carlisle, we firmly believe that it will provide significant cost savings as well.
    From our developing understanding of the changes required in the RAF supply management organisation, we now know that integration of the DDSM 15 (RAF) staff into the rest of the organisation at Harrogate would allow us to save some 20 service and civilian posts in the organisation as a whole. We therefore estimate that the total annual saving in staff costs will be about £250,000. Obviously, the costs of the move cannot be fully assessed until we know the intentions of the staff at Carlisle, but we have estimated the total cost of the move to be, on pessimistic assumptions, about £335,000—not the larger cost assumed by the consultants, who assumed that there would be far more redundancies.
    It would therefore seem that, leaving aside the important contribution it would make to the wider management benefits that I have mentioned, the move is worth while in itself. As to the timing of the move, this is expected to take place during 1989. The actual timetable will be decided over the next few months when we have a clearer idea of the numbers who are likely to move with the work.
    Although, as I have said, the financial and organisational benefits of the proposed move are substantial, we are following our usual procedures for consultation with the trade unions, and their views will, as always, be given the most careful consideration. If, following the period of consultations with the trade unions, I decide that the move should proceed, we shall be taking steps to discover the preferences of individual members of staff. Of the 62 civilian staff affected by the transfer, eight are in the higher executive officer and executive officer grades, and a mobility obligation forms part of their terms of service.

    1073
    We would also try, so far as possible, to meet the preferences of the 54 staff who do not have any mobility obligation. We understand informally that some members of this group have already indicated an interest in a possible transfer. That is not entirely surprising, because a much wider range of career opportunities is open to these staff at Harrogate than at Carlisle. For those who are unable or unwilling to transfer, we shall be putting into effect the normal arrangements to ensure that they have the opportunity to apply for any Civil Service posts that become vacant in the Carlisle area and at Longtown. We shall also be controlling recruitment to the relevant grades at both Carlisle and Harrogate.
    If, in the event, redundancies were to become necessary, we should certainly look for volunteers in the first instance. We have made it clear that these arrangements would extend to all the staff in the relevant grades at RAF Carlisle, not just to those who happen to be working in DDSM 15 (RAF) at the moment, so as to ensure that the
    1074
    effects of the change would be absorbed in as large a staff group as possible. I hope and believe that, through this range of measures, we would keep the number of compulsory redundancies to the absolute minimum.
    In sum, we see very significant advantages in the proposed transfer. We also recognise the legitimate interests of those of our staff who are affected by this proposal, but, in the circumstances I have described, we do not feel that those interests outweigh the benefits of proceeding with the move. Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong for me to pre-empt the outcome of the discussions that we are due to have with the trade unions, and I shall not be able to make a final decision on those matters until those discussions are complete. In reaching my decision, I am naturally quite willing to consider the points that have been raised this evening and any further representations that hon. Members may wish to make.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Single European Market
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what preparations his Department is making for the advent of the single European market in 1992; and whether he will establish a unit within his Department to study and report on changes in organisation and policy which may be required.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We have recently announced the launching of a national campaign to ensure that British business is aware of the challenge of creating a single Community market and is able to grasp the new opportunities which this will create. The campaign is being organised by a special single market unit within the Department which is working closely with other Government Departments to identify and secure early adoption of the measures needed to remove the remaining barriers.

  Petrol
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information his Department has on the price of four-star petrol at the pump on average(a) in the conurbations and (b) in the small towns and rural areas as at 11 November; what representations he has received from the Petrol Retailers Association on the level of competition in the conurbations and the incidence of petrol retail sites there owned by major oil companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Information on prices in the form requested is not collected by the Department. I understand, however, that certain price information is available in published material such as the Petroleum Times.

  I have received no recent representations directly from the Petrol Retailers Association, although I understand that the association has made representations to the Director General of Fair Trading. I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and from retailers expressing support for the Petrol Retailers Association's views.

  Newspaper Companies (Subsidies)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on other EEC countries subsidies for newspaper companies for(a) postage of newspapers, (b) telecommunications, (c) telexes, (d) telegram costs and (e) telephone rental charges.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No information is available.

  BSC Industries
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, prior to bringing forward privatisation legislation, he will discuss with the British Steel Corporation the possibility of increasing the allocation to BSC Industries from current profits, to assist communities such as Sheffield.

  Mr. Atkins
  BSC (Industry) Ltd. is a subsidiary of the British Steel Corporation, but has been self-supporting since March 1984. The question of its future financial relationship with BSC is a matter for the corporation itself.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he plans to take to improve the international competitiveness of British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  Sustained improvements in competitiveness can be achieved only by industry itself. However, my Department offers a wide range of support and advice to assist in this task. That work is under review, and I hope to make an announcement to the House early in the new year.

  Motor Trade Bill
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce a comprehensive motor trade Bill designed to control the problem of the sale of unroadworthy cars and the altering of car mileages.

  Mr. Maude
  No. However, together with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport I am meeting the Director General of Fair Trading and other interested parties to discuss this problem.

  British Steel (Investment)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what are the current investment programmes at each British Steel Corporation plant; and what are the current and projected costs associated with each project;

  (2) what are the total investment costs at each of the British Steel Corporation's five integrated plants during the last three years;

  (3) what proposals he has received for investment to renew or expand the coke-making capacity at the British Steel Corporation Ravenscraig works.

  Mr. Atkins
  Capital investment by the British Steel Corporation is a matter for the board of BSC within ceilings agreed with the Government on annual expenditure and individual projects.

  Strip Steel
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what is the current loading level for each British Steel Corporation strip mill in Britain;

  (2) what occasions British Steel Corporation forecasts of demand for strip products from 1990–91 have been revised since 1985; and what are the current forecast levels.

  Mr. Atkins
  Those are matters for the board of the corporation.

  Steel Imports
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current level of steel imports into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  For the nine months ended September 1987, United Kingdom imports of steel amounted to £1,236·3 million.

  Source: Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau: United Kingdom Imports of Iron and Steel, September 1987.

  Steel Plants (Closure)
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in the Official Report, for each steel plant closed since 1967 (a) its location, (b) the date on which closure procedures were initiated and (c) the date of closure.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: This information is not readily available. I shall reply to my hon. Friend in writing as soon as possible and place a copy of the reply in the Library of the House.

  British Steel Corporation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total amount of public money spent on the British Steel Corporation from June 1979 to date.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The total net amount of public money provided to the British Steel Corporation since June 1979 is £5,151 million, consisting of subscriptions of capital under section 18 of the Iron and Steel Acts of 1975 and 1982, and regional development grants. No public money has been provided to the corporation since December 1985.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what measures he intends to take to prevent overseas steel and iron companies from buying shares in the proposed privatisation of the British Steel Corporation;

  (2) what measures he will take to prevent overseas firms and institutions from buying shares in the proposed privatisation of the British Steel Corporation.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: We shall consider whether there is a case for restricting foreign ownership, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost to date of the current British Steel Corporation advertising campaign.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: This is a matter for the board of the corporation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hiscocks House, Brent
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to pay an official visit to Hiscocks house on the Stonebridge estate in the London borough of Brent.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Westland plc
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy, before Her Majesty's Government 426
  approve any further public funds for Westland plc, to seek to establish the identity of six nominee companies, with shareholdings in the company, and with addresses in Panama, Uruguay, Spain and Australia; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Religious Education
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received in favour of compulsory morning assembly in schools, in the form of a short religious service or prayers.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations about religious education and assembly in schools.

  Australia
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to seek to visit Australia.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to take up the Australian Prime Minister's invitation to visit Australia during the bicentennial year.

  Clifton on Dunsmore
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Clifton on Dunsmore.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  EC (Food Aid Programme)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the recent report of the Court of Auditors on the EEC's food aid programme; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I wrote to the President of the European Commission on 5 October to express my grave concern over the Court of Auditors' findings. The report is now under discussion in the Council of Ministers.

  European Community
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she intends to submit any proposals to the emergency meeting of the European Council in February about the financial crises facing the Common Market; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on Tuesday 8 December, at columns 167–68, on the outcome of the Copenhagen European Council.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties
  427
  in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  BP Shares
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what form he intends to advertise the Bank of England's buy-back proposals for British Petroleum shares.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Advertisements were placed in the press when details of the scheme were announced, and further publicity will take place, as appropriate, before the scheme closes.

  Banking Act
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the powers in section 23 of the Banking Act will be exercised in relation to European Community countries.

  Mr. Lawson
  The United Kingdom would, of course, fully respect its Community obligations when exercising its discretion to use its powers under section 23 of the Banking Act 1987. The United Kingdom would not use these powers against persons, companies or firms exercising any of their legitimate rights under Community law.

  Golden Shares
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the golden shares held by the Government in each of the privatised industries, giving(a) the expiry date of each of the shares, and (b) the conditions that are attached to each.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The Government hold special shares in the following privatised companies:

  Amersham International

  BAA

  British Aerospace

  British Gas

  British Telecom

  Britoil

  Cable and Wireless

  Enterprise Oil

  Jaguar

  Rolls-Royce

  Sealink

  Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering

  In each case, the rights and restrictions attaching to the special share, including the arrangements for its redemption, are defined in the articles of association of the company concerned.

  Treasury Stock
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of persons holding 2½ per cent. Treasury stock 1975 issued in 1946–47, and the size of the average holding.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: There are approximately 13,400 registered holdings of 2½ per
  428
  cent. Treasury stock 1975 or after with an average size of £35,600. It is impossible without undue cost to distinguish between personal and corporate holdings.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of redemption of 2½ per cent. Treasury stock 1975.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The cost of redemption of 2½ per cent. Treasury stock 1975 or after would be £475 million.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to redeem 2½ per cent. Treasury stock 1975.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: There are no plans to redeem 2½ per cent. Treasury stock 1975 or after.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Occupational Health Service
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress is being made in the setting up of the Civil Service occupational health service.

  Mr. Luce
  The Civil Service occupational health service (OHS) was set up on 23 June 1986. Since then much has been done to create an integrated, more efficient arid more effective organisation. Substantial economies of scale have been secured and the new service is costing about 7 per cent. less per annum than the organisations it replaced. At the same time it is providing a broader range of services to the whole of the Civil Service, many areas of which now have access for the first time to occupational health care. The OHS will continue to develop and maintain high standards of occupational health in the Civil Service.

THE ARTS

  British Library
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has for further construction of the new British library building at St. Pancras when building work on the present stage is completed in 1993.

  Mr. Luce
  I have recently authorised a feasibility study to examine options for the concluding stage of the British Library project, so that a start can be made before the work currently authorised is completed in 1993.

  The feasibility study will be carried out by the Property Services Agency, in conjunction with the British Library and the architects who designed the first phase of the building. Their findings and proposals will be reported to me by mid-1988.

  The object of the study is to draw up a plan for completing the project in a way which meets the key requirements of the library at the minimum additional cost. Those requirements are to concentrate most of the British Library's London-based collections at one location in a controlled pollution-free environment, with greatly improved facilities for readers and staff. Subject to the outcome of the study, the new building will enable the British Library to vacate most of the 19 sites around London where its stock is currently located, and to unite its major services within a single purpose-built building.
  429
  I shall announce further decisions when the feasibility study has been completed.

TRANSPORT

  Tourist Signposting
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of tourist signposting in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Progress with introducing the new white on brown tourist signs in England has generally been good. Signs have been approved for over 2,500 attractions. Many of these signs have now been erected. We expect even more signs will be in place before next summer's tourist season. We are continuing to encourage local authorities where progress has not been as good as elsewhere. Signing in other parts of the United Kingdom is the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  M40
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how his recent review of road scheme assessment criteria, to ensure that appropriate weight is given to leisure traffic, affects the predictions of traffic expected to travel on the proposed 12-mile two-lane section of the M40 motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In the recent review of road scheme assessment, the value of time for leisure trips was increased. This would increase the economic benefits of the M40 scheme. It would not affect the traffic predictions which contain both work and leisure trips transferred from existing roads within the M40 corridor and from the M1/M6 corridor.

  Newspapers (Subsidies)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any information on the subsidies paid for the costs of transporting(a) journalists and (b) newspapers in other EEC countries.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Roads (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will pay an official visit to the Easington constituency to assess conditions on the A1 between Easington and Dishforth and on the A19 between Dishforth and Easington; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We know quite a lot about conditions on the A1 and the A19 north of Dishforth.

  Written answers on 2 December at columns 577–78 give details of the proposed improvements to the A1 between Dishforth and Scotch Corner and the provision of dual carriageways on the last section of the A19-A168 route north of Dishforth. This latter scheme is included in the contract for the new A1/A168 grade-separated interchange for which tenders have now been invited.

  The A1 is a motorway from Scotch Corner to the Easington constituency and the A19 is a dual carriageway from Thirsk northwards. Along these stretches, both roads are considered to be of a satisfactory standard to meet traffic requirements in the forseeable future.

  Passenger Statistics (London)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers were carried on an average day in the latest year for which statistics are available on(a) the London Underground and (b) London buses; what was the comparable figure five years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Passenger journeys on LRT services

  Daily average (million)

  Underground

  Bus

  1982

  1·4

  2·9

  1986–87

  2·1

  3·2

  London Regional Transport
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if the objectives for London Regional Transport laid down by the Secretary of State on 20 July 1984 are still in force;

  (2) what financial objectives he has determined for London Regional Transport; and what other directions of a general character he has made as to the exercise and performance of the functions of London Regional Transport since 1984.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The 1984 objectives cover the financial years 1985–86 to 1987–88. They have not been superseded or supplemented and are still in force.

  Green Park Tube (Fire)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the findings of London Regional Transport's internal inquiry into the fire at Green Park tube station in June and as to the extent to which these have been implemented.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The incident was reported to the Department in accordance with the statute. It is understood that LRT's internal inquiry report made four recommendations, three of which were adopted.

  Motorways (Central Reservations)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made with reviewing the case for emergency crossing points on the central reservations of motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Since June 1985, when the Department issued advice on the treatment of gaps in central reserve safety fences, the number of emergency crossing points (ECPs) has been reduced by 20 per cent., from 1,292 to 1,038. Agreement has been reached with the emergency services to close a further 568 ECPs by the end of March 1989, bringing the overall reduction to 63 per cent. 224 ECPs have been identified as essential, and 246 are still being considered.

  Morpeth Derailment
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has reached any conclusions on the
  431
  recommendations of the railway inspecting officer's report on the derailment that occurred in June 1984 at Morpeth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The inspecting officer's recommendations have been considered very carefully by the British Railways Board and the Government. Action has been taken by the board on the recommendations which called for changes in operating procedures in order to prevent a recurrence of such an accident. The board is also continuing to work towards eliminating the practice of signing on by telephone, and progress on this is being monitored by the Railway Inspectorate.

  The inspecting officer also suggested that powers be introduced to require railway staff to submit to breath, blood or urine tests. There is no evidence that the railways face serious problems of alcohol or drugs abuse. In addition, the board's rule book makes it clear that staff must not report for duty under the influence of alcohol, or of any drug that might impair the proper performance of their duties, and must not consume alcohol or any such drug whilst on duty. The board considers that this continues to provide a better deterrent than could be achieved by taking powers to require railway staff to submit to breath, blood or urine tests. The introduction of testing could imply the acceptability of a certain level of alcohol, by analogy with the breath-alcohol limits set for motorists, which could undermine the board's more stringent disciplinary code. Supervisors are already instructed to call the police in serious cases, and the board reminds staff regularly of their responsibilities and gives advice to managers and supervisors on these matters.

  The Government accept the board's conclusions on this question and do not propose to seek powers to breathalyse train crews. Consultation with other transport industries has also confirmed that there is no clear case for the introduction of such powers for staff with similar responsibilities in those industries.

  There would he advantage, however, in updating the Railway Regulation Act 1842 in order to provide for increases in penalties for offences involving alcohol on the railways, and to extend the provisions to cover offences involving drugs. This would require primary legislation, which we propose should apply to all railways—British Rail, London Regional Transport, and privately owned concerns. We shall seek a suitable opportunity for such legislation in due course.

  London Traffic Control
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he proposes to continue to exercise the London traffic control functions transferred to him by the London Traffic Control System (Transfer) Order 1986.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. The London Residuary Body is terminating, with effect from 31 March 1988, the agency agreement under which it carries out certain London traffic control functions and manages the traffic control system unit; and the local authorities have for the time being been unable to agree joint arrangements for running the traffic control system themselves. The corporation of the city of London has agreed to take over the management of the TCSU from the LRB and provide a similar agency service from 1 April 1988. We propose to lay the necessary order early in the new year and to enter 432
  into an appropriate agency agreement with the city corporation. We are writing to authorities about the proposed arrangements.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department is currently undertaking into the causes of juvenile crime; and when he intends to publish any results.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office research and planning unit and crime prevention unit have extensive and varied programmes of work, much of which may contribute to further knowledge about juvenile crime. Of particular relevance is a review of research on schools, disruptive behaviour and deliquency, due to be published in February 1988; the report of a study of fruit and video machine playing by 10 to 16-year-olds is also intended for publication early next year.

  Firearms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions during each of the past 10 years convictions have been made for abuse of the exemptions under section 14 of the Firearms Act 1968 by persons who have either acquired and misused or acquired and supplied shotguns to third parties not authorised to hold them.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not available.

  Independent Broadcasting Authority
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Government appointees are on the board of the Independent Broadcasting Authority; what are the criteria for the selection; and if he will publish the list of appointees in the Official Report.

  Mr. Renton
  The Broadcasting Act 1981 provides for the members of the IBA, including the chairman and deputy chairman, to be appointed by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, with a view to enabling the authority to continue to fulfil its responsibility for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting matters, wishes to ensure that the members of the authority combine personal distinction with a wide and balanced range of interests and experience. The present membership of the IBA is:

  Lord Thomson of Monifieth, Chairman

  Sir Donald Maitland, Deputy Chairman

  Mr. G. R. Peregrine, Member for Wales

  Professor J. F. Fulton, Member for Northern Ireland

  Mr. J. R. Purvis, Member for Scotland

  Mr. R. A. Grantham, Member

  Mrs. P. Ridley, Member

  Professor A. L. Cullen, Member

  Sir Anthony Jolliffe, Member

  Mr. M. H. Caine, Member

  Lady Popplewell, Member

  Mr. Ranjit Sondhi, Member.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has issued any guidelines to the Independent Broadcasting Authority concerning the production of politically sensitive material; and if he will make a statement.
  433
  Mr. Renton
  The Broadcasting Act 1981 places a duty on the IBA to satisfy itself, as far as possible, that due impartiality is preserved on the part of the persons providing programmes as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy. For this purpose a series of programmes may be considered as a whole. Relevant guidance is contained in the IBA's "Television Programme Guidelines". It is for the IBA, not the Government, to interpret and enforce its statutory obigations.

  Leicestershire Police Force
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present establishment of the Leicestershire police force; and to what extent the force is up to establishment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The authorised police establishment of the Leicestershire constabulary is 1,733 and there is approval for nine supernumerary police posts. On 31 October 1987, the strength of the force was 1,754, which was 12 above the authorised number because recruitment in that month exceeded wastage.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the establishment of the Leicestershire police force was last altered; what proposals he has recently received to alter that establishment; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The last change in the authorised establishment of the Leicestershire constabulary was in July 1982 when six additional police posts were approved, bringing the authorised police establishment up to 1,733. We have not recently received any application to vary that establishment.

  Cwm Clydach Estate
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of south Wales as to the number of occasions on which police officers have been called to deal with incidents at the Cwm Clydach estate and Glyn Coch Farm, Craig-cefri-parc, West Glamorgan, over the last three years; and what has been the total cost to the police force of dealing with such incidents.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of south Wales that since November 1984 the police have been called to five incidents on the Cwm Clydach estate. I further understand that, because the relevant information is not readily available, it is not possible to assess the cost of police attendance at these incidents.

  Nationality
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many forms of registration under the British Nationality Act 1981 have been distributed by the immigration service.

  Mr. Renton
  Fewer than 100. But since the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1 January 1983 about 1 million application forms have been issued by the nationality division.
  434
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will launch an advertising campaign giving details of British nationality by registration on national and regional television;

  (2) what steps he took to monitor the effectiveness of recent advertisements giving details of British nationality by registration (a) in Great Britain and (b) in Manchester before his recent advertising campaign about British nationality;

  (3) what information was available to him on the circulation of the "Manchester A.M." and "Manchester Advertiser" newspapers amongst different ethnic minority groups (a) in Greater Manchester and (b) in the inner city wards of the city of Manchester and the wards in the Stretford constituency.

  Mr. Renton
  We have no plans to initiate further advertising at this late stage. The circulation of local newspapers and the geographical concentration of local ethnic minorities were taken into account in deciding which papers to use for our paid advertising campaigns, but the available information did not distinguish the ethnic minority readership. The response rate in the first round of advertising was assessed in deciding which newspapers to use in the second round.

  Rape
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been convicted of rape since 1970; and how many of these persons have been sentenced to life imprisonment.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on court proceedings for offences of rape is published annually in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales: Supplementary Tables Vols 1 and 2" under offence classification 19. The figures include some offences other than under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 such as aiding and abetting and attempted rape. Figures for proceedings in magistrates' courts and the Crown court are given in tables SI. 1(A) and S2. 1(A): and for the distribution of the lengths of sentences of imprisonment imposed in table S2. 4. Copies are in the Library of the House.

  Indeterminate Sentences
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he intends to seek to make in the law and procedure relating to indeterminate sentences, following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Weekes case.

  Mr. John Patten
  The implications of the judgment of the European Court in the Weekes case are still under consideration.

  Trevi Ministers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of Trevi Ministers in Copenhagen.

  Mr. Hurd
  A meeting of Trevi Ministers was held in Copenhagen on 9 December under the presidency of the Danish Minister of Justice, Mr. Ninn-Hansen. We discussed developments since our previous meeting in Brussels in April including terrorist incidents in a number of member states and successes against terrorist activity.
  435
  We agreed that continued co-operation between countries is the most effective way of countering terrorism and specific successes of such co-operation were reported at the meeting.

  A number of initiatives launched during the United Kingdom presidency have come to fruition. The coming into operation of the secure communication system has enabled a more rapid exchange of a variety of information to take place between member states, including the exchange of details of the theft and discovery of arms and explosives—an item which had been agreed in principle at our previous meeting. I reported on a successful conference of Trevi officials held in London in November on the detection of firearms and explosives especially at airports, which enabled the participants to exchange information on research into new techniques and to assess existing techniques. We also agreed an updated assessment of the terrorist threat to Community countries.

  In other areas of Trevi activity we approved a detailed agreement for developing the network of drug liaison officers outside the countries of the EC for the benefit of Community countries. This is the result of an initiative taken by the United Kingdom last year. I also reported that the conference in London in October had established an international network of co-operation to prevent and deal with football hooliganism.

  Official Secrets Act 1911
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to reform section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

  Mr. Hurd
  As my right hon. Friends, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister have told the House, the Government have had work in hand for some time to find effective, enforceable and reasonable provisions to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. This work is continuing and we intend to bring it to a conclusion later this Session. When the work is complete, we shall lay before Parliament a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for reform of the present law, with a view to early legislation.

  Immigration (European Community)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of the Ministers of the European Community concerned with immigration.

  Mr. Hurd
  The ministers of the states of the European Community concerned with immigration met on 9 December in Copenhagen under the presidency of the Danish Minister of Justice. A representative of the Commission of the European Community attended the meeting. My colleagues and I considered a further report from the ad hoc working group of senior officials which was established last year during the United Kingdom presidency.

  The meeting reaffirmed the importance of the coordination of the visa policies of member states. It was agreed that from 1 March 1988 nationals of 50 countries would require a visa if they wished to enter any country in the Community. It was also agreed that, as a general principle, it was necessary to make a specific individual assessment of such applicants before issuing a visa. There will be consultation between member states about any
  436
  proposal to remove a country from this list. The United Kingdom already requires visas of citizens of these 50 countries. The list includes the five countries to which our visa requirement has been extended since September 1986.

  Ministers instructed officials to study the possibility of further countries being added during 1988 to this common list of those whose citizens required visas, and to study ways of achieving greater co-ordination of the criteria for the grant of visas. We shall consider again at our next meeting the proposal to draw up a parallel list of countries—notably other European countries which have close links with member states of the Community — from whose citizens visas will not be required.

  A major problem facing all member states is the need to deal in a humane and orderly way with applications for asylum from those who apply for asylum in different countries, either at the same time or in sequence. It is necessary to establish clear guidelines to determine which country should examine an application for asylum (the "first country of asylum") both to reduce prolonged periods of uncertainty for applicants and to make it possible to deal more effectively with those applications which clearly fail to meet the requirements of the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees.

  The presidency put before the meeting detailed guidelines drawn up by the ad hoc working group which would be used to determine the country responsible for examining and reaching a decision on any given application. Given that EC countries received more than 150,000 applications for asylum in 1986, it is important to devise an orderly system for dealing with them. There was a wide measure of agreement on the suggested guidelines, and Ministers instructed officials to continue their work so that agreement might be reached at our next meeting under the German presidency in the first half of next year. My colleagues and I endorsed proposals for the regular exchange of information and statistics about policy and procedure in considering applications for asylum and also for the exchange of information about the conditions in the country of origin from which those seeking asylum in the Community have come.

  All those attending the meeting stressed the value of cooperation between Ministers and officials concerned with immigration, and the United Kingdom will continue to play its full part in this work.

  Welsh Language
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any plans to issue Welsh language versions of fixed-penalty notices for road traffic offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The chief constables of the four Welsh police forces have recently completed a review of the practicability of issuing notices in the Welsh language following which arrangements are in hand for Welsh language notices to be offered from early in the new year. I welcome this initiative by the police service in Wales.

  Independent Local Radio
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the development of independent local radio.

  Mr. Hurd
  Our Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunities", published in February, offered the
  437
  prospect of additional radio services at national, local and community level. The new stations would operate alongside existing independent local radio services under a lighter regulatory regime. I hope shortly to be able to announce our conclusions in the light of the consultatives process. New legislation would be required to give effect to proposals for a new framework for radio.

  In the meantime, the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) has suggested that, in the current improved financial climate for independent local radio (ILR), it would be sensible for the authority to resume progress with the development of ILR in accordance with its statutory duties. Of the 69 areas approved in principle for ILR purposes by the Government by 1981, 13 remain unserved. The IBA proposes to advertise new ILR contracts in a form which will invite applications from local groups or existing ILR contractors, and to leave it to applicants to propose whether the new services would be free-standing or involve a link with another station. With a view to keeping these costs to a minimum, the IBA proposes to provide services on a single waveband rather than two, and to review its procedures and technical requirements. Contracts will be offered for the period until December 1994, when the last of the IBA's existing ILR contracts expires.

  The IBA's aim will be to provide an ILR service to at least some of those areas which do not have one at the present. The provision of such services will, of course, be compatible with the opening of further local radio services under new legislation as part of the expansion of radio foreseen in the Green Paper. I have invited the IBA to proceed case by case. The first two contracts to be advertised will be Cambridge and Newmarket and Eastbourne-Hastings.

  Prisoners
  Miss Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners suffering from mental disorders were transferred to hospitals(a) before sentence and (b) after sentence, for the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: The information for 1985 and 1986 is given in the table. Information for earlier years was published in table 3 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 31/85, copies of which are in the Library.

  Persons1 compulsorily admitted to hospital following transfer from Prison Department Establishments in England and Wales under Sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983

  1985

  1986

  Persons subject to special restrictions on discharge:

  Prior to disposal of case

  33

  50

  After sentence

  87

  84

  Persons not subject to special restrictions on discharge, admitted after sentence

  13

  23

  1 Excluding civil prisoners.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 14-year-olds entering detention centres in 1986 had had (i) no previous 438
  court appearances, (ii) one or two previous court appearances, (iii) three to five previous court appearances and (iv) six or more previous court appearances, respectively.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 8 December 1987]: The available information is given in the table:

  Males aged 14 received into Prison Department establishments under detention centre orders; by previous convictions, England and Wales 1986

  Number of previous convictions

  Number of persons

  0

  72

  1 to 2

  148

  3 to 5

  188

  6 and over

  54

  Not recorded

  71

  Total

  533

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 14-year-olds entering detention centres in 1986 had been convicted of (i) crimes of violence, (ii) sexual offences, (iii) robbery, (iv) burglary, (v) theft and (vi) other offences, respectively.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 8 December 1987]: The available information is given in the table.

  Males aged 14 received into Prison Department establishments under detention centre orders; by offence, England and Wales, 1986

  Offence

  Number of persons

  Violence against the person

  45

  Sexual offences

  3

  Burglary

  284

  Robbery

  19

  Theft, handling, fraud, forgery

  117

  Other offences

  65

  Total

  533

  Prisoners (Assisted Visits)
  Mr. Charles Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new arrangements are planned for administering the programme of assisted visits to prisoners; when these changes will come into effect; and if those in receipt of supplementary benefit who are currently eligible for assistance will remain eligible under the new arrangements.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 27 November 1987]: New arrangements are being introduced for the administration of the scheme for assisted visits to prisons by close relatives. A new unit of the Home Office prison department will administer the scheme for England and Wales. Because it would be uneconomic to have a separate unit to administer the scheme for Scotland, the Home Office unit will act as an agent of the Scottish Home and Health Department. For administrative convenience, the new arrangements will begin to operate from 1 March 1988 in respect of visits to inmates in Scotland and from 11 April in respect of visits to inmates in Great Britain as a whole. Applications and payments will be handled by post rather than within DHSS local offices as hitherto. In order to take account of forthcoming changes in the social security system, financial eligibility will be based upon

  439
  entitlement to income support, which replaces supplementary benefit, family credit or a low-income certificate, but apart from this the principal terms and conditions of the scheme will remain the same.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Tourism
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education run tourism-related courses; and what is the number of students involved.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1986, a total of 35 universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education ran tourism-related courses involving 820 students in universities in Great Britain and 5,620 higher education students in polytechnics and colleges in England.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of graduates entering the tourism industry.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1986, a total of 610 first degree graduates entered the category of hotel, catering and leisure management occupations which includes tourism.

  Religious Education
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the extent to which the requirement of the Education Act 1944, for a daily period of religious education to take place in maintained schools, is being observed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There is no requirement in the 1944 Education Act for a daily period of religious education in maintained schools. Section 25(2) of the Act provides that religious instruction shall be given in every county and voluntary school. Section 26 and schedule 5 of the Act require that such instruction in county schools is given in accordance with an agreed syllabus, determined by a conference appointed by the local education authority. The evidence available suggests that a small minority of county schools may not be providing religious instruction in accordance with their locally agreed syllabus. Clauses 6 and 15 of the Education Reform Bill are designed to reinforce the relevant requirements of the 1944 Act.

ENERGY

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has of the relative costs per kilowatt installed of 60 m diameter wind turbine generators compared with 3·5 m rotor diameter equipment.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The installed cost for 3·5 m diameter and similar machines is of the order of £500 per kilowatt. The larger machines of around 60 m diameter are all prototypes and no data are yet available of the installed costs for production-run machines of this size. Part of my Department's wind energy research and development programme is to investigate the optimum size of wind turbine generators for electricity production in this country.
  440
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what experiments are being carried out as to the effectiveness of the Danwin wind turbine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Danwin machine, which is 23 m in diameter and rated at 180 kW, is one of many commercially available machines and is paralleled closely by similar 25 m machines being manufactured by British companies for centralised electricity generation. My Department's research and development programme in wind energy includes investigations of the relative merits of machines of different sizes and types.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what study he has made of the development of windpower in California; and what were his conclusions as to the application to the United Kingdom of the system used in California.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is well aware of the expansion in the use of wind energy for power generation in California over recent years and is following developments there closely. Visits have been made to Californian wind energy sites by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) by officials from my Department and from the Energy Technology Support Unit, including programme managers, and by the chairman of the advisory Wind Energy Steering Committee. In addition, two British manufacturers, who are involved in my Department's wind energy research and development programme, have installed a number of machines in California: we are monitoring their progress.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all Central Electricity Generating Board closed stations, annotating the station's original installed capacity, the year in which it was closed, and its present condition as mothballed, decommissioned, demolished or other status.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter which falls within the management responsibility of the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have asked the chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list Central Electricity Generating Board coal and oil stations whose lives have been extended beyond their planned 40 years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None of the Central Electricity Generating Board's coal and oil stations has been extended beyond its planned life of 40 years.

  Generating Costs
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will provide an itemised account, for the last financial year available, of Central Electricity Generating Board costs of generating electricity from nuclear fuel and coal, itemising fuel costs, capital charges, interest during construction, provision for decommissioning and all other costs, together with the total number of kWhs generated from each fuel, and calculate an average cost per kWh of each fuel.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The latest analysis of comparative generation costs made by the CEGB gave data for
  441
  1983–84. This included an assessment of all costs arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of power stations, before, during and beyond their lifetime. For plant commissioned between 1965 and 1979 the resultant costs, expressed as an average over lifetime and adjusted to March 1987 prices, are as follows:

  p/KWh

  Coal

  Nuclear

  Fuel costs

  2·30

  1·09

  Capital charges (including interest during construction and decommissioning)

  0·48

  1·55

  Other costs

  0·24

  0·40

  Average cost per KWh

  3·02

  3·04

  Total electricity generated (GWh)

  175,117

  31,260

  For the more modern plants at Hinkley Point B and the first stage of the coal-fired station at Drax the average cost on a comparable basis was 2·82 p/KWh and 3·03 p/KWh respectively.

  Hydro Power Schemes
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies his Department has undertaken on the potential for small-scale hydro power schemes of less than 5 MW in Scotland; and if he will list the main conclusions.

  Coal imports through Sunderland by country of consignment

  Thousand tonnes

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Australia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13·6

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  0·5

  0·7

  —

  —

  3·0

  —

  —

  11·0

  Denmark

  —

  —

  —

  0·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  German Democratic Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12·0

  —

  Federal Republic of Germany

  2·0

  8·5

  5·9

  16·1

  19·8

  6·1

  15·4

  10·7

  Netherlands

  5·3

  —

  —

  9·6

  8·8

  —

  47·6

  157·0

  Poland

  —

  —

  —

  16·8

  67·6

  17·0

  10·6

  42·3

  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

  —

  —

  —

  0·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  United States of America

  14·4

  3·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·5

  8·3

  West Africa

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·3

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  22·3

  12·6

  5·9

  43·4

  101·5

  23·1

  88·2

  242·9

  Total may not equal sum of constituents due to rounding.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many oral questions Ministers in his Department have answered(a) orally and (b) in writing in each Session from 1979–80 to date; how many questions for written answer have been so answered over that period; and how many questions tabled for answer in the House of Lords Ministers in his Department have answered over a similar period.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following is the information requested, for both the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which have been drawn from departmental records:
  442
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department of Energy has commissioned a study of the potential of small-scale hydro electricity in the United Kingdom, including Scotland. The work is being carried out by Salford university and is expected to be completed towards the end of 1988.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 576, he will list the countries of origin of the coal imported through Sunderland and the destination of the coal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The countries of consignment of coal imported through Sunderland in each year since 1979 are shown in the following table. The country of consignment is the place from which the coal was dispatched to the United Kingdom and is not necessarily the country in which it was originally mined. I regret that information on the breakdown of coal imports through Sunderland by country of origin or the final destination of these imports is not available.

  House of Commons

  Oral

  Oral/Written

  Written

  1979–80

  258

  1303 (112)

  1,926 (354)

  1980–81

  174

  1257 (66)

  1,012 (196)

  1981–82

  197

  1348 (89)

  1,113 (180)

  1982–83

  162

  1262 (71)

  843 (217)

  1983–84

  251

  1477 (93)

  1,562 (537)

  1984–85

  162

  1564 (119)

  1,286 (468)

  1985–86

  143 (66)

  629 (74)

  1,248 (315)

  1986–87

  62 (30)

  315 (37)

  660 (107)

  1987–88

  33 (19)

  126 (45)

  480 (127)

  House of Lords

  FCO Oral

  FCO Written

  2ODA

  1979–803

  1980–813

  1981–823

  1982–833

  1983–84

  83

  146

  34

  443

  FCO Oral

  FCO Written

  2ODA

  1984–85

  72

  101

  23

  1985–86

  79

  113

  25

  1986–87

  38

  65

  6

  1987–88

  15

  43

  7

  1 Figures for ODA parliamentary questions prior to the Session 1985–86 are not readily available in the form requested and have been compiled from such records that exist. They include all oral parliamentary questions and those which subsequently received a written reply.

  2 Includes both oral and written answers.

  3 Figures are not available.

  African National Congress
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether an invitation was received to attend the African National Congress conference in Tanzania recently.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The high commission at Dar Es Salaam was invited to be represented at the opening session of the conference.

  Polish Citizens (Visas)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of Polish citizens waiting for visas to enter the United Kingdom from Poland and the average length of time taken to process these applications; what special provision has been made to ensure that Polish citizens can visit relations in the United Kingdom during the Christmas period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The British embassy in Warsaw has approximately 1,000 applications awaiting decision, the current average processing time being three to four weeks. However, the embassy is giving priority handling to applications for travel during the Christmas and new year period.

  EI Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To-ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact Her Majesty's ambassador in El Salvador has had with opposition and human rights groups since July.

  Mr. Eggar
  As part of their normal duties, Her Majesty's diplomatic staff accredited to El Salvador maintain regular contact with human rights and other organisations including political parties, trade unions and the Roman Catholic Church.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Cwm Clydach Estate (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any criminal prosecutions have arisen from incidents at the Cwm Clydach estate, Craig-cefri-parc, West Glamorgan, over the last three years.

  The Attorney-General
  Records kept by the Crown Prosecution Service do not enable criminal prosecutions to be identified as emanating from a particular geographical location. The information requested by the hon. Member could not therefore be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Mr. H. A. R. Philby
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make it his policy not to grant an immunity from prosecution to Mr. H. A. R. Philby in the event of his return to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I can foresee no circumstances in which, in the hypothetical event suggested by my hon. Friend, it would be my policy to offer immunity to Mr. Philby.

  Mr. Duncan Campbell
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will seek from the High Court a variation of the injunction of 27 November against Duncan Campbell so that the disclosure or publication of the material or information as defined therein by or to a right hon. or hon. Member shall not be constituted a breach of the order.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will seek from the High Court a variation of the injunction of 27 November against Duncan Campbell so that a fair and accurate report of proceedings in Parliament or of a court sitting in public shall not be constituted a breach of the order.

  The Attorney-General
  I propose to invite the court to take such a course when the matter is next before it.

  Classified Information
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to take steps to seize material relating to GCHQ, the same as that transmitted to Mr. Duncan Campbell by others and the subject of the injunction of 27 November, now in the possession of the hon. Member for Workington.

  The Attorney-General
  The Attorney-General has no powers of seizure.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on prosecution of such right hon. or hon. Members as in the course of their work receive material classified restricted and do not return it to the appropriate authorities;

  (2) what criteria he uses in deciding whether to prosecute under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act such persons as come into the possession of official information classified restricted and do not seek to return it to the appropriate authorities;

  The Attorney-General
  This is a matter not for the Government but for the Crown Prosecution Service and for me. In applying the code for Crown prosecutors to such circumstances account would be taken of all relevant factors.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in Wales.
  445
  Mr. Peter Walker
  At 8 October 1987, unemployment in Wales had fallen in each of the previous 17 months and, at 148,050, was 26,055 lower than a year earlier—a fall of 2·2 percentage points.

  Rates
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many members of Welsh local authorities are not liable to pay rates.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has had any meetings since June with representatives of Nirex in relation to the possibility of dumping nuclear waste in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  There has been no such meeting. Responsibility for identifying and developing a deep site is for Nirex, which should be in a position to make recommendations to Government in about a year's time.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total of council house and flat sales in Wales since May 1979 to the latest available date under both right to buy and voluntary provisions.

  Mr. Grist
  57,152 council houses and flats have been sold in Wales between May 1979 and June 1987.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his answer of 3 December,Official Report, column 654, he will take steps to collect the available information of the proportion of patients attending sexually transmitted diseases clinics in Cardiff that have been tested, and have proved HIV positive.

  Mr. Grist
  No. Numbers of positive HIV antibody tests are reported to the communicable diseases surveillance centre by the relevant microbiologist. Cumulative totals of positive tests by region of report together with totals split by sex within patient characteristics are published quarterly. Shortly, the Government plan to seek Parliament's approval for an amendment to the AIDS (Control) Act 1987 which will require each district health authority to publish in an annual report the number of positive HIV antibody test results for their district.

  Community Physiotherapy Service
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those areas of Gwynedd in which a community physiotherapy service is available and those areas where the only service available is by reference of patients by their doctors to the orthopaedic department of a district general hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  These are matters of operational policy for Gwynedd health authority and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman writes to the district general manager.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing(a) in current terms and (b) in constant money terms, the expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales over each of the past 10 years, indicating the sum within each figure which is represented by nurses' pay.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the table:

  £ million

  Total net expenditure on the National Health Service

  Expenditure on nurses' pay

  Year

  Actual

  1Constant prices

  Actual

  1Constant prices

  1976–77

  306·7

  752·3

  70·6

  173·2

  1977–78

  346·8

  746·9

  77·2

  166·3

  1978–79

  398·0

  774·3

  87·2

  169·7

  1979–80

  465·9

  775·5

  106·6

  177·4

  1980–81

  599·1

  841·2

  150·5

  211·3

  1981–82

  682·9

  873·3

  162·3

  207·5

  1982–83

  751·0

  895·9

  176·6

  210·7

  1983–84

  797·2

  909·1

  185·2

  211·2

  1984–85

  862·0

  941·6

  201·9

  220·5

  1985–86

  920·7

  948·4

  215·0

  221·5

  1986–87

  989·3

  989·3

  235·4

  235·4

  1 Actual expenditure revalued to 1986–87 prices using the GDP deflator·

  Primary Schools (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available additional moneys to improve the staffing ratios in Clwyd primary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: No. While provision for Clwyd's grant-related expenditure has been increasing in real terms with a continuing slow fall in pupil numbers, its primary sector pupil-teacher ratio has been rising. Decisions on staffing levels are for the local education authority and it must decide how to manage its resources.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his reasons for excluding an assessment of, and guidance on, the likely effects of deep psychological trauma on the public and medical personnel on the civil defence plan-making duties of the health authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: I am not aware of any psychological effects of civil defence plan-making.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his reasons for excluding an assessment of the likely effects of the nuclear winter on the civil defence plan-making duties of the health authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: Since the likelihood of the effect known as nuclear winter arising is still a subject of debate, it would not have been right for reference to it to have been included in the circular "Emergency Planning in the NHS: Health Service Responsibilities in Civil Defence".

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to draw up a staged programme of
  447
  implementation of the civil defence duties of health authorities as set out in the circular "Emergency Planning in the National Health Service."

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health authorities have followed the recommendations of his Department in appointing an emergency planning officer.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The Department has not recommended that health authorities appoint emergency planning officers. A health emergency planning officer for Wales, whose remit includes all emergency planning matters, has recently been appointed at the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his estimate of the financial, staffing and resource implications of the circular "Emergency Planning in the National Health Service."

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: As health authorities are already responsible for responding to major incidents, and have in place the arrangements necessary to undertake that responsibility, it is not expected that the circular "Emergency Planning in the NHS: Health Service Responsibilities" will have significant resource implications.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding his Department's circular "Emergency Planning in the National Health Service: Health Service Responsibilities in Civil Defence" issued on 14 September.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: None.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much civil defence grant was paid to each health authority in each of the last five years; and what proportion these sums constituted of the total emergency planning budget of each health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: No civil defence grants are paid to health authorities.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with representatives of the medical professions on the moral and ethical problems associated with the policy of triage after nuclear attack; and when he will issue guidelines on the implementation of triage after nuclear attack.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: I have had no such discussions and have no plans to issue guidelines.

  Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to take steps to ensure that only housing associations based in Wales will receive finance for developing housing in Wales through the approved development programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: I approve the Housing Corporation's development programme on the basis of its meeting specific housing needs and policy priorities. The vast majority of projects receiving funding under the approved development
  448
  programme are undertaken by housing associations based in Wales, but I do not intend that any association should be excluded if it has been identified as the best one to meet a specific need.

  Pre-school Education
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list by local authority the proportion of the total number of under-fives in pre-school education represented by(a) three-year-olds and (h) four-year-olds.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The information in respect of full-time and part-time pupils in all maintained and independent schools as at January 1987, is as follows:

  Percentage

  3 year olds1

  4 year olds1

  Clwyd

  45·7

  54·0

  Dyfed

  33·2

  61·8

  Gwent

  39·3

  5·91

  Gwynedd

  24·2

  73·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  39·2

  53·7

  Powys

  24·2

  75·5

  South Glamorgan

  29·5

  66·0

  West Glamorgan

  44·8

  47·4

  1 Ages as at 31 August 1986.

SCOTLAND

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for unemployment in the Glasgow, Pollock constituency.

  Mr. Lang
  On 8 October 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the Glasgow, Pollock parliamentary constituency was 6,856.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figure for unemployment in manufacturing industry in the Motherwell, North constituency.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on unemployment by industry grouping is not available. However, the total number unemployed in the Motherwell, North constituency in October 1987 was 5,610; this represents a fall of 1,063, or 16 per cent., since October 1986.

  Votes
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of voters in each Scottish constituency on(a) the current electoral register and (b) the recently-compiled draft electoral register.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Number of electors

  Constituency

  1987 electoral register published in February

  11988 draft electoral register

  Aberdeen North

  63,751

  61,714

  Aberdeen South

  63,293

  58,425

  Angus East

  61,597

  61,687

  Argyll and Bute

  49,272

  49,175

  449

  Number of electors

  Constituency

  1987 electoral register published in February

  11988 draft electoral register

  Ayr

  67,224

  66,723

  Banff and Buchan

  62,867

  63,071

  Caithness and Sutherland

  31,519

  30,978

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  57,196

  56,457

  Central Fife

  56,666

  56,267

  Clackmannan

  49,583

  49,071

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  50,824

  49,868

  Clydesdale

  62,429

  62,524

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  46,140

  46,126

  Cunninghame North

  55,544

  55,277

  Cunninghame South

  50,538

  50,210

  Dumbarton

  59,705

  58,859

  Dumfries

  59,992

  59,845

  Dundee East

  61,351

  60,934

  Dundee West

  62,453

  61,331

  Dunfermline East

  51,688

  50,868

  Dunfermline West

  51,581

  51,113

  East Kilbride

  63,998

  63,749

  East Lothian

  65,603

  64,938

  Eastwood

  62,713

  62,877

  Edinburgh Central

  59,757

  57,507

  Edinburgh East

  49,236

  48,142

  Edinburgh Leith

  60,687

  59,220

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  58,649

  58,178

  Edinburgh South

  64,225

  62,988

  Edinburgh West

  62,730

  61,817

  Falkirk East

  53,040

  52,662

  Falkirk West

  50,706

  50,564

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  53,994

  53,486

  Glasgow Cathcart

  49,832

  48,647

  Glasgow Central

  51,562

  50,625

  Glasgow Garscadden

  48,486

  46,861

  Glasgow Govan

  51,151

  49,983

  Glasgow Hillhead

  58,246

  57,254

  Glasgow Maryhill

  52,948

  51,508

  Glasgow Pollok

  52,021

  50,686

  Glasgow Provan

  44,394

  42,677

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  58,075

  56,875

  Glasgow Shettleston

  54,224

  53,589

  Glasgow Springburn

  52,164

  50,116

  Gordon

  74,199

  75,134

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  58,490

  57,031

  Hamilton

  63,155

  63,011

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  67,336

  66,650

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  63,441

  63,037

  Kincardine and Deeside

  64,219

  64,156

  Kirkcaldy

  53,922

  53,742

  Linlithgow

  60,014

  60,218

  Livingston

  57,231

  57,414

  Midlothian

  61,130

  60,700

  Monklands East

  50,406

  50,175

  Monklands West

  51,613

  51,200

  Moray

  62,917

  63,401

  Motherwell North

  58,539

  58,336

  Motherwell South

  52,842

  52,475

  North East Fife

  52,770

  52,023

  North Tayside

  54,464

  54,460

  Orkney and Shetland

  31,332

  31,142

  Paisley North

  50,020

  49,139

  Paisley South

  51,834

  50,389

  Perth and Kinross

  63,965

  63,869

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  56,958

  56,750

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  52,808

  52,174

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  43,646

  43,606

  450

  Number of electors

  Constituency

  1987 electoral register published in February

  11988 draft electoral register

  Stirling

  58,441

  58,600

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  63,579

  63,064

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  38,283

  38,404

  Western Isles

  23,685

  23,093

  Total

  3,994,893

  3,948,865

  1 The figures in this column exclude overseas electors of whom there are approximately 800 in the 1987 register.

  Private Medicine
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total cost to public funds in the current financial year of efforts to expand the private sector of medicine in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Efforts to expand the private sector of medicine are a matter for commercial operators. No public funds are targeted — or have been spent in this financial year — for the purpose set out in the question.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates are availble to him of the number of likely AIDS cases in 1991 in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report of the working party on Health Service implications of HIV infection in Scotland (the Tayler report), which was published in May 1987, projected that the cumulative total of AIDS cases in Scotland by the end of 1991 would be between 725 and 1,251. It also provided a projected best esimate of 557 living AIDS cases in 1991. The working party pointed out, and the Government agree, that the base upon which these projections were made is very limited; and the projections are being kept under review.

  Nuclear Attack (Health Care)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy towards the health care priorities after a nuclear attack in Scotland; and what circular or guidance has been issued on this subject.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The immediate provision of treatment for the sick and injured is the Government's primary health care priority following a nuclear attack. Guidance on the development of a recovery programme for the Health Service after such an attack is given in the Scottish Home and Health Department's circular SHHD/DGM (1987) 41.

  Population Decline
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the economic impact of the expected decline in the Scottish population over the next three decades.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish industry and commerce about the implications of separate English, Welsh and Scottish uniform business rates.

  Mr. Lang
  Representations have been received from a number of bodies about the effects of introducing a separate Scottish uniform business rate on the distribution of the overall rate burden on Scottish business. There are no plans to introduce a separate uniform business rate for Scotland.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of separate uniform business rates in Scotland, England and Wales on the Scottish industrial and commercial sectors; if he will express the estimated Scottish uniform business rate as a percentage of the estimated English uniform business rate in the first year of the simultaneous operation of both; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no plans to introduce a separate uniform business rate for Scotland, and accordingly no such assessment has been made.

  Social Work (Scotland) Act
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department maintains a central record of all applications made under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The returns provided by local authorities show only total expenditure incurred and the number of persons assisted.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Millan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of the estimated outturn figure of £8,220 million for 1987–88 as given in his statement on public expenditure on 9 December,Official Report, column 439, under the same categories of expenditure as used for the other public expenditure figures given in that statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The latest estimate of net outturn for 1987–88 is as follows:

  £ million

  Agriculture

  195

  Industry

  257

  (1) Region

  (2) Number of designated sports stadia with spectator capacity of

  (3) Number of non-designated outdoor sports stadia with spectator capacity of:

  (4) Number of other outdoor sports grounds with spectator capacity of

  10,000+

  5,000–10,000

  10,000+

  5,000+

  Central

  5

  2

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  4

  1

  —

  —

  Grampian

  1

  1

  3

  —

  Highland and Islands

  —

  4

  1

  —

  Lothian and Borders

  4

  14

  —

  —

  452

  £ million

  Tourism

  13

  Transport

  616

  Housing

  699

  Other environmental services

  656

  Law, order and protective services

  621

  Education

  2,131

  Arts and libraries

  85

  Health and social work

  2,686

  Other public services

  117

  Nationalised Industries external financing

  135

  TOTAL

  8,212

  Note: Individual figures do not add up to the total, due to rounding; and the net outturn figure of £8,220 million shown in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement represented a rounding to the nearest £10 million of the estimate at that time.

  A1 (Cockburnspath)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to announce a date for the proposed realignment of the A1 at Cockburnspath.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A start date for the A1 Tower to Dunglass diversion cannot be determined until the outcome of the proposed public local inquiry is known.

  Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the representations he has received about the operation of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 and its subordinate regulations.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have now completed my consideration of the representations I have received, and my response, containing detailed proposals to amend the Act and subordinate legislation, is today being sent to the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland. Copies are also being sent to other bodies which made representations.

  A copy of my response has been placed in the Library.

  Stadiums
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many stadiums with a capacity of at least 5,000 people there are in Scotland; where they are located; and what kind of access the public have for practising sports or athletics.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 December 1987]: The number of stadiums and their location is set out in the table. Information on public access is not available centrally.
  453

  (1) Region

  (2) Number of designated sports stadia with spectator capacity of

  (3) Number of non-designated outdoor sports stadia with spectator capacity of:

  (4) Number of other outdoor sports grounds with spectator capacity of

  10,000+

  5,000–10,000

  10,000+

  5,000+

  Strathclyde

  13

  27

  6

  3

  Tayside

  4

  11

  3

  —

  TOTAL

  32

  60

  13

  3

  Notes:

  1. The sports stadia in column (2) are designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and include 31 Scottish Football League grounds, plus Murrayfield rugby stadium.

  2. Sports grounds in column (4) are grounds where the spectator capacity exceeds 5,000 and where the spectator accommodation does not surround the activity area.

  Schools Inspectorate
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he takes to ensure that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools in Scotland has recent, relevant and successful experience of teaching in(a) primary schools and (b) other sectors which it inspects.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: Good, successful and varied teaching experience is an essential qualification for entry to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools. The work and training programmes of inspectors give each of them continuing experience of the educational process in the classroom and elsewhere, in each of the sectors of education with which they deal. This ensures that they have a thorough knowledge of current learning and teaching practice.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the current programme of staff development for members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: After extensive induction training, the inspectors undertake a phased programme to extend their experience supplemented by courses on current educational issues. In addition, 36 inspectors are currently participating in the Scottish Office senior management development programme.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current number of inspectors in post in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools in Scotland; how many inspectors have teaching qualifications and experience at(a) pre-school, (b) early stages of primary school and (c) colleges of education; and how many members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools have experience of management in higher education.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The information is as follows:

  1. there are 109 inspectors currently in post;

  2. four inspectors have qualifications in pre-school and the early stages of primary school; these inspectors and a number of others have teaching experience in pre-school and the early stages of primary school;

  3. there are no qualifications specifically geared to teaching in colleges of education; 30 inspectors have experience of working at Scottish colleges of education;

  4. 19 inspectors have experience of management in higher education.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make arrangements for more detailed maps than those indicated in the NIREX consultative document, "The Way Forward", to be placed in the Library for those areas indicated as exhibiting geological potential for the possible disposal of nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: This is a matter for NIREX. However, as I indicated to the hon. Gentleman during Scottish Question Time on Wednesday 9 December my officials have drawn your comments to NIREX's attention.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much low and intermediate radioactive waste is produced in National Health Service hospitals in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: Virtually all the waste from the use of radioactive substances in medical practice consists of low or very low-level material, which is disposed of either locally, as it arises, or via the national disposal service. Details of such disposals are kept by health boards but are not held centrally. Any waste not suitable for disposal, including the very small quantities of intermediate level waste in the form of redundant radioactive sources, is stored; the amount is included in the national waste inventory published in the annual reports of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, which are available in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what change is proposed for the 1987–88 running cost limit for his Department.

  Mr. Younger
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the 1987–88 running costs limit for the Ministry of Defence will be increased by £75,000,000 (or about 1 per cent. above the current provision) from £5,113,259,000 to £5,188,259,000. This increase arises from a number of factors including increased civilian redundancies arising from contractorisation, adverse fluctuations in exchange rates, increased forces' travel; and increased expenditure on maintenance of the defence estate. The revised limit also takes account
  455
  of the transfer to £58,000 to the Treasury Solicitor's Department for work arising from the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The increases in running costs will be met by the defence budget and there will be no increase in public expenditure.

  Armed Forces (Fines)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose the money paid in fines by members of the armed forces is used.

  Mr. Freeman
  The money is appropriated in aid of defence Votes.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to the answer of 9 July, he will give for the 81 fines imposed by courts martial for 1985 and for the 46 fines imposed in 1986, the amount of the smallest, the largest and the median fine imposed for each category of offence.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will carry out a sample survey in order to estimate for(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Marines the annual number of fines summarily imposed by commanding officers; and if he will categorise the fines according to the nature of the offence and whether the fine falls into one of the following categories: (i) up to £100, (ii) £101 to £250, (iii) £250 to £500 and (iv) over £500.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of summary awards in 1986 for which a fine was the most serious punishment, together with the category of offence involved, are already known. Details are as follows:

  Numbers

  Army

  Total

  1,889

  Offences against person (excluding sexual)

  76

  Sexual offences

  0

  Drug offences

  1

  Offences against property

  102

  Desertion and AWOL

  175

  Drunkenness

  196

  Other offences against discipline

  1,264

  Other offences

  75

  Royal Air Force

  Total

  2,706

  Disloyalty/Security offences

  23

  Violence

  165

  Sexual offences

  4

  Drug offences

  3

  Criminal damage/negligent damage

  139

  Theft

  74

  Fraud

  144

  Desertion/AWOL

  84

  Drunkenness

  222

  Disciplinary

  1,317

  Driving and motor vehicle offences

  509

  Other offences

  22

  Royal Marines

  Total

  622

  Disloyalty/security offences

  3

  Violence

  28

  Sexual offences

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  Criminal damage/negligent damage

  52

  456

  Numbers

  Theft

  5

  Fraud

  5

  Desertion/AWOL

  42

  Drunkenness

  21

  Disciplinary

  414

  Driving and motor vehicle offences

  22

  Other offences

  30

  Categorisation by size of fine could only be achieved at disproportionate cost.

  Bullying
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 9 December, if he will categorise the action that was taken regarding the 89 cases of alleged bullying that were referred to his Department during 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  The 89 cases were referred to the Ministry of Defence during 1986 and 1987. All of these allegations were investigated. A total of 32 cases were substantiated, 40 were not substantiated and 17 are still under investigation. Of the 32 allegations substantiated, courts martial relating to nine of the cases are still pending or incomplete, one case resulted in an acquittal, and 11 resulted in convictions. Eleven cases were dealt with summarily.

  Contracts
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contractual restriction prevents or inhibits defence contractors complaining publicly or to any third party about the treatment they have received from his Department; and whether any change in contractual terms to this effect is planned.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Defence contractors are able to discuss with officials of my Department to the appropriate level any complaints that they may have about the treatment they have received. Any dispute or difference between the parties is normally resolved by negotiation. However, if this is not possible our contracts include a provision which enables either party to refer the case to arbitration. Few such references are made. There are standard conditions of contract which preclude disclosure by the contractor of the contract or its provisions to third parties without my Department's consent. No changes are planned.

  Exercise Mallet Blow
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence until what time night air activity was authorised during Exercise Mallet Blow 87–3.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low-flying activity within the Mallet Blow 87–3 exercise area was planned to end by 21.10 hours, although, in the event, all exercise activity was completed by 17.30 hours.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the latest time of day up to which exercise activity was permitted during Mallet Blow exercise since 1978.

  Mr. Freeman
  For all Mallet Blow exercises up to and including Mallet Blow 87–2, low-flying activity within the exercise area was planned to end by 17.30 hours.
  457
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to increase or decrease the night flying element of future Mallet Blow exercises.

  Mr. Freeman
  There has never been any night flying, that is flying between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, in Mallet Blow exercises, nor are there plans for any in future Mallet Blow exercises.

  Jaguar Crash (Roxburghshire)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is yet in a position to publish the findings of the board of inquiry into the reasons for the Jaguar crash in Roxburghshire last November.

  Mr. Freeman
  I expect to do so shortly.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sports Governing Bodies (Grants)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant changes, in percentage terms and real terms, have been made to sports governing bodies in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Sports Council grant-aided sports governing bodies and related organisations to the tune of £8·293 million in 1986–87 and £9·045 million in 1987–88. This represents a percentage increase of 9·1 per cent. and a real increase of 4·6 per cent. between the two years. Details of the grants given to each sport are provided in the Sports Council's annual report. The report for 1986–87 will be placed in the Library shortly. More detailed and up-to-date information is available from the Sports Council.

  I recently announced an increase of nearly £2 million in the Sports Council's grant-in-aid for 1988–89, to a total of £38·8 million. It is for the Sports Council to decide how much of these increased resources will go to governing bodies next year.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 8 December, if he will detail the number of council house and flat sales by each London borough in each 12-month period from 1 April 1982 to 31 March 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  The number of sales reported by each authority in the financial years 1985–86 and 1986–87 appear in the table placed in the Library on 11 December in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). The corresponding table covering the earlier years was placed in the Library on 26 May, since then the 1984–85 figures for Brent and Tower Hamlets have been raised to, respectively, 246 and, right to buy sales only, 144.

  I regret that in my answer of 8 December at column 275, the total sales for Southwark was incorrect and should have been 1,545.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations have taken place 458
  regarding the payment of local government taxation by central Government Departments after a national non-domestic rate has been introduced; and when he expects to announce a decision.

  Mr. Howard
  We anticipate that contributions in aid of rates in respect of Crown property should continue to be paid broadly as at present, at the national non-domestic rate poundage. Consultations with local authority associations have proceeded on that assumption.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the numbers of 18 to 25-year-olds gaining and losing given amounts, in pound sterling per week, with the full replacement of rates by community charge, on a similar basis to table J.8 in Cmnd. 9714, but based on individuals rather than tax units.

  Mr. Howard
  It is not possible to make these comparisons on an individual rather than on a householder tax unit basis. The family expenditure survey, on which our estimates are based, collects information for tax units and households only and the rate rebate system similarly calculates entitlements on a tax unit basis.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, pursuant to his answer of 16 November,Official Report, column 420, the income after tax of £75 per week referred to in his answer includes state benefit.

  Mr. Howard
  Yes. For a full explanation I refer the hon. Member to page 103 of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714).

  Mr. Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give an estimate of the community charge for 1988–89 for the borough of Thamesdown equivalent to the rate-cap limit of £51·10p, announced on 9 December.

  Mr. Howard
  It is necessary to have information about the spending of all local authorities in an area before community charge figures can be produced. We shall be able to calculate illustrative figures for 1988–89 next spring when information on budgeted expenditure for all authorities is available.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps, in the light of the information given in the answer of 12 November to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on the difference between the contribution to local taxation of the highest and lowest paid,Official Report, column 190, to correct the figure given in his publication "Paying For Local Government."

  Mr. Howard
  No. Both figures are correct. Under the new system, the 10 per cent. of households with the highest net incomes would pay six times as much in community charges, after rebate, as the 10 per cent. of households with the lowest net incomes; in all, they would pay 16 times as much towards the cost of local services, including contributions via the grant system from national taxation.

  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the changes made by the Government in their proposals for a community charge to replace domestic rates between 11 June and the First Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill.
  459
  Mr. Howard
  Since 11 June we have announced new transitional arrangements and a special measure to protect the confidentiality of battered wives' and political refugees addresses. There have been no major changes to the community charge policy.

  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that those who will be entitled to 80 per cent. rebates of the proposed community charge will receive comparable rebates for their water rates.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. Assistance towards water charges will be subsumed in the basic personal rates of the new income support structure to be introduced next year.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will estimate(a) the average community charge payment for Britain as a whole and (b) the average water charge payment or water rate payment.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: In 1987–88 I have estimated that the average community charge in England would have been £224. The average household bill for water and sewerage is estimated to be £97. The figures for Scotland and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends. It is not sensible to average the figure for England and Wales and for Scotland because of differences in the charging structure for water supply and sewerage services.

  Protected Species
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those species recommended by the Nature Conservancy Council in 1986 for inclusion in schedules 5 and 8 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which he has decided not to include; if he will give his reasons for rejecting its advice; and in the case of those species, if he will list those organisations which made representations for them to be listed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The species recommended by the Nature Conservancy Council and which have not been included in schedule 5 are the adder (vipera beris), allis shad (alosa alosa), basking shark (cetorhirius maximus) freshwater pearl mussel (margaritefera margaritefera) and 22 species of British butterflies (rhopalocera).

  As I informed the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on Tuesday 8 December the Secretary of State is currently giving further careful consideration to the case for these species.

  Those making representations against the NCC recommendations included some local and statutory authorities and fishing interests in Scotland.

  My right hon. Friend has accepted all the recommendations made in respect of plants to be listed in schedule 8.

  Water
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the capital investment programme of each water authority in England and Wales to meet the requirements of the European Economic Community directive on the quality of bathing water.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have recently received information from the water authorities about their capital investment 460
  programmes for schemes related to the improvement of coastal bathing water quality. The returns are being analysed and will provide the basis of discussions with the authorities concerned.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be in a position to list the capital investment programme of each water authority in England and Wales to meet the requirements of the European Economic Community directive on the quality of drinking water, as recently interpreted.

  Mr. Moynihan
  It is difficult to distinguish expenditure required to comply with the directive from the substantial on-going programme of asset renewal. However, we will be reviewing the investment programmes of water authorities in the light of my right hon. Friend's statement of 2 December.

  Water Research Centre
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy that the Water Research Centre continues to support the water industry as a whole;

  (2) what is his intention on the extent to which the Water Research Centre should receive support from public funds after the water utilities are privatised.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The manner in which water undertakings support the Water Research Centre is in the first instance a matter for them, and for the centre itself. However, in the consultation paper "The National Rivers Authority" published in July 1987, the Government stated that when the water industry was restructured the Government would expect the Water Research Centre to continue to be an attractive research contractor for the Government themselves, for the utility companies and for the National Rivers Authority.

  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how it is intended that the research activities of the Water Research Centre will be funded after the utilities are privatised; to whom the results will be made available; and on what terms.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to his question on 10 December 1987, at column 275. The Water Research Centre currently derives its income from subscriptions and contracts, with contract income an increasing proportion in recent years. The future balance is among the issues being considered by the managers and members of the Water Research Centre and by the council. The policy of making the results of publicly funded research generally available will not change.

  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who are currently the directors of the Water Research Centre; what income it receives from public funds; and if he will place in the Library a copy of its memorandum and articles.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The directors of the Water Research Centre are the members of its council. They do not receive remuneration for their work on the council other than expenses allowable under clause 4 of the memorandum of association. I am arranging for copies of the memorandum and articles of association to be placed in the Library, together with copies of the Water Research Centre annual review, which contains a list of council members.

EMPLOYMENT

  Community Programme and Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the structure of the merged job training scheme and community programme.

  Mr. Fowler
  I have received a number of representations about the new adult training programme which I announced on 18 November and I am currently awaiting the comments of the Manpower Services Commission.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from employers on the community programme and the job training scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  We have received a number of representations from managing agents and other employers about the operation of the community programme and the new job training scheme.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to receive comments on the job training scheme/community programme from the Manpower Services Commission.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Manpower Services Commission for its detailed proposals by 15 January.

  YTS
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to how many people in the borough of Southwark have obtained jobs during or immediately following their period on a YTS scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  54 per cent. of young people who left YTS schemes in the borough of Southwark between April 1986 and June 1987 were in jobs when surveyed several months later.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what basis the transitional allowance has been calculated for the YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  The proposed YTS bridging allowance is designed to provide short-term payments for young people who have to wait for a few weeks for a YTS place after leaving a job or a previous YTS place. The allowance will be paid for a maximum of eight weeks, during which time the offer of a YTS place will be made. The allowance will be set initially at £15 per week — more than twice the level of child benefit.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people currently on the YTS have employed status.

  Mr. Cope
  Manpower Services Commission records show that at the end of September 1987 there were 46,900 young people on YTS with contracts of employment. This represents 11 per cent. of the total number of young people on YTS. The Government hope that still more employers will place their young employees on YTS for the quality training which the scheme provides.
  462
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the proportion of YTS trainees obtaining jobs at the end of their training period.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission conducts regular follow-up surveys of all young people leaving YTS. The latest results cover those leaving during the period April 1986 to June 1987 and show that for Great Britain 72 per cent. of those who completed their entitlement to training were in a job at the time of the surveys.

  This is welcome news as is the fact that many employers are placing their young employees on YTS for the high quality training which the scheme provides.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of YTS places unfilled at present.

  Mr. Cope
  It is estimated that 172,000 YTS places were unfilled on 31 October 1987.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the two-year YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  At the end of October 1987 there were some 431,000 young people receiving high quality training on YTS schemes, the highest figure ever for the programme. The latest information on those young people leaving YTS between April 1986 and June 1987 shows that 74 per cent. were going into work or further education and training.

  This is welcome news as is the fact that many employers are placing their young employees on YTS for the training which the scheme provides.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places on YTS schemes on Merseyside he plans for 1988–89.

  Mr. Cope
  21,645 YTS places are planned on Merseyside for 1988–89.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage of young people who have failed to complete the youth training scheme since the introduction of two-year YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  Some 765,400 young people started YTS schemes between April 1986 and October 1987. Of this number, 326,200 young people had left their scheme more than four weeks before their expected completion date. This represents 43 per cent. of those who have started the two-year YTS. Of those who left YTS early, 66 per cent. left to go into a job or on to another YTS scheme.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest statistics for YTS participants gaining employment at the end of their courses.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission conducts regular follow-up surveys of all young people leaving YTS. The latest results cover those leaving during the period April 1986 to June 1987 and show that for Great Britain 72 per cent. of those who completed their entitlement to training were in a job at the time of the surveys.

  Labour Statistics
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in the Greater Manchester area.

  Mr. Lee
  On 8 October 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the Greater Manchester metropolitan county, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed, was 13·2 per cent.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of youth unemployment in Tyne and Wear.

  Mr. Lee
  On 8 October 1987, the number of unemployed claimants aged 18 in the county of Tyne and Wear was 4,670. Figures of the number of employees under 18 years needed to calculate an unemployment rate are not available.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside over the past 12 months; and what has been the comparable position in the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of unemployed claimants in Yorkshire and Humberside has fallen by 44,500 since October 1986. The comparable fall in the United Kingdom as a whole was 485,800.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the fall in the numbers of unemployed in the west midlands in 1987 to date.

  Mr. Lee
  On 8 October 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the west midlands region, adjusted for seasonality and excluding school leavers, was 278,300, a fall of 47,000 since January 1987.

  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the fall in numbers of unemployed in the east midlands from June 1983 to date.

  Mr. Lee
  On 8 October 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the east midlands region adjusted for seasonality and excluding school leavers was 169,000, a fall of 7,100 since June 1983.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the fall in the numbers of unemployed in the north-west region from June 1983 to date.

  Mr. Lee
  On 8 October 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the north-west region, adjusted for seasonality and excluding school leavers, was 372,100, a fall of 37,600 since June 1983.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the fall in unemployment in the 18 to 25-year-old age group since January 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  On 8 October 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the 18 to 25 age group in the United Kingdom was 783,849. A fall of 186,702 since January 1987. This change will be affected by seasonal factors.
  464
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to deal with the high unemployment rate amongst young black males.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government's sound financial and economic policies are bringing new job opportunities to all sections of our community. Since March 1983 the number of jobs has grown by over 1,300,000 and unemployment over the last 16 months has fallen by almost half a million. In addition, we are offering individual unemployed people, irrespective of their racial origin, positive help towards employment and training measures, on which we are spending some £3 billion this year.

  However, we recognise that unemployment rates for ethnic minority groups are generally higher than for white groups with similar charactistics. It is against that background that the DE group implements a policy of ensuring access to programmes and services are open and available to all regardless of racial orgin. Additional help to ethnic minority job seekers includes outreach and caseload approaches by specially appointed jobcentre staff in inner-city offices.

  My Department's race relations employment advisory service continues to give help and guidance to employers and others on issues concerned with equality of treatment both in regards to access to work and progression within employment.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current state of employment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  In June 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 24,904,000 people in the employed labour force in the United Kingdom. This represents an increase of 1,352,000 since March 1983. The figures are adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies were registered with job centres in November 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not yet available. The number of vacancies notified to jobcentres between 7 November 1987 and 4 December 1987 will be available on 14 January 1988.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest trends in the number of vacancies reported to jobcentres.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of new vacancies notified to jobcentres in the United Kingdom increased by 7 per cent. over the past 12 months to reach 235,900 in the month ending October, the highest figure since the current series began in 1980.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which regions are showing the greatest fall in youth unemployment.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the number of unemployed claimants under 18 years of age at 9 October 1986 and at 8 October 1987 respectively, together with the change over the year, expressed numerically and as a percentage.
  465

  Region

  Unemployed claimants under 18 years

  October 1986

  October 1987

  Change

  Percentage change

  South East

  34,329

  21,451

  -12,878

  -37·5

  South West

  9,954

  6,598

  -3,356

  -33·7

  East Anglia

  4,498

  2,991

  -1,507

  -33·5

  East Midlands

  11,511

  8,044

  -3,467

  -30·1

  West Midlands

  20,406

  14,543

  -5,863

  -28·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  22,573

  16,402

  -6,171

  -27·3

  North West

  25,900

  19,260

  -6,640

  -25·6

  Wales

  10,667

  7,970

  -2,697

  -25·3

  Northern

  13,374

  10,408

  -2,966

  -22·2

  Scotland

  27,368

  22,157

  -5,211

  -19·0

  Northern Ireland

  5,940

  4,995

  - 945

  -15·9

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional action he is taking to improve unemployment in the area of the Dearne valley.

  Mr. Lee
  All my Department's employment, training and enterprise measures are already available in the Dearne valley. Although unemployment in the area remains too high, we have been encouraged by its continuing fall in recent months. In the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area, unemployment has fallen by over 2,750 in the last year.

  Restart Programme
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of the restart interview programme.

  Mr. Lee
  Since April this year some 1·3 million people have been interviewed under the restart programme. A total of 2·6 million people have been interviewed since the start of the programme in July 1986.

  Since the programme began, a positive offer that might lead to employment has been made to nine out of ten of those interviewed. As from April next year, we shall be issuing a questionnaire to all those invited for their restart interview both to enhance the effectiveness of the restart process and to help establish that those interviewed remain available for work.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of offers of training are taken up by those interviewed on the restart programme.

  Mr. Lee
  Since the national introduction of the restart programme, 331,000 people have received offers of training during restart interviews.

  We do not know how many of those interviewed are ultimately placed on a training programme.

  Inner-City Initiative
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution his Department has made to the Government's inner-city initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution his Department is making to inner-cities initiatives.

  Mr. Cope
  This Department and the Manpower Services Commission make a substantial contribution to Government inner-city policies through our wide range of employment, training and enterprise programmes. It is 466
  estimated that expenditure by this Department and the commission in urban programme authorities exceeds £1·1 billion.

  Tourism
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many overseas visitors came to the United Kingdom in the first six months of 1987; and how this figure compares with the figure for the first six months of 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  6,790,000 overseas visitors came to the United Kingdom in the first six months of 1987, an increase of nearly 16 per cent. of the 5,872,000 who visited in the same period in 1986.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the amount of money spent by overseas visitors on British carriers.

  Mr. Lee
  Spending by overseas visitors on fares with United Kingdom carriers was approximately £1,300 million in 1986.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to encourage the improvement of the presentation of tourism sites.

  Mr. Lee
  As the Minister responsible for tourism I have taken every opportunity to encourage the highest possible standards for all tourism facilities. Proper attention to presentation and quality are essential to the success of every tourism business. The English Tourist Board is similarly encouraging the industry to improve its product through its marketing and advisory services and its section 4 scheme of financial assistance.

  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if there are any plans to create a national tourism day or week; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I am considering a number of ideas for raising the profile of the tourism industry. I have no specific plans in this area at present.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has regarding the number of overseas visitors to York in 1986 and their expenditure.

  Mr. Lee
  Such information is not available. However, I understand that a study of tourism in Yorkshire is currently being undertaken by York university which is expected to provide specific information on individual tourism spending by town.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has regarding cooperation agreements for tourism between Britain and other countries.

  Mr. Lee
  The United Kingdom Government have no formal agreements for tourism co-operation with other countries. The British Tourist Authority does from time to time enter into practical agreements with national tourist organisations of other countries, to promote and develop bilateral tourism.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest information he has on the percentage of total employment accounted for by the tourism industry.
  467
  Mr. Lee
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on 20 November 1987 at column 508.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to encourage the tourism industry to he aware of the need to have a wide spread of markets.

  Mr. Lee
  Both my Department and the English Tourist Board are actively working to encourage the industry to invest in a range of new and improved facilities and attractions to appeal to all sectors of the domestic and overseas tourism market. The English Tourist Board's development and marketing strategy "A Vision for England" identifies the key developments necessary to encourage and promote the market appeal of England as a tourist destination.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to ensure that the Channel tunnel stimulates tourist traffic throughout the whole of Britain.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department is represented on the British Tourist Authority's Channel tunnel national tourism working party which is studying the tunnel's implications for tourism and identifying how best to exploit its tourism potential to the benefit of the whole country.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of people at present employed in the tourist industry; and what was the corresponding figure for 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest estimate of employees in employment in the industries most directly related to tourism relates to June 1987 when there were approximately 1·4 million employees. The corresponding figure for June 1979 was 1·2 million. These figures exclude the self-employed in tourism-related industries, for whom comparable estimates are not available.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage tourists to visit industrial sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The success of those companies which have marketed themselves as tourism attractions in addition to their main manufacturing activities demonstrates that industry possesses considerable potential for tourism development. I have referred to the opportunities for further exploiting this potential in a number of recent speeches. In addition, I shall be meeting the president of the CBI, Sir David Nickson, in the new year to discuss this issue.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the provision of all-weather leisure facilities for tourists in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  The national tourist boards are encouraging the development of all-weather leisure facilities in order to help extend the tourist season, increase employment opportunities and to help spread the benefits of tourism throughout the country.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are(a) his Department and (b) the Manpower Services Commission doing to encourage the training of employees in the tourist industry; and if he will make a statement.
  468
  Mr. Lee
  As sponsors of the tourism industry, my Department takes every opportunity to promote training in this important sector. In particular, through the Manpower Services Commission (MSC) we are supporting training through a wide range of youth and adult programmes. I also recently launched a conference of representatives from the tourism industry which considered the training needs of employees in the tourism industry. Following this conference, the MSC has undertaken to work with the industry in looking at how training and qualification for this sector can be further developed.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on Britain's position in the world in terms of international tourism earnings.

  Mr. Lee
  In 1986 the United Kingdom's earnings from international tourism were about 6 per cent. of the total world tourism earnings and 11 per cent. of Europe's tourism earnings. Compared with other individual countries, the United Kingdom's earnings from tourism were the fourth highest in Europe and the fifth highest of OECD countries.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has regarding new overseas marketing initiatives proposed by the British tourist authority.

  Mr. Lee
  The British Tourist Authority has recently drawn up its marketing plan for 1988 which contains a number of marketing initiatives. These are designed to meet the Government's objectives of spreading the benefits of tourism throughout Great Britain, particularly to those areas of unexploited tourism potential, encouraging the development of tourism during the off-peak months.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to encourage major institutions such as pension funds, insurance companies and building societies to invest in tourism projects.

  Mr. Lee
  I have had informal meetings with representatives of financial institutions in order to draw their attention to the good investment opportunities offered by the tourism and leisure industry. I have also highlighted these opportunities in the many contacts which I have had with different sectors of the industry. The English Tourist Board has also had discussions with a wide range of financial institutions in order to encourage financial backing for tourism and leisure projects. More recently, the board gave a presentation of its new development strategy "A Vision for England" in London which was aimed specifically at the City financial institutions.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will be encouraging the opening of more tourist information centres on motorway service areas similar to the one recently opened at the Forton motorway service area on the M6 in Cumbria.

  Mr. Lee
  As Minister responsible for tourism I was pleased to open the Forton tourist information centre in July. I understand also that in addition to the six currently operating, the English Tourist Board has plans to encourage the opening of other tourist information centres in motorway service areas on the M11, the M2.5 and the A1(M).
  469
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in tourism industry jobs between 1979 and 1987; and what percentage of these jobs are part-time.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of employees in employment in the industries most directly related to tourism increased by 200,000, or 17 per cent., between June 1979 and June 1987 to a level of 1·4 million. Of these 1·4 million jobs, approximately 54 per cent. are part-time. All of these figures exclude the self-employed in tourism-related industries for whom comparable estimates are not available.

  Community Programme
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the numbers of people, as a proportion of the work force, in north-west Durham who are employed on the community programme.

  Mr. Lee
  It is not possible to give the information in the precise form requested. The "denominator" figure for the county of Durham in mid-1986, the latest date for which figures are available, is 229,708. On 30 October 1987 there were 6,036 filled places on the community programme in the county of Durham of which 1,288 were in north-west Durham.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for the future of the community programme.

  Mr. Fowler
  I announced on 18 November that I propose to bring together existing programmes for unemployed adults, including the community programme, into a new adult training programme. I have asked the Manpower Services Commission for its comments on the detailed arrangements for the new programme and proposals for introducing it from September next year.

  Community Newspaper
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the Manpower Services Commission's policy on the funding of community newspapers.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no separate instructions for the funding of community newspapers under the community programme. All proposals for funding of projects to be run under the community programme must satisfy the normal rules of the programme and have the approval of either the local area manpower board or local officials of the Manpower Services Commission with delegated responsibility.

  Black Economy
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning employment in the black economy.

  Mr. Cope
  My Department has received a number of representations, both from organisations and individuals, suggesting ways in which these working in the black economy might be detected and also ways in which these working in the black economy might be encouraged to join the open economy.

  Maternity Leave (Job Security)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to seek to discover how many women since 1981 have been refused the right to return to their job after maternity leave under section 12 of the Employment Act 1980.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Employment Protection Act
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have benefited from the insolvency provisions of the Employment Protection Act in Birmingham during the latest period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available for Birmingham. However, the midlands regional finance office of the Department has made payments to 9,623 people in the first eight months of the current financial year.

  Jobcentres (Vacancies)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of job vacancies registered at jobcentres in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Lee
  On 2 October 1987, the number of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres in the counties of North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire was 15,547.

  Hotel Developments (British Business)
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of goods, services and labour in new hotel developments are provided by British business.

  Mr. Lee
  No precise figures are available but estimates suggest that some 80 per cent. of the value of construction of new hotels in Britain is undertaken by British businesses.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs have been created since June 1983.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job gains and job losses. Between June 1983 and June 1987 (the latest date for which figures are available) the employed labour force in Great Britain increased by 1,321,000. The figure has been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what regional variations there are in the rate of reduction of long-term unemployment.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the number of unemployed claimants who have been unemployed for over one year at 9 October 1986 and at 8 October 1987, together with the change over the year, expressed numerically and as a percentage.
  471

  Claimants unemployed for over one year

  Region

  October 1986

  October 1987

  Change

  Percentage Change

  South East

  283,303

  242,732

  -40,571

  -14·3

  East Anglia

  28,223

  23,584

  -4,639

  -16·4

  South West

  68,843

  57,563

  -11,280

  -16·4

  West Midlands

  161,417

  136,272

  -25,145

  -15·6

  East Midlands

  80,917

  69,755

  -11,162

  -13·8

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  130,122

  118,711

  -11,411

  -8·8

  North West

  199,305

  172,359

  -26,946

  -13-5

  Northern

  105,188

  90,520

  -14,668

  -13·9

  Wales

  73,043

  59,671

  -13,372

  -18·3

  Scotland

  146,394

  136,185

  -10,209

  -7·0

  Northern Ireland

  64,251

  64,884

  633

  1·0

  United Kingdom

  1,341,006

  1,172,236

  -168,770

  -12·6

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the reduction in the number of long-term unemployed since January 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  On 8 October 1987 the number of long-term unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 1,172,236, a fall of 162,194 since January 1987. The change will be affected by seasonal factors.

  Employees in Employment in the Manufacturing industries

  (a) Great Britain

  (b) Scotland

  Number of employees

  Net change in number of employees since June of previous year

  Number of employees

  Net change in number of employees since June of previous year

  June of each year

  1974

  7,722

  —

  683

  —

  1975

  7,351

  -371

  645

  -38

  1976

  7,118

  -233

  615

  -30

  1977

  7,172

  +54

  622

  +7

  1978

  7,138

  -34

  611

  -11

  1979

  7,107

  -31

  604

  -7

  1980

  6,801

  -306

  564

  -40

  1981

  6,099

  -702

  510

  -54

  1982

  5,751

  -348

  477

  -33

  1983

  5,418

  -333

  444

  -33

  1984

  5,302

  -116

  434

  -10

  1985

  5,258

  -44

  430

  -4

  1986

  5,137

  -121

  410

  -20

  1987

  5,071

  -66

  398

  -12

  Some of the decrease in the figures will be the result of the reclassification of jobs such as industrial cleaning, catering, computer services, and road haulage, previously done by manufacturers' own employees and now done by subcontractors. This developing feature of our economy has the effect of exaggerating the extent of the move from manufacturing to service sector employment.

  London (Domestic Visitors)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has regarding the number of domestic visitors to London in 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  I understand that English Tourist Board figures show that London attracted some 13 million domestic visitors in 1986.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs have been created in manufacturing industry, for each year since 1974; and how many of them have been in Scotland.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job gains and job losses. The net changes in the numbers of employees in employment in the manufacturing industries for each of the years and areas specified are as follows:

  Temporary Work Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether participation in the new temporary work scheme for the long-term unemployed will be voluntary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  There are no proposals for a new temporary work scheme.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many small businesses are currently trading in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The best estimate available of the number of small businesses currently trading in the United Kingdom
  473
  is from VAT information. At the end of 1986 there were an estimated 1,468,000 businesses registered for VAT, 96 per cent. of which are thought to be small under the definitions laid down by the Bolton committee. At the same time there were an estimated 2,677,700 self-employed people in the United Kingdom, many of whom were not registered for VAT.

  More significant is the fact that during the seven years 1980 to 1986 the number of businesses registered for VAT in the United Kingdom increased by 13·9 per cent., which represents an average net increase of around 500 firms per week. Regional estimates for 1980 to 1985 show that the number of firms registered for VAT increased in every region and country of the United Kingdom.

  Such figures reflect the efforts this Government have made to promote a more vigorous enterprise culture and the various measures they have taken to stimulate the development of new businesses and self-employment.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the policy of his Department on the purchase of goods and services from small businesses.

  Mr. Cope
  The purchasing policy of this Department places special emphasis on the role of small firms in achieving value for money. This policy is set out in guidance and training to all the Department's staff who now have greater discretion to use commercial suppliers since we have signed new customer agreements with the central procurement agencies.

  More generally, as Minister responsible for small firms, I am concerned to promote their role in Government purchasing as a whole. Small firms can face particular difficulties when trying to break into these markets but to overcome this the Department is encouraging simplified procedures for Government purchasing and improved information such as the small firms service's booklet "Tendering for Government Contracts."

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the small firms service.

  Mr. Cope
  The small firms service through its information and counselling arms works to promote viable and profitable small businesses. In 1986–87, in England, it handled 283,537 inquiries and gave 38,210 counselling sessions. With the development of local enterprise agencies, it is increasingly developing its counselling activities with established businesses.

  Copies of the annual report on the service for 1986–87 were placed in the Library in July.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss youth training.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department often meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss a wide range of training issues, including youth training. A date for the next meeting has not yet been arranged.

  Holiday Villages
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many holiday villages have been established in the United Kingdom since May 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  Detailed figures are not available. However, there has been investment both in a number of new self-catering developments and in improvements to existing holiday villages since 1979. The opening of Center Parc's all-year round holiday village in Sherwood forest earlier this year has introduced an innovative concept to the United Kingdom which I hope will stimulate further new developments and improvements.

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the voluntary sector on the proposal to merge the job training scheme and the community programme.

  Mr. Lee
  None.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from trade unions on the job training scheme/community programme.

  Mr. Lee
  We have not received any representations from trade unions about the proposal to replace the new job training scheme and the community programme with a new adult training programme.

  New Employment Service
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the new employment service.

  Mr. Lee
  The new employment service is making good progress in its objective of helping unemployed people get back into work. The merger into one organisation of jobcentre and benefit office work has been achieved over a remarkably short period, at no additional cost to the taxpayer, while maintaining services to the public.

  Hotels
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many establishments in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland are in the hotel classification scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  I understand that the number of establishments classified under the national tourist boards' voluntary crown classification schemes are: in England 8,700, in Scotland 2,388 and in Wales 2,502. In Northern Ireland, where registration with the tourist board is compulsory, the figure is 1,066.

  Apprentices
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of industrial apprentices taken on in 1979 as compared with 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information from the youth cohort study indicates that nearly 80,000 young people in England and Wales who reached minimum school-leaving age in the
  475
  academic year 1984–85 were undertaking an apprenticeship in spring 1986. This is an underestimate as some of the young people in the survey were unsure of their apprenticeship status and none of these have been included. In addition, some other young people will have been taken on as apprentices when older. Corresponding information for spring 1987 is not yet available. Information from the new entrants to employment survey indicates that just over 90,000 young people in England and Wales who reached minimum school-leaving age in the academic year 1978–79 had by the end of 1979 entered an apprenticeship in their first employment.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  [pursuant to his reply, Official Report, 17 November 1987, c. 506]: There are now over 300,000 unemployed people who have started their own businesses with the help of the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any proposals to change the enterprise allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  We are currently considering a number of proposals, the aim of which is to increase the effectiveness of the scheme by increasing the survival, growth and job generation prospects of business supported. Consideration of these proposals is at an early stage and announcements of any changes will be made in due course.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received regarding the Health and Safety Executive manpower cuts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have received a number of representations on the subject of resources for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. For 1988–89 it is planned that their total expenditure will increase by £6·7 million compared to the previous White Paper provision for that year. This will allow the number of inspectors to be increased by 60 above present levels.

  Steel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to the total number of redundancies in the steel industry in(a) Wales and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of redundancies, involving 10 or more employees, reported to the employment service confirmed as due to occur in the metal manufacture (Class 22 of standard industrial classification 1980. Includes nonferrous metal manufacturing industry) between January 1979 and October 1987 (Includes provisional figures for September and October 1987) are(a) 37,361 in Wales, and (b) 197,343 in Great Britain. Figures for Northern Irelnd are available only from 1984).

  Manpower Services Commission
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the Manpower Services Commission.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government's plans for the future of the Manpower Services Commission were set out in our manifesto. In line with our manifesto commitments, the Employment Bill will enable us to increase employer representation on the commission. The Bill also renames the commission "The Training Commission" to reflect its new emphasis on training.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job clubs are now in operation.

  Mr. Lee
  By 10 December 1987 there were 1,133 job clubs in operation.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the standard of accommodation in United Kingdom seaside resorts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I have received no specific representations. However, if seaside resorts are to retain their market share it is essential for them to provide a standard of accommodation and range and quality of facilities which is as good as, if not better than, our competitors.

  Theme Parks
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many theme parks have been established in the United Kingdom since May 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  This information is not available. However, there has been significant investment in a number of new attractions and improved facilities at existing theme and amusement parks since 1979.

  Ionising Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, in the light of the recent recommendation of the National Radiological Protection Board, he will consider revising the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985 to make the maximum permissible whole body exposure of workers to ionising radiation 15 mSv instead of 50 mSv; and if he will revise the regulations to make the investigation level above which an investigation is triggered 5 mSv instead of 15 mSv.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As announced on 18 November, the Health and Safety Commission has set up a working group on ionising radiation which met for the first time on 9 December. The working group will consider the recent guidance from the National Radiological Protection Board as part of its remit and will advise the commission on an appropriate course of action. I am content to await any subsequent recommendations.

  Hazardous Materials
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to be enforced by the fire service and road authorities, to require
  477
  companies involved in the production, storage or use of chemicals to keep an updated and easily accessible record of all potentially hazardous materials above an agreed limit, on site, specifying (a) the location on site of all potential hazardous substances, (b) a list of their chemical names and trade names, (c) their properties, and (d) manufactures' or suppliers' names and emergency telephone numbers; if, pending passage of the legislation, he will introduce a voluntary code of practice approved by the Health and Safety Executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Under the Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1984 (CPLR) dangerous substances are required to be labelled for both supply and/or conveyance by road. The labelling requirements are such that both users and transporters are warned of the possible dangers that could arise when dealing with the substance and the necessary safety precautions to employ.

  In particular, conveyance labelling alerts the emergency services to the immediate hazards of a substance in cases of an accident. The regulations are enforced by inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive, and the local trading standards authorities.

  Under both the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982 (NIHHS) and the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 (CIMAH) details of installations which are capable of presenting major accident hazards are already passed to the fire authorities. Information regarding such sites includes their location, the address of the person or organisation responsible for operation and details of each notifiable substance held on the site. In addition, under the CIMA regulations occupiers of sites defined by the regulations as having the greatest major accident hazard potential are required to draw up on and off-site emergency plans in consultation with appropriate bodies such as the emergency services. They in turn are required to prepare off-site emergency plans on the basis of information from occupiers. Such plans will include the major accident hazards presented by the chemicals held on site. Both sets of regulations operate where potentially hazardous materials are kept at or above a prescribed limit and are enforced by inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive.

  The Health and Safety Commission is also developing proposals for regulations for the notification to the Health and Safety Executive of sites (other than sites otherwise notified), and for the erection of warning signs at sites, containing an aggregate quantity of 25 tonnes or more of dangerous substances. The intention is that notifications will be made available to local fire brigades to enable them to inspect and gather detailed information about such sites for their own purposes. The proposals, which will take account of comments on a consultative document published by the commission, are expected to be submitted to Ministers as early as possible in 1988.

  I see no advantage at this stage in diverting resources to the development of an interim code of practice.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Radiation Levels
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has 478
  received from the National Radiological Protection Board regarding radiation levels in the United Kingdom after the Chernobyl accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The NRPB has informed me of the outcome of a programme of whole body monitoring of radioactivity levels in people recently undertaken in Yorkshire, from which it concludes that no one in Yorkshire is at any significant risk from Chernobyl fallout.

  Deer
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to take measures to encourage the raising of deer by farmers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans at present to do so. Grants are already available to farmers for approved investments in deer enterprises under the agricultural improvement scheme.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sightings of oil pollution in United Kingdom territorial waters were reported by the aircraft and vessels of the fisheries protection service in 1984, 1985, 1986 and so far in the current year.

  Mr. Gummer
  The fisheries protection service is required to report any sightings of oil pollution to the appropriate authorities. Records are not kept of the number of such sightings.

  EC Surpluses
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consult representatives of the retail trade to obtain their co-operation in organising the distribution of any surplus EEC food through shops and supermarkets.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: I am consulting on the free food scheme at this moment and I shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Special Sales (Butter)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 4 December,Official Report, column 775–6, what amount of the total of 500,100 tonnes of special sales of butter to the Soviet Union between February and November was from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: None.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 4 December,Official Report, column 775–6, what was the average purchase price and storage cost, expressed in pence per pound, of the 500,100 tonnes of special sales of butter sent to the Soviet Union by the European Economic Community from February to November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The average purchase price of the butter sold by special sale to the USSR was approximately 88p per pound. I regret that information on the storage cost of the butter concerned is not available.

  European Community (Food and Wine Exports)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount of food and wine exported by the EEC to the Soviet Union and Eastern

  European Community1 exports of the main agricultural commodities to the Soviet Union

  000 tonnes

  January-May

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Wheat

  1,573

  3,822

  4,937

  4,753

  4,990

  4,290

  Barley

  6

  610

  673

  2,577

  1,510

  1,150

  Wheat Flour

  596

  178

  187

  ֵ

  ֵ

  0

  Rice

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  108

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Malt

  140

  227

  79

  ֵ

  0

  0

  Wholemilk Powder

  25

  1

  5

  6

  10

  15

  Skimmed milk powder

  ֵ

  0

  ֵ

  0

  0

  ֵ

  Condensed milk

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  0

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Butter (including butter oil)

  ֵ

  40

  86

  162

  105

  108

  Beef and veal

  67

  112

  75

  84

  141

  24

  Pigmeat

  0

  5

  ֵ

  0

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Poultrymeat

  46

  46

  ֵ

  2

  23

  ֵ

  Sugar total (white equivalent)

  1,092

  786

  589

  ֵ

  7

  0

  (of which, refined sugar)

  (896)

  (644)

  (452)

  ֵ

  ֵ

  (0)

  Olive oil

  4

  8

  4

  13

  12

  8

  Wine

  135

  63

  72

  35

  4

  ֵ

  Notes:1 1982–5 = EC 10, 1986–7 = EC 12

  ֵ denotes trade under 500 tonnes

  Source: EUROSTAT

  European Community1 exports of the main agricultural commodities to the Eastern Bloc (excluding USSR)2

  000 tonnes

  January-May

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Wheat

  1,986

  1,787

  1,634

  1,056

  623

  851

  Barley

  51

  154

  65

  902

  811

  14

  Wheat Flour

  129

  23

  ֵ

  ֵ

  8

  ֵ

  Rice

  31

  10

  8

  0

  7

  1

  Malt

  0

  1

  ֵ

  10

  ֵ

  0

  Wholemilk Powder

  4

  1

  1

  ֵ

  5

  ֵ

  Skimmed milk powder

  1

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1

  ֵ

  Condensed milk

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  0

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Butter (including butter oil)

  40

  7

  ֵ

  ֵ

  18

  9

  Beef and veal

  53

  45

  57

  13

  70

  6

  Pigmeat

  8

  26

  2

  ֵ

  1

  1

  Poultrymeat

  27

  12

  6

  3

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Sugar total (white equivalent)

  60

  18

  1

  15

  ֵ

  (3)

  (of which, refined sugar)

  (60)

  (6)

  (1)

  (2)

  ֵ

  (3)

  Olive oil

  5

  1

  1

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Wine

  27

  15

  14

  28

  130

  39

  Notes:1 1982–5 = EC10, 1986–7 = EC12

  2 German Democratic Republic, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria, Albania

  ֵ denotes trade under 500 tonnes

  Source: EUROSTAT

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Anthony Hughes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the circumstances in which Anthony Hughes was shot by the security forces at Longhall, County Armagh, on 8 May.

  Mr. Stanley
  As is the case in any shooting incident in Northern Ireland causing civilian deaths or injuries, and involving members of the security forces, the Chief
  480
  Europe respectively, in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and what were the comparable totals for each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The information requested is contained in the tables.

  Constable of the RUC is carrying out an investigation into the shooting of Mr. Hughes, and the results of that investigation will be reported to the Director Public Prosecutions who will decide if any criminal proceedings should be brought.

  Peripatetic Remedial Reading Teachers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many peripatetic remedial reading teachers are currently employed to serve small primary
  481
  schools in the Ards peninsula; whether the current service is deemed adequate to meet the needs of children in this area; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The deployment of peripatetic teachers in this area is a matter for the South-Eastern Education and Library Board. One full-time peripatetic remedial teacher is so deployed. Provision for children with reading difficulties may also be made either by the teachers employed in the school or by the appointment of part-time teachers. At present part-time teachers are providing remedial education in six primary schools in the area. The provision required for individual children is kept under review by the school authorities.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place with QED Design and Development Ltd. on the supply of British Army-style equipment and clothing to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 8 December 1987]: For some years the Police Authority for Northern Ireland has purchased cold weather items of equipment and clothing for the Royal Ulster Constabulary from a number of civilian firms, including QED Design and Development Ltd. The last such purchase from this company was in 1985. Discussions were confined to the normal supplier; customer relationship.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures exist for the acquisition by the Royal Ulster Constabulary of British military uniforms where such uniforms are to be used in training.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 8 December 1987]: The provision of equipment for the Royal Ulster Constabulary is the responsibility of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, which follows normal Government tendering practice. No military uniforms have been acquired. What was purchased was items of cold weather clothing and equipment most suitable for training and operations outdoor and in bad weather conditions. Many of these are also used by the Army for the same reasons.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what clothing and other equipment similar to that supplied to the British Army is currently in the possession of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 8 December 1987]: Some items obtained from a number of commercial organisations are still held in stock. These are for use in training or operations in the field where circumstances or bad weather conditions so require, and include such articles as arctic sleeping bags, parkas, rucksacks and insulated suits.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what contracts Frank Turner and QED Ltd. have had with the Royal Ulster Constabulary since 1981.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 8 December 1987]: Three orders were placed with QED Ltd. in 1982; two in 1983; two in 1984 and one in 1985.

  Police (Clothing)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what purposes over the past five years the Police Authority for Northern Ireland has ordered green, black, khaki and green marine berets, Parka jackets, Streamlight torches and camouflaged thermal clothing.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 8 December 1987]: A total of 24 assorted berets were acquired in 1983 to add realism to the training of officers who might have to deal with, for example, illegal vehicle check points carried out by paramilitaries in the guise of military patrols. The other items were obtained for RUC operational training purposes, and may be used in the field when circumstances and weather conditions require.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the Police Authority for Northern Ireland paid in cash for British-style military uniforms in 1983 and 1984.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 8 December 1987]: I have no evidence of any payment in cash.

  Artificial Insemination
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to close any of the artificial insemination offices in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: As part of general Government policy on transfer of responsibilities from the public sector the Department of Agriculture is considering the position of the Al Service.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Employment of Children Act 1973
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will bring into effect the Employment of Children Act 1973.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Government have no plans to implement the Employment of Children Act 1973. All local authorities (except Isles of Scilly) have byelaws which regulate the hours and conditions of children's employment. The majority of byelaws follow departmental guidance of 1976 which is based on the proposed content of regulations under the 1973 Act.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will correct the figure for the allocation for the social fund to his Department's Glasgow, Provan office, announced in his reply on 4 November to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory),Official Report, columns 774–81.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the figures for the social fund grants and loans budgets for 1988–89 for the Department's Glasgow, Provan office, announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 4 November at columns 774–81, were incorrect. The correct figures are as follows:
  483

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  £

  £

  Glasgow, Provan

  447,797

  1,059,669

  The correction of these figures brings the total allocations to offices in Scotland to £11,506,069 for grants and £27,143,347 for loans.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what training is being given to his Department's staff in preparation for the introduction of the social fund in 1988.

  Mr. Portillo
  The training to be provided for clerical staff will consist of self-instruction and microcomputer training which is likely to last one week.

  The main training for social fund officers (SFOs) will cover a three-week period. During week one each officer will complete a series of linked self-instructional texts each concentrating on a particular aspect of the social fund. They will also study the social fund manual and undertake some background reading.

  During weeks two and three prospective social fund officers will attend a training course at one of the Department's training centres. This course provides an opportunity for staff to develop the use of discretion and judgment in decision making; this will cover an understanding of the needs of the many client groups who are likely to apply to the social fund—for example, the elderly, the mentally ill and those suffering from drug and alcohol addiction. In addition, the social fund officer's liaison role with other statutory and voluntary welfare agencies will be examined. Training will also be given to equip those administering the fund with the knowledge they need to offer money advice to those applications who need it. The review process will also be included. Case studies will feature prominently within the course to help develop further the interviewing skills and technical knowledge of social fund officers. Training on the social fund microcomputer programme will also be given.

  Higher executive officers, the immediate line managers of social fund officers, will receive training with the addition of a one-day seminar on management, the review process and budgetary issues.

  Local office managers who will be responsible for the management of the local social fund budget will attend a two-day residential seminar during which their personal role, including liaison with other agencies, budgetary profiling and ongoing budget management will be examined.

  A video film describing the principles of the social fund is being prepared and will be sent to the Department's

  Table 1: Miles covered each year

  Non Emergency

  Emergency

  1Ambulances

  Hired cars

  Ambulance car service

  Total

  1979

  Data unavailable due to an industrial dispute

  1980

  3,098,285

  7,680,021

  283,550

  1,138,328

  9,101,899

  1981

  3,132,119

  8,231,233

  262,285

  1,012,161

  9,505,679

  1982

  3,246,434

  8,055,365

  273,202

  1,021,006

  9,349,573

  1983

  3,389,731

  8,201,627

  189,123

  1,039,784

  9,430,634

  1984

  3,500,909

  8,445,408

  45,319

  1,136,482

  9,627,209

  484
  local offices during February 1988. Arrangements are being made for those staff not directly involved in the administration of the social fund to see it.

  Charing Cross Hospital
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what was the estimate of the annual running costs contained in the initial feasibility study on the rebuilding of Charing Cross hospital; and what have been the annual running costs since its completion;

  (2) what was the estimated cost, both in money of the day and real terms, given in the original feasibility study of rebuilding Charing Cross hospital; and what was the final actual cost.

  Mrs. Currie
  Responsibility for the planning and construction of health buildings is delegated to regional health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to approach the regional chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority to inquire what information is available.

  Occasional-use Pushchair
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when a definitive reply can be expected to the representations made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe concerning the decision to issue the Andrews McLaren occasional-use pushchair; if he will summarise the adverse comments from disabled people about the chair following its field trials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have received a letter on this subject from the right hon. Member which I have passed to the chairman of the Disablement Services Authority. The right hon. Member will be aware that that authority has full responsibility for the supply of wheelchairs for disabled people within the National Health Service. I am confident that the chairman of the authority will reply fully to him shortly.

  London Ambulances
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many miles were covered each year since 1979 by the London ambulance service in(a) emergency services, (b) non-emergency services, (c) mini-cabs and (d) volunteer drivers;

  (2) how many emergency-equipped London ambulances were available at 6 pm on 18 November; and what was the equivalent for each year since 1983.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the tables.
  485

  Non Emergency

  Emergency

  1Ambulances

  Hired cars

  Ambulance car service

  Total

  1985

  3,695,393

  8,011,723

  82,498

  1,457,380

  9,551,601

  1986

  3,702,688

  6,406,224

  240,170

  1,763,843

  8,410,237

  19872

  3,767,080

  6,155,357

  222,679

  1,860,959

  8,238,995

  1 Includes vehicles on loan to day hospitals.

  2 Data for 1987 projected.

  Table 2: Number of emergency equipped ambulances available on 18 November 1983 and equivalent dates since

  Rostered

  Actually available

  Wednesday 23 November 1983

  134

  134

  Wednesday 21 November 1984

  134

  134

  Wednesday 20 November 1985

  134

  133

  Wednesday 19 November 1986

  1154

  152

  Wednesday 18 November 1987

  154

  2125

  1 Front-line ambulances on late turn increased by 20, as a part of the ambulance staff review, in March 1986.

  Average daily number of available beds, National Health Service hospitals, London 1979 to 1986

  Health authorities

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  North West Thames

  Barnet

  2,841

  2,800

  2,771

  2,748

  2,670

  2,551

  2,445

  2,324

  Harrow

  908

  902

  914

  938

  935

  878

  905

  886

  Hillingdon

  1,628

  1,480

  1,528

  1,526

  1,499

  1,406

  1,378

  1,329

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  1

  1

  1

  1,548

  1,497

  1,447

  1,382

  1,356

  Ealing

  1,709

  1,713

  1,753

  1,725

  1,663

  1,622

  1,543

  1,509

  Brent

  2,316

  2,332

  2,263

  2,273

  2,203

  2,059

  1,939

  1,883

  Paddington and North Kensington

  1,365

  1,276

  1,236

  1,216

  1,211

  1,187

  1,211

  1,208

  Riverside2

  1

  1

  1

  3,946

  3,845

  3,708

  3,465

  3,091

  North East Thames

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  3,283

  3,238

  3,183

  3,095

  3,033

  2,984

  2,878

  2,765

  Hampstead

  1

  1

  1

  1,963

  1,919

  1,894

  1,875

  1,818

  Bloomsbury

  1

  1

  1

  2,487

  2,490

  2,344

  2,116

  1,971

  Islington

  1

  1

  1

  1,177

  1,105

  1,018

  917

  866

  City and Hackney

  1,990

  1,867

  1,743

  1,887

  1,884

  1,853

  1,754

  1,686

  Newham

  941

  924

  936

  887

  845

  877

  880

  876

  Tower Hamlets

  1,561

  1,484

  1,605

  1,433

  1,396

  1,363

  1,355

  1,290

  Enfield

  1,234

  1,217

  1,137

  1,087

  1,114

  1,076

  1,069

  1,055

  Haringey

  1,236

  1,122

  1,143

  1,157

  1,109

  1,028

  986

  1,072

  Redbridge

  1,655

  1,655

  1,650

  1,633

  1,644

  1,630

  1,617

  1,553

  Waltham Forest

  3,311

  3,318

  3,245

  3,051

  2,842

  2,667

  2,508

  2,407

  South East Thames

  Bexley

  1,653

  1,667

  1,635

  1,585

  1,543

  1,468

  1,435

  1,386

  Greenwich

  1,777

  1,666

  1,623

  1,598

  1,611

  1,586

  1,517

  1,334

  Bromley

  2,591

  2,491

  2,466

  2,377

  2,296

  2,116

  1,989

  1,887

  West Lambeth

  1

  1

  1

  2,100

  2,119

  2,066

  1,993

  1,887

  Camberwell

  1,432

  1,366

  1,332

  1,289

  1,279

  1,232

  1,264

  1,232

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  2,336

  2,257

  2,208

  2,185

  2,194

  2,058

  2,048

  1,910

  South West Thames

  Croydon

  3,192

  3,089

  3,006

  2,929

  2,860

  2,728

  2,637

  2,397

  Kingston and Esher

  1

  1

  1

  1,564

  1,517

  1,457

  1,416

  1,378

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  1

  1

  1

  979

  970

  916

  868

  860

  Wandsworth

  2,871

  2,689

  2,543

  2,476

  2,494

  2,534

  2,338

  2,234

  Merton and Sutton

  2,687

  2,610

  2,510

  2,495

  2,477

  2,390

  2,332

  2,235

  Special Health Authorities

  The Hospital for Sick Children

  517

  506

  544

  494

  474

  418

  410

  402

  National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases

  357

  355

  345

  356

  351

  341

  349

  338

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  208

  204

  204

  208

  210

  181

  163

  152

  Bethlehem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

  472

  492

  497

  501

  498

  506

  504

  511

  National Heart and Chest Hospitals

  603

  570

  577

  556

  552

  540

  449

  423

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  361

  361

  350

  340

  343

  333

  344

  354

  486

  2 The difference between rostered ambulances and available ambulances was due to a ban on voluntary overtime. This action took place between 4 November 1987 and 2 December 1987.

  Hospital Beds (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current bed availability, by district health authority, for London as at the latest date and the comparative figures for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table. The number of in-patient cases treated in London rose 5·7 per cent. between 1979 and 1986 from 1,045,877 to 1,105,481.
  487

  Health authorities

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

  1

  1

  1

  891

  900

  917

  868

  845

  London3

  64,376

  62,205

  61,356

  60,697

  59,591

  57,381

  55,144

  52,708

  1 Comparable figures not readily available due to National Health Service restructuring in 1982.

  2 Hammersmith and Fulham district health authority and Victoria district health authority prior to 1985.

  3 Figures for 1979 to 1981 include data for districts which were split up in the 1982 National Health Service restructuring.

  Local Offices (Staffing)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the annual turnover of staff, by grade, for each year since 1979, for(a) Highgate, (b) Finsbury Park and (c) Dalston offices of his Department.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department does not have a Dalston local office.

  The following tables give the total number of staff, in each grade, leaving the Highgate, Finsbury Park and Hoxton local offices of the Department, for all reasons, during the period 1 October 1985 to 31 October 1987.

  The information requested is not available prior to 1 October 1985.

  Grade

  Number of staff leaving local office

  1 October 1985 to 31 December 1985

  January 1986 to December 1986

  January 1987 to December 1987

  (a) Highgate Local Office

  LOI

  1

  9

  9

  LOII

  3

  26

  32

  AA

  2½

  11

  16

  Typist

  —

  3

  —

  Other

  2

  5

  4

  Total

  8½

  54

  61

  (b) Finsbury Park Local Office

  LOI

  1

  23

  4

  Grade

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Finsbury park ILO

  Principal

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  SEO

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  HEO

  9

  7

  6

  8

  8

  10

  6

  LO1

  44

  43

  37

  42

  48

  52

  52·5

  LO2

  82

  92

  84

  83

  100

  93·5

  107

  AA

  30

  32

  28

  31

  31

  36

  50

  Typist

  2·5

  3·5

  3·5

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Security Guard

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Messenger

  4

  3

  4

  4

  3

  4

  5

  Total

  174·5

  185·5

  165·5

  173

  196

  201·5

  226·5

  Highgate ILO

  Principal

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  SEO

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  HEO

  9

  10

  8

  7

  8

  7

  9

  LO1

  52

  57

  56

  50

  49

  49·5

  56·5

  LO2

  102

  94

  94

  99

  106

  98·5

  103·5

  AA

  35

  41

  39

  36

  38

  35

  39·5

  Typist

  3

  3

  4

  5

  5

  5

  6

  Security Guard

  1

  2

  2

  5

  4

  3

  4

  Messenger

  4

  4

  4

  3

  5

  5

  5

  Total

  209

  214

  210

  207

  217

  205

  225·5

  Hoxlon ILO

  Principal

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  488

  Grade

  Number of staff leaving local office

  1 October 1985 to 31 December 1985

  January 1986 to December 1986

  January 1987 to December 1987

  LOII

  4½

  40

  10

  AA

  1

  14

  4

  Typist

  —

  1

  1

  Other

  —

  3

  4

  Total

  6½

  81

  23

  (c)Hoxton Local Office

  LOI

  3

  8

  3

  LOII

  4

  19

  19

  AA

  —

  17

  14

  Typist

  1

  —

  —

  Other

  2

  3

  3

  Total

  10

  47

  39

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the staffing levels, by grade, of his Department's offices at(a) Finsbury Park, (b) Highgate and (c) Dalston for June in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  There is no social security local office at Dalston. Information is provided for those offices serving the hon. Member's constituency which are Finsbury Park, Highgate and Hoxton. Records of staffing levels for 1982 and 1983 are unavailable as they have been destroyed by fire. For the remaining years since 1979 the numbers of staff in post at these offices as at 1 June are as follows:
  489

  Grade

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  SEO

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  HEO

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  LOI

  35

  35

  37

  37

  35

  34

  40

  LO2

  59

  69

  65

  65

  66

  71

  62

  AA

  24

  23

  24

  26

  26

  24

  30

  Typist

  4

  3

  4

  4

  3

  4

  4

  Security Guard

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Messenger

  2

  1

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Total

  133

  141

  142

  144

  142

  145

  149

  Abbreviations:

  ILO—Integrated Local Office.

  SEO—Senior Executive Officer.

  HEO—Higher Executive Officer.

  LO1—Local Officer 1.

  L02—Local Officer 2.

  AA—Administrative Assistant.

  Rate Rebates
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of the lowest paid 10 per cent. of households are receiving full rate rebates under the present system.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that information in the form requested is not available.

  Pregnancies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each of the last 10 years the number of pregnancies which were alleged to have occurred as a result of rape; of these, how many were ended by abortion; and in what age groups, and what numbers in each of those age groups, such pregnancies and abortions occurred in each of these years.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of pregnancies which were alleged to have occurred as a result of rape is not known. Statistics of the number of mentions of rape on the abortion notification forms can be provided reliably only for 1987 and subsequent years. The figures for 1987 are expected to be available after May 1988.

  NHS Consultants
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what controls apply to National Health Service consultants being financially involved in commercial agencies supplying locums to the National Health Service hospitals in which they practise; and if he has any plans to alter the present position.

  Mr. Newton
  There are no specific controls. It is for health authorities to determine locally whether any individual abuses his position. There are no current plans to change this.

  Locums
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information is available about the amount of payments made to locums by health authorities; and if he has any plans to ensure that better value for money so spent is obtained.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1986–87, expenditure on directly employed locums and agency locums, as indicated by 490
  health authorities in their provisional accounts, was £39·7 million and £26·06 million respectively. These figures represent 3·46 per cent. and 2·27 per cent. of the total pay bill for medical and dental staff. Several health authorities are engaged in initiatives to reduce the proportion of spending on agency locums and we are monitoring carefully their progress.

  Severe Weather Payments (Scotland)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total number of severe weather payments paid by benefit offices in Scotland in 1986–87; if he will break down this figure by week of payment; and if he will estimate the total number of claimants involved.

  Mr. Scott
  The total and weekly number of exceptionally cold weather payments made by local offices in Scotland last winter is given in the table. With regard to the number of claimants involved I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 22 July at columns 248–252.

  Number of exceptionally cold weather payments made by local offices in Scotland by week of payment in the Winter of 1986–87

  Payment made in week commencing

  Number of £5 weekly payments made

  20 January 1987

  9,173

  27 January 1987

  92,698

  3 February 1987

  58,769

  10 February 1987

  60,560

  17 February 1987

  28,895

  24 February 1987

  17,984

  3 March 1987

  6,280

  10 March 1987

  6,748

  17 March 1987

  3,965

  24 March 1987

  2,021

  31 March 1987

  1,679

  7 April 1987

  898

  14 April 1987

  1—

  21 April 1987

  235

  28 April 1987

  255

  5 May 1987

  380

  12 May 1987

  293

  19 May 1987

  100

  26 May 1987

  90

  2 June 1987

  61

  9 June 1987

  64

  16 June 1987

  6

  23 June 1987

  5

  491

  Payment made in week commencing

  Number of £5 weekly payments made

  30 June 1987

  18

  Total

  291,177

  1 Industrial dispute.

  Irradiated and Novel Foods
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if Her Majesty's Government will give a date for the publication of the report of the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Government's consideration of the report of the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods and of the committee's further advice following representations on the original report is almost complete. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Nurses (Special Duty Payments)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy on the future of special duty payments for nurses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I understand that the Nurses and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council is currently reviewing all allowances for patterns of working including special duty payments.

  Fluoridation Society
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much was provided in grants to the Fluoridation Society by(a) his Department and (b) the Health Education Authority and Health Education Council during 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department provided the society with grants of £20,000 in each of the years 1986–87 and 1987–88. The Health Education Council provided a grant of £15,000 in 1986–87 and the Health Education Authority a grant of £13,000 in 1987–88. We intend to increase the centrally funded payments for the addition of fluoride to water, as set out in the White Paper — "Promoting Better Health" (Cm. 249) — as we regard it as an important and cost-effective measure against dental caries.

  Aycliffe School (Diet Experiments)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply of 1 December,Official Report, column 444, what information he has as to whether the proposed experiments into children's diet and health at Aycliffe community school, County Durham, will be directly or indirectly funded by a health food company whose products form part of the experiment.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that, if the study proceeds, funds for the cost of the research time and any additional food costs are to be provided by an organisation called the British Society for Nutritional Medicine, which intends to raise the money from a variety of sources including the "health food" industry and suppliers.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply of 1 December,Official
  492
  Report, column 444, what information he has as to the membership of the steering committee established to oversee the proposed study into diet and behaviour at Aycliffe community school, County Durham, and their qualifications.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am informed that the membership of the academic steering committee which has been established to oversee the proposed study is as follows:Professor I. Kolvin—Professor of Child Psychiatry, Newcastle.
  Dr. Eastham—Consultant Nephrologist and Paediatric Dietician, Newcastle district health authority.
  Professor Dickerson—Emeritus Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry, Surrey University.
  Dr. Damian Downing—Dietician, Secretary of British Society of Nutritional Medicine.
  Mrs. Caroline Fitzgibbon—Reader in Statistical and Research Methodology, Newcastle University.
  Dr. M. S. Hoghughi—Clinical Psychologist and Principal of Aycliffe School.

  Cancer Screening
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the implications for his policy on cancer screening within the National Health Service of the Sharp intercollegiate report on cervical cytology screening facilities, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mrs. Currie
  We shall shortly be issuing to health authorities consolidated and revised guidance on cervical cancer screening. We have agreed with the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that copies of the inter-collegiate report on cervical cytology screening, which has been placed in the Library, should be enclosed with that circular. The Department will pay for the necessary copies and distribution. Together these documents will give health authorities sound advice on ways of improving their screening programmes in order to reduce mortality from cervical cancer.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures have now been taken to clarify the relationship between the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and Ministers, and to ensure that the work Office of Population Censuses and Surveys undertakes for customer Departments reflects their requirements, as recommended in the machinery of government review,Official Report, 18 November 1986, columns 86–7.

  Mr. Moore
  The relationship between OPCS and Ministers has now been reviewed. It is partly determined by the legal position of the head of OPCS, as Registrar General for England and Wales. The Registrar General has statutory duties relating to the registration of births, marriages and deaths and civil marriage, the carrying out of censuses of population and the collection and publication of statistics between censuses. The registration functions are carried out independently of Ministers, except that the Secretary of State must approve regulations, local schemes for the organisation of the service, and the form of the annual abstract of statistics derived from registration. The duties under the Census and Population Statistics Acts are carried out under the direction of the Secretary of State. OPCS also has important non statutory functions, including carrying out social surveys, maintaining the NHS central register and the processing of statistics about hospital patients.
  493
  In 1987–88 OPCS introduced a system under which managers have agreed objectives; work targets and budgets, and performance is monitored against these. Performance is reviewed by Ministers at the end of the financial year, and plans agreed for the next year, having regard to the statutory position of the Registrar General. The budgetary system is now being developed to support this approach better, and to give line managers greater control over expenditure on support services.

  The statutory functions of the Registrar General will continue to be funded directly on the OPCS vote, although changes may be made for additional services. In general, non-statutory functions are paid for by customer departments or will be so paid for from 1 April 1988, including social surveys. For these services priorities will therefore be determined by customer departments, who will agree the work to be carried out, its timing and its cost.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will be making new appointments to regional health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The term of office of about half the current members of regional health authorities ends on 30 September 1988 and, in accordance with the National Health Service Act 1977, we are seeking nominations for new members. If hon. Members wish to recommend any individuals for membership I invite them to write to me by 4 January 1988. Reappointments and changes will be announced in due course.

  Revenue cash limits1

  Region

  1979–80 £000s

  1980–81 £000s

  1981–82 £000s

  1982–83 £000s

  1983–84 £000s

  1984–85 £000s

  1985–86 £000s

  21986–87 £000s

  31987–88 £000s

  Northern

  331,760

  442,422

  483,312

  524,176

  553,972

  588,093

  618,849

  663,513

  699,786

  Yorkshire

  375,478

  499,283

  547,152

  590,397

  623,720

  657,459

  686,193

  739,226

  786,599

  Trent

  437,607

  584,426

  644,611

  694,210

  739,498

  785,483

  836,351

  911,355

  970,216

  East Anglian

  182,967

  244,748

  269,314

  291,011

  311,707

  331,700

  355,385

  385,129

  411,602

  North West Thames

  438,733

  583,939

  643,693

  630,187

  654,944

  696,599

  713,194

  756,690

  786,508

  North East Thames

  480,181

  635,907

  693,840

  795,234

  828,880

  867,137

  897,987

  955,433

  996,092

  South East Thames

  451,820

  601,749

  656,510

  699,866

  729,510

  766,367

  797,993

  841,427

  874,233

  South West Thames

  354,614

  466,979

  517,658

  535,726

  554,052

  588,383

  599,402

  639,732

  710,025

  Wessex

  268,318

  351,050

  390,364

  424,173

  440,120

  479,603

  504,701

  546,020

  580,446

  Oxford

  216,647

  284,449

  312,099

  332,899

  350,569

  378,136

  398,107

  429,858

  454,746

  South Western

  329,628

  428,345

  472,900

  508,954

  538,149

  568,012

  598,751

  644,139

  688,642

  West Midlands

  522,633

  678,995

  752,247

  814,275

  861,746

  908,176

  956,120

  1,025,325

  1,114,355

  Mersey

  283,802

  369,217

  406,198

  437,494

  457,275

  481,787

  501,459

  537,022

  564,742

  North Western

  456,855

  601,857

  675,155

  730,416

  763,336

  807,578

  848,196

  912,460

  959,886

  1 Inclusive of all in-year adjustments, carry forward from previous financial year, and in-year transfers between revenue and capital.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Initial allocations shown. Final cash limits will reflect in-year adjustments (see note 1) which have not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the administrative cost of the regional health authorities in England in 1987–88.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is not collected in-year and the annual accounts of health authorities for 1987–88, from which it would be derived, are not due for submission to the Department until June 1988. Information is available for 1986–87 and is provided in the table.

  However, in this context, it would be misleading to interpret regional health authority data in isolation from
  494
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the extra funding outlined in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement for the Health Service is to be made available to the regional health authorities; what will be the amount for the Trent region; what funding was available to the regions in the years 1979 and 1987 and whether the resource allocation working party formula will continue to apply.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to change the current policy of redistributing resources out of the North East Thames and other Thames regions in the light of its effects on London health districts; and if he will make a statement on the resource allocation working party formula as it applies to the North East Thames region.

  Mr. Newton
  Allocations to regional health authorities for 1988–89 will be announced shortly, including that for Trent regional health authority. The current review of the resource allocation working party formula is exploring the scope for improving the way in which the formula measures relative need for health care across the country. The review's programme of analysis and research is due for completion by around the end of the year, and any recommendations which may emerge will then be carefully considered. Meanwhile, the present arrangements will continue to apply, with the pace of change in allocations year by year remaining a matter for ministerial decision.

  Funding to regional health authorities in the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 is in the table.

  those for the districts they manage. Regions are managed in an integrated way and, therefore, to provide a more accurate picture, regional health authority and district health authority figures should be combined. In interpreting the figures, a number of factors need to be borne in mind, for example the size of the total budgets managed, the population of the region and the number of health autorities involved, all of which differ between regions. Similarly, the balance of management as between RHA and DHA headquarters that these figures appear to suggest will also vary from place to place according to such factors as geographical size, policy on centralisation of

  495
  services (for example supplies, ambulances, computers) to achieve economies of scale, whether the RHA has a policy of re-charging districts for services it provides etc.:

  Region

  RHA administration1 expenditure (£000)

  DHA administration1 expenditure (£000)

  Total administration1 expenditure (£000)

  Total revenue (£000)

  Total capital (£000)

  Resident population (million)

  Northern

  4,969

  22,098

  27,067

  664,666

  52,686

  3·09

  2(16)

  Yorkshire

  7,996

  24,218

  32,214

  748,109

  69,981

  3·59

  (17)

  Trent

  10,683

  22,847

  33,530

  914,488

  77,478

  4·60

  (12)

  East Anglian

  5,322

  11,542

  16,864

  389,423

  32,529

  1·90

  (8)

  North West Thames

  6,926

  25,506

  32,432

  777,781

  66,543

  3·49

  (14)

  North East Thames

  10,187

  32,629

  42,816

  976,100

  75,904

  3·76

  (16)

  South East Thames

  9,128

  29,418

  38,546

  857,088

  76,517

  3·60

  (15)

  South West Thames

  14,376

  17,968

  32,344

  650,071

  54,172

  2·96

  (13)

  Wessex

  4,264

  17,466

  21,730

  549,152

  70,999

  2·87

  (10)

  Oxford

  5,196

  12,722

  17,918

  433,809

  33,539

  2·46

  (8)

  South Western

  3,466

  22,219

  25,685

  650,026

  68,403

  3·14

  (11)

  West Midlands

  10,684

  35,170

  45,854

  1,049,734

  115,259

  5·17

  (22)

  Mersey

  4,159

  17,176

  21,335

  542,821

  48,443

  2·41

  (10)

  North Western

  12,089

  26,594

  38,683

  922,352

  65,673

  3·95

  (19)

  Total

  109,445

  317,573

  427,018

  10,125,620

  908,126

  46·99

  2(191)

  1 Expenditure on headquarters administration includes the pay and pay related costs of staff of all disciplines employed at regional/district headquarters levels and their office costs and overheads. It excludes the cost of clerical and secretarial support staff employed in departments at hospital and unit levels: such costs are regarded as operational.

  2 The figures in brackets in the second column of figures gives the numbers of Districts—191 in all (see (2))

  NHS Staff (Accommodation)
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards the provision of residential accommodation for National Health Service staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I am very pleased to say that the Nationwide Anglia Building Society has today announced a special mortgage scheme for nurses and other National Health Service staff working in Greater London. Loans will be offered up to 100 per cent. of the purchase price, at a higher multiple of earnings than is normally available and at very favourable interest rates. Facilities for joint purchase are included. In return, the society will take a share of any capital gain at the time of disposal of the property. This imaginative scheme, prepared in consultation with the NHS management board, will enable more NHS staff to buy their own property and should improve the recruitment and retention of staff in London. It is an excellent example of how collaboration with the private sector can benefit the National Health Service.

  The scheme will be assisted by a proposal which has been put today to the General Whitley Council by the management side. This will give health authorities more discretion than at present to make interest-free advances of salary to staff wanting to acquire accommodation. The
  496
  aim is to help staff to take advantage of the Nationwide Anglia scheme and, throughout the country, make it easier for them to obtain homes of their own to buy or rent.

  These measures reflect the Government's view that, in the main, it is better for NHS staff to obtain their housing in the normal way. The proposals in our Housing Bill will help further by increasing the amount of private accommodation available to rent. Nevertheless, there will be a continuing need for appropriate residential accommodation to meet particular local NHS needs, riot only for student nurses and others in training and for those required to be resident on site but also in some places for qualified staff who cannot yet find their own accommodation.

  We will be asking health authorities, when determining their accommodation needs, to consider a number of options, including not only direct provision and management themselves but also, for example, collaboration with housing associations of similar bodies. The Department has already commissioned two pilot studies with housing associations.

  In addition, we will continue to encourage health authorities to improve accommodation standards by reinvesting the proceeds of sales of surplus properties. We are also reviewing the terms on which NHS staff occupy

  497
  residential accommodation and shall be issuing guidance to ensure that such staff have proper tenancy agreements setting out clearly their rights and responsibilities.

  I believe these measures represent a good deal for nurses and others and will improve health authorities' ability to recruit and retain staff.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many staff are employed in his Department to work on health matters; and how many staff are responsible to the National Health Service Management Board.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department employs around 6,900 whole-time equivalent staff on health matters. Of these some 5,000 are professional, technical and audit staff, the majority of whom are employed in running the special hospitals and the Disablement Services Authority (including the staff of the artificial limb and appliance centres).

  The remaining staff work in support of Ministers in their parliamentary and departmental duties. These include some 650 who are accountable to the chief executive of the National Health Service Management Board.

  NHS (Waste Reduction)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action the National Health Service Management Board has taken in the last six months to reduce waste in the National Health Service; and what early results have been achieved.

  Mr. Newton
  Ministers and the National Health Service Management Board are committed to ensuring that health authorities continue to improve the efficiency with which they provide services so as to maximise the resources available for patient care. Health authorities are already

  National Health Service staff in post in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale district health authority at 30 September Whole time equivalents3

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Medical and Dental2

  110

  110

  120

  120

  120

  Nursing and Midwifery3

  2,720

  2,690

  2,670

  2,710

  2,660

  1 Figures are independently rounded to nearest ten (10) whole time equivalents.

  2 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff. Excludes senior registrars and consultants.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  Source: DHSS annual censuses of National Health Service medical and non-medical manpower.

  Burnley Health Authority
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the level of funding for the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority in each of the last eight years; and what has been the percentage change, in both cash and real terms, in each year.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is not held centrally. The allocation of funds to district health authorities is a matter for regional health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to approach the chairman of the North Western regional health authority who may be able to assist with the information he seeks.
  498
  undertaking work to improve efficiency and their cost improvement programmes will yield savings worth some £600 million by the end of the 1987–88 financial year.

  A number of initiatives have been launched to help authorities in their search for improved efficiency. This year we have.

  established a value for money unit to promote the dissemination of good practice and to carry out studies of potential areas for savings;
  issued a study of paymaster systems in health authorities identifying options for efficiency improvements and asked authorities to report on the scope for savings;
  encouraged authorities to implement schemes to generate additional income.

  In addition to these specific initiatives we are continuing:
  to promote improvements in NHS purchasing arrangements;
  to encourage authorities to make further energy savings;
  to introduce new systems of resource management to provide doctors, nurses and other professional staff with the information they need to ensure that the resources they control are used to best effect.

  The results of these initiatives are monitored through the existing planning and review systems, themselves introduced or improved under the aegis of the Management Board.

  Doctors and Nurses (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses were employed in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority area in each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Newton
  Information is not held centrally in the exact form sought. The table shows numbers of medical and dental staff, and nursing and midwifery staff employed in the district from 1982 onwards. Comparable figures before this are not available because of the National Health Service reorganisation in that year.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients were treated in each specialty in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority in each of the last five years; and how many operations were performed during these years.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member all the information he seeks. Reliable estimates of the numbers of operations performed in individual district health authorities cannot be made from the central data sample. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority for the information he seeks. The available information is given in the tables.
  499

  Number of in-patients treated in NHS hospitals in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale District Health Authority

  Specialty

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  General Medicine

  4,388

  4,478

  4,787

  4,873

  5,189

  Paediatrics

  1,908

  2,020

  2,096

  2,222

  2,635

  Dermatology

  145

  248

  209

  227

  237

  Rheumatology

  143

  148

  167

  194

  240

  Geriatrics

  2,712

  2,918

  2,833

  3,055

  3,281

  General Surgery

  4,612

  4,777

  4,600

  4,562

  4,790

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  1,003

  906

  984

  982

  1,190

  Traumatic and Orthopaedic

  1,588

  1,627

  1,780

  1,672

  1,808

  Ophthalmology

  620

  672

  720

  721

  637

  Radiotherapy

  60

  33

  26

  13

  8

  Urology

  816

  857

  980

  952

  1,329

  Oral Surgery

  648

  661

  682

  690

  751

  Gynaecology

  2,595

  2,985

  3,127

  2,984

  3,174

  Obstetrics

  3,798

  4,099

  4,141

  4,022

  4,361

  S.C Baby Unit

  342

  367

  314

  287

  259

  Psychiatry Children

  0

  7

  24

  22

  12

  Mental Handicap

  262

  258

  236

  235

  151

  Mental illness

  1,108

  1,171

  1,065

  1,129

  1,102

  G P Maternity

  336

  207

  118

  105

  21

  G P Other

  97

  93

  112

  106

  105

  Accident and Emergency

  114

  130

  141

  149

  124

  Anaesthetics

  45

  42

  75

  37

  56

  Haematology

  —

  1

  35

  107

  145

  Intensive Care Unit

  259

  244

  280

  311

  307

  Psychogeriatric

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Radiology

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Total

  27,601

  28,951

  29,533

  29,658

  31,912

  Number of day case attendances at NHS hospitals, Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale District Health Authority

  Specialty

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  General Medicine

  1

  4

  555

  564

  498

  Paediatrics

  0

  0

  0

  52

  332

  Chest Diseases

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Dermatology

  9

  35

  10

  2

  8

  Neurology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cardiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Genito-Urinary Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rheumatology

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Geriatrics

  0

  0

  0

  4

  6

  General Surgery

  1,063

  1,417

  1,643

  1,806

  1,786

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  260

  336

  301

  288

  354

  Traumatic and Orthopaedic

  455

  663

  557

  505

  553

  Ophthalmology

  218

  191

  244

  221

  244

  Radiotherapy

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Urology

  972

  954

  992

  917

  950

  Plastic Surgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Thoracic Surgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oral Surgery

  72

  71

  122

  118

  107

  Orthodontics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neurosurgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gynaecology

  149

  290

  811

  991

  660

  Obstetrics (AN and PN)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Psychiatry Children

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mental Handicap

  0

  0

  ֵ

  0

  0

  Mental illness

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G P Maternity

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  G P Other

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Accident and Emergency

  —

  220

  230

  291

  330

  Anaesthetics

  48

  26

  6

  26

  25

  Haematology

  —

  4

  30

  63

  102

  Radiology

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  3,247

  4,213

  5,502

  5,850

  5,956

  ֵ Not available.

  Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out in the Official Report the average increases in pay over the last five years of
  500
  laboratory scientific officers in the National Health Service and the equivalent figures for increases in the pay of nurses.
  501
  Mr. Newton
  The average percentage increases in pay awarded to medical laboratory scientific officers and to nurses and midwives since 1982 are shown in the table.

  Date of increase

  Average per cent. increase

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers

  11 September 1982

  110·77

  1 April 1984

  4·5

  1 April 1985

  4·7

  1 April 1986

  6·0

  1 April 1987

  5·0

  Nurses and Midwives

  23 August 1982

  112·3

  1 April 1984

  7·5

  1 April 1985

  25·0

  1 February 1986

  3·6

  1 July 1986

  7·8

  1 April 1987

  9·5

  1 Two year agreement covering period 1.4.82—31.3.84.

  2 Award for 1985·86 staged.

  Handynet
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what action has been taken to ensure full participation in the Handynet programme of the European Economic Community and the availability in Britain of information from the database;

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that Britain plays a leading role in the development of Handynet and that opportunities will exist for full use to be made of the information that it provides;

  (3) if he is planning to carry out an assessment of the value of the Handynet programme of the European Economic Community and British participation in it;

  (4) what is the Government's policy towards the second action programme of the European Economic Community to promote the social and economic integration and integration of people with disabilities and the role which Handynet is to play in that programme.

  Mr. Scott
  The Handynet project is concerned with establishing a computerised information system for disabled people within the European Community. It is being developed by the Commission and information is not yet available to enable an informed assessment to be made of its value to disabled people in the United Kingdom. The future development of Handynet is being considered as part of the proposals for a Community second action programme in favour of disabled people. The Government would like to see work on Handynet proceed, but in our view its practical implications and cost-effectiveness require further study before any part of the system is introduced on an operational basis.

  Apart from our concern about Handynet, the Government have some reservations on the proposed arrangements for the management and evaluation of the Programme. Otherwise we are broadly in favour of the Commission's proposals.

  Health Authorities (Yorkshire)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a breakdown, by each district health authority within the Yorkshire region, of the percentage of the total budget which is spent on administration.
  502
  Mrs. Currie
  Following is information derived from the 1986–87 annual accounts of the relevant health authorities:

  Revenue expenditure on headquarters administration as a proportion of total revenue expenditure

  District Health Authority

  Per cent.

  Hull

  3·24

  East Yorkshire

  3·85

  Grimsby

  4·07

  Scunthorpe

  3·92

  Northallerton

  6·25

  York

  3·37

  Scarborough

  4·33

  Harrogate

  3·20

  Bradford

  3·30

  Airedale

  3·29

  Calderdale

  3·77

  Huddersfield

  3·57

  Dewsbury

  3·95

  Leeds Western

  2·25

  Leeds Eastern

  2·89

  Wakefield

  3·10

  Pontefract

  4·13

  Note.—Expenditure on headquarters administration includes the pay and pay-related costs of staff of all disciplines employed at district headquarters level and their office costs and overheads. It excludes the cost of clerical and secretarial support staff employed in departments at hospital and unit level: such costs are regarded as operational.

  Cold-related Deaths (Teesside)
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of hypothermia and cold-related deaths in the South and North Tees health authorities as a proportion of all such deaths for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table shows information on deaths with any mention of hypothermia on the death certificate, irrespective of whether it was or was not the underlying cause of death for usual residents of North Tees and South Tees district health authorities.

  Deaths with any mention of hypothermia to residents of North Tees and South Tees DHAs: numbers, and expressed as a percentage of similar deaths in England and Wales 1979 to 1986

  Year

  Number

  Percentage

  1979

  6

  0·69

  1980

  5

  0·83

  1981

  3

  0·43

  1982

  4

  0·60

  1983

  0·19

  1984

  2

  0·36

  1985

  4

  0·48

  19861

  1

  0·12

  1 Provisional.

  Incurable Patients (Teesside)
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his best estimate of the number of patients in South and North Tees health authorities with treatment conditions who have become incurable in the past 12 months.

  Mrs. Currie
  Such information does not exist. It is a matter of clinical opinion in each individual case as to whether a patient's treatment is likely to prove successful.

  Thalassaemia
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he has taken to discharge his undertaking of June to meet the cost of the information booklet produced by the United Kingdom Thalassaemia Society.

  Mrs. Currie
  The United Kingdom Thalassaemia Society made a formal application to the Department for help with the costs of reprinting its booklet and of translating it into the languages of the communities at risk on 12 October.

  I have responded to the society by approving a grant of £5,000 for this purpose.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will direct the Health Education Authority to produce information booklets on thalassaemia and to make them available in the appropriate languages.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 10 December 1987]: The Health Education Authority's booklet "Sickle Cell Disease" which also deals with thalassaemia and other haemoglobinopathies is intended as a guide for general practitioners, nurses and other health professionals.

  The Thalassaemia Society publishes an information leaflet on the disease in English and we have approved funding to make it available in the languages of those communities at most risk.

  East Berkshire Health Authority
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to overcome the financial difficulties experienced at East Berkshire health authority in meeting the cost of unbudgeted pay awards; if he will consider central funding of these awards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 28 October 1987, c. 308]: The cash allocation for East Berkshire health authority this year should read £53·5 million, not £69·5 million as stated.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any information on links between cases of leukaemia among children in the northern area of Southport and contamination of Southport beaches by discharges of nuclear waste from Sellafield nuclear power station: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 9 November 1987, c. 99]: Data on the incidence of leukaemia amongst children resident in the area served by Southport and Formby district health authority for the years 1984–86 have now been obtained. The data for the full period from 1976 to 1986 are given in the table. A small excess was recognised locally in 1979–80, but it was within the limits of excesses which can easily arise by chance. Since then the incidence has been slightly below the national average. For 1976–78 the data are available up to 16 years, and for the years since up to 14 years.

  Southport and Formby Districts—Childhood Leukaemia

  Cases

  Number

  1976

  2

  1977

  1

  504

  Cases

  Number

  1978

  1

  1979

  3

  1980

  2

  1981

  1

  1982

  0

  1983

  1

  1984

  0

  1985

  1

  1986

  2

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the movements in working balances, over the past three financial years, indicating the levels of stocks, for each health authority in the north-west; and if he will give details of creditors and debtors in these authorities.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 29 October 1987]: The information the hon. Member seeks has now been placed in the Library.

  Severely Handicapped Children
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many severely handicapped children are currently placed in long-stay National Health Service hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 5 November 1987]: At 31 December 1986 there were 392 children under 16 years resident in mental handicap hospitals and units in England. A number of these children were receiving short-term respite care or assessment. In addition, 350 mentally handicapped children were resident in small National Health Service units in the community. It is estimated that about 400 of these 742 individuals will have been resident over a year. No information is available centrally on the severity of their handicap.

  Information is not available about the numbers of physically disabled children in hospital; there would be difficulties in defining this group for the purpose of collecting data.

  ARMS Project
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much has been spent on the ARMS research project at Central Middlesex hospital since its inception; what is the number of full-time and part-time personnel engaged; what funding the project receives other than the annual allocation of the North West Thames regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 10 December 1987]: The independent research work undertaken by Action for Research into Multiple Sclerosis (ARMS) at the Central Middlesex hospital is funded by the charity and the hon. Member may wish to contact ARMS direct.

  Radiotherapy Services
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pending the outcome of his review of radiotherapy services, he will instruct the South East Thames regional health authority not to remove the radiotherapy service from the Medway towns; and if he will make a statement.
  505
  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 10 December 1987]: The proposals to rationalise radiotherapy services in Kent have been referred to Ministers for decision. In considering these proposals we shall await the outcome of the Department's current review of its guidance to health authorities on the organisation of radiotherapy services.

  Hospital Sales (Brent)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what was the total sum realised by the sale of Neasden hospital by the Brent district health authority; what was the amount allocated by the regional health authority to Brent district health authority in respect of the sale; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the total sum realised by the sale of the Leamington Park hospital by the Brent district health authority; what was the amount actually received for the sale by the Brent district health authority; and what was the date on which it was allocated by the regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 10 December 1987]: I regret that this information is not available centrally. Regional health authorities are responsible for land disposal and the allocation of funds to their districts. The hon. Member may wish to approach the chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take in regard to 506
  national insurance contributions in the light of the decision of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland upholding the complaint of Mrs. Frances Finnegan that she was obliged to retire at 60 years; and what is his assessment, in the case of a woman deciding to work until the age of 65 years, of the effect on her pension of continuing to pay national insurance contributions until that age.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 11 December 1987]: Action in the particular case of Mrs. Finnegan following the findings of the industrial tribunal which ruled on her complaint is a matter for the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland. In relation to Great Britain, the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 provides that it is unlawful for an employer to dismiss a woman on grounds of age where a comparable male employee would not be dismissed. These arrangements in respect of retirement from work have no direct bearing on the provisions of the social security scheme. Employees are liable to pay national insurance contributions up to state pension age, but no liability is incurred thereafter except in respect of employers' secondary contributions. State pension age itself is outside the scope of directive 79/7 on equal treatment in social security. Entitlement to pension cannot be increased after state pension age by either men or women, unless pension is forgone. Increments of about 7½ per cent. a year may then be earned for the first five years after pension age. We have no plans to change these long-standing arrangements.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.
The Earl of Chichester The Earl of Chichester—Took the Oath.

Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have accepted an invitation from the Prime Minister to attend a lunch in honour of the President of Israel on 16th December. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence tomorrow.

Viscount Whitelaw: Message of Sympathy
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I feel sure that the House will allow me to say how deeply concerned and distressed we were to learn last night that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House had been taken ill. We are much relieved to learn that he is now recovering well and we hope that he will continue to make good progress. We look forward to seeing him back in his place as Leader of the House in the new year. The noble Viscount stands high in our regard and affection and we wish him and Lady Whitelaw the warmest compliments of the season.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be very appreciative of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, which I take as coming on behalf of all your Lordships, and I will convey the good wishes of the noble Lord and of the whole House to my noble friend.

Breast Cancer: Screening
2.38 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: 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 progress has been made in the introduction of the national breast cancer screening programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government are very pleased that each regional health authority in England now has arrangements well under way to have at least one breast cancer screening centre serving a population of about half a million in
596
operation by next spring. The total service in England, involving about 100 centres, is planned to be in operation by the spring of 1990. Arrangements in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are also well advanced.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which is extremely encouraging and shows that the Government do care about the National Health Service. Can he say that, should tests prove positive and an operation be necessary, women will always be offered an alternative to total mastectomy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her introductory comments. Breast cancers that are detected early are likely to have the best chance of a successful cure and to require less radical forms of treatment. It is best clinical practice for any woman needing treatment to be informed of the possible options, but I note that even when less radical treatment is offered research has shown that about half the women choose a mastectomy.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I welcome the news the Minister has given about the setting up of the cancer screening programme. Will he say whether guidelines were set down to help local health authorities to carry out the programme and to carry out quality control? Will he also say whether he feels that there are sufficient back-up services to sort out the abnormalities and bring women back on a recall system in this large and ambitious programme?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall have to think about the question of the noble Baroness on guidelines. As regards back-up, each regional health authority has been allocated one-third of a million pounds to set up its first screening centre for a population of about half a million. This was intended to meet the costs not only of screening but also of assessment, diagnosis and treatment. Four of these centres have also been funded to provide training for staff for the whole programme.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, many of us have supported the noble Baroness in her idea of checkups at the workplace and possibly in mobile units. The noble Lord said that one-third of a million pounds had been allocated to each regional health authority. Can he say whether that is in addition to the general health budget?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is an identifiable part of the general health budget for this year. Workplace screening can be very effective, but it will need to be set up in conjunction with the National Health Service system to ensure that if abnormalities are found the necessary follow-up is available and to avoid confusion with the call and recall system.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people throughout the country will be encouraged by the fact that the Government are promoting important preventive health measures? Will he ensure that there are enough radiologists and radiographers who can read the

597
X-rays of any abnormalities that may show up, because it is expert work?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, most certainly. This is why I said that we had also funded four centres to provide training for staff for the whole programme. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it the case that the health authorities have to spend their first year's funding by the end of March 1988, which is really very near? May I ask the noble Lord how many staff would be involved and whether he is satisfied that they will all have had adequate training at the centres to which he referred through the Royal College of Radiologists?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government's plans, as I think I made clear earlier, include provision to meet the full, continuing estimated costs of the remaining centres to be set up in 1988–89 and 1989–1990. Judging by the reported state of the health service at the moment, I do not think that regional health authorities will have any difficulty in spending this year's money.

Health Service: Birmingham
2.44 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: 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 is their reaction to the letter dated 12th November 1987 from over 200 Birmingham consultants in all specialities to the chairman of the West Midlands Regional Health Authority expressing their "deep concern at the parlous state of the health service in the city".
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the letter from the Birmingham consultants to the chairman of the regional health authority is clearly an expression of concern for the difficulties facing the district health authorities which have become apparent over recent months. However, health services in Birmingham have continued to expand despite the acknowledged pressures upon them.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply to my Question. Would he not agree that it really is unprecedented that 200 consultants and, in recent days, the heads of the three colleges; midwives, nurses, community health councils, and even the regional and district health authorities themselves have brought to the Government's attention their concern about the situation? If the noble Lord believes that Her Majesty's Government are paying enough for the National Health Service, would he not consider having an inquiry, or even a Royal Commission, into the management of that money?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I certainly do not think that a Royal Commission or an inquiry—should I say, another inquiry—into the management of the health service is appropriate. I would make the point that this year the West Midlands region is getting a cash increase of 9.3 per cent., taking its total resource allocation to over £1·1 billion, and a 24·7 per cent. real terms increase from 1978–79. As I have said on numerous occasions, health authorities have the legal obligation to live within their means which involves, on occasions, making very difficult choices. This is what is happening at the moment in Birmingham.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is deep concern at the parlous state of the National Health Service not only in Birmingham but throughout the entire country? if he wants confirmation, would he be prepared to ask for the views of the British Medical Association, the surgeons, the midwives, the nurses and all those who are the fundamental contributors to creating our National Health Service? They are all of one opinion—that our NHS is in a parlous state throughout the entire nation. What are the Government going to do to stop this dismay among all the people who work in our NHS?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the health service was in as parlous a state as the noble Lord suggests from the evidence, which I agree has been coming from the heads of the three Royal colleges, from the BMA, and all sorts of sources within the health service, I would find it extremely difficult to reconcile that with the fact that so many more patient treatments continue to be made year after year.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that the nurses' representatives, the Royal College of Nursing, the health visitors, the surgeons and the doctors are giving false information? Is the noble Lord saying that he does not believe the BMA, that he does not believe CoHSE, and that he does not believe the Royal College of Nursing? Is he saying that they are all misleading the country, that he alone is right, and that all these organisations are out of step with the Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. Of course, that is not what I am saying. That is not at all what I said. I said that while recognising the concerns that have been expressed from all these organisations, one must realise also that continuing to spend extra money, which is in an unallocated form, cannot be the sole answer to the very intractable problems which we all know exist in the health service.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, cannot the Minister understand that while spending an additional amount of money may not be the sole requirement, it is obvious that additional resources are needed? Why cannot the Government merely accept that fact? Cannot the Minister see that? If you are spending a certain amount of money to achieve a certain objective and the objective is not being achieved and you have said that people must save in

599
order to help achieve that objective and they are still not achieving it, cannot the noble Lord take it that you need to spend a little more money?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government are spending a little more money, to use the noble Lord's phrase. An extra £700 million is being made available for hospital services next year out of a total of £1·1 billion extra money for health.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, when you are asked for £925 million and you have given £700 million are you not presenting an insufficient amount?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who, I know, is wanting to ask a supplementary question, faced exactly the same difficulties when he was Secretary of State for Social Services. The fact that money continues to be made available for the health service, and will continue to be made available in increasing amounts for the health service, does not mean that the intractable problems of the health service will disappear just because of that extra money.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister accept the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, there was never a time—and certainly not when I was Secretary of State—when all those concerned with the interests of patients and all the organisations involved in the National Health Service were so united in their pleas to the Government for additional funds? In the light of opinion polls, does the Minister not accept that no government have ever had a greater mandate than do his Government now to produce more funding which is quite clearly needed and demanded, in place of the repeating of tired statistics that do not fit with the experience of those who work in the health service or those who depend upon it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I disagree with the last point. First, statistics are not tired, as the noble Lord suggests; secondly, most certainly they show that extra treatments are continually being provided often in excess of the amount of money that is provided. I accept that difficult decisions must be made. That means not only the Government seeing whether extra money can be made available in whatever amount at whatever time. It also means that for that money, we must see that we have proper control of the health service by the health service.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend not find anomalous criticism from a party that reduced spending on hospitals by 3 per cent. in 1977 and spending on nurses' pay by 10 per cent. in real terms when in office?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I find equally anomalous the fact that Labour Ministers managed to have disputes with the nurses in 1974; with junior doctors in 1975; and with doctors and the Royal Colleges in 1975–76.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is that not a repetition of what I called "tired statistics" and statements. We are dealing with the situaton which exists today. Does the Minister not accept that the public would prefer see much more money being spent on the health service rather than have some potential reduction of a penny or two on income tax? They know where their priorities lie.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to judge government policy on polls, that is entirely up to him, However, I observe that when asked specifically, "Are you prepared for a reduction in your take-home pay in order to find extra money for the health service?", only 10 per cent. of the respondents in a recent poll said, yes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, at the risk of being accused of statistical fatigue, I should like to ask my noble friend whether it is a fact that the expectation of life in this country has steadily improved throughout my lifetime?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, it has, and, returning to the Question. I should like to add even in Birmingham.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at a public meeting in Birmingham last Friday, attended by the chairman of the West Midlands Regional Health Authority and his officers, including the manager and the chief medical officer, and a cross-section of people, the same kind of questions that are being asked today were put to the chairman of that authority? He was obviously not speaking of increases in cash that would be available; but he was saying that the struggle would get worse. He told the meeting, "It is up to you to make sure that the Government know how you feel." That is a different point of view to the one expressed by the Minister this afternoon.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if "up to you" means reporting to the Government via myself, then the message has most certainly gone home. The extra allocation for regional health authorities will be made shortly, but, as I have said repeatedly, I do not think that that will solve the particular problems.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the way he has answered the Question and for the courtesy that he has shown. I am sure that the Minister has the figures available. Will he therefore say how the extra money paid to the West Midlands Regional Health Authority has been spent? For example, has it been spent on more geriatric beds, or is there an improvement in the number of operations carried out? Can the Minister tell the House where the increase has been spent.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, speaking from memory, approximately 24 per cent. extra funding has been made available in real terms since 1978–79. I told the House recently that that resulted in an increase of 25 per cent. in hospitalised boarding treatments; a 78 per cent. increase in day patient cases; and a 17 per cent. increase in other ways.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the statement that money alone will not solve the problem. However, does the Minister not agree that the problem cannot be solved without money?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this year the Government spent approximately £24 billion on the health service as a whole and that amount will be increased next year and the year following. I do not call that going "without money". However, I take the point that should a sensible arrangement be made for spending extra money, we must obtain value for that money.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is one of the easiest things in the world to say that something is in a "parlous" state? Is it not a fact that, despite the requirements for the future, more money is now being spent on the health service than ever before? There are more doctors and more dentists and more operations are being carried out. Is it not a fact that one problem is that modern machines and equipment are progressively becoming geometrically more expensive? Is that not one of the difficulties in financing the health service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, my noble friend is right; expensive machinery which now goes into health care is a factor in the equation. So also is the fact that, for example, there are more nurses in this country per 10,000 of the population than there are, for example, in the United States of America or Germany.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister has spoken of the additional operations which have been carried out and the number of people who have been cared for in hopsital. I should like to say that those people working in the National Health Service should be congratulated for that. Is it not the very consultants and nurses who are worried about the situation today who have made possible the extra operations? Are they not suffering from the effects of the cutbacks along with patients who have accepted being sent home early after operations and who have been treated as day cases whereas a few years ago they might have been treated as in-patients on a slightly longer term?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clincial practice always changes over time. I am not able to accept the fact that because today patients stay for a shorter time in hospital than five or 10 years ago, one can draw conclusions from that as regards the state of the health service.
Baroness Seear: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Baroness Seear: My Lords, nobody has spoken from these Benches for a long time. While not in the least wishing to let the Government off the hook, is not a great deal of the problem attributable to the fact that many of us, including myself, are living beyond our allotted three score years and ten?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think I had better refer the noble Baroness to the answer I gave to my noble and learned friend.

EC: Academic Qualifications
3 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: 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 progress is being made with the adoption within the EC of a system for the mutual recognition of the higher education diplomas.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Commission's proposal for a general directive was identified by Community Heads of Government in June 1987 as a priority for decision by the end of 1988. Work has been pursued energetically during the present Danish Presidency with a view to ensuring that the Council of Ministers meets that target.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords I should like to thank the noble Lord for that Answer. But may I ask him whether he recalls that when a report from the European Select Committee was being debated on 10th October last year the Government at that stage felt able to say very little about the criticisms and suggestions which the committee had made about that draft general directive? May I ask him whether the Government have now formulated their views and, if so, whether they have conveyed them to the Commission if not to this House?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords. The Government have studied with great care the very helpful and well researched report of the Select Committee. In particular, the proposal has been amended to reflect the report's observations on the distinction between professions and activities.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I do not dissent from the desirability of recognising diplomas, but will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not permit education, which is not covered presently by the Treaty of Rome, to be so covered? In my time I had some difficulty in killing the proposal for a directive whereby immigrant children within the Community would all be educated in their own language. Apart from the educational difficulties and costs in this country, it would have been a political explosion, because they would all have thought that the purpose of such education was to return them to their own countries. I hope that education will not be covered by the Treaty of Rome, as it is not at the moment.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord has said. I should point out that we are talking here about professional qualifications and not about education from a young age.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether in their consideration of these matters the Government have given special attention to the particular problem pointed out to the Select Committee; namely, that in the UK it would be essential that the benefit of any directive should extend to those whose professional qualifications, as opposed to their academic qualifications, are recognised by charter or by other self-regulating bodies as opposed to state authorities?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a very interesting point. The directive would apply only to fully qualified professionals practising in their home state who have a university level qualification. In addition, most member states and the Commission now accept that where qualifications differ there should be provision for an adaptation exam.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister has followed what the Select Committee proposed. But, when finally the Government decide to take a line about this, may I ask him to make sure that people who have some but not all of the necessary qualifications—perhaps people who may want to move from one state to another in the course of getting their qualifications, and also people who are doing part-time study to get them—have their condition properly taken into account? This is very important for them and indeed for the country as well.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. I would say to her that the precise form of the adaptation mechanism is still under discussion and it is clearly very important to get it right.

Security Service Allegations
3.4 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 in view of recent statements made on security and intelligence matters they will amplify Lord Glenarthur's Answer of 29th October 1987 (H.L. Deb. col. 773).
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords, I am afraid not.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord capable, as I am sure he is, of entertaining the possibility that the Government may be mistaken in this matter? Is it not the case that they are bringing themselves into world-wide derision by their attempts to shove the cat back into the sack in various parts of the world? Would it not be much better if they were to take a new line on this and decide that where matters are not of vital national interest they may be discussed? Is it not the case that the Government's
604
line on this matter is now so rigid that it is impossible to ask reasonable and ordinary questions which ought to be asked, and answered?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords, I am afraid that public discussion of these matters is not conducive to national security.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I accept the general principle enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, but does the noble Lord, the Minister not agree that if four, or any number of, employees of Cable and Wireless or GCHQ were killed by terrorists that should be a matter for the public domain?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot add to the answers I have already given.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I must press the noble Lord on this. Are there occasions then if employees of Her Majesty's Government, or indeed of companies like Cable and Wireless, are killed when these are matters which must not be made public? Is that what the noble Lord is saying? If so, it is an extremely serious admission.
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords, that is not what I said. What I said, and what my noble friend said on an earlier occasion, is that matters relating to national security are not for the public domain.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I really must ask the noble Lord this question. Is he and is the House aware that I accept the principle which he has enunciated? I understand it completely. But where British citizens are killed abroad is that not a matter which should he made public?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord accepted the principle that these matters are not in general for public discussion and then sought to ask me a question which related to those matters. I regret that I cannot help him further.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord take on board the point that this matter was first stated publicly by a supporter of the Government in another place? In these circumstances would it not be right for the Government to take account of the fact that it is already in the public domain in the sense that it has been placed there by a supporter of the Government in another place? Therefore it would surely render it possible, and even desirable, that the Government should tackle the matter and answer it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the book to which the noble Lord refers was indeed written by a Member of another place but was not an official publication of any sort.

Business of the House
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Morton of Shuna and the Baroness Nicol set down for 13th January shall each he limited to 21 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Legal aid in England and Wales has a long history and it is with legal aid in England and Wales that we are principally concerned today. It is almost 500 years since the passing of what could be described as the first legal aid Act. In 1495 an Act of Henry VII was entitled,
"An Act to admit such persons as are poor to sue in forma pauperis".
Times have changed: the 1495 Act consisted of one clause which could be printed on one side of paper; today we have before us a Bill of 43 clauses and seven schedules. But the aim remains essentially the same. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone began his legal aid White Paper earlier this year with the words:
"The purpose of legal aid is to ensure that people of small or moderate means receive access to proper legal advice, and to justice".
Henry VII and his 1495 Parliament would have understood that sentiment. We are, therefore, today putting our mark on a 500-year long tradition. The Bill that is before your Lordships will set the framework for the legal aid scheme through into the next century. That is the measure of its importance, and the context in which our deliberations must be seen.
The legal aid scheme as we know it today had its origins in the report of the Rushcliffe Committee. That report was published in May 1945, and provided the basis for the 1949 Legal Aid and Advice Act, which is in effect the grandfather of the Bill we have before us now. The 1949 Act established the civil legal aid scheme, and appointed the Law Society to run it. Criminal legal aid developed rather differently from civil legal aid. It was closely associated with the courts and it remains largely a court-administered system today. In 1972, the legal advice and assistance scheme was introduced. It represented the biggest single development in the legal aid scheme since 1949.
606
In 1974, the legal aid legislation was consolidated, and it is the 1974 Legal Aid Act which the present Bill seeks to replace. Since 1974, there have been two further legislative milestones in legal aid's history. The 1979 Legal Aid Act established the extension of advice and assistance to cover representation (the system known as ABWOR)—assistance by way of representation —and the 1982 Legal Aid Act made some important changes in the criminal legal aid system, including the establishment of statutory magistrates court duty solicitor schemes.
That is the legislative background to the Bill. A good deal of its content represents a straightforward consolidation of existing provisions, though in some cases the content has been modified to streamline the Bill and to give it a more co-ordinated and coherent approach. There is, however, much more to this Bill than simple consolidation of earlier statutes.
The overriding objective of this Bill is to improve the arrangements for making legal aid, and legal advice and assistance, available. Efficiency, effectiveness and value for money are the key concepts which underlie the reforms that the Bill introduces. The Legal Aid White Paper, to which I have already referred, outlined the scale of the operation. During 1986, some 200,000 individuals received legal aid to pursue or defend a civil case; about 500,000 received legal aid in connection with a criminal charge; and about 1,200,000 received advice and assistance from a solicitor. The total legal aid bill in England and Wales will be in excess of £400 million during the 1987–88 financial year, having risen from £100 million in 1979–80. Few, if any, areas of government expenditure have experienced such rapid and sustained growth. Legal aid is a big and growing business.
It is against that background that the Government have had to consider the future of the legal aid scheme. It is a mark, surely, of any prudent administration that it is constantly seeking ways of improving value for taxpayers' money, and of generating a better, more efficient service using that money. This Bill is designed to ensure that the administrative framework for the legal aid scheme is fully capable of responding to the challenge of providing the best possible value for money and the best possible service.
The centrepiece of the Bill is the establishment of the Legal Aid Board. As was made very clear in the White Paper, the decision to establish the new board does not derive from any sense of dissatisfaction with the way in which the legal aid scheme has been administered hitherto. In particular, I wish to pay tribute to the invaluable and crucial role played over the past 37 years by the Law Society. The close involvement of the legal profession has been one of the strengths of the legal aid scheme, and I am sure that the new board will do its utmost to ensure that it continues in the future.
The Government's reason for establishing the board is simple. We believe that the legal aid scheme has outgrown the structure that was appropriate for it in the early 1950s. A new, more comprehensive arrangement is needed in order to ensure that all aspects of the legal aid system can be properly co-

607
ordinated and integrated under one responsible body.
One criticism that can be levied at the present system with some force is that its administration is all too complicated and confused, with too many different organisations involved in ways which have little more than history for their justification. Something new is needed to give order and strategic direction to legal aid. One answer would be for the Government to administer the legal aid scheme directly; but in our view that would be wrong. The scheme needs to be run free from government interference in its day-to-day decisions in individual cases. It would be equally wrong to expect the profession to continue to administer a scheme when the parameters of that administration seem likely to extend to areas—for example, means assessment and the involvement of advice agencies—in which the legal profession cannot be expected to have the necessary expertise. A new board is the obvious answer; and that is what this Bill seeks to establish.
The board will initially do no more than take over those functions currently performed by the Law Society's legal aid administration. Here, I should like to say a word about the staff in the Law Society's legal aid administration. They bring to their work a skill and experience which is respected by all who have dealings with the legal aid system, and which underlie the smooth running of the scheme. My department has already given a clear undertaking to the Law Society that all staff in the area office, and all headquarters staff below area director level, will be made offers of employment by the board. I am happy to repeat that undertaking now. The terms and conditions of service for those who transfer will, when taken as a whole, be no less favourable than those available to them at present.
By transferring only the Law Society's functions to the board, the Government would not be giving it the full powers it will need if it is to achieve a central strategic role for legal aid. For other functions, we are proposing to adopt a cautious and gradualist approach so as to keep to a minimum any disruption that might be caused to the profession and to the client. It is our long-term aim that the board should have overall responsibility for the administration of all aspects of legal aid, unless there are good arguments to the contrary.
That means that the board will be asked to consider taking on directly such functions as considering applications for criminal legal aid, assessing the means of those applying for civil legal aid, and determining all legal aid bills. I know only too well the problems which some of these could cause. It is precisely for that reason that no final decision has been taken on any of them. And I would stress that point: the Bill enables functions to be transferred to the board, but it does not compel such a transfer beyond those presently exercised by the Law Society. We retain a fully open mind. Only if it appears, both to the board and to the Government, that transfer of responsibility for a particular function would be in the best interests of legal aid as a whole will it be allowed to take place.
608
The Government will expect the board to put forward proposals for the assumption of new functions, in the light of its own view of them, and of the best way forward. If the board concludes that there are insuperable difficulties with certain tasks the Government will be sympathetic to the argument that things are best left as they are. The reverse is also true. If the Government are not happy with the board's proposals they will retain the right to maintain the status quo rather than move to a situation which they consider to be less satisfactory.
The Government's overall aim remains that, in due course, the board should have a pivotal role in respect of all aspects of the administration of legal aid. Inevitably, before that becomes a reality there is a very great deal of preparatory work to be done. The Government are anxious to move ahead with that at the earliest possible opportunity. It is therefore my intention to set up what is known as a shadow board as early as possible in 1988. I expect to be able to announce the names of the proposed chairman of the board and its members in the early part of next year
The shadow board will begin work immediately, preparing itself to take over the functions that currently fall to the Law Society and planning for the future. In that way it will be able to move swiftly towards taking on any new functions once it has formally taken over responsibility. My present hope is that the board will be able to take over from the Law Society on 1st January 1989, though inevitably, with so much preparatory work to do, that can be no more than a hope at this stage. It is also subject to your Lordships' views on the Bill.
It is the Government's intention that the board will continue to work through the present network of area offices. The present system of area committees will also remain in being, though of course they will in future be appointed by the board. Neither the Government nor the board itself will be able to interfere in the decisions on the grant of legal aid in individual cases. Such decisions will, as now, be taken in the first instance by officials in the area offices, and an appeal against refusal will lie, as now, to the area committee. There will be no appeal from the area committee to the board. It is the Government's intention that the area committees should continue to be composed of practising solicitors and barristers, thus preserving the involvement of the profession in the administration of the legal aid, which has become such a valuable feature of it.
Much concern has been expressed that the Legal Aid Board will not be independent of the Government. The concept of independence here must be put in context. The Legal Aid Board is not going to be free to do what it likes, when it likes and how it likes with the legal aid scheme, any more than the present legal aid administration has that kind of freedom. The Government will continue to set the broad framework of the legal aid arrangements and will retain their present role over such matters as financial eligibility limits. This is an inevitable consequence of the fact that the Government are providing the money to fund legal aid.
The Government have a responsibility to the taxpayer and to Parliament to ensure that money is

609
spent wisely, and for the purposes for which it is voted. No government can abdicate that responsibility, and the Legal Aid Board will inevitably have to function within that general constraint. To suggest that that somehow restrains the board's independence is to expect for the board a greater freedom than any wholly government-funded organisation has a right to expect. Within the overall constraints set by Parliament, the board will have considerable freedom to manage its affairs in the way it considers best. It is not our intention to interfere in the day-to-day management of legal aid any more than it is to interfere in decisions on individual cases.
The Bill provides that the board will act under the guidance of the Lord Chancellor. Some may read into that a hint of greater government control. But the Government must have a central role to play in any service which distributes public money. I should like to stress that there is nothing new in that. In administering legal aid, the Law Society already acts under the guidance of the Lord Chancellor, and administration has not, in my view, suffered in any way from that.
There has been criticism that the fact that the board is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor will compromise its independence. Here I have to say again that my overall responsibility for the legal aid scheme makes it essential that I am the authority who appoints the members of the board. But to suppose that that somehow affects independence flies in the face of experience. To take but one example close to home, the fact that the Lord Chancellor appoints the Legal Aid Advisory Committee does not seem to have had an appreciable effect on the independence of that committee. I think that all noble. Lords who know of its activities would have to agree.
Furthermore, the type of person that I shall be looking for to sit on the Legal Aid Board is not the type of person who would allow his personal independence to be compromised. The board is going to be much more active and involved in everyday administration than it is possible for the present Legal Aid Committee to be. To start with, I envisage board members spending two days a week on the board's business, though that is not a hard and fast requirement, and some other commitment may be more appropriate in some cases. I intend to keep an open mind on that matter in order to find what views your Lordships may have on it, and also what arrangements may be most appropriate having regard to the members who will be appointed.
Board members will not be executive directors, but they will probably wish to concentrate on particular matters and my intention is that I shall appoint experts in personnel management, finance and other disciplines to sit alongside lawyers on the board, thus ensuring that the board is able to play a full and active part in the work of the organisation. It is important to bear that in mind, because there seems to have been some misunderstanding of the role of the board members. I shall not be appointing people as representatives of this or that interested group, but because of the individual's particular skills and experience. Nor will members be expected to act as though they were delegates of a particular constituency; that applies to the two solicitors whom
610
I must appoint after consultation with the Law Society, as well as to the other members. What will be required are people who are prepared and able to dedicate themselves to improving the management and operation of the legal aid administration as a whole.
That is of course the rationale behind setting up the board in the first place—to strengthen the management and operation of legal aid. The change to the board will provide an opportunity for some rigorous and adventurous thinking about the organisation and administration of the scheme. Nowhere will that be more important than in the field of advice and assistance, and it is that to which I should like to turn.
Advice and assistance is a rapidly growing area of the legal aid scheme, and it looks set to continue its growth. Such growth is in part a sign of the success of the green form scheme over the years, but at the same time there can be little doubt that the green form scheme today bears little resemblance, in either its size or in the range of problems with which it deals, to the scheme envisaged by its founders. So it is inevitable that some thought has had to be given to the question of whether the green form scheme is the most cost-effective way of providing the service. The report of the efficiency scrutiny of legal aid, which preceded the legal aid White Paper, concluded that there was a better alternative. It argued that, in many areas of work, lay advice agencies were better equipped to provide advice and assistance.
The Government were conscious of the radical nature of that proposal, and were anxious to obtain the widest possible range of views. Comments were therefore invited on the scrutiny report. The balance of responses to that consultation was hostile to the specific recommendations of the scrutiny team in that area. The Government accepted that there was force in many of the criticisms, and the White Paper made it clear that the Government rejected the scrutiny team's proposals as they stood. However, the White Paper envisaged the possibility of substantial change in the advice and assistance scheme. As the White Paper put it:
"The Government, therefore, intends to take powers to enable the new Board to make alternative arrangements for the provision of advice and assistance for particular categories of work where this would be a more efficient way of providing the service".
Those powers are contained in Part II of the Bill.
In legislative terms, the provisions are relatively simple. The Bill provides that the board shall have the power to make arrangements for the provision of advice and assistance by means of contracts with, or grants or loans to, individuals, organisations or groups. Those are wide powers, but such width is necessary to give flexibility to the board when it comes to consider precisely how those powers can best be used. That is something to which the board will be asked to address its mind at an early stage. The Government are certainly attracted by the idea of making greater use of non-lawyer advice agencies in those areas where they have particular expertise. Welfare benefits are but one example. Some solicitors are expert in welfare benefit law, but others have simply bought computer packages prepared by the advice agencies. Traditionally, this is an area of

611
expertise in which the advice agencies have specialised, and it must be in the interests of the client that he or she can get advice from those who are best able to provide it.
The thinking behind the Bill is that the provision of advice and assistance in certain areas of work will be organised by means of contracts. These will specify what is to be provided, by whom and for how much. It will of course be open to the profession to submit tenders to do the work, as it will to advice agencies and others. The Bill makes it clear that it will be open to the board to make different arrangements in different parts of the country. It follows that once new arrangements have been made for handling particular categories of case, these will be excluded from the existing green form scheme. Otherwise there would be duplication.
It will be essential to ensure that the level of service to the client remains fully satisfactory. This is something to which the Government will expect the board to pay particular attention when putting forward its proposals. The board will, in any event, only be able to exercise its powers to provide advice and assistance by means of contracts if the Lord Chancellor so directs, and only in accordance with his directions. This will enable the Government to keep a close eye on standards of service.
I know that some have already said that this part of the Bill is an attack on the green form scheme. It is nothing of the sort. It is an opportunity to produce new and imaginative ways of getting good quality advice from those best equipped to give it to those who need it. I shall expect the board when appointed to discuss with the advice agencies and all who have an interest in the area how this can best be achieved. The board will be able to build on much that has been achieved already, and especially the partnership and working relationship that exist between the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and other advice agencies and very many solicitors.
The Bill does not lay down a blueprint. As I have said, it will be for the board, in consultation with all who have an interest, to look at all the possibilities and to come up with workable, worthwhile proposals. I am confident that all concerned will respond to this challenge. It may be that we shall all conclude that the present system is the very best that can be devised within the resources available. All I say now is that so far as one can judge at present I should need some persuasion of that.
In addition to the power to award contracts, the board is also given a power to make grants. This brings me to the position of law centres. The Government's view of law centres remains as it has been since 1979. Law centres may well provide a valuable service to their local communities. But they are essentially a local service, and as such it is more appropriate that they should receive local rather than central funding. There is an exception to this. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone continued to provide funds to seven law centres which is an arrangement I think that he inherited from his predecessor. I now propose to invite the new Legal Aid Board to take over
612
responsibilty for the grants to the seven centres currently funded. The board will need to be satisfied that the services provided by those seven centres fit into the general pattern of its plans for advice and assistance. Provided, however, that they are so satisfied, and subject to my agreement, it will be open to them to continue to pay the grants under powers in Part II of the Bill. It will of course also be open to other law centres to submit proposals for contracts or grants in the general context of the board's plans for advice and assistance.
There is one aspect of this Part upon which I have not yet touched. That is the board's powers to make contracts and grants extend to representation. There are two reasons for these powers. The first is that it will allow those law centres funded by the board to undertake representation and to meet the cost from the grants that they receive from the board. Second, if at some stage in the future (and I must emphasise that we have no current plans for this) publicly-funded representation were to be extended to more tribunals, it might well be more convenient for the same agency that has provided advice also to provide representation.
The Bill is not designed to allow legal aid, either civil or criminal, to be provided under contract to the board. There is no equivalent provision in Parts IV and V—allowing the civil and criminal legal aid schemes to be withdrawn for areas of work covered by contractual arrangements—to that in Part III in respect of advice and assistance. This is because it is not the purpose of the Bill as it stands to allow legal aid to be contracted out beyond the limited ways that I have described.
I have dealt at some length with the Legal Aid Board and the proposals for advice and assistance because they are the two areas where the Bill differs most from the present arrangements. It may however also be helpful if I now go through the Bill and outline some of its main provisions.
Part I of the Bill deals with the basic definitions used in it. The basic definitions are of "advice", "assistance" and "representation". Some of this, particularly the reference to "representation" may seem strange to those more accustomed to the present expressions "civil legal aid" and "criminal legal aid"; but I hope that the result of careful drafting will be the same. The purpose of using the expression "representation" is simply to preserve a certain uniformity throughout the Bill. I can confirm that "representation" as it is defined covers everything at present covered by civil and criminal legal aid.
Part II is almost wholly new, and it is here that are found the provisions relating to the establishment of the board and the power to award contracts and make grants. It is in Part II that the board is given its general power to do such as it considers necessary to provide or secure the provision of services under the Bill. The House will wish to note that the board is given a specific power to give the Lord Chancellor advice on the provision of services under the Bill. I regard this as of extreme importance. The board will rapidly acquire a good deal of expertise in the legal aid field, and I shall want it to use that expertise in putting forward proposals for improvements.

613
Part III sets out the provisions for advice and assistance provided by solicitors. This is intended as a restatement of the existing provisions regarding the green form and assistance by way of representation. The terms of the legislation differ from the 1974 Act in a number of respects but the overall effect is the same.
Your Lordships will notice that here, as in those parts of the Bill dealing with civil and criminal legal aid, there are general regulation-making powers enabling the Lord Chancellor to set financial eligibility conditions. In the present system, upper and lower qualifying limits are set on the face of the statute though they may be, and regularly are, uprated by regulations. I feel that the specific setting of limits in statute is unduly restrictive and I have opted for leaving definitions of financial eligibility wholly to regulations subject to parliamentary approval. I wish to assure your Lordships that there is no hidden motive behind this. It is my clear intention to retain the present system in being at least for the foreseeable future.
Part IV of the Bill deals with civil legal aid. The proceedings for which this is and is not available are listed in Schedule 2. This reproduces the current position and I have no plans at present to change it.
Part V of the Bill deals with criminal legal aid. Once again, the scope of criminal legal aid and the financial conditions will remain as they are. Part V, however, contains powers which mirror those in Part II to transfer functions currently performed by the courts to the new board. I shall of course have to be fully satisfied that this is wise before I agree that it should take place.
Part VI makes special arrangements for legal aid in care proceedings and contempt proceedings. There has long been criticism that care proceedings were entangled with criminal proceedings in the 1974 Act. This Bill puts that right.
Part VII deals with a number of miscellaneous points, and sets out the regulation-making power. The only one of those to which I would specifically draw your Lordships' attention at this time is that relating to the remuneration of the legal profession. The White Paper said that the Bill would contain powers to enable the Lord Chancellor to set, by way of regulations, the rates payable for all legal aid work. As the White Paper made clear, the Government will continue to have regard to the principle of fair remuneration for work actually and reasonably done. It is however necessary for the Government also to have regard to the taxpayer as well as to the provider. The aim is to produce a result that is fair overall. But fairness is inevitably a vague and subjective concept. Clause 32(6) helps to clarify the approach which will be adopted by setting out the factors to which the Lord Chancellor may have regard when setting rates. The aim of that list, which is not exhaustive, is to ensure that all relevant factors are taken into account. As your Lordships may know, agreement has now been reached with the profession on a permanent scheme of payments on account, and the present 10 per cent. deduction in High Court cases (shortly to be reduced on 1st January to 5 per cent.) will be abolished on Royal
614
Assent to the Bill. I think nobody can regard that as a cost-cutting exercise. Part VII also deals with the future of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. As the legal aid White Paper made clear, once the Legal Aid Board has been established, the role and function of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee will inevitably change. However, I believe that the committee will continue to have a useful role to play, at least during the period of transition to the Legal Aid Board and in the early days of the board's existence. The Bill therefore contains power to retain the advisory committee. As circumstances may well alter once the board has settled into its new role, the Bill also includes a power to allow the committee to be disbanded by regulations if this should seem appropriate. I intend to review the committee's continuing role some 12 months after the board has taken over its responsibilities.
Finally, I should just mention briefly that, although as I said at the outset the vast majority of the Bill relates only to England and Wales, Schedule 4 contains some minor amendments to Scottish legal aid legislation produced by experience since the Legal Aid Board was set up there.
Those are the main provisions of the Bill. The legal aid system in this country is one of the best in the world. The provisions in the Bill not only preserve all that is best in our legal aid system; they enhance it. I hope that that aim will be endorsed by the whole House. This Bill will do much to establish a framework within which the legal aid scheme can advance towards the 21st century in an efficient and healthy state. I accordingly commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.41 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, legal aid in England and Wales has a long history. I fear that the chapter contained in this Bill is not going to he its most glorious moment. Indeed, the Bill has been widely attacked not only by the Bar and the Law Society but also by a number of the advice agencies which are now doing their best, with inadequate resources, to deal with the continuing need for legal aid.
The importance of legal aid probably does not need emphasising. It is clearly not a matter for concern only in the legal professions. It is a fundamental part of the administration of justice, providing access to law and justice to about 2 million people each year. Access to legal services in this country has long been regarded as a civil right and not just a charitable provision.
The importance of legal aid was indicated, as indeed the noble and learned Lord said, in the report of the Rushcliffe Committee and is also spelt out admirably in the 34th annual report of the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee, which stated:
"law is not merely an instrument of social control…it is also a positive instrument for defending individual liberties and giving reality to civil

615
rights. Law, in this sense as well as in its restrictive sense, is a necessary precondition for order. If individuals cannot secure their legitimate rights and defend their interests through a system of justice, they will resort to other means in an endeavour to do so…If the rule of law and equality before the law lie at the heart of the social system, then equally legal aid lies at the heart of the legal system".
Since the days of the Rushcliffe Committee, which made its major contribution in this sphere in 1945, social, economic and political changes have resulted in increasing demands for legal help both in civil and criminal matters. The law has become more complex and affects more people. For example, matters concerning housing, welfare benefits, the consumer, the environment and employment problems have become increasingly governed by legislation or regulations. Crime has, alas, increased alarmingly and continues to increase.
One asks to what extent the provisions of this Bill deal with and meet the needs of this situation. Is it essentially a means to cut expenditure on legal aid? Is that one of its primary purposes? To what extent the Bill can achieve what it should be doing to deal with the situation I have mentioned we cannot tell as yet because it is largely an enabling Bill with few substantive provisions. It leaves the future shape and content of the legal aid scheme largely in the hands of the Lord Chancellor under the baleful eye of the Treasury.
Indeed, the Law Society has calculated that in addition to the powers given to the Lord Chancellor which can be exercised directly, the Bill creates at least 56 powers exercisable by secondary legislation. We shall be faced with a mass of statutory instruments which will have to make their way through the House. Some of the powers delegated to statutory instrument raise matters of principle and not merely matters of administrative detail. For example, Clause 1(5) on the scope of advice or assistance to be provided says that this is to be dealt with by regulations; Clause 2(4) empowers the Lord Chancellor by order to determine the functions of the Legal Aid Board; Clause 13(2) provides for variation by regulation of the categories if civil proceedings for which legal aid is to be available; and Clause 19(9) provides that restrictions may be placed by order on the competence of the courts to grant legal aid.
The wide sweep of powers to make regulations which are given to the Lord Chancellor in the Bill is in particular identified in Clause 32, which begins:
"The Lord Chancellor may make such regulations as appear to him necessary or desirable for giving effect to this Act or for preventing abuses of it".
Never has a more wide or sweeping power been given to any Minister. In Clause 32(2) there follows a list of matters of major importance which can be dealt with by regulations.
The importance of this mass of subordinate legislation which is contemplated in the Bill is made all the greater when one reads Clause 32(9), which provides for regulations under the Act to be subject only to amendment by negative resolution of the House. We know what a limited power that gives us.
On this side of the House we submit that the Bill should require approval by positive resolution of the regulations, which may have far-reaching effects on
616
the quality, the effectiveness and indeed the availability of legal aid. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give serious attention to that vitally important change which we shall press upon the House in due course.
I must ask whether when the noble and learned Lord comes to reply to the debate he will give an assurance to the House that adequate time will be given for consultation and representation in connection with this forest of orders and regulations which will in due course appear. Consultation is not markedly spelt out in the Bill. It would be highly desirable that consultation and representation in connection with the subsidiary legislation should take place as soon as possible. Indeed, I hope that before we start the Committee stage of the Bill a good deal of information as to the nature of the instruments will be given to the House. Otherwise, I fear that we shall be working in the dark during the Committee stage.
The noble and learned Lord said that the centrepiece, the heart, of the Bill is the transfer of the Law Society's power and present responsibilities for the administration of legal aid to a Legal Aid Board. The membership is of course not yet identified, but we should like more information as to what qualifications will be looked for in those who are to constitute this important quango. "Quango" became a term of abuse against the Labour Government, but it is now a most honoured feature of continuing legislation emanating from the Government.
The Legal Aid Board is to consist, apparently, of 11 to 17 members, at least two of whom will be solicitors. There is not one word in the Bill about barristers, but we have it—I will not say from the horse's mouth—from the noble and learned Lord himself that the intention is to have barristers. Perhaps we will be told how many. So far as I can see, the provision for legal membership of the board is intended to be minimal. Who are the kind of persons the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has in mind to carry out these requirements? How independent will be the board? It will have restricted powers and will operate without the valuable assistance it could receive from regional committees on the lines of the North-West Legal Services Committee or the South Wales Legal Services Group, if they were allowed to continue and, indeed, were extended. They are not mentioned in the Bill. Will there be voices on the board which can speak for the services provided by law centres and advice centres?
I was delighted and relieved to hear from the noble and learned Lord that the famous seven law centres which I rescued and which my successor so generously and gallantly maintained are to continue in existence, but, apparently, in the shadowy hands of the Legal Aid Board. To describe the board which is to come into being as a shadow board was, I thought, a disturbing but perhaps significant description of it. The value of the law centres is, I am grateful to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, at any rate acknowledged. What the advice centres are concerned about is the nature of the funding and the inadequacy of the funding which they receive. As I shall indicate in a moment, it is

617
intended that more responsibility should be placed upon the advice agencies than at present exists.
The nature and composition of the Legal Aid Board is obviously of very great importance. Will there be voices on the board which can speak for the services provided by the law centres and advice centres and who can speak for the Welsh and English regions' standpoint and needs? That particularly applies for those who can reflect the views of local government, because local government is currently financing most of the provision for advice and law centres. The noble and learned Lord has indicated that the intention is that the burden should continue to remain with local authorites.
As I have already submitted, there is no clue as to the qualifications required of the members of the board. I wonder whether what is provided for in Scotland is a pointer to what we can expect. The Legal Aid (Scotland) Board has three solicitors, balanced by three chartered accountants. The chairman of the board is a chartered accountant. Is that a pointer to what we can expect to happen here? If so, that would not be reassuring. We are happy to hear from the noble and learned Lord that, as the Bill provides, solicitors and members of the Bar will be involved. If I may say so, I expect him, as a former Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, to maintain their importance.
In my submission, the majority of the members of the board should essentially be persons with experience of the machinery of justice and its workings. After all, the major function of the board will be to grant legal aid where it is satisfied that the person, as Clause 14(2) states:
"has reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to the proceedings".
That function can hardly be discharged unless there is a majority on the board with legal experience. It is also important that there should be some provision for consumer representation.
Clause 4(5) provides for the Lord Chancellor to give guidance to the board; and one expects that. However, will that be published? Will it be subject to parliamentary approval in the same way, for example, as are codes of conduct under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act?
Taking a general look at the Bill, there is one provision to which the noble and learned Lord referred, but not very reassuringly. Clause 33(5) provides that,
"The Lord Chancellor may, by order dissolve the advisory committee on such day as is specified in the order".
I ask, why? On what criteria may that power be exercised? The Legal Aid Advisory Committee, set up under Section 21B of the Legal Aid Act 1974, has an unimpeachable reputation as a powerful and impartial voice for the public interest on legal aid affairs. It was appointed to advise and to make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor on matters referred to it which are the subject of public report. I am bound to say that I found its advice of great help.
Members were appointed with specific reference to their knowledge of the work of the courts and social conditions. My fear is that abolition of the
618
committee, if that takes place, will mean the loss of the only official body linked to the new scheme of legal aid in the Bill which is capable of monitoring the effect of the board's work and putting forward suggestions for change which reflect the interests of consumers and users. In my submission, the threat to dissolve the advisory committees puts a question mark on a great deal of the Bill.
As regards the availability of criminal legal aid, six factors determining in what circumstances criminal aid should be granted are set out in the Bill. But what this Bill does not do is set out the Widgery criteria on the basis of which courts now decide to grant legal aid. The principle adopted is that what is important is that the interests of justice should be applied. But, whereas in the Scottish Act the Widgery criteria are set out in Section 24(3), the present Bill does not do so. I should find it far more reassuring if it did. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give thought to that before we go into the Committee stage of the Bill.
The Bill envisages certain areas of additional legal work which are to go to the advice sector, particularly in the green form field. I repeat what I have already indicated. If the Government wish to build on the abilities and energies of the advice sector, they should first of all ensure that there is enough provision of such agencies and, above all, that they are adequately funded. It is about that particular point that they have expressed very great concern.
It is regrettable that the Bill has not been used to expand rather than contract legal aid, for instance, through the extension of legal aid to statutory tribunals. The individual citizen is often at great disadvantage when employers and government departments, represented by solicitors and counsel, face him. He may well be unable to get any legal help himself. In other fields, too, there should have been extension rather than contraction of legal aid. They include class actions, proceedings in coroners' courts and, possibly, even proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.
Many problems arise on the Bill. I was delighted to note that in one part of his speech, the noble and learned Lord indicated that he had an open mind on a particular problem. Knowing him as I do—and as we do—I feel very hopeful that that mind will remain open. If it becomes closed, it will do nothing but harm to the litigants of this country.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I feel that I should begin by declaring an interest as a lawyer who receives income from the Legal Aid Fund as it is presently constituted. The immediate problem with the Bill is that it contains no clear statements of principle or of purpose. The Explanatory Memorandum and the Long Title contain bland statements to the effect that the Bill revises arrangements for legal aid. Clause 1 launches straight into definitions and much of the Bill simply provides enabling powers for, as yet unseen, subordinate legislation. One has only to look at Clause 1 to see expressions such as "Regulations may specify", "Regulations may provide", "Regulations may prescribe", and "the Lord Chancellor may

619
direct". Indeed, that is the entire pattern of the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, told us, there are some 56 powers to regulate contained within this relatively short Bill. It is, frankly, very unattractive, mere framework legislation.
Of course, it is right that the Government and the Legal Aid Board should retain flexibility with the power to regulate; but surely it is also right that the primary legislation should give clear guidelines for the secondary legislation which it enables to be brought into existence.
Clause 32(2)(f) caught my eye. It provides that the Lord Chancellor may, by regulations,
"modify this Act for its application to prescribed descriptions of persons or in prescribed circumstances".
That seems to me to be a very wide power. For example, if a later government should decide that one shall not be paid for legal aid work done on a Tuesday afternoon; then that would seem to enable it to happen. It is simply too wide. It is because of the width of the powers given by this Bill that it is hard to discern how much of the White Paper proposals are carried into effect.
At Second Reading it is permissible to consider first principles. The noble and learned Lord said that the White Paper began by describing the purpose of legal aid as being to ensure that people of small, or moderate means, receive access to proper legal aid advice. The Bill does not reproduce that statement of principle. However, it is of basic importance that in a civilised society, justice should be open to all and not just to those whoare able to pay. If people are denied rights of access to the courts they become oppressed, particularly in the fields of employment and housing. Of course, in less developed countries that leads to corruption.
However many laws we pass in this House it becomes a futile excercise if they cannot be operated in practice. It is also right that we should remind ourselves that legal aid is not free. The litigant has to make his contributions in many cases. And there is the statutory charge, reproduced in this Bill, enabling the clawback of the legal fees from whatever is recovered or preserved as a result of the litigation.
I would have hoped that there would be some mechanism within the Bill to provide for careful, continuous monitoring of the scope of legal aid, eligibility for legal aid and also for ensuring its availability at a level consistent with the cost of living. It is proposed, I understand, that the method of payment of contributions should become open-ended until the end of any given piece of litigation, rather than being limited as at present to a term of one year. That proposal must lead to the risk of the legally aided litigant being exposed to pressures by his privately funded opponent in litigation. Therefore, I question the wisdom of that alteration.
I would also have liked to see—it may be something one can expect from future regulations—some further rationalisation of the statutory charge; in particular, in matrimonial cases. For too long there have been a great many anomalies.
620
These were highlighted by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House in the recent case of Simpson v. The Law Society.
It is an oversimplification to say that legal aid is a public service. It is a private service which is publicly funded. As such it needs the goodwill of the professions and the confidence of the public. If the Government wish to see efficiency maintained, then they must also see the importance of retaining the numbers, the standards and the calibre of the practitioners prepared to do legal aid work.
All of us in legal practice know of colleagues at the Bar who will not take legal aid work. All of us know cases where the client runs out of funds and is told by his solicitor that he, the solicitor, does not do legal aid work and that he must therefore go elsewhere, thus causing duplication of effort and delay to both parties in the litigation. The legal aid system is always going to be denied the services of the best and highest earners who prefer to do other work unless they are prepared to let private work subsidise legal aid work. It is essential that the good, competent, middle range of practitioners is retained by the legal aid system. Solicitors and the Bar are used to working long hours and working hard. We of course are motivated by money, but we are also motivated by the wish to give good service. If the profitability of legal aid work becomes more and more marginal, people will feel that it is not worth spending time on legal aid cases. They will concentrate on private work or on that rare commodity, leisure. Fee earners will feel that they can devote their efforts elsewhere. Work will be delegated to unqualified clerks. It will not be prepared properly or it will not be prepared until the last moment, because obviously the less one is paid, the faster the turnover has to be. It then becomes too fast for the work to be properly done.
In short, the message must be that if the system is to be efficiently run, the pump must be properly primed. The fear is that the cliché about a second-class service will become a reality. I say second class, but we understand that in a sense there will be a third class of service in that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us, he will ask the board for workable and worthwhile proposals effectively to subcontract the work. The fear is that financial constraints will lead to subcontracting to organisations such as the Citizens' Advice Bureau which will not have the resources or the expertise. I know that that is the fear of the Citizens' Advice Bureau, which would have been expressed by my noble friend Lord McGregor had he not been indisposed.
The service to the consumer must not be put at risk in that way. The analogy has been drawn of it being rather like asking the doctor's receptionist to decide whether one is ill enough to see the doctor. As to the board. Part II of the Bill tells us what the board can and cannot do. It gives little clear idea as to what it will do in practice. We know that under Clause 4(5) the board will have guidance from the Lord Chancellor. We know from Schedule 1 that it may delegate matters to a committee, but questions have been asked about the board's independence.

621
If my mathematics are right, Part II and Schedule 1 contain no fewer than 43 references to the Lord Chancellor and nine references to the consent, concurrence or approval of the Treasury. In the light of that, one questions the likely independence of the board. At the very least the board's membership should include representation from the Bar and advice agencies. I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say that that would be his intention. I hope that he can legislate to that effect rather than merely legislate for solicitor members. Why should solicitors have all the fun? There should be representation from the advice agencies and regional representation, not merely as delegates but as a cross-section of interested bodies able to give the benefit of their expertise.
I shall turn briefly to the subject of remuneration. Under the existing law the remuneration of legal aid practitioners is determined by statute on the principle of fair remuneration. The Bill repeals that statutory requirement. It has caused anger in the professions. Paragraph 48 of the White Paper stated:
"The Government will continue to have regard to the principle of fair remuneration for work actually and reasonably done".
What we have is Clause 32(6), which does not go that far. It merely says:
"The Lord Chancellor … shall be entitled to have regard, among the matters he considers appropriate, to",
and there is then a list of factors, some of which are less easy to understand than others. Those factors have no priority as among themselves. There is no obligation upon the Lord Chancellor to have regard to those factors. Within his powers he can disregard the lot and have regard to completely extraneous factors, from the price of cornflakes upwards. It is not good enough for the legal professions to be left without the reassurance they require in that respect.
The legal professions feel that those provisions leave them with no control and the Lord Chancellor's Department with no visible target. It is not a case of the legal professions expecting to be paid on a par with privately paid work. The professions have long ceased to have any expectation of payment comparable to fees dictated solely by market forces. But they expect to be paid fairly. The noble and learned Lord said that fair remuneration is an abstract concept and must involve fairness to the taxpayer. However, the taxpayer is a potential consumer of legal services. It is in his interests to have the system efficiently administered.
Clause 32 appears weak. It offers no confidence for the future. Surely the noble and learned Lord will not say that his factors provide unfair remuneration, rather that they provide fair remuneration. If that is the position, he could surely restore the principle of fair remuneration to the face of the statute. If not, at the very least the hope is that there will be an advisory committee on fees to give some authoritative information.
I echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said about having the positive resolution procedure rather than the negative, and preferably positive resolutions which can be amended by Parliament.
622
The worry is not just in respect of fees, although the indication is that in that respect the Government have departed from the White Paper. The remainder of the Bill is an unknown quantity because of the unknown subordinate legislation.
How many other departures will there be from the White Paper, some of which was good and some of which was bad? If there are to be cuts in the scope of and entitlement to legal aid, that should be spelt out. The Government assure us that there will not be any in the foreseeable future. If that is so, as I say, it should be spelt out, preferably on the face of the Act. The 1974 Act gave starting points for eligibility. I see no reason why there should not be starting points on the face of the statute.
The White Paper recommended briefly and abruptly that leave would be required to use counsel in the county courts. Will that happen? We do not know. One cannot gather that from the face of the Bill. It is obviously of great importance to the Bar to know whether leave will be required for counsel in the county courts. Without repeating the arguments in favour of having counsel in the county courts, it is of great importance to the consumer.
Many detailed comments can be made about the Bill. We need to be informed of what underlies it before we can be convinced by it.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, for myself I welcome this Bill. The present structure of legal aid has become rickety. It lets in the wind and the water. It needs restructuring in order to make the system waterproof. This Bill provides the builder to do so: a new Legal Aid Board under a new Lord Chancellor. This restructuring is essential. However, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has referred back to Henry VIII.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Henry VII!
Lord Denning: I go back to the first 25 years when I was at the Bar. I know the old system when there was no legal aid for anybody in criminal or civil cases. In my first case before the High Court, a lady had gone to a dentist and while she was having treatment under gas a tooth had broken and gone down into her windpipe. The solicitor and I did the case for nothing, and we won. It helped the young man and the young lawyer on his way. That was civil legal aid.
We also knew all about criminal legal aid. At the Winchester Quarter Sessions or Assizes the man in the dock would ask, "Can I have legal aid?". The judge would ask him, "Have you any money? Have you £1.3s.6d.?", and some friend of his would say, "I have the money here". The judge would then say, "You can have any of those gentlemen sitting there in that row". He could see only the backs of our wigs, and sometimes he would pick me out. For £1.3s.6d., paid by the prisoner or his friends, I would go below into the cells to see him and to take instructions. I would plead in mitigation, or whatever it was, before the judge for £1.3s.6d. Sometimes I was at the London Sessions for two or three days for £1.3s.6d. On the whole it was not a bad system. It did not cost

623
the state anything. However, I agree it was a day when there was one law for the rich and another for the poor.
That was altered by the legal aid system. I remember how the Rushcliffe Committee pondered the issue in 1945. I remember the 1949 Act. That was the greatest revolution in our legal procedure for centuries. I was on the Bench for many years after legal aid was introduced. Those in the profession know that the amount of work in the courts has increased tenfold owing to legal aid. People who could never have had them before now have solicitors and counsel respresenting them. The numbers of judges, barristers and solicitors have increased. A great deal of their income is paid for by taxpayers; by the state on their behalf. Whether it is the biggest rogue or the poorest individual, the state pays. We pay. The taxpayer pays. The legal aid system is not a bad thing; it is good, but expensive. But in the course of time—and I have seen this—abuses have grown up. The system has been misused and abused. With this new structure I hope that the abuses can be overcome.
Perhaps I may give two or three instances of abuses. First, there is the example of the drunken Irishman. Mr. Kelly was a plausible Irishman, described by the judge as a chronic alcoholic. He had a little knock on the head while with the London Transport Executive. He went back to work in a day or two. However, six months later he went to his solicitor saying, "I have suffered from an awful depression ever since that time. I have not got over it. It was all due to that knock on the head with the London Transport Executive". The solicitor took his word for it. Furthermore, he called the doctor, who said, "Oh yes, this depression is all due to that knock on the head".
The London Transport Executive fought that case. Mr. Kelly claimed £100,000 damages and it was proved beyond doubt—the judge accepted it—that it was a bogus claim. The case was dismissed; it ought never to have been brought. The London Transport Executive came to our courts and said, "The Legal Aid Fund supported this man. We should not have heard of this case but for legal aid. We should not have had to pay a penny. It has cost us £8,000 to defend it. Can we not ask for those costs from the legal aid fund? That is the body which brought this upon us". I am afraid the court in which I sat had to refuse what one may think was a most legitimate demand.
My second example is a case involving a forceps delivery which came before this House. A lady was getting on a little in years. She was going to have a rather difficult delivery of her baby. The surgeon was doing his best for her. He said that he would try a forceps delivery. Unfortunately something went wrong and the baby's brain was hit a little when he was trying to pull the baby out. That lady obtained legal aid. She said that the surgeon had pulled too hard and too long and that was the cause of the brain damage. Legal aid was obtained, great medical experts gave evidence on both sides and the court sat for 11 days before the judge. The case came to the
624
Court of Appeal and then to the House of Lords. I am glad to say that the skilful surgeon's reputation was upheld. He had done nothing wrong. It was no fault of his. But goodness knows how much money that case cost, with legal aid on the one side and the medical defence union, or whatever it was, on the other. Is it right that legal aid should apply to this extent?
My last example is a case of attempted suicide. The man was in hospital for nervous depression. In the course of this depression, one night when everyone else was in bed he pulled up the window and jumped down intending to commit suicide. But he did not succeed. He fell only half-way down and was severely injured. He obtained legal aid. He sued the hospital because of his attempted suicide. Of course that case did not succeed.
I give those illustrations only to show how important the system is. Paragraph 37 states:
"At present, only the applicant has any involvement in the process by which legal aid is granted or denied. Yet the grant of legal aid may have a major impact on his opponent. The Government therefore intends that the opposing party should have the right to make representation against the grant of legal aid before the application is determined".
That is a good scheme under this new administration. Those administering criminal legal aid have spoken about this often before. Legal aid is granted in almost every case that goes to the Crown Court. Counsel says to the man who is charged with some trivial matter, "Not guilty. Go for trial before a jury". The matter could perfectly well be dealt with by the magistrates. However, legal aid is available after months. The profession gets its money. The result is the same as it would have been had the man gone before the magistrates.
Under this legal aid scheme the solicitors in the magistrates' court waiting for their cases to come on have an item which was new to me: waiting time. They received so much an hour every time they are waiting before the case comes up. Paragraph 33 states:
"The Government has decided that, in criminal legal aid court staff should be able to refuse as well as grant applications. This will bring the practice in criminal legal aid more closely into line with civil legal aid and will enable speedier decisions to ge given".
That is why I welcome this restructuring of the Bill: to put things right when they are wrong and to prevent abuses when there are abuses. That is why I support everything in the Bill.
However, I have one word of caution. I repeat what my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have said. These regulations are very wide. They are not set out in any detail. The Legal Aid Board has something to do with it, but the Lord Chancellor has the awesome responsibility to make regulations to cover these wide fields of legal aid. It is a complaint that those regulations are not spelt out to this House or in the Bill so that we can see them. But I would not wish them to be. Look at the book containing the present regulations. We do not want to have to consider all those word by word in this House. In a way, therefore, it is good that there should be a general power to make regulations. I think and hope that we can trust the noble and learned Lord the Lord

625
Chancellor to deal with these issues very fairly for the sake of the profession. I support the Bill.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, like my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, I too, support the Bill on the broad ground that any good scheme is capable of improvement and should be looked at from time to time by Parliament, which established the scheme in the first place. However, I must confess that when I first read the Bill there was much more that I needed to know about it. Having heard the full and helpful speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, many of the doubts that I had have been removed. Some of the doubts held by members of the Bar will be removed when they read his speech.
I should like to refer to the two that perhaps have gained the most prominence. First, the representation of the Bar on the new Legal Aid Board seems to me to be essential. There should be an amendment to the Bill on the lines of the provision that requires two solicitors to be appointed. After all, the Bar under the present scheme has played a very important part. The Law Society's administering committee has always had two leading counsel on it. They have been distinguished barristers, busy men. The area legal aid committees have always had two barristers, generally Queen's Counsel. I served on one many years ago myself and found it a valuable experience. The local committees nearly always have one and sometimes two junior barristers. I was much relieved to hear from my noble and learned friend that the work of the area and local committees will continue much the same as at present under the new scheme.
One matter has puzzled me. It is a very general point. My noble and learned friend described the Bill as an enabling Bill. Then he said in effect that the new Legal Aid Board was to be on trial and that the Government retained the right to maintain the status quo. I hope that I have not misunderstood my noble and learned friend. If I have, he will correct me.
I looked at the Bill to see as best I could what my noble and learned friend was getting at. Under Clause 2,
"There shall be established a body to be known as the Legal Aid Board".
That is obligatory; it is not enabling. Looking at the commencement provisions of the Bill in the last clause, we find that that clause will come into force automatically on Royal Assent. Looking at Clause 32(1), which has been referred to, not always with approbation, in the course of earlier speeches, we find that,
"The Lord Chancellor may make such regulations as appear to him necessary or desirable for giving effect to this Act or for preventing abuses of it".
That does not give the impression that he could do without the board after all. But perhaps I have completely misunderstood the position. I am possibly the only person who has done so, but I think that it might be as well for my noble and learned friend to clear up that point.
We welcome any scheme that will save taxpayers' money if it is justified in so doing. My noble and
626
learned friend said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to enable us to get value for money from the scheme. He told us that the scheme is costing £400 million. From the financial memorandum in the Bill it looks as though only £10 million will be saved. This was clear from the White Paper also. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor did not say very much about how we were going to get more value for money. It looks as though the administration of the board, including the salaries of the members, will be an extra cost compared with what the Law Society does at present. However, I was pleased to hear that my noble and learned friend intends that the staff employed by the Law Society at the centre and in the area committees will be able to assist the new board. That would be a very good thing.
As to the character and composition of the new board, the members will of coure be laymen except for the solicitor and, we hope, the barrister representative. A fear has been expressed in some circles that the members will consist to a considerable extent of retired civil servants. They will, I am sure, be people who are broadly described as "the great and good." Some will come from other professions, some from industry. However, we must bear in mind that the majority will be laymen without experience of the law and of its administration. They will have a tremendous amount to learn and they will have to learn it from the professional lawyers on the board.
I am sure that we were all relieved to hear from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that it is his intention that the principle of "fair remuneration" shall be applied. Clause 32(6), to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred with some dissatisfaction, goes part of the way towards establishing fair remuneration. However, perhaps I may invite the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to a document which was issued in one of his predecessors' time, to be precise, on 8th April 1986. It is headed Matters to which the Lord Chancellor proposes to have regard in making the criminal legal aid regulation. I should have thought that what is written there could apply equally well to legal aid and civil cases.
The first paragraph reads:
"The Lord Chancellor's statutory duty is to have regard to the principle of allowing fair remuneration according to the work actually and reasonably done".
It then sets out eight factors. Some of them are included in Clause 32(6) but not all of them are there in quite the way the Bar would hope. If in applying the principle of "fair remuneration" my noble and learned friend applies what was laid down by the department at that time, he will not be going in any way wrong.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and others in the Chamber, I remember practising at the Bar a good many years before the legal aid scheme came into operation. It meant that many members of the Bar, especially those starting in practice, had a tremendous struggle and did a good deal of work for practically nothing. It also meant that justice was not made available to a very large section of the community—one could really say to the majority of the community. It is a great thing to

627
know that this scheme has worked so well and that Parliament on this occasion is being given the opportunity to make it work even better.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, every system of social provision can only be as good as its structure and resources. Resources must be efficiently deployed, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor emphasised, but the prior issue is the resources made available. So both sound structure and adequate resources are needed. Both are necessary and neither is sufficient in itself.
On the structure and composition of the new board, two out of the maximum number of 17 members must be solicitors. Those two apart, its composition is exclusively down to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. No other persons, apart from those two solicitors, with professional or practical experience must be appointed. The remaining 15 are appointments of the noble and learned Lord and are at his sole discretion.
Under Clause 14(2) the board has to decide whether reasonable grounds exist,
"for taking, defending or being a party to the proceedings'".
Surely practising lawyers are best able to decide that. Is it not obvious that a very substantial number, even if not a majority, of the board should have a deep knowledge, based on practical experience, of our machinery of justice? This is particularly so if as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us a little time ago, the board is to make its own proposals for taking on new classes of work. I simply cannot understand how it could ever have been thought right not to stipulate that some members of the Bar must be members of the board. If the board is to be seen to be independent and to enjoy public confidence, it must include in its membership not just experts in finance and management but people whose knowledge of the machinery of justice allows them to know and to say whether what the board is doing is any good.
I gather that the reason for excluding representatives of the Bar is that members of the board will have to make available two days a week. It is said that barristers cannot do that. If two days are really necessary, then I am sure the Bar will make the right people available. Why are the Government starting off with this two-day job description? Surely the ground objective should be that the board must be independent and must be representative—I shall say a word about what I mean by representative in a moment—of all those engaged in the provision of legal services. The job description of board members should be designed to promote that objective.
Is the board to be basically non-executive as distinct from executive? I understand that the answer is yes. The White Paper told us, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has confirmed, that the board will continue to administer the scheme through the existing network of area offices and that existing staff will transfer to the board. If the executive back-up is there, why are two days a week from board members necessary?
628
I hope that we can be told in reply to the debate what precisely is to be required of board members and why representation from every major professional area with knowledge and experience of the machinery of justice in practice is not mandatory. I do not say that they should be delegates or representatives of a particular interest group—the professional area from which they may come—but because of their background they bring with them a pool of professional experience from which it is essential the board should benefit if it is to function in the public interest.
I have referred to the Bar, of which I am a member, but by the same standard I ask: just as there is an obligation to have two solicitor board members, why is there not an obligation to have two board members drawn from the CABs, the advice centres and the law centres? These are the people who have detailed practical knowledge of the legal needs of ordinary people and how they can best be met.
I ask about the new board because I am concerned for the independence of the new system and public confidence in it. So I should like next to ask about the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. From 1949 Lord Chancellors have had the benefit of advice from the committee. It consists of lawyers and non-lawyers, eight legal and five non-legal. It has powers only to advise and recommend. It has an eminent membership. In 1985 the chairman complained of a,
"lack of a concerted strategy".
He added:
"Law centres remain in limbo; the need for tribunal assistance is accepted in theory, but must await the release of new resources".
The year before the committee itself had declared:
"There is a need to set up a full system of tribunal assistance now … The failure to act in response to our earlier Reports has had its price: people's rights have gone unenforced, their cases unheard".
Do the Government intend to allow this critical watchdog to survive? We now know that the answer is, "Yes, but only for the time being". That is encouraging, but not if it is to be dissolved after the new board's so-called transitional period. It is also encouraging, so far as it goes, that the Bill requires the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when making new appointments to the legal Aid Advisory Committee, so long as it survives, to ensure that his advisory committee,
"is constituted of persons having knowledge of the work of the courts and social conditions".
I quote from Clause 33(2). That is fine while this particular committee lasts. But why, I ask, is the Lord Chancellor not required to ensure that his new, permanent Legal Aid Board at least includes a substantial number of persons who likewise have,
"knowledge of the work of the courts and social conditions"?
How can two solicitors possibly be sufficient?
But, most important, I am deeply troubled that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has power by order to dissolve the advisory committee whenever he chooses. This is the committee which in 1985 complained that,
"lack of clear ministerial responsibility and direction for legal services is a chronic problem".
I hope that the survival of this committee will not prove to be dependent on its quiescence.

629
It has been said from many quarters that the best earnest of the Government's commitment to openness in the legal aid system will be a clear commitment to the permanent retention of the advisory committee. Is the truth that the Government are taking power to rid themselves of what they regard as a meddlesome advisory committee, but which the rest of us see as a guardian of the public interest? Are we to take it that the advisory committee is likely to be dissolved after the transitional period to which the noble and learned Lord referred?
Will the new board be adequately resourced? In recent years the Government have done nothing about what is undisputed—that the administration of the legal aid system by the Law Society has become dangerously stretched because of inadequate government funding. Therefore, I ask: is there to be any underaking that the new board will be adequately resourced?
Next, and crucial, is the question of resources for the advice agencies and the law centres. The 900 citizens advice bureaux have local authority funding of about £14 million a year, while the National Association of CABs has a grant of £7 million from the Department of Trade. About £1·8 million of that goes to the CABs. The CABs have 2,000 paid staff and 12,500 voluntary workers. The independent advice centres—about 250—have a total funding of about £10 million a year, with the bulk coming from the local authorities. There are also about 55 law centres, mostly in the large conurbations.
Initially, much of their funding came from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the urban programme, but that is coming to an end. Here too it is now basically down to local authority funding. About £5 million comes from local government, £1 million from central government, and about £700,000 is earned through legal aid. There are also the other specialist centres—the housing advice centres, the money advice centres and the immigration advice centres.
Everyone with knowledge of this area is aware that the story of the generalist advice centres is of serious, geographically based inequalities. The story of the specialist centres is that in very many parts of the country they simply do not exist. Therefore, I ask: do the Government have a policy for a geographically fair network of CABs, advice centres and law centres? If so, what is it? Do they have a policy for their secure funding, and if so, what is it?
The truth is that they have neither. The great bulk of the funding of the CABs, the advice centres and the law centres comes from local government. Most people in the country, I think, would be astonished that there is so little central government funding, that provision is so haphazard across the country, and that local government is not even under any duty to provide any funding for these bodies. Having no other power, they fall back on a residual power to expend very limited sums in the interests of their area or their inhabitants. That is the 2p rate.
Nor are central government under any duty to fund these bodies. The truth is that these bodies, whose work is vital, have no secure funding at all.
630
They are essentially dependent today on discretionary local authority handouts. They are today under continuous threat of closure. In some cases, local authorities are unable to give a commitment to fund for more than a few months at a time. There is simply no coherent strategy, national or local, for the provision of these services, and this Bill does nothing whatever about that. This would seem to be because the noble and learned Lord is content for central government to have no responsibility and leave it to the local authorities who are not even under any duty to provide funds.
Therefore, what it comes down to is that the Government are bringing into being a new board. It will not be seen to be independent. There is no guarantee that the new board will know enough about the machinery of justice even to begin to ensure equal access to it. The watchdog of the advisory committee is likely soon to be under sentence of death. There are no coherent proposals for funding —only a promise of £10 million savings—and emphatically no extension of legal aid to meet the most obvious needs—basically, before the statutory tribunals.
Legal aid is not available for representation before industrial, immigration or social security tribunals. There is no greater denial of justice. I speak with a little experience of the massively complex system of employment and labour law. The legal aid efficiency scrutiny report recommended co-ordinated provision for representation at tribunals. The White Paper said no to that in the feeblest paragraph that can ever have appeared in a state paper. It is so feeble that I quote it. It said:
"It is not clear that publicly funded representation is necessary for all tribunal proceedings. Another approach might be to simplify tribunal procedure where possible in order to render legal representation unnecessary. The Lord Chancellor's Department has recently commissioned research into the effectiveness of representation at tribunals".
I interpose to say that I hope we can hear about this research in reply to the debate. The White Paper continued:
"Against this background the Government does not intend that there should be any general extension of publicly funded legal representation".
I have never in practice witnessed greater unfairness than the legally unrepresented applicant against the legally represented employer in industrial tribunals. This year and last year applicants were unrepresented in over 4,000 contested cases—about 35 per cent. to 36 per cent. of the total of contested cases. These are cases about unfair dismissal, redundancy, sex discrimination, equal pay.
It is a pure myth that tribunal proceedings are informal, or that they could be so that legal representation really does not matter. Procedures are the same as in the High Court, and they always have been. There is examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and a vast amount of legal argument, rightly and unavoidably, because of the complexity of the statutory system which Parliament has laid down, and of case law. There is much more legal argument in the industrial tribunals than in the county court where legal aid is available, and very much more money is often at stake than in the county court. The maximum compensation in ordinary

631
unfair dismissal cases is £8,500, plus a maximum basic award of £4,740. In some very special cases compensation can approach £38,000. I shall be interested to hear in the reply to the debate how it is to be argued that publicly-funded representation is not necessary in the industrial tribunals for equal justice to be done.
We on this side will not be impressed by any proposition that research is needed in order to prove the obvious—that legal representation is necessary. The sentence that I read from the White Paper about simplifying the tribunal procedure to make legal representation unnecessary is either ingenuous or disingenuous. I would be the first to recognise that lawyers are not the most popular breed and that some might welcome their demise; but a complex legal system without lawyers is as convincing as the Cheshire cat without the grin.
We are ready to congratulate ourselves that our legal system of justice is the best in the world. It should therefore cause no surprise that ordinary people have a deep desire for effective access to this superior system. They feel acute frustration from the denial of legal representation, when the other side is legally represented, before tribunals adjudicating on basic rights in a complex system that their Parliament has laid down.
The Bill does not begin to succeed in concealing the fingerprints of the Treasury—they are all over it. It is only hard undertakings about resources that could persuade otherwise. We ask this question: do the Government see the enjoyment of basic legal rights as a major social goal, with citizens having effective access to their rights by knowing them, by being encouraged to claim them and by being legally represented when they claim them?
In opening the debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor asserted the fact that the Government must have a central role in any service that distributes public money. We respectfully agree with that assertion. We want central direction and strategy. Can the House be told why there is no national strategy for a fair distribution and secure funding of the CAB's, advice centres and law centres? Until undertakings about strategy and resources are made, the fear on his side of the House will remain that this Bill will do nothing to prevent the reduction of yet another social service to a third-class ambulance for picking up the poor.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had the gift of immortality and permanence in the office which he adorns, I would express none of the anxieties which I now express. If, contrary to reality, I could have made those two happy assumptions, my personal knowledge of his outstanding fairness and independence would have totally convinced me of his ability to withstand and not to be overborne by what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell referred to as the "juggernaut of the Treasury".
That phrase was used in a speech made in a debate some 18 months ago and I believe that my noble and
632
learned friend the Lord Chancellor attended. It was initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Benson, the distinguished chairman of the Royal Commission on Legal Services which sat from 1976 to 1979. The purpose of that debate was to call attention to the concern about the provisions for criminal legal aid; and, secondly, to the need to consider ways of improving machinery for negotiating levels of remuneration in the future. The debate took place against the background of what my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman, a member of that Royal Commission, accurately referred to as:
"the recent unhappy and successful litigation by the profession against the noble and learned Lord, the then Lord Chancellor [which] demonstrated that the complaints of the profession were well-founded".
Your Lordships will recall that the profession—that is both the Bar and the solicitors—brought proceedings for judicial review against the then Lord Chancellor, alleging that he had failed to comply with his statutory obligation. That statutory obligation is to be found in the Legal Aid Act 1973, Section 39(3) which this Bill proposes to rescind. The material words are as follows:
"The Lord Chancellor in making regulations … as to the amount payable to counsel or solicitor … shall have regard to the principle"
and I stress these words:
"of allowing fair remuneration according to work actually and reasonably done."
The words are not limited to "fair remuneration", but they are:
"fair remuneration according to work actually and reasonably done".
In his final observations at the conclusion of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said that it had been a curious one because usually conflicting views are expressed. However, he said that in the debate
"the whole House was looking one way";
namely, to the fulfilment of the recommendation of the Royal Commission that an independent review body should be set up to advise—and I emphasise the word "advise"—the Lord Chancellor on all forms of legal remuneration. In agreeing with that recommendation, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said:
"A state of near crisis has arisen in the criminal legal aid field, and sadly in the problems of determining what should be fees for criminal legal aid."
He added:
"Present arrangements are no longer sustainable".
In that debate my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham (the then Lord Chancellor) said in terms that he was:
"wholly wedded to an independent and vigorous profession, fairly remunerated."
He further said that he:
"wholeheartedly accepted the principle of fair remuneration according to the work reasonably and actually performed."
Those are the very words embedded in the statute.
The unanimity of your Lordships at that debate has been totally ignored. There is to be no independent review board to advise the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham's encouraging observation at that debate that he "was not

633
unfriendly" to the suggestion of such a body to advise his department, has a hollow if not a mocking ring in the context of this Bill. All this, despite the fact that such bodies exist to provide independent advice to the Government in relation to many other activities and professions; the senior Civil Service, the Armed Forces, the senior judiciary, doctors, dentists, nurses, policemen, etc.
However, I emphasise that far, far worse is the fact that the statutory obligation of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor (which I have quoted) is to be removed. In future, the profession is to be left totally unprotected by the courts because the courts cannot compel the proper compliance by the Lord Chancellor with a statutory duty which no longer exists. By removing that vital statutory obligation, one cuts off such access to the courts and that is the reason why it has been done.
To those who would ask why that protection is necessary, I would answer quite simply this: because the whole quality of justice in this country is at serious risk. I am quite satisfied that I speak for the entire judiciary when I say how much we depend for the proper despatch of our business upon the competence, industry and integrity of the profession; and if those standards are reduced, the efficiency and the very quality of justice which the courts administer is bound to decline. Cost-cutting can be counter-productive. This is what has impelled me to make these timid and deferential comments.
The unanimous support of your Lordships at the debate to which I have referred for an independent advisory board was based upon the generally accepted view that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor of the day, however firm his belief that a strong and independent profession was vital to the efficient administration of justice, would be unable to withstand the power and the parsimony of the Treasury.
Your Lordships' House had the great benefit of hearing in that debate the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, a former Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, who, in relation to the current arrangement, which I remind your Lordships contains the statutory obligation upon the Lord Chancellor to pay a fair remuneration for work actually and reasonably done, said:
"To call it a system would strain both language and credulity. It places the responsible Minister and his officials in a totally impossible position, by interposing the say-so of the Treasury jack-in-office between them and the professions … It allows of no rational process of argument, let alone negotiation. It imposes a government incomes policy, the existence of which is then promptly denied." [Official Report, 4/6/86; col. 991]
He added that we should,
"end up with the provision of a second-class service to those of our fellow citizens whose circumstances require them to depend on publicly funded legal services."
In saying that that would be "a truly dreadful legacy" he repeated that he spoke "as a consumer".
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, said that the Lord Chancellor's officials responsible for the pay negotiations, were,
"puppets dancing to the strings of the Treasury behind the curtains." [Col. 982.]
634
My noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths, who I am delighted to see is present in this debate, put the position in a sentence when he said:
"The Lord Chancellor's department was working under the shackle of the Treasury." [Col. 1001.]
I have been at pains to rely upon the views not only of distinguished lawyers but of laymen whose long experience enables them accurately to assess the reality of the relationship of the Lord Chancellor's department with the Treasury. I have not ventured my own views. Maybe I shall have an opportunity on another occasion. It is a relationship which has been the subject of a recent and very important lecture, prominently reported by the press, given by Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson, the Vice-Chancellor—that is, the head—of the Chancery Division of the High Court. Having commented that,
"justice is not capable of being measured out by an accountant's computer",
he then went on to say this:
"The old machinery regulating the administration of justice no longer ensures the independence of that system from executive control. Judges are sitting in an environment wholly determined by executive decision in the Lord Chancellor's department, which in turn is operating under the financial constraints and pressures imposed by the Treasury. The yard stick for decision taking is financial value for money, not the interests of justice. What constitutes value for money is being determined by the executive, not judicial decision. The Lord Chancellor's own position, representing as he does simultaneously both the independent judiciary and the interests of Government, is becoming more and more difficult since the price to be paid for obtaining funds for the administration of justice is dependent on satisfying the Treasury that any particular course represents, in their terms, value for money"
The existence, strength and vitality of an independent legal profession, and public confidence in it, are fundamental to our freedom under the law. I claim—although I should like to—no authorship of those words. They are to be found in Cmnd. Paper 9077 of November 1983. They must have been carefully thought out, because they are the first response by the Government, after four years of thought, to the Benson Commission's report. Clearly there can be no confidence in a legal profession which provides for those who lack means a second-class or a second-rate service.
I earnestly hope that the statutory obligation imposed by Parliament some 13 years ago upon the Lord Chancellor the material terms of which I have quoted will be re-enacted on the initiative of the Government. Its omission in the teeth of paragraph 48 of the White Paper, which stated,
"In setting rates the Government will continue to have regard to the principle of fair remuneration for work actually and reasonably done",
will earn for this Bill the short title of the unfair remuneration Act.
As I have sought to emphasise at the opening of my observations, nothing that I have said reflects, or is intended to reflect, any criticism upon the present holder of the great office of Lord Chancellor. His recent appointment has made the winter shorter for all of us. The concern which I voice is concern motivated by an anxiety lest my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should put upon himself a Treasury straitjacket which will prevent his exercising his very considerable talents. That would be to the great detriment of the public interest in the administration of justice.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, this Legal Aid Bill is likely to dictate the character of legal aid for the next 15 years, in the same way as its predecessor of 15 years ago did, and I should like to concentrate on just one aspect of legal aid. The White Paper states that the success of legal aid has largely been due to the efforts of the Law Society. But now I see in the literature of the Law Society on the Legal Aid Bill that anxiety is expressed that for the sake of the good administration of legal aid there will be not enough solicitors who are willing to concentrate on this area; rather that they may neglect it for the sake of privately paid work.
So I hope that it may not be out of place for me to give a quick outline of some of the difficulties experienced over legal aid by solicitors at the grass roots level. On the whole, my observations will be of a general character, though in one or two places I refer to a particular solicitor who has practised in the East End and to whom, for purposes of convenience, I will refer as Solicitor X.
First, there are the problems of tracing the location of clients held in custody rather than in prisons. This applies particularly where a solicitor applies to a judge in Chambers from a magistrates' court for bail and then has to state the present place of custody of the client. While much help is given by the police, it may still be very difficult to do this when clients can be moved on the hour from one place to another. While solicitors can use agents, they may themselves often have to travel long distances and then they are obliged to report in great detail to the Law Society as to why they have done so.
Then there are the various kinds of assistance available under legal aid. A client can consult a solicitor for up to half an hour for £5, which must, on any account, surely be absurd, and thereafter a solicitor can hardly begin to advise a client or to write letters before the £50 limit under the green form scheme has been reached; and so for an extension he has to send back a requisition form. For the filling in of these forms with the figures involved a good deal of time which is unremunerated is required. Under the Bill it is proposed that much of this work should be done by citizens' advice bureaux; but can they cope with this kind of work when over the years they have already referred many cases back to solicitors?
Then there are the magistrates' court cases. Here in particular, owing to the delay caused by unrepresented defendants, magistrates are very much in debt to solicitors. Forgetting solicitors, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act introduced the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme where solicitors so selected speak to clients through the wickets of the gates of their cells in the case of clients who are aggressive or frightened or who may have no idea why they are there.
Since under the duty solicitor scheme no scheme may be worked out for a particular solicitor to act at a selected time, a solicitor may find himself on constant call. For that kind of work he is paid £2950 an hour, and for remuneration he has to fill in a complex form for the Law Society, for the filling in of which he is unremunerated.
636
Then there is matrimonial work. Full legal aid is available for ancillary proceedings but at the end of the day a full bill has to be sent to the Law Society after it has been drawn up by a court's draftsman and submitted to the court and taxed. So it may be some while before the solicitor is paid. While there is a scheme here for payment on account, when solicitor X's firm was paid in that way on one occasion recently only £7,000 out of £30,000 was paid. Then there are the High Court and county court cases. Here again, there may be months of delay before solicitors receive payment. Elaborate bills are submitted for taxation, and after solicitors have agreed to the reasonableness of the taxation an allocator has to be obtained.
Finally, in the Crown Court there is no system of payment on account and elaborate bills have to be prepared for taxation. Solicitor X found in one court that taxation was done by civil servants rather than by associates who have some form of legal knowledge, and in another court solicitor X found that no bill over £1,000 has been or is being taxed for a period of four months. Naturally, to remove all or some of the difficulties that I have outlined would cost more money, but it is important to remember when considering whether the funds allocated for legal aid are sufficient the great increase in the amount of work that has had to be done on account of legal aid owing to the increase in divorce and also the increase in criminal activity.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, it used to be a maxim that in Parliament one never apologised nor explained. I reject the maxim and apologise to the House that I missed the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. That was unavoidable, but I apologise.
I shall explain too why I rise to speak as a layman and with trepidation in a House that is obviously particularly crowded this afternoon with lawyers. I rise because I have been asked to do so to reinforce some of the points already made in this debate from all sides of the House and notably in the speech of my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, who made such a forceful contribution a few minutes ago.
I also had the opportunity of seeing the speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who helped me by pointing out the passages in his speech that might otherwise have arisen in mine. He reassured me that what I had to say was not redundant, because I am as anxious as the members of the legal profession in this House have shown themselves to be that those who are not of that profession are not frightened away from it nor priced away from it. Those of us who have from time to time access to the law know that even for the articulate and even for those who are used to going into offices in high places it is nevertheless a frightening experience to be faced with the law. Lawyers themselves, although they do not recognise it, are frightening individuals too.
I was asked to contribute to the debate by the South Wales Legal Services Steering Committee,

637
which is anxious, although it need not have been, that certain points already made in the debate should he reinforced. That committee is in favour of the reform of legal aid, directed towards public and equal access to justice regardless of means. Obviously I support that as much as anyone else speaking in this debate. We are all in favour, as are the members of the committee, of properly developed legal services. No lawyer would claim that all lawyers are equally good. There are bad lawyers; there are inefficient lawyers; there are lax lawyers, as there are very good and very caring lawyers and as there are such people in all professions.
I also wish to say that I support an approach which recognises the consumers' interest and involvement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out both sides of this argument—both the use and the abuse of the system. He very properly drew our attention to that matter.
When people seek legal aid they are most likely to benefit from advice given to them in advance, even from the opportunity of seeing the lawyer, who is a busy professional man, heavily occupied. It is therefore hound to be a good thing that the regional boards are given every opportunity to present themselves to people in need of such advice as they have to offer. It is absolutely essential that they should be properly supported, that they should have secretariats and that they should be able efficiently to represent the law to those people who are going to get advice on it from the proper sources—from lawyers and from advocates themselves.
I shall not detain the House by going over things that have already been said but I wish to quote from the Royal Commission on Legal Services in Scotland, which stated in 1980:
"To recognise a potential legal solution to a problem the citizen must have some knowledge of the legal rights and responsibilities involved … Many people are reluctant to enter a solicitor's office unless they are sure that they have a real and important legal problem, but they are less reluctant to approach more informal advice agencies".
I believe that despite the instances quoted of abuse of the system there are infinitely more people in this country of ours who are frightened off seeking the proper advice and getting the proper advice, and who are priced away from that advice, than there are those who are ever likely to abuse the system.
I make my own plea as a layman, as one whose mother would be astonished if she had known that her son was going to stand up here and talk about the law in the presence of four former Lord Chancellors and innumerable judges. I add my plea that in dealing with this Bill we ensure that the interests of the consumer come at least as high as those of the lawyer and that those who need legal advice get it through to the end of their complaint in this system of ours.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Griffiths: My Lords, I am sure that all in the House would wish for an efficient legal aid system. On the civil side, it brings great benefit to the less fortunate members of society, and, on the criminal side, it is only right that where the state chooses to accuse, the state should take the responsibility of seeing that there are adequate facilities for a defence.
638
That can only work if the system has the support of competent members of both branches of the legal profession.
I venture to speak in this debate because I am anxious that the form of any future legal aid scheme should be such as to avoid the lamentable crisis of confidence that occurred between the members of the legal profession, especially the Bar and the Lord Chancellor's department, over negotiation of fees of which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has already spoken. I do not wish to go over old ground.
I am happy to say that that unhappy experience is behind us. I know that under the aegis of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor negotiations are now proceeding in a very different atmosphere. I understand the dismay of the Bar when it read of the shape of the present Legal Aid Bill. There are three particular matters upon which I wish to dwell very shortly. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will think that he can accommodate and reassure the Bar upon these matters.
The first and most obvious matter is that no provision is made for members of the Bar to be on the Legal Aid Board. That seems a most extraordinary omission. After all, the Bar knows how the legal aid system works better than most. To turn our backs on that experience is a most extraordinary omission. I accept, as I have heard from my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, that the Lord Chancellor proposes to nominate members of the Bar to serve on the hoard. However, it is a statutory obligation in Scotland. I do not see why it should not be a statutory obligation in this country; and I am sure that it should be.
The second matter is the question of remuneration. In a nutshell, the crisis concerning negotiations on that matter was that the Bar, as it perceived the situation, was negotiating with people who had no power to negotiate because the Lord Chancellor's officials were not under the dead hand but in the live grip of the Treasury. They said, "We hear what you say. We have no money to pay you any more". That was a wholly fruitless exercise. It was because of the fair remuneration clause that the Bar was able to take that matter to judicial review. There is a natural suspicion that the fair remuneration clause has been deliberately removed from the Bill to prevent the profession having access to the courts. I do not labour that point. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has explained it better than I could.
I was very reassured to hear the Lord Chancellor's explanation and I am sympathetic to that. After all, "fair" is a very difficult word to define. It depends very much on context. I think that it is much better to spell out what we mean by fair so that everybody can understand what is being talked about. As I understand it, the Lord Chancellor has told us that he has now spelled out in the clause those considerations which should be taken into account when considering the concept of fair remuneration.
The difficulty lies in the drafting. It is not surprising that the Bar is worried. As the clause is drafted, those considerations, which I take it are intended to be the alternative to fair remuneration, are not matters which must be taken into account but matters which

639
the Lord Chancellor is entitled to take into account. I am bound to tell the House that I would rather negotiate with someone who has to be fair than with someone who is entitled to be fair.
I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that the clause would be very much improved if he deleted the words "be entitled to" so that it then read:
"The Lord Chancellor, in making regulations… shall have regard among the matters he considers appropriate to".
There then follow the matters which should properly be considered when dealing with fair remuneration. That would give the Bar the safeguard which it feels has been removed.
Lord Renton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. I fully agree with him. However, I wonder if he will go a step further and say that the words "fair remuneration" might well come into the clause.
Lord Griffiths: I should have no objection to that. However, I should have to think more about the drafting. The drafting I have just proposed is a simple deletion. If fair remuneration were re-introduced in a phrase such as,
"fair remuneration which shall be taken to mean"
or some such phrase, I should be more than content.
The other matter which concerns me is that the legislation is absolutely peppered with Treasury constrictions on expenditure. I consider it to be absolutely outrageous that the Lord Chancellor of England is not entitled to approve the expenses of a board member without first getting Treasury consent. However, that is spelled out in Schedule 2 and also in terms in Clause 13. It is only one example. A more important feature appears at the end of Clause 32(11). The Lord Chancellor is not entitled to make any regulations either which affect remuneration or the availability of advice or assistance without Treasury consent.
I accept that we are looking at the available cake and that various departments will be competing for their slice. Naturally, what is spent on legal aid will have to be balanced against what is spent on the National Health Service. We have had only too lively a reminder of that earlier this afternoon and it must be taken into account. However, I think that the day will come when the Lord Chancellor in the interests of the administration of justice, will be fighting his corner in the Cabinet for expenditure, and he should not have to get Treasury approval before he puts forward any regulations. Surely the Lord Chancellor is to be trusted not to put forward regulations which wreck government policy. I should have thought that those matters were bound to be discussed in Cabinet.
What we see in the legislation time and time again—from the ridiculous on expenses to the far more important on the nature of representation to be allowed—is the grip of the Treasury. It reinforces the fears of the Bar that future negotiations may prove abortive because those negotiating—it will not be the Lord Chancellor who negotiates but rather his
640
officials—will be hamstrung by Treasury constraints and therefore not able to listen to reasonable argument.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords. I begin by declaring an interest as a barrister who gets a high proportion of his income from the Legal Aid Fund. I also apologise, particularly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in that because of that very occupation I was not able to hear his introduction of the debate.
This is a very important Bill for the quality of justice in our society because it will set the tone for the provision of legal aid for the rest of the century. It is put forward against a background of rising legal aid costs. It needs to be said that legal aid costs are not rising because lawyers are becoming more grasping or citizens are becoming more litigious. They are rising because of the need of people for justice, particularly in terms of the trends of our present society.
For instance, the more there is a squeeze on the expenditure of local authorities and the more that people suffer unemployment, the more there will be social stress. The more homes we have, the more there will be housing below the statutory minimum conditions. With more redundancies, there will be more juvenile crime and more problems over social security benefits. Therefore, in every case there will be more need for good advice and for access to justice in order to deal with the effects of those conditions. Therefore, I believe that we must take stock of the present state of legal aid to see where it needs to be improved, and then see if the Bill achieves that object.
I believe that the original Legal Aid and Advice Act of 1949 was a great pioneering measure of the post-war Labour Government. It was based upon two very important principles, the first being that no one should be denied access to justice through lack of means. By and large, in the way in which the scheme developed it was able to secure those goals. However, there are serious gaps and I wish to draw attention to three of them which are not remedied in the present Bill.
First of all, there is no provision for legal aid for the representation of the next-of-kin at a coroner's inquest. When someone dies in violent or unexplained conditions and the family is devastated the coroner's inquest provides a valuable means of inquiring as to the cause and investigating whether similar fatalities can be prevented. Time and again the distraught family is not able to retain a lawyer to ask the questions that need to be asked at the inquest in order for a fair inquiry to be made. That is the first omission that ought to be rectified.
Secondly, there is an exception under the present law and in the new Bill for defamation proceedings. I have never understood why it should be considered that the reputation of a poor person should be less in need of defence than the reputation of someone who has the resources to tackle the press when it defames someone's reputation. Thirdly, as my noble friend Lord Irvine mentioned, there is the lack of legal aid for tribunals. Industrial tribunals, immigration tribunals and certain other tribunals deal with

641
matters as complex, and difficult to understand and as much in need of legal interpretation—matters which are vital for the interests of the individual and just as important—as do many county courts, for which legal aid is available.
It is unnecessary to grant legal aid for every case because clearly there must be some kind of screening system so that legal aid is available when a lawyer's help is needed. For instance, that situation may arise in the determination of complicated questions before the social security commissioners. But that omission has not been rectified.
The second important principle that was enshrined in the original scheme was that the representation and the advice given under the scheme was to he representation by the lawyer of the client's choice. It is that principle which differentiates the British scheme from those schemes which are operated in many other Western countries in which there is a first-class and a second-class service. In many countries of Europe those who cannot afford to retain a private lawyer have to depend upon some kind of assigned lawyer appointed by the court. There is a stigma and a feeling of substandard and second-class service attached to it.
One looks at the provisions of this Bill to see whether that fundamental principle is to be enshrined. There are powers in Clause 3 of the Bill which give grounds for serious concern. The powers of the board are described in the widest possible terms. Under Clause 3(1),
"the Board may do anything—
… which it considers necessary or desirable to provide or secure the provision of advice, assistance and representation".
In the next subsection,
"the Board shall have power—
… to enter into any contract".
It is clear that what is intended is contracts with other agencies for the provision of advice or representation.
There is no indication at all in the Bill as to how this provision is intended to work. There are some areas where one can see that it is important for the board to be able to make arrangements with citizens' advice bureaux and similar bodies. Are these arrangements to be additional to the existing right to obtain legal aid from a solicitor, or are they to be alternative?
I should deprecate any contract made by the board which provided for some exclusive arrangement so that a citizen had to go to the local advice bureau or the local public defenders scheme, or whatever it may be. That would lead to a differentiation between a first-class and a second-class service. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, if he has not already done so, will indicate with what bodies and under what kind of terms it is intended that these contracts should be formed.
More generally, the Bill fails to respond to the great advances that have been made in recent years in the provision of legal services to the public. In the 20 years that I have been in practice there has been an upsurge of idealism among lawyers. There are hundreds of lawyers both in public agencies and in
642
private practice who are dedicated to serving the needs of those who are most in need of justice. Several new forms of agencies have grown up in that period and I am most anxious to know what their future is to he under the new dispensation in this Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Irvine mentioned, there are law centres. The first law centre was started in North Kensington in 1970 and there are now over 50 of them. Their work has been acclaimed by all political parties and by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee. They have pioneered new ways of defending the rights of groups of people who would not easily have access to the solicitors' normal private practice arrangements. Yet their future remains in doubt and their funding in a mess. They are largely dependent upon local authorities who arc themselves squeezed for funds. Year after year the advisory committee has appealed to the Lord Chancellor to take responsibility for ensuring that law centres are centrally funded. Like my noble friend, I ask: what is the policy?
Secondly, at the next tier, which is the regional tier there have been the kind of regional legal services committees about which the noble Lord, Lord Parry was speaking. There is one in particular in the North-West which started in Manchester. It extends through the the North-West and brings together lawyers of every variety, judges, solicitors, advice workers and a number of other lay agencies.
Other schemes have been put forward for South Wales and the North-East, but they have no funds. They are capable of throwing up stimulating ideas, which would be very valuable for the work of the new board, about how legal services could be better co-ordinated and arranged. Again, I ask the noble and learned Lord to say whether there is a policy for the funding and continuation of the work of those regional legal services committees. If there is, what is it?
Thirdly and finally, there has been growing up around the country in deprived urban areas a number of private legal aid practices comprising local nieghbourhood solicitors who are finding it desperately difficult to make ends meet under the system of legal aid. The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, mentioned examples. Much has been said about the need for fair remuneration for barristers. Barristers manage to remain in business, but solicitors in legal aid practices around the country are being driven out of business because with all the paper work which has to be done and the case by case claims, they cannot make a proper living. I ask the noble and learned Lord to pledge that it will be possible for a neighbourhood solicitor's firm, without being charitably subsidised for its work by private clients, to be able to remain in business to serve its neighbourhood area.
Those are some of the questions to which this Bill should address itself and which it does not answer. I hope that in Committee we can improve it so that in the difficult years that lie ahead it can stand as a measure which will ensure justice for those who are denied it.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in a debate about a subject which possibly can be summed up by the Law Society maxim: "There is no justice without legal aid", I hope, in a short winding up speech, to be able to imitate the temerity and the deference of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in what I thought was a most notable speech.
I believe that there has been a predominant note in this very interesting and informative debate, in which so many experts from the legal profession have spoken but to which there has also been a most valuable contribution from those who are knowledgeable in matters of legal aid but who are not members of the legal profession. There is a fear of this growth of subordinate legislation. Some primary legislation seems to omit more than it contains. I believe that the House, in a matter as vital as is legal aid to the social structure of our country, will be especially sensitive about the emphasis on subordinate legislation.
In the course of this debate it has been said that there are 56 powers granted to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor under this Bill, all of which will be exercised by regulations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, may be frightened of regulations which appear to be voluminous. I am much more frightened of regulations upon vital matters of principle which go through on negative resolutions. In my humble submission, volume is not as important as is the principle that Parliament legislates and legislates when it knows what it is doing. That is exactly what happend in the previous legislation. In the 1974 Act one can read the directions in regard to legal aid, word for word: where legal aid is to he given and all the principles are laid out. In this Bill, which takes the place of the 1974 Act, we are met with powers of which we know nothing. They are to be regulations placed before the House, in the main for acceptance under the negative resolution procedure.
The noble and learned Lord in his very clear and lucid introduction to this Bill made a reference to the first Act of 1495. If I may be allowed to correct the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—which I could never do on the law but can do on history—that was during the reign of Henry VII. If Henry VIII had had the benefit of legal aid, he would have exhausted the fund in no time at all.
The benefit of the 1495 legislation as the noble and learned Lord might have noted, was that although it contained only one clause, at least the nation capable of reading that one clause knew what it was providing. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can steer a Bill through this House which has exactly the same effect; namely, that there are clauses which we know about and clauses which we can pass.
Is this just a theoretical exercise in what Parliament ought to be doing in legislation? In the course of this debate, I think something a little more insidious arose to the reaction that Parliament ought to have to legislation of this sort. Time and again the fist, not exactly mailed but rather exhaustive and deleterious,
644
of the Treasury was seen as being the inspirer of future regulations that come before the House in this way.
I ask the noble and learned Lord—and he knows that I do it with the utmost respect—on behalf of Parliament and in particular on behalf of these Benches to be wary of regulatory powers by means of which Parliament would make him very much more powerful in matters relating to this vital issue of legal aid. He is the one who should have the discretion and not the Treasury working behind him in his department. That is not to be disrespectful of the Treasury. The Treasury has its job to do and its job is to manage the budget of this country a little more favourably than that of the United States of America at the moment and to see that there is not a huge deficit and that the country can afford to pay for services. That is all very right and proper. However, it is Parliament that decides on priorities. It is the nation that, through Parliament, seeks to deal with priorities in social work. It is not the Treasury's job.
My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones made this very eloquent plea in his speech, that we must know, and we ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to tell the House, what sort of regulations are coming out of this Bill. May we please know that before the Committee stage—by letter if it cannot be by any other means—so that at Committee stage we know what we are dealing with and whether in fact the principles that I believe all sides of the House stand for are or are not being met.
I could continue to deal with a great number of questions which I put down on a piece of paper to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I ask him only a few of them because the time is late and I believe that the House wishes to hear the reply of the noble and learned Lord to this very interesting debate. He will know that his immediate predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, of whose company we had the privilege earlier in this debate—we well understand why he has had to leave debates early on several occasions—said in the Law Society when we are dealing with the membership of the Legal Aid Board as suggested by the White Paper (and nobody objects to the setting up of that board providing its composition and powers are all right) that the members would include those with particular experience as providers of advice and consumers of legal services, those from the regions and those with knowledge of the disadvantaged sections of society.
That is exactly what was pleaded for from many parts of your Lordships' House in the course of this debate. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he agrees with that definition of those who ought to constitute this new board.
On contracting out, I ask the noble and learned Lord to assure the House, and certainly the people of this country, that there is not to be any question of invitations to tender so that the people who put forward the lowest prices for the contracts for carrying out these services are the ones who are selected by the Treasury, in its advice to the noble and learned Lord's department, as the sort of people who ought to be given the contract because they have agreed to do the work very cheaply.

645
On the question of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, many speeches were directed towards its eventual survival and, as I understand the noble and learned Lord, he said in his introductory speech that the matter would be under review about one year after the new board had begun to operate. Can he tell the House what would influence him in deciding that the Legal Aid Advisory Committee should no longer exist? What would influence the exercise of his power? What would be the criteria in his exercising that power to do away with the Legal Aid Advisory Committee?
I thought that the speeches made on remuneration fell more properly from those who were not directly to benefit from any question of remuneration. That is why I found the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with all his experience, to be so forceful. I do not intend to participate in any plea. I say this only in regard to the Bar and the profession of which I have the honour to he a member. Competition now exists for those with intellectual abilities in the fields of commerce and industry. If those brains are not to be taken away, in their majority, from a very fine profession—and no lack of popularity will ever make me think it is anything other than a very fine profession—and if we are not to lose those young men, they have to be encouraged by knowing that the remuneration they receive for carrying out this vital work in support of justice in this country will be a fair and decent reward for their labours.
I have made speeches in this House about the Crown Prosecution Service, and others have done so, too. We have pleaded for decent remuneration so that the quality of the service in this vital part of what the state provides shall be kept up to its appropriate standard. Some of us know that there are areas in the country where that standard is at present lamentably low; and I speak with a full sense of responsibility. It is lamentably low because we are not encouraging the right people. It is upon that aspect that I wish to dwell and not on any other aspect when I deal with this question of remuneration for the profession on legal aid. I do not intend to keep the House any longer.
6.3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have certainly had a very interesting and full debate on what I regard as an extremely important Bill. I am grateful to all noble and noble and learned Lords who have taken part and who have expressed their views. I assure the House that those views will be very much taken into consideration.
In seeking to sum up the debate, I cannot hope to deal with every point raised, but I should like to cover the main ones. First, I clarify a little the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. It is definitely intended by this Bill to set up a new Legal Aid Board. It will be no shadow but a reality, with statutory powers and duties as set out in the legislation. However, to begin with, it will have only the responsibilities for legal aid administration which the Law Society presently carries; that is, basically, the administration of civil legal aid, and certain rather small ancillary matters attached to that, as well as the administration associated with it.
646
At the moment it has no responsibility for criminal legal aid. Nor has it responsibility, for example, for assessing the means of those who apply. It is contemplated by this Bill that the Legal Aid Board set up with those responsibilities at the outset may have the responsibilities extended to cover criminal legal aid and other fields so that, in that sense, it is an enabling Bill.
That brings me to the second point. As has been said by several noble Lords, in this Bill there are provisions for a good number of regulation-making powers. That is nothing new in legal aid and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has held up the present arrangements. The situation is that the present arrangements carry a great number of matters in delegated legislation which are important but not immutable. One hopes that the basic framework is set by the statute and that adaptability and development can take place by the use of regulations. That is the purpose of having these regulation-making powers.
I think I am right in saying that, generally, legal aid regulations laid in the past have often been uncontroversial. There is no reason why the time of this House and the other place should be taken up by my explaining what your Lordships already know on matters about which your Lordships have no questions or concern. Therefore, it seems a rather inappropriate step to make all regulations under this Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. Accordingly, up to now we have believed that the correct line to take is to make the regulation-making power subject to negative resolution so that if there is any matter of concern either here or in another place about a particular proposal it can be raised and debated. One of my earliest recollections of being in this House is of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raising a matter of that kind in relation to the procedure and forms available in the High Court of Justice.
Using the negative resolution procedure is economical of parliamentary time while at the same time giving the opportunity to raise any matter of real moment which your Lordships or Members of another place think appropriate. That is the principle upon which the Bill has been drafted. I shall be entirely open to suggestions put forward in Committee that a regulation-making power is of particular significance and, exceptionally, requires the affirmative resolution procedure. These are matters for the Committee stage and I shall be happy to consider them at that time.
Perhaps I should add, on that subject, that I do not expect to have the regulations in draft before the Committee stage. In a sense, that would be putting the cart before the horse. The regulations will exercise powers given under the legislation. Until one knows with reasonable confidence what the powers are to be it is a useless waste of the scarce resources of my department to try to formulate regulations in advance. I may be able to give some idea of what I have in mind for some of the regulations, many of which will be continued from the present system.
The suggestion was made during the debate that the Bill has been drafted with the objective of cost-

647
cutting. Obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said, the cost of legal aid to the taxpayer is rising in rapid steps. I accept, as he said, that that is in part due to circumstances that are unfortunate; for example the rise in crime. Nevertheless, it is a substantial public responsibility to fund this service. Legal aid competes with other public responsibilities, as my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths said. We were forcibly reminded of that earlier this afternoon in Questions. There is competition for public funds and the Government have to take account of that.
I come next to remuneration and the speeches of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, and others, on this matter. In a previous statute there was a provision, with regard to fair remuneration, for work actually and reasonably done. Whenever you quote the full phrase it is apparent that it comes from legislation dealing with the taxation of a particular case, because you have to have work actually and reasonably done before you can apply it and make it subject to this particular test. These regulations are intended to set levels of fees for work to he done but not yet done.
I was very concerned about the appropriate form of this clause, as I think your Lordships may appreciate, when coming to the present office in the circumstances that have been narrated. I think, if I may say so, that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, with his customary skill, has put his finger on at least one of the problems of the previous system. Quoting from the noble Lord. Lord Bancroft he said that it was not one capable even of rational argument—never mind a process of negotiation. This is precisely what I seek to alter and make susceptible of rational argument and proper negotiation. I wish to try, with the aid of your Lordships, to isolate the factors that have to he taken into account in order to reach what would be regarded as suitable remuneration. What are those factors?
I should like to take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, about legal aid practices, sometimes in rather remote and deprived areas. When considering the cost of providing the services, the Lord Chancellor is entitled to take account of variations in circumstances. My noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths understood this approach and, I think it would be fair to say, commended it as at least worthy of consideration. However, he took the view that the words "shall be entitled to" should be omitted, so that it would become a statutory duty to have regard to these matters.
One problem is that there are a great many circumstances to be covered by regulation. The regulations would be expected to reflect changes in circumstances from year to year—although not necessarily annually. Certainly, however, fairly frequent review is required.
Another problem is that of scope and complexity. Considering a particular area in depth is a long and complicated operation. For example, if this year one has gone into great detail in considering the costs of a criminal legal aid practice and has negotiated a suitable set of figures for the regulations dealing with that year, it would seem perhaps not necessary next
648
year to go into it all again. Next year it might be right, on that part of the remuneration regulation, to go for some across-the-board uprating if that was appropriate. Or, if inflation had disappeared and we were in a happy area where there was no inflation, then that particular part of the legislation might be left as it was.
It is therefore necessary, I think, to have some flexibility in applying criteria of this nature. Furthermore, I believe that the criteria set out in the legislation would be a guide to the courts in deciding whether or not a decision of the Lord Chancellor under this clause was subject to review: whether he had properly taken account in the circumstances of the factors which had been set out. Therefore, while I am happy to consider in Committee precisely what form this important clause should take. I should like to explain at least one possible difficulty in using quite the form that my noble and learned friend suggested.
In this connection some reference has been made to a fees advisory body. I can understand that when the only criterion was a vague concept of fairness, it was thought that the only way that that could he put into practice was by reference to some advisory body. In my view there is a great deal to be said for having reasonable statutory criteria and then proper negotiation between the profession—both branches of it—and the Lord Chancellor, together with his officials, to settle these matters.
I was very glad to hear my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner mention the atmosphere in which matters presently proceed. Much depends on the atmosphere in which these negotiations are conducted and I certainly hope that they will continue to be conducted in an atmosphere of co-operation. I feel certain that if, by negotiation, a fee structure can be reached, then that is preferable to any other form of settling it.
The Bill contains power for the new board to contract certain aspects of what is presently the green form system to advice agencies. The Bill is not concerned with advice agencies generally, That is not the function of the Bill. But it is, I think, worth considering whether advice agencies could usefully be used to deal with the people who are frightened of going to lawyers, referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Parry.
Those of your Lordships who belong to the profession may have difficulty in understanding just why people are frightened of going to lawyers. Sometimes, going to a solicitor's office, you can perhaps sympathise with them. Nevertheless, there are people who no doubt need advice as to whether they should see a solicitor. There are areas upon which some people might think that they require legal advice when, in reality, it is a question of receiving information about a detailed statutory code such as, for example, social security legislation and its rates.
I would guess—although I may be wrong—that many of your Lordships who belong to the legal profession would have some difficulty if suddenly faced with a detailed inquiry about the applicable rates of social security to particular circumstances. Generally speaking, the advice agencies have that

649
expertise. It is only right that people should be directed to that expertise.
That is, I believe, important in another way. This matter would be dealt with by contract, as the Bill shows and of course a contract requires agreement on both sides. Therefore there would be a provision for payment to the advice agency in respect of the obligation it was undertaking. In this way there is at least the possibility of a reasonably secure source of income for the agencies. I hope that that will be of some reassurance. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, is here now. I understand that he wished to raise a matter of this nature and I therefore hope that those for whom he is concerned might also feel reassured.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder if the noble and learned Lord would with his usual kindness, indicate whether or not it was the intention to go out for tender in such matters.
The Lord Chancellor: At the moment I am not quite clear about how the matter might otherwise be arranged. One would need to know, to some extent, how people were prepared to react to the possibility of taking on this work by some form of tender. I do not think that the matter is the subject of expressed provision and if the noble and learned Lord has some other method in mind, I would certainly be very interested to hear about it as we get into Committee.
I come now to a question which has been raised a good deal and upon which I wish to say a little. This is the question of the constitution of the board and its independence. It was the original intention of my predecessors that membership of the Bar should be included in the statutory requirement. However, it was also generally thought that something like two days of attendance—at least to begin with—was required if this board was to perform its supervisory and initiating function. I do not wish to go further than to say that it was thought that there might be difficulties in securing suitable membership which would be willing to devote that amount of time to the work. If there is a statutory provision and it proves impossible to secure a person answering the necessary description, there is severe difficulty. I wish it to be possible for one or more members of the Bar to be members of the board. That provision has not been put in because, as I have said, although it was originally intended, it was thought that there might be a difficulty in making adequate and satisfactory arrangements.
I should like to have the best possible board. In a way, the more freedom one has to look around for people of experience and quality, the better. I appreciate the concerns of those who would like to restrict the Lord Chancellor's power to ensure that certain types of members were on the board. I am sure that we shall consider this matter further in Committee, but I thought it right to explain the difficulty.
That brings me to the second point. I should hope that the Lord Chancellor would be able to obtain people of quality and independence for the board. The Legal Aid Advisory Committee is appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and many of your Lordships
650
have spoken of its independence. Noble Lords have gone so far as to suggest that I might be motivated by the terrible desire to get rid of independent comment. That is not so. The Legal Aid Advisory Committee has given valuable advice. It will continue to do so during the transitional period, but the Legal Aid Board is charged with giving advice. If we can obtain people of the same quality on the Legal Aid Board, it may be unnecessary duplication to have the Legal Aid Advisory Committee and the Legal Aid Board giving advice. None of those advisory bodies is completely without the need of a little money to keep it going. On the whole, one would prefer not to have unnecessary wheels on the coach. Therefore, power has been taken in the Bill to dispense with the services of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee after a time, if that should seem right.
It is important that the Bill should be seen as a Bill to deal with the management and strategic direction of the whole of the legal aid system. Your Lordships are asked to settle those principles. Many details will have to be fitted in. Many of those details will develop as the system develops. No one can sec the best solutions for all problems now. We want to have a board that can make use of flexible powers to obtain the best possible results.
I commend the Bill to the House and invite your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Swanage Yacht Haven Bill [H.L.]
6.24 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a third time.
The House has the benefit of the special report on the Bill from its Select Committee. The whole House is indebted to the members of that committee who carried out a full examination of the matters to be inquired into. They gave their time and careful attention and afforded opportunities for those concerned, in particular the petitioners, to present their views. My noble friend Lord Alport is to speak in the debate. As chairman of the Select Committee he will no doubt have more to say when presenting its report. In that report, the committee has recommended by a majority that the Bill should proceed, subject to three provisos.
The second proviso is that the undertakings in the appendix to the report be incorporated in a signed document. I can tell the House categorically that the Bill's promoters accept entirely the provisos and are ready to give the undertakings contained in the appendix, in writing, as proposed.
The Select Committee was able to inspect the genuine particulars of the scheme proposed in the Bill. That is important because in situations such as this, wild and exaggerated theories and rumours circulate. I am sure that noble Lords will have experienced elsewhere, as I have, that incorrect and alarming versions of a proposed scheme circulate.

651
The Select Committee was able to address itself to the facts. I can assist the House at this stage by providing the latest information on the principal points raised on Second Reading, and on developments since the Select Committee carried out its tasks. First, the lifeboat was mentioned by several of your Lordships on Second Reading. A formal agreement with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution has been completed and signed. It meets all the RNLI's requirements and helps to improve its facilities.
The subject of fishermen was raised in the debate. Their interest and requirements have been provided for in the undertakings. Originally, there was provision for nine berths for the nine known full-time fishermen. Three more have now been offered to guarantee places in the haven to help to meet the point made in the Select Committee's report about young fishermen being able to come into the business full-time and to have those places. There is also to he a fishermen's quay, a facility which does not now exist.
Sewerage was another important subject that was raised. Agreement has been reached with the Wessex Water Authority for new equipment (macerators) and for improvements to the system, to he paid for by the promoters. Those improvements were in the water authority's future plans, but it has sensibly taken the opportunity to achieve them sooner at the expense of the promoters. Those improvements would not be carried out in the immediate future, and at someone else's expense, if the haven scheme were not to proceed. Those three subjects—the lifeboat, fishermen and sewerage—were matters of concern at the time of Second Reading in May. Other points were raised, all of which I believe have been satisfactorily settled.
An event which occurred after the Select Committee had carried our its enquiries was the town poll. It was initiated in October by opponents of the Bill and held in mid-November. The question put in the poll was:
"Do you wish to see a private yacht haven in Swanage in the form set out in the Swanage Yacht Haven Bill as proposed?"
That wording should be noted, because some of those opposed to the Bill are not against the concept of a yacht haven but in favour of a much larger one. That however cannot now be regarded as a realistic alternative as the promoters have reduced their area of jurisdiction for the present scheme on request and with the commendation of the Select Committee.
The poll was for residents within the boundaries of the town of Swanage, numbering 7,293. It did not extend to other local people living in areas nearby who are involved in business in the town or employed there. The result was that 54 per cent. of the electorate voted: 16 per cent. voted yes; 36 per cent. voted no; 2 per cent, had spoilt papers. The result is not surprising when one considers the alarming versions of the scheme which were put out and which doubtless influenced many of those who voted to vote no.
I have here a leaflet, which was published during the days before the poll, asking electors to vote no.
652
The leaflet contains several incorrect and misleading statements. For example, it states:
"The developer's own experts have calculated that 25,000 to 30,000 tons of sand will he lost from our main beach each year".
That is a misrepresentation of colossal proportions. The developers were asked how much sand might move if there were no groins on the beach. It was to that hypothetical question that the estimated figures were given. In fact, there are plenty of groins on the beach at Swanage which prevent such a movement of sand and there is no proposal to remove them. The figures have no relevance whatever to what has been proposed. The statement has been taken out of context and is therefore thoroughly misleading, unintentional though that may have been.
Another fallacy in this leaflet is an illustration purporting to be of the proposed breakwater, making it much higher than it would be. The caption with it states:
"The magnificent view of Swanage Bay and the Hills GONE!!".
The height shown, and the real height of the proposed breakwater, can easily be assessed if one knows the height of the adjoining Wellington Tower, which is in the illustration. The leaflet shows the breakwater's height at a point much higher on the tower than the level proposed in the promoters' scheme. That illustration would undoubtedly have worried many people, causing quite unnecessary anxiety and distress. Indeed, I am sure that many of those qualified to vote, horrified by that picture, would have decided to vote no. It is not difficult to see why people voted that way in these circumstances.
Another misleading error in this leaflet is this:
"The Parliamentary Bill includes clauses which could affect the future security of the Pier".
The paragraph continues by casting doubt on the arrangements to keep the pier in repair. There is no excuse whatever for that travesty. The pier has been rescued by the promoters after falling into disrepair some years ago and becoming unsafe, and it is an integral part of the scheme. The pier is an important and traditional part of the Swanage sea front. Here again, electors would have been influenced by that passage, totally misleading as it was.
It is clear that much of the voting in the poll was on a yacht haven quite different from the one in the Bill. It was an imaginary horror-story haven as depicted in that leaflet, and no doubt by word of mouth also.
I come now to an intriguing and most interesting observation about those events. Some of those who instigated the town poll, who led the opposition to the Bill and set up the organisation called the Swanage Coastal Protection Association were themselves associated with a scheme for a yacht haven very similar to the promoters' haven and had discussed it with the planning department of the district council shortly before the promoters produced their scheme. I have here a copy of the outline plan of that scheme dated November 1984–only three years ago. The main differences from the present scheme are that there is provision there for 296 moorings instead of 250–that is nearly 50 more—and a denser development of buildings and dwellings. I have here the architect's drawing of the

653
plan, entitled the Grosvenor project, prepared in the office of Messrs. Clark Bristow, 169 High Street, Swanage.
The prospective developers were apparently negotiating purchase of the old Grosvenor Hotel and land immediately before the promoters of this Bill entered into negotiations and were successful. The plan includes a breakwater similar to that in the scheme in the Bill. Therefore the principle of a breakwater had been accepted, although this was one of the matters on which the opposition has concentrated. That scheme apparently did not get any further for lack of adequate resources, and the scheme in this Bill later received the preliminary approvals of which the House is aware.
I suggest that this throws a new light on the situation. Many of the voters were being encouraged to vote against a yacht haven as a possible threat to the environment or to the character of Swanage by people who had themselves been planning a similar haven—not one of those mentioned in the report of the Select Committee. These were earlier proposals. One perceives an element of rivalry and sour grapes. The attitude is. "If we cannot have ours, we shall make sure that they do not get theirs".
There is a great deal more to be said about the town poll and its timing. It is certainly a pity that it was proposed after the work of the Select Committee and not before. Because it has happened at this stage, the circumstances—including the misleading information, some of which I have described—could appropriately be looked into and taken into account by a Select Committee of another place in the normal later stages through which this Bill is due to pass. The occurrence of the poll only last month makes it more necessary that the Bill should proceed to another stage where all the relevant facts can be examined closely.
Many of your Lordships who have taken an interest in this Bill are clearly concerned about possible adverse effects of any haven of the kind proposed on the local environment. This came out again at Second Reading. I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that some of those leading the "no" campaign were planning a very similar private scheme only three years ago and only a short time before the promoters put forward the scheme in the Bill. Since that town poll the two local authorities concerned have not changed their support for the project in the Bill. Swanage Town Council held a meeting and decided to continue to support the project. Purbeck District Council has not met and has not changed its policy.
One apprehension about the Bill which is natural and to be expected is that it may change the character of Swanage for the worse. Whether this be a concern felt by residents or by visitors over the years, it should be given full consideration and care should be taken to explain what is being proposed. The wild horror stories will not have helped. The promoters have done their best to show how an area where the life of a hotel has been coming to an end and the pier could no longer be used because it was unsafe can be renewed with thought and imagination and the minimum of disturbance to traditional activities. I am satisfied that the project will not damage the
654
environment. I should not be supporting it if I were not completely satisfied on that matter.
As some of your Lordships know, I am chairman of the advisory committee on pollution of the sea, ACOPS, an international organisation. In that capacity I chaired a conference in Italy convened by ACOPS only six weeks ago to make progress in protecting the marine environment. That conference was attended by delegates from about 40 countries. I mention these credentials with modesty, I hope, because I would not wish anyone to assume that I was a novice in this field. Because of that background, I am well aware that seashore projects can give rise to a wide difference of views which I am sure we shall witness in the debate this evening. I commend this Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. — (Lard Campbell of Croy.)
6.40 p.m.
Lord Raglan Lord Raglan rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been criticised for putting down the amendment as it is not considered right to oppose the findings of a Select Committee on a Private Bill. I have been attending your Lordships' House regularly for 22 years. I am very familiar with the workings of the House. I can fairly say that I am steeped in them and accord them deep respect, developed in a practical way as they have been over centuries. I learnt long ago that, before doing anything involving procedure, if one has any doubt one must consult the appropriate quarter and be quite clear what is involved. Therefore, I did not put down the amendment without most carefully taking official advice.
I am informed that there are indeed many precedents in voting against a Private Bill on Third Reading. By the nature of things that I need not go into, it does not happen very often. The last time was in 1976. That was yet another Bill to do with Felixstowe docks. It had already passed through the other place. It was then passed by your Lordships' appointed committee, although with reservation from certain members. On Third Reading it was voted out by a majority of over two to one, the opposition including the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the late Lord Byers, who were then leaders of their respective parties. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who had been chairman of the committee, was in what he aptly called a predicament because at the time he was also Chairman of Committees. Rightly, however, he stood by his committee, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has courteously told me that he will do this evening. I say to him that, if I were in his place, I think that I should find myself doing the same, I cannot say what he would do in my position, but I know that he understands it.
The Bill was severely criticised from all sides on Second Reading, but the procedure was followed that a Private Bill is not voted against at that stage to enable it to go to committee. The House, however,

655
accepted my instruction that the committee should have special regard to certain matters that are printed in the special report. In the event, the committee allowed the Bill through by a majority of three to two. Naturally, I was disappointed; and I became even more concerned when I read the special report and the transcripts of the seven days of evidence. I hope that I may say without offence to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that I believe the committee dealt less than fully with the terms of the instruction, and on one point in particular, as I shall explain.
What finally prompted me to oppose the Bill is that on 12th November in a statutory poll held under the provisions of Section 12 of the Local Government Act 1972 the townspeople of Swanage voted against the yacht haven scheme by 2,657 to 1.184. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has given the percentages. That is a majority of about five to two against on a turnout of 54 per cent. and an electoral roll that was about a year out of date.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, does not have a very great estimation of the intelligence of the ordinary voter if he thinks that he has been misled by the leaflet which the noble Lord produced and which I know very well. As publicity, I think that it was rather well done. The strength of the turnout is even more remarkable considering that, as laid down in the procedure, the polling booths were open from four o'clock in the afternoon to nine o'clock in the evening only and that throughout that period there was a high wind and much cold, driving rain. If as a consequence of that poll I had not put down the amendment I should have felt very deeply that I had let those people down.
I should say again how I became involved in this matter. I was written to by a friend who has a house in Swanage. I replied to him that the scheme did not sound too bad and that people tended to protest against such proposals. Eventually, however, I was persuaded to go and see for myself. It soon became clear to me what a disastrous proposal it was.
For those of your Lordships who have not had the advantage of seeing Swanage Bay, I can best describe it as being about two miles across and shaped like an elongated letter C which curves gently out at the top and curls quite sharply up at the bottom. At the apex of the lower curl lies Swanage town by a little natural haven. This is the only part of the bay, and it is a very small part, where there is shelter for the mooring of boats. Fishermen operate from there, yachts and pleasure boats ply from there, the lifeboat stands there, trippers trip over the ropes and wander along the shore, and so on. It is an agreeable scene and much in demand by visitors.
The scheme in the Bill would appropriate a large part of that frequented area and about half the sea that is available for mooring. The marina would go right into the middle of it all and enclose it for private use. There is no other area of sea that is well sheltered and reasonably close to the town boat park and no other place where the town boat park and slipways could be located. The 70 or so moorings that the marina will displace have nowhere else to go. It is to the aspect of enclosure that, with respect, the noble
656
Lord, Lord Alport, and his committee appear not to have attached much weight. This busy part of the bay and all those moorings, to which the public now has free access, will be forfeited under the Bill to make way for the development. Yes, the Committee says, the breakwater would be an eyesore; and yes, the yacht haven would affect the town's character and environment. However, while the committee has sympathy for all the disruption that would be caused, it says that things will soon settle down. It thinks that a modus vivendi will be found and that Swanage should accept the scheme for its own benefit.
I find that very optimistic. I have sat on many Private Bill committees. One took 15 days, which was a record at the time. I know, therefore, how much time noble Lords have to set aside to perform this interesting but otherwise somewhat thankless task.
I have read the transcript, from which it appears that the committee took no evidence on the alleged economic decline of Swanage or the number of jobs the scheme would create. The number is supposedly 40, which in all conscience is not very large in a town of 7,500 people. I have a breakdown of those 40 jobs. Four, five or six—I cannot make out which—refer to employment on the pier, which is, however, unaffected by the scheme. Another 25 attach to the complex of 100 houses, with club, shops, and so on, for which outline planning permission has already been given, although I learn that now the town council can see what the first houses look like it has objected to the second stage of the development proceeding. That leaves 10 jobs for the marina itself, which seems an overestimate because, so I am informed, normal staffing for a marina is one to 100 boats and this marina is for 250 boats. Whichever figure is correct, it is a tiny benefit to set against such a massive intrusion into the town's foreshore and bay.
No figures are available for what yachtsmen may spend in the town, but whatever the sum is the developer is evidently expecting that they will spend it in his own new shops. I believe—and it is one of the considerations that prompted my putting down the instruction—that by far the greater part of the economic benefits of the scheme will go straight to the developer. While that is usual and acceptable in the right location, in this area it is to my mind unacceptable in principle because his benefit accrues at the expense of depriving the public of their benefit. It is this equation which the Committee has not addressed and it has perhaps allowed itself to be diverted by other hypothetical considerations.
There are also the fishermen to consider; they were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. They have enjoyed a right to mooring here since time immemorial. They are against the scheme.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, they have not enjoyed a right. There is no right. This point came up in committee. There is not a right; there is just a licence. They can be booted off by the Crown Commissioners just like that.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, I read the noble Earl's questioning on this very point. It would be difficult not to translate that into a right of access. They have

657
had access to this place since time immemorial. Nothing I read in the evidence will make me change my mind. I might with other evidence, but as the evidence was transcribed in my version it seemed to me that they had acquired a right, although the Crown owns the foreshore.
The fishermen are against the scheme, as are the statutory and national bodies which control and protect them. The Southern Fisheries Committee has supported the petition with a substantial sum and has given expert evidence. The Sea Fish Industry Authority opposes Swanage's declassification as a fishery harbour, which the Bill would bring about. In the authority's opinion this will deprive fishermen of necessary benefits. The scheme will be enormously disruptive to the fishing and will inhibit the expansion of what has been a rapidly growing industry.
What I am trying to convey to your Lordships is that there is no room in that part of the bay for both the marina and the present users and that however much one may be in favour of more marinas—and they are quite in fashion now—that desire must not override propriety as to where they are put. Surely they should not go just anywhere that may appear to be convenient for yachtsmen.
Another worry is the effect of the breakwater on the currents in the bay and the damage these currents may do to the beach. I have read the evidence from the experts on both sides and I came to the conclusion that nobody really knows what damage the currents may cause. The promoters say, as a kind of educated gamble, that building the breakwater is safe. The petitioners, with whom I side, say that it is reckless to build it and hope for the best. It is evident that no one can say with any certainty in what circumstances the promoters could be held responsible for making good any damage.
There are many other unsatisfactory aspects to the scheme, but as there is a long list of speakers I must allow noble Lords to bring in the many points which concern them. I hope I have said enough to show what a sorry impact the scheme will have on this very popular traditional seaside town and how wholly inappropriate it is that a marina should be put there.
I shall conclude by pointing out to your Lordships the difficulty encountered by the petitioners in a case such as this. Promoters of such schemes have the initiative and the resources and they make it their business to know the ropes. In Swanage there is as yet no civic amenities society so there was no immediate focus upon which the objectors could gather. Therefore, they have taken a long time to organise themselves and to find the money and the time to contest the Bill in Parliament. They have had to contend with a skilled and professional presentation, and not least with a quite formidable authority in which any Bill once deposited in Parliament is cloaked. Starting off with not knowing what to do or whom to contact. I think they have done marvellously well. If the Bill goes to the other place they will have to go through the process again. If they just fail to convince the committee, their own opinion of the scheme has been backed by a convincing majority. I hope your Lordships will support them and not allow the Bill to proceed. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Raglan.)
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, the original Question was that this Bill be now read a third time, since when an amendment has been moved to leave out "now" and insert "this day six months". The Question I now have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, after reading the Second Reading debate on the Bill and the papers submitted by the petitioners and promoters, my first impression was that if there was doubt when the evidence to your Lordships' Committee had been heard, on the whole the benefit of that doubt could properly be given to the petitioners. Your Lordships' Committee, of which I was chairman, sat for two weeks and visited Swanage where it saw at first hand the areas and amenities of the town which would be affected by the construction of the proposed marina. It was particularly concerned to satisfy itself on a number of matters.
The first was whether the promoters had the financial resources to carry out the building of the development successfully, because nothing could have been worse than if the project had failed on account of lack of sufficient resources. Secondly, how far the building of the breakwater would affect the beaches which hitherto had been the principal attraction of the resort for young families coming for a "bucket and spade holiday". Thirdly, whether the construction of the breakwater would result in the pollution of the sea around the beaches by sewage.
Fourthly, how far the construction of the marina would interfere with the existing mooring rights of boat owners and damage the facilities now available to the professional fishermen who make their living by fishing in the Swanage area. Fifthly, whether the construction of a stone breakwater would create an unacceptable eyesore in what is rightly regarded as a beautiful stretch of the English coastline; and lastly, how far any of the disadvantages to local interests which the construction of a yacht haven might create would be offset by the advantages this development might bring to the town of Swanage as a whole.
I hope that both the promoters and petitioners felt that your Lordships' committee gave them a full and fair opportunity of presenting their arguments. If anything, I think the committee tried to ensure that the petitioners' case, deployed by an able counsel and supported by admirable witnesses, was given special consideration. This was I think proper, both in view of your Lordships' instruction and because those who seek to petition this House against something to which they object, and who do not necessarily have great resources or perhaps much experience of parliamentary matters, should be given particular sympathy and understanding.
Your Lordships will have read the special report of your committee. It sets out very fully the arguments that were presented by both sides, particularly in

659
relation to matters mentioned in the Instruction. It includes in an appendix certain undertakings that the committee considered it right to impose on the promoters in the interests of certain long-established pleasure boat owners and in those of the professional fishermen operating out of Swanage.
I must tell the House that when the committee came to a vote my four colleagues were equally divided, and I therefore found myself in a situation, which all sensible chairmen of Select Committees seek to avoid, of giving a casting vote. I think I owe it to your Lordships to explain why I voted that "the Bill do proceed".
I was greatly influenced by three things. First, the evidence presented to the committee, much of which, as is always the case in these committees, was conflicting. It seemed to me that the damage to what I may call the "bucket and spade beaches" was likely to be minimal. I have since seen reports from south coast resorts as far away as Cornwall that hoteliers and tourist agents now regard that sort of holiday as largely a thing of the past.
I did not think that the creation of a breakwater, the height of which was specified, would affect the view of residents of the bay or damage the general amenities of the area. I considered that any danger of sewage contamination could be avoided, and that the legitimate interests of the professional fishermen would be protected by the undertaking set out in the appendix. I thought that changes in the mooring facilities and the location of the lifeboat were not of sufficient weight to decide that the Bill should not proceed, particularly since the Lifeboat Institution had agreed to the latter's new location.
But, my Lords, I was greatly influenced secondly by my visit to Swanage. I seemed to see a town with some charm and character but which had missed the bus. It was dominated by a great white elephant, the derelict Grosvenor Hotel, which the promoters propose to demolish and replace with houses. Its pier was rotten and unusable until the developers started to repair it. I found a class of what I think was the sailing club with young people listening to a lecture in a dark, damp hut which the developers proposed to rehouse in a rather delightful building. I found myself doubtful of the real value of some of the amenities which the petitioners sought to preserve.
I was influenced by two other matters. First, that the Swanage Council had voted in favour of the proposal (and did so again, I understand, recently), that the Purbeck District Council had withdrawn its petition against it, and that a marina at Swanage was included as part of the county plan. Secondly, that there had been two or three earlier proposals to build a breakwater at Swanage not apparently dissimilar from the present one and without any apparent opposition, but which had foundered because the necessary finance—public or otherwise—had not been forthcoming. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has told us that there had been some later project which had not got off the ground.
660
I suppose that Francis Hutcheson's adage, plagiarised by Jeremy Bentham,
"That action is best which procures the greatest happiness of the greatest number"
was somewhere in the back of my mind. A small number of people in Swanage would be inconvenienced, but as the yacht haven attracted new visitors to the town, the shops and restaurants, the hotels and the specialist firms providing gear would benefit. There would be additional employment for the younger people, and above all there would be an impetus for renewal in the future in contrast to what seemed to me the evidence of stagnation and decline which at present seems to pervade Swanage.
But, my Lords, having started with a bias in favour of the petitioners and a wish to give the benefit of any doubt to local private interests against the intrusion of a development to which they were opposed, I relied in the end on such experience of this sort of problem as has come my way over the past many years. A developer built a large estate five or six years ago in my village of Layer de la Haye against a great deal of local opposition. It has done nothing but good. It has given new life and vitality to the village, and yet the village has kept its special happy village character.
I have been intimately involved in the problems of the development of Colchester, a town of great antiquity and character. There has been much opposition from its older citizens to the changes which have taken place. Today Colchester is a boom town. Its ancient characteristics remain alongside so much that is new, and its future prosperity is assured. Colchester certainly has caught the bus.
But most especially I was influenced by the example of Harwich. Some years ago, when its MP retired, I was asked to look after the constituency for a few months. I was told that I would find Harwich itself a very depresed town. Some years previously it had killed a plan to develop it as the Continental terminal, which was subsequently built at Parkestone Quay.
When this decision was made a local councillor who had supported the development project prophesied that grass would grow in the Harwich streets. My Lords, the sinister thing is that on my first visit to Harwich I noted that grass was actually growing in the Harwich streets. Harwich had missed the bus on that occasion and it became subsequently a sad, introverted town rather like Swanage, mourning a missed opportunity.
Luckily that is not the end of the story. For now it has a second chance for the future. Another bus has arrived. The planning authorities are considering, and there is likely to be overwhelming support for, a new piece of development—the building of a yacht marina costing some £15 million with an adjacent housing development, just like Swanage.
My Lords, it was for all these reasons—adequate or inadequate as they may be—that I gave my casting vote in favour of the decision that "the Bill do proceed". I have thought a great deal about it since we rose for the Summer Recess. Your Lordships may of course decide to kill the Bill stone dead by a vote against its Third Reading. Or you may think it better to leave a decision to another place where the elected

661
Members for that part of England sit, and which can consider the significance, if any, of the parish referendum.
I can only explain to your Lordships why I gave my casting vote the way I did and why I think it would not be in the interests of Swanage and its inhabitants, particularly the next generation, that it should follow the fate of Harwich and have to wait another 30 to 40 years of gradual decline until another bus comes along.
7.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alport, as it gives me a chance to thank him for having chaired the Select Committee, which he did with great ability. It was not an easy committee to chair as will be gathered from his description. But he has done so extremely successfully. The House is much in his debt whatever one's thoughts might be about the Bill in question. It is not any part of my responsibility to take part in a discussion of the merits of the Bill. However, as there is a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, to reject the Bill, it might be as well if I say just a few words on the procedural implications.
Those who wish to oppose Private Bills are, I accept, in somewhat of a dilemma. When it comes to Second Reading, they are told that it is better to leave the matter to go to a Select Committee where it will he investigated fully, but when it comes back at Third Reading they are told that they should not oppose the Bill because it has been approved by the Select Committee. I sympathise with those who find themselves in that dilemma. I can only say that it follows inevitably from the long-established procedure by which Parliament considers Private Bills. In effect, the House is normally expected to accept the view of its Select Committee which has had the advantage of hearing the evidence together with the arguments for and against, of counsel, whereas the House has not.
There are precedents, and the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, mentioned them. However, in recent years there have been very few. So far as I am aware, the only Bill to be thrown out at Third Reading was the legislation on Felixstowe dock and railway, mentioned by the noble Lord. Special factors affected that legislation, particularly as it was largely a matter of politics rather than the merits of the Bill that decided the issue.
Turning to the Bill before your Lordships, I recognise that in this case the circumstances are, to some extent, unusual. Not only were two members of the Select Committee opposed to the majority recommendation that the Bill should proceed but, as the House has heard, there has been a parish poll which suggests that the people of Swanage are largely opposed to the provisions of the Bill. Nevertheless, that does not change my advice to your Lordships that the established procedure should be followed and that the House should rely on its committee's recommendation as to whether the Bill should proceed. The factors to which I have referred, particularly the parish poll, are matters which
662
another place will be able to take into account if your Lordships give the Bill a Third Reading this afternoon.
The Select Committee sat for seven days and spent another day visiting the site of the proposed yacht haven. The House will also appreciate that the committee gave careful consideration to the Instruction moved by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, referring to it in a special report, if the House were to agree to the Motion that the noble Lord has moved, it would be making two assumptions which are contrary to the accepted practice of this House when dealing with Private Bills: first, that after hearing numerous witnesses and visiting the site, the committee came to the wrong decision; and, secondly, that the House is more likely to make the right decision after one afternoon's debate having heard none of the witnesses and not having visited the site. I recognise, however, that many of your Lordships know Swanage well.
Those are the procedural considerations in relation to the accepted practices of the House. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to bear them in mind when considering the Motion to oppose the Third Reading of a Private Bill.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I shall not keep the House for long because I know that some noble Lords have commitments tonight, as do I.
I am completely in favour of the Bill. For a long time, I have believed that our generation has an obligation to the young to provide sporting and recreational facilities whenever we have the chance to do so. Young people are full of energy and they should be given the opportunity to work off some of that energy in a wholly healthy manner. We are still a maritime nation and I support anything which encourages boats and a maritime outlook. Sporting facilities used to be provided by our schools but, sadly, that is now falling away and provision depends on local clubs and attendance on the attractiveness of the facilities being offered.
Secondly, I support the Bill because it provides facilities which can usefully be used for recreational purposes for six months of the year. Even the declining numbers who visit Swanage confine their holidays to within six weeks. The boats there will be attended to, varnished and sailed from Easter until the end of September. I am told that "bucket and spade" holidays last from the end of July until early September. There will be the on-going creation of activity.
It is sad, but someone rightly said that the "bucket and spade" activity in which our children engaged and in which our grandchildren try to engage is dying. Young people want activity and something more than a bucket and spade for the seven or 14-days holiday. We also want something that is not dependent entirely on sunshine. Although we love our nation very much, some of us tend to fly to other parts of the world where the sun is more reliable during the summer months. Noble Lords will know that millions of people fly to Majorca, Greece, the Costa Brava and other parts of the world. As a result,

663
Swanage is a declining town, almost dying. I believe that this provision will be a useful and valuable injection.
The marina is to house 250 yachts. It will provide recreational facilities and part and full-time jobs. My figures are different from those of my noble friend Lord Raglan. The construction of the 100 houses which, in some ways, are the infrastructure and which finance the creation of the breakwater, the repairs to the pier and the other good facilities now provided, currently means employment for 83 people of whom 50 are local. I hope that it will not be said that no work is being provided for local people. If there are 250 yachts—I am sure that there will be and that there will also be dinghies and similar craft—there is an enormous amount of spin-off in jobs and part-time work for local people.
There is opposition but I hope that not too much will be made of it. One knows that "antis" can be heavily and adroitly organised. Perhaps CND taught us that, if nothing else. However, it may not be entirely representative of the view of the town's people. I should like to list some of the bodies which support the proposal and which were elected by well-disciplined voting. First and foremost there is Swanage Town Council. Other bodies that support the proposal are Purbeck District Council, Dorset County Council (as a highway, strategic planning and tourist authority). Dorset Tourism Association, Swanage Chamber of Trade, Swanage Hoteliers Association. Swanage Development Action Group representing local businesses, Wessex Water Authority, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Swanage Sailing Club and Royal Yachting Association, Swanage Sailing School, Swanage Diving School and the Swanage Pier Trust.
I ask the House to consider seriously the fact that the town is fading out. Ten years ago there were 12 or more hotels in the town. Now there are two. The rest have been closed down and the last one to have been closed, the Corrie Hotel, is being converted into old people's homes. That is symptomatic of what is happening to the town and we need a magnet to attract young parents and their children.
I should like to quote from a paragraph in the report. It is an admirable report and the House owes a debt of gratitude to those noble Lords who worked so hard. However, I wish that the committee had included a map. One must look at a map to see that there are two miles of beach to the north of the project and therefore masses of space for those who wish to exercise themselves on the beach. The report reads:
"the Committee feel that unless Swanage seizes this chance for the development of its coastal facilities, the opportunity will not occur again. If that were so, the people of Swanage could now and in the future be the losers".
With that message, I hope that the House will pass the Bill tonight and send it to the other place where local MPs can take part in a detailed examination, making sure that all the points which arise are being dealt with by the developers. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords. I should first like to refer to the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggesting that the House ought not to oppose the Third Reading of a Private Bill. The noble Lord stated clearly the dilemma in which a noble Lord is placed when he is told at Second Reading. "You must not vote against Second Reading, so as to give a Committee the opportunity to examine the Bill". At Third Reading he is then told, "The Committee has examined the Bill so you must not disagree with them". If noble Lords accept that argument, there is no stage at which the House as a whole can express a view.
Both in this House and in another place we make great use of the device of handing over part of our work to the committees. We always do so on the assumption that the last word rests with the House as a whole. I do not think that we can accept therefore as a general rule the idea that if a Select Committee has voted a particular way, we are obliged to follow that recommendation. We do not disregard it without thought, but we are certainly entitled to disregard it if after consideration we believe it right. I hope that the House will accept therefore that while we may be doing something unusual, we are not doing something that is either improper or against the rules of the House. Indeed, if you accept the alternative proposition that we ought never to reject a committee's report, you are throwing away part of the constitutional authority of the House as a whole, which ought to be preserved.
I think that we should take note of the special nature of this Bill. It rather resembles the enclosure Acts which were passed in the early years of the last century, in which the lord of the manor would take over what were believed to be common rights and convert them to his own use with the result that a large number of villagers were deprived of their livelihood.
There was some argument between the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and my noble friend Lord Raglan as to whether the fishermen and others in Swanage had rights. I think it is probably true to say that legally they had not. However, by long understanding and belief it was supposed that they had those rights. That was the position of the commoners at the time of the enclosure Acts; they were told that rights which everyone had assumed were theirs did not in fact belong to them. They found that they could no longer collect firing or turf from the common or pasture their animals on it. They were pushed into a position of complete poverty and subjection.
The Earl of Onslow: With respect, this is not what the Bill will do. For the first time it will actually give those fishermen something which they can buy or sell. Their rights are being increased by this Bill. It is not akin to the common law enclosure Act in any way whatsoever.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, in the first place, those concessions were made during the course of discussion and as a result of criticism. Secondly, they do not apply to all fishermen. There will still be fishermen in Swanage who as a result of this Bill will

665
find themselves deprived of their livelihood. In addition, the fishery industry in Swanage has also been the subject of educational visits by parties of children to study marine life, and indeed also to study the working of the lifeboat. Both of these opportunities will be removed as a result of this Bill. I know that the lifeboat itself remains, but I do not think that it w ill be possible for parties of children to visit the lifeboat in future.
I think that you will also find that on every issue that has been raised—the lifeboat, the fisheries, the beaches,—you could not get a definite answer. If you study what the report says about the beaches it comes down eventually on a hopeful sign, hopeful from the promoter's point of view. However, they were obviously in doubt as to the result of the breakwater and its effect on the tide and the beaches. There is a very unusual and peculiar motion of the tides round Swanage which would he interfered with one way or another by the creation of this breakwater. We do not know for certain whether, in the end, a massive job of trying to replace sand would be necessary.
We are being asked to consider a Bill which may inflict very serious damage on the people of Swanage when nobody has been able to establish with any certainty that it would not. I am inclined to begin, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, began, by giving the benefit of the doubt to the petitioners. I am sorry that he did not stick to that view because we are left with the fact that the petitioners and the townsfolk run the risk of loss in respect of the fisheries, the beaches, the opportunities for children and the general amenity of the town.
Against that the benefits to be conferred are again a matter of dispute. Various estimates have been put forward, but none of them with convincing evidence as to the amount of employment that will be created by a marina of this size. The marina itself cannot create very much employment. I think, too, that it may be difficult for the promoters in the event to run a marina merely of the size proposed. I think it is now accepted that they have the resources to do what they say in the Bill that they will do; but whether the erection of a marina of this size will prove in the end to be a worthwhile and viable proposition is a very different matter. It would be unfortunate if Swanage has to come to this House again in a few years' time to try to enlarge or duplicate the marina.
The final point that I should like to make relates to the continued assertion that Swanage is rundown and dying. It is true that there are fewer people staying in hotels. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, says there are only two hotels, I think that he means only two are mentioned in the Automobile Association's guide book. If you walk along the streets of Swanage you will find there are a great many more than that, a very great many indeed. What has happened is that people are now taking holidays in flatlets or in caravans rather than in hotels. This of course means that there are people spending money in the town; there has merely been a change in habit in the way people take their holidays. I think that it cannot be maintained that Swanage is running down or that we should be denying opportunities of recreation to young people. The
666
fisheries and the boats of Swanage will provide a great deal of healthy activity for young people, to say nothing of the facilities for walking and cycling round Swanage itself.
It is important to remember that Swanage is not merely a town, it is the central town of the Isle of Purbeck, one of the most beautiful parts of this country. It is that which attracts a number of people to take their holidays in Swanage and provides healthy activity in walking and cycling for young people. I think therefore that those who say that Swanage is dying on its feet have not considered the many ways in which the people of Swanage make use of their town. This was what they expressed in the poll.
You can argue until you are black in the face but you cannot argue away the fact that at the end of five hours of voting, which was all that was allowed, when it was pouring with rain and bitterly cold, 54 per cent. of those entitled to vote went out and did so. On a local issue, as most noble Lords will know, this is a considerable figure. Of those who voted, 70 per cent. voted against the marina. The most deplorable suggestion has been made as to why they did so. The promoters have suggested some of them were physically intimidated, although no serious evidence of that is advanced. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, suggested that the opposition was motivated by people who had their own scheme and were moved by feelings of sour grapes. There may be some. However I know Swanage fairly well, I have been on holiday there many times, and I have never encountered any. What I did encounter was a large number of Swanage citizens, ordinary decent Swanage citizens, who disliked this project because it appeared to damage the beauty and the prosperity of their town. At the end of the day —
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way to me. My point was that they were voting on what had been presented to them as a sort of horror story haven, and I just read out three of the points from the main leaflets which were circulated, which were completely false and very frightening.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I will accept that on one or two points the noble Lord, is able to show that there were exaggerations. On the other hand, those who were urging for a no-vote were not like those on the other side who were going round presenting pens and pencils to people who would vote in the required way. If we are going to argue as to how the poll was conducted, and as to the arguments that were advanced, there is quite a lot that could be said but I doubt whether there is very much profit in doing that.
When you finish with it, the actual vote remains an impressive demonstration of the wishes of the people of Swanage and in a case where every issue is in doubt and uncertain, and where the wrong decision may destroy the character of this beautiful and lovely place, the wishes of those who took the trouble to go to vote should be given great weight.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, will not be surprised if I take an opposite view to him, because I followed him on Second Reading. I think I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in all that he has said. If I may say so, he put forward a very fair and factual account of what is at stake here and I see no reason to alter in any way my support for this Bill.
If I may start, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has already said, by getting rid of the lifeboat question, there was a lot of talk about how unsatisfactory would be the new arrangements for the lifeboat. Indeed the RNLI was lobbied to get it to take part in opposing this marina scheme. As a member of the public relations committee of the lifeboat, I have to say that the lifeboat is not in the business of being involved in saying whether a scheme is good or a scheme is bad. The lifeboat is there to do a job of saving lives at sea and to see that proper provision is made to enable the lifeboat to carry out that task.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, the RNLI has signed an agreement with the promoters and is totally satisfied with the arrangements made. There is an advantage to this, in that an afloat berth in a marina allows the use of a larger and faster lifeboat, so that the facilities for the lifeboat will perhaps be better than they are at present. In addition, it has been suggested that the existing slip might silt up as a result of a marina being built. I understand that there is no evidence to support that and the present lifeboat house and slip will remain available for the use of the RNLI.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said that those who have orchestrated the local opposition to this Bill are to be congratulated, and I think I might go along with him on that. They have produced what I can only describe as a cleverly orchestrated scheme based on deliberate misinformation. The noble Lord talked about a massive instrusion into the bay of Swanage and he went on to describe the delights of Swanage Bay, which I know well, having spent many of my childhood holidays in the Grosvenor Hotel, which is at the centre of this whole scheme. The marina as such, even including the area of jurisdiction outside it, will only take up 2.5 per cent. of Swanage Bay, which really is a very small proportion; and I think that if you see an aerial photograph showing the area taken up it cannot in any way be argued that it is a monstrous intrusion upon the bay.
The noble Lord went on to say that the area where the marina is to be built is a much-frequented one. That is not my understanding, having talked to several of the residents of Swanage. In fact, I believe that before our Select Committee went down to view the area a whole load of schoolchildren had to be bussed in with fishing nets and all the rest of it to show that it was, in fact, used. That is just another instance of the deliberate misinformation that has been brought forward.
I will not go too deeply into the fishing question, except to say that I think the local full-time resident fishermen have been extremely well treated under the Bill. I think that the promoters have met all their
668
objections. On the question of how the scheme might affect fishing, often constructions of this sort, in some strange way—and I do not intend to go into the issue in any detail—enhance fishing.
Swanage is a half-moon bay, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, described it. As a result of that, the currents that go around it are not particularly strong. The main current comes down from Poole and whistles past outside Peveril Point down towards Anvil Point, so I do not think there will be any violent movement of sand; besides which the whole hydrodynamic question has been gone into in great detail by acknowledged experts in the field. Their work was vetted by a gentleman from Southampton University who was hired by Purbeck District Council to keep an eye on things, and, at the end, he expressed himself satisfied with what had taken place. He said that the results were what one would expect and finished by saying that the portents remained favourable.
We have heard much about the past delights of Swanage—the splendid sands, the bucket-and-spade brigade and all the rest of it. I will not dwell on that, except to say that I think those days are definitely gone. Swanage has indeed lost 40 per cent. of its hotel beds in the last five years and I believe that there are two more hotels to be added to that.
I now come to the question of precedent which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. I was a very new Member of your Lordships' House when the Felixstowe Bill was considered. That, as the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees intimated, was quite a different issue. It was very much a political issue, which involved nationalisation and was a matter that would better have been dealt with by a major government Bill and not by a private Bill. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, scored an own goal by saying that that Bill came to this House last; it was the last attempt that anyone had to alter the Bill. In this case, as we have heard, the Bill has still an opportunity of going to another place, where all the relevant new detail can be discussed, so it is not, in my opinion, a similar situation.
However much one may object to progress—and I respect those who feel that way—it cannot be stopped in the long term. It is interesting to recall that when the railway first came to that part of Dorset the local residents bitterly opposed any extension of the line from Wareham to Swanage. It took Swanage 20 years to get a railway line. Are we now to see Swanage, which has waited so long for a breakwater or a harbour of some kind, miss out once again? I support the Bill.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, as has already been made clear to the House, the Select Committee was divided upon this issue. It was divided in the proportions of three to two. I was one of the minority of two and I hope that it is permissible and possibly even helpful if I follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and explain briefly to the House why I came to the conclusion I did.
However, before I do that I shall make three preliminary observations. First, I do not think it

669
possible in the time that we have available in the House tonight to review again all the manifold issues which arose during the course of the Select Committee. It is very easy to select particular parts of the discussion which happen to suit one's case but I shall try to refrain from doing that because there is a quite different consideration which I wish to put before the House.
Secondly, I do not in any way in anything that I say criticise the decision which was arrived at by my three colleagues who formed the majority. Indeed I am very happy to acknowledge the very great benefit that we gained from the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I am sure that all my colleagues will be at one on that but perhaps I may say that I do not think—I address these remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway—that anything is gained by an exchange of accusations of deliberate misrepresentation by one side in the argument about the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, committed a complete misrepresentation when he spoke about the lifeboat. Nobody contends that if this breakwater is built it will be possible to maintain the launching base for the lifeboat. Nobody contends that at all. Everybody agrees that the chute down which the lifeboat comes is going to be next door to the breakwater and that that part of the beach in any case will silt up as a result of the building of the breakwater. It is very simple for people to accuse the other side of deliberate misrepresentation. Of course I do not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, of doing anything of the kind, but I think it would be better if we tried to refrain from exchanges of that kind.
Thirdly—this may appear to be a concession to the argument on the other side—although there are clearly precedents for throwing a Bill out on Third Reading, as has been made perfectly clear, I nevertheless accept what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has told us: that this would be unusual. I also accept that the House should be—I think rightly—reluctant to throw out a private Bill of this kind which has gone through the process of a Select Committee that sat for seven days and made its own inspection. I think that the House should be reluctant to throw the Bill out at this stage. But, having said that, I considered at the time when the Select Committee sat and when it came to its conclusion and I consider now that there is one particular feature of this private Bill which makes it a private Bill of a most unusual character. That is a feature which justified the minority in voting against the Bill then and which would in my view justify the House rejecting this Bill tonight.
I must explain that this is not a legal point. It is a point which is basic to the consideration of the argument about this Bill. As any of your Lordships who have sat upon a Select Committee considering a proposal for a development of this kind will know, we are always told—and rightly told—that the burden of proving that what is proposed by the promoters is in the public interest rests upon the promoters. It is not the business of the petitioners to try to prove the contrary.
670
That principle is one which in my view has a special importance in this case. I say that for the following reason. Often proposals of this kind which come in the form of a private Bill are made by statutory undertakers who are trying to seek powers to carry out their statutory obligations. That is one form of private Bill of this kind. Another kind of private Bill is one promoted by a local authority which again is seeking powers to carry out the obligations that it feels it owes to its district and to its electors.
The third form of such a private Bill is instigated by a property owner living in a locality who wants to get permission to develop the property in one way or another and who for sonic reason cannot get it through the ordinary planning procedures. He comes and presents a private Bill in order to enable him to carry out that development.
This Bill is quite different from all those three usual cases. It is different in the sense that it is promoted by a private entrepreneur, not by a statutory undertaking, not by a local authority and not by someone who lives and has property in a place and who wants to develop it. It is a proposal coming from a private entrepreneur who is seeking authority first to take over an existing pier and to undertake the responsibilities and acquire the rights of the company which has hitherto managed the pier and secondly to assume jurisdiction over about 20 acres of the open sea. Thirdly, he seeks permission to build in the open sea a pier or breakwater which will create an artificial harbour. Having done that, the entrepreneur or his company on his behalf seeks to have the powers of the harbour authority over the development.
It seems to me that there are two special features about the promoter's proposal which are not really in dispute. I do not really think that one of them will be questioned by any side in the controversy. That is that for better or for worse this proposed development will have a profound impact upon Swanage and upon Swanage Bay. The second feature which I suggest cannot be disputed is that this is a straightforward, plain commercial venture. It is not the case of a promoter who is seeking this permission because he is under any duty or obligation to carry out this development. So far as I know, nobody in Swanage ever asked him to provide them with a marina. He is admittedly promoting the Bill because there is a prospect of a large-scale commercial enterprise. There is nothing wrong in that; there is no reason why a person should not put forward a proposal of that kind. However, I consider that there are two features of the problem which serve to emphasise that the burden to satisfy us that their scheme is indeed in the public interest rests heavily on the promoters. They must show that what they are proposing to do is in the public interest.
Perhaps I may put forward three propositions. The first is that the public interest in this case is synonymous and coincidental with the interests of Swanage and the people who live and work there. That is the public interest with which we are concerned. Secondly, the private interests of the developers in putting forward this commercial exercise are immaterial when we are considering the public interest in the matter.

671
My third proposition, which I urge on the House, is that the people who know best what is in their own interests and in the interests of Swanage are the people who live there. That notion may be very old-fashioned. However, I suggest that it is not for any outside body or authority to tell the people of Swanage what is good for them. Indeed, I do not think that it is the business of a Select Committee I do not suggest that it was done—to tell the people of Swanage what it thinks is good for them.
What do the people of Swanage want? We shall never get unanimity on that matter; that would be beyond all expectation. However, there are two things which are abundantly clear as the result of the hearing before the Select Committee. I believe that the majority of three who were in favour of the promoter's case will agree with me that there were many real and grave apprehensions among some sections of the population of Swanage about what the proposal means for the future of the harbour.
The second matter which I do not think will be in dispute is that there were very strong objections by people who have a lifelong and long-standing interest in the welfare of Swanage and its people. I estimate, having sat through the whole of the inquiry, that at the end of it those apprehensions were not allayed and the strong objections which were presented to the committee were maintained.
The committee was at a disadvantage, in that there was no way in which it could, at that stage, make more than a guess as to what the people of Swanage felt. However, as a result of the poll, we now know. There can no longer be any reasonable doubt as to the prevailing view of the people of Swanage. Therefore, if we say that the Bill should go on and if we do not stop it now, we shall be making our own views on the matter prevail over what is clearly the desire and wish of the great majority of people in Swanage.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, quoted some of the objections he had to the leaflet which was sent. I wonder when an election was ever held in which, after the result was declared, the losers were perfectly happy about the propaganda which had been issued by the winning side. No doubt there have been misrepresentations in the matter on both sides. But, when one considers the effect of that particular leaflet, one must ask who was in a better position than the people themselves to understand and realise the truth or otherwise of what was being asserted. They could easily judge—they live there—whether the little picture on the front was a proper representation of the height of the breakwater. They have been considering and discussing the matter over the last two years. Does the noble Lord really suggest that the result of that poll was achieved by a single leaflet which he contends was misleading on three points?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will very kindly give way so that I may answer. He compared the poll to an election. However, my point was that the only information which the electorate had about the candidate was wrong. It was as though they were being given a
672
different candidate and were voting for Mr. Smith instead of for Mr. Jones. The choice of haven was not the haven in the Bill; it was quite different.
Lord Foot: My Lords, the leaflet to which the noble Lord has referred sets out, if I am correct, 20 or 24 different matters. The noble Lord finds himself able to criticise it in three limited particulars.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Many more, my Lords.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I do not see that that is a false manifesto or a misrepresentation of the situation. However, I do not want to get involved in controversy with anyone, least of all the noble Lord. I urge on the House that we should hesitate a long time before we deliberately reject what are now transparently and openly the wishes of the people of Swanage in the matter.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I have known Swanage all my life and I consider that the Dorset coast in that area is one of the most beautiful parts of this country. I have a great affection for it. My affection does not equal that of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, which he has demonstrated tonight and to which he refers in his very agreeable autobiography.
I approached the work of the committee with an anxiety to protect the environment of the area and a strong interest in the wellbeing of the townsfolk. At the same time, I was aware that the fortunes of the town had declined in recent times. Whatever else has been said, I do not think that anyone can reasonably maintain that its fortunes have risen. It is clear that they have declined.
At the time that I started work with the committee, I was not aware that two similar projects had been considered since the war. I did not know of the third project to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred. Therefore, the idea of a harbour and marina within Swanage Bay has been in the minds of the people of Swanage for nearly 40 years. It is not a new idea. Having listened to the evidence which was given to the committee, I nevertheless reluctantly came to the conclusion that the Bill should be supported. It was not a conclusion that I wanted to reach. But in the event, I was convinced that it was logically and socially correct.
I should like to explain the reasons why I voted to support the Bill. Those reasons very closely resemble the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has already given to the House. The first is that the economic future of the town is uncertain. I do not believe that can be contested. The town has been declining and the probability is that it will further do so. It is the victim of the change in holiday fashions and the rise in the standard of living of most of the people. The fall in the cost of European air fares which we were promised last week in the House will no doubt accelerate further the development of the package holiday while the number of bucket and spade visitors, so dear to the heart of Swanage, may well decline further.

673
As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has stated, Swanage has a very short holiday season of six weeks and at the best of times its holiday earnings are limited. The marina will extend the season by many weeks and I suggest that the takings in the town for the extended holiday season will be very greatly superior to what has happened previously.
The fishing industry and the fishermen of Swanage have done well. They have marketed their catch in France very successfully. I do not believe that there is anything in the Bill which will prevent the expansion of the local fishing industry and I do not consider that it is threatened.
The second point that influenced me was the realisation by the townspeople that a change must be made. That was clearly shown by the planning approval given for 100 flats proposed to be built by Durrant Developments. These flats are of a kind hitherto new to the town. The architecture may not he to everyone's taste, but there can be no argument that these flats will bring to the town a different type of person who will substantially contribute to trade and to employment. All this has been accepted already by the people of Swanage.
The third point that influenced me was that a yacht haven is a natural complement to this type of housing development. As I pointed out, the new housing and the plan are no novelty to the people of Swanage.
The question was whether the yacht haven could be built without irreparable damage to the interests of those who live in the town. Doubt centred on the following points. The scheme involves the building of a substantial mole encroaching on available space hitherto used by the public and by professional and amateur fishermen. A substantial rearrangement of long-established moorings would become necessary. That is not impossible. Indeed, special arrangements have been made to accommodate the fishermen, who are already enjoying the moderate prosperity of their industry.
The mole obstructs the beautiful view enjoyed by a number of residents. I sympathise with them, but I must point out that the number of residents is strictly limited and, as was pointed out when we visited the town, it is only the view from their ground floor rooms which is blocked across the harbour. The view from the upstairs rooms is in no way affected.
I believe the mooring problem can be solved satisfactorily locally. Expert opinion on the effect of the mole upon the fishing and the seabed is that it will be negligible, although it is claimed that this opinion is based upon insufficient evidence and the opinion cannot be certain, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, pointed out. It is suggested that the evidence is not precise and definite. In any case, the developers have undertaken to make good any unexpected and unacceptable developments. My conclusion therefore is that the marina and the flats will contribute to a more sure economic future for the town at an acceptable cost to the environment and at no financial cost to the residents of Swanage.
It is natural for some people to like things to remain as they now are. I was very recently in the Falkland Islands, and that was exactly the view taken
674
by the Falkland Islanders. That attitude is to be found everywhere, and from time to time I share it. But it can be selfish and unwarranted if it prejudices the prospects of a later generation.
The town council has already approved the development plan and its approval was repeated after the referendum or the vote to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, attaches so much importance. The elected representatives of the people of Swanage, having seen the result of the vote, nevertheless repeated their approval of the plan. So I do not believe that we can be accused of overriding the wishes of the people if their representatives have supported the plan. Therefore, I feel that the plan should go forward.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Wynford: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, who has just spoken, have known Swanage for a very long time. It was in fact 60 years ago that I first went there as a boy of 10 camping with the Scouts. I have continued to visit Swanage—at irregular intervals, I admit because of my way of life—but the fact is that I have kept in touch.
One of the main reasons is that my home is some 25 miles away to the west along the Dorset coast behind the Chesil beach. That beach is stony and very dangerous to bathe from. For that reason we sometimes, as a family, would visit Swanage. We have continued to go there since, as well as visiting other places. Some of my grandchildren are at school there now and I find myself going there to watch athletics, football matches and the like.
I claim therefore to know something of Swanage, and I have paid particular attention to the town in the past six months. I was there on 1st May this year just before the Second Reading of this Bill. I spent a day there—and a very fine day it was—talking to people. Having said that, I feel that it would not be right to do what I first intended. That was to re-emphasise the statutory poll. It has I think been thoroughly covered.
If your Lordships will bear with me, I have it in mind to say something about the development of the approach road from Wareham to Swanage. During the holiday season this road has great significance for the numerous population, as I shall explain. It goes back into the hinterland behind Swanage. I have carried out an examination. The area in question starts at the sea with the Isle of Purbeck and then Swanage along the coast. One step further inland there is Wareham, a fairly large town and increasing steadily in size—the centre of the area I am talking about. Further back, there is Bere Regis, forming the top of my move inland, so to speak.
It is in fact 18 miles by road from Swanage to Bere Regis. Therefore, I am dealing with an area 18 miles deep. I have taken 10 miles as an average for its breadth, which gives 180 square miles. As it is irregular on its eastward side where it touches Poole harbour—the Arne peninsula and all those pieces—I have cut down to 150 square miles the area which I call, for simplicity, the catchment area of Swanage.
In that catchment area, as I have found in travelling all over it and noting the changes every

675
year, there is a huge variety of accommodation. There are of course a few private houses in which people live all the year round. But there are fewer hotels and boarding houses. I am told by local people that by far the most popular holiday residences are flats let for a week or a fortnight. There are bed and breakfast establishments. There are camping sites, by which I mean sites under canvas. There arc caravan parks, some very extensive ones towards Lulworth. One has 600 caravans. There are holiday cottages which are nearly always surplus to agricultural requirements let on weekly or fortnightly terms. There are also the second homes of those who live in the big conurbations of London and the Midlands. I know that because there is one on my farm. It is occupied by people from the Midlands. These second homes may sometimes be sub-let and so come into the general supply of holiday accommodation.
For all the people living in this area, Swanage is an easy day round trip for the family. I do not think I am exaggerating—I have asked people about this—when I say that in spring, summer and early autumn there may be peak periods when the normal population of the area is quadrupled. On that basis of calculation, taking 15,000 as the normal winter population, the peak population becomes 60,000. Therefore, we are talking about 60,000 people. They do not all want to go to Swanage. Some may go to Bournemouth and Weymouth. But these are the people who can reach Swanage in a day trip. It is, in fact, their closest seaside place.
There is a change taking place. The road from Wareham down to Swanage, is being immensely improved. It used to be a terrible road for falling rocks causing traffic congestion. There are large scale works going on now which will not be finished until next summer. But, already, journeys are starting to be a much quicker and less fraught operation for a family.
That is the potential of what I call the landward-side people. I do not see why they cannot be given some consideration. Everybody speaks about Swanage itself as just a town. But one needs to consider the people along the route through the Isle of Purbeck to the sea who probably come back year after year. They are looking for the sort of pleasures that Swanage happens to be very well provided with. Apart from fishing, dinghy sailing and wind surfing there are the pleasure steamers and facilities for family sea bathing and children's sea sports, as I call them—shrimping and collecting crabs in jam pots. There is the country park, a new development within walking distance of Swanage and a good one I am told, though I have not seen it. There are the downs walks around Swanage in the beautiful green hills which surround it like an ampitheatre. Lastly, there is the heritage coastal footpath which, passing through Swanage, continues through the rest of Dorset, Devon and Cornwall, and up the other side of Cornwall and Devon, ending I know not where. It is a footpath that one would take three, four or five days to cover. That is the sort of variety that these people are looking for. It is what they look forward to and what they book up to do.
676
I ask myself: can it be right to superimpose a marina on this charming scheme. It would be all very well if there was room as, for example, at Brighton where there is a straight coast. There is lots more room there for people who want to enjoy the sea. However, this is a different matter. We have here what I call a question mark. It is a hook with a long tail coming out under it. The hook is where all these interesting things happen and that is exactly where they intend to build a marina.
Many of your Lordships have referred to Swanage Bay as large. It looks quite large even on a road map. On a chart it looks even larger. However, the whole thing is reduced down to this crook, and that is where everything happens. It cannot go further down the coast just because someone says it should. It is not like that. The cliffs become rather dangerous further down.
A feature of Swanage is that it is very safe for children. I maintain that there is not enough space to add a large and separate enterprise to what is already there. There are the disadvantages—what I call the unkown factors. No one really knows the answer to the shifting sands and the sewage. The sewage is to be cut up, but it only sinks to the bottom. The water looks clear, so you assume clear water until you possibly feel what is under your feet.
We should consider the interests of the far greater numbers in the landward catchment area which I have been talking about rather than the yachtsmen. The interests of the landward catchment area must prevail because of the numbers. Which of these two interests—the landward interests or the sailing man—is, in the instructions to the Select Committee, "in the public interest?" What has happened to "the character of Swanage and its bay?"
Surely, new yacht havens should be sited at places where commercial, maritime or even Royal Navy functions have faded away, for reasons which we all know. The situations in those places are quite different. To my mind those are the places for marinas. For example, at Portland there is a harbour with over four square miles of sheltered water within existing sea walls. The whole Home Fleet used to go in there until the outbreak of the Second World War. That is somewhere to start. Personally, I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and I will act with him in whatever way he sees fit.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I declare an interest having tendered professional advice in the Temple to the promoters of the Bill in the context of the conduct of the poll on 12th November. That is the extent of the interest that I declare. Although there was no breach of the parish and community meetings polls rules—Statutory Instrument No. 1 of 1987—on the information that I have seen, I am greatly troubled about the conduct of this poll and I wish to share with your Lordships some of my concern, much of which has already been most ably put before your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.

677
It comes to this. On any objective analysis, this poll that is relied upon as the mainstay to challenge the findings of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House—in effect, that is what it is, no more no less—is wholly unreliable as a fair reflection of local opinion. Moreover, I question whether this is an appropriate stage of the Bill to reopen and re-argue the merits of the principle of the Bill or, with respect to my noble friend Lord Wynford and his most interesting speech given with the advantage of much local knowledge, whether questions such as the approach road or the catchment area of Swanage and whether there is room or the need for the proposals in the Bill, are appropriate matters for consideration on Third Reading, having particular regard to the fact that they have all been answered, "Yes, we approve of these proposals", by the Dorset County Council.
What is our function? It is interesting to listen to objections but this House is now procedurally at the Third Reading stage of the Bill. The Select Committee, by a majority, approved the Bill on 23rd July. It issued its report on 29th October. The town poll was held on 23rd November. On the very same day the Swanage town council took note and, by a majority of seven to five, maintained its support for the vote of approval for the Bill passed in June 1987. On 4th December the Purbeck Council confirmed its support for the Bill.
One talks of sewerage. The Wessex Water Authority is continuing its support for the Bill, as it always has done along with the Dorset County Council—and small wonder, because the present sewage disposal system is hazardous in the extreme, with a short pipe running into the sea and raw sewage being visible at times. The new maceration plant, or whatever it is called, which my clients, the promoters of the Bill, have now undertaken to pay for, would cost some £2 million to £3 million, on my information, and that would be a saving to the Wessex Water Authority.
I have looked into the matter and, so far as I am aware, there is no precedent for the holding of a town poll such as occurred after the special report of the Select Committee. Even if the poll were a reliable reflection of local opinion—which it is not—to accept the amendment would not only make a nonsense of the due processes of local government but, as was expounded by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, it would be contrary to accepted practice. Further, it would, in that sense, be contrary to our procedures, unless of course there were cogent reasons which moved your Lordships to, in effect, reject this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, as I understand it, put forward two reasons. One was that the Select Committee failed to deal with the instruction. That is a matter for your Lordships, but has that charge been made out? From what I have heard in this debate I suggest that it has not been made out.
The second reason, as I understand the noble Lord, is his main one and is this town poll—the reflection of the will of local opinion. The campaign against this Bill in the run-up to the town poll was not only
678
designed to mislead but was designed to confuse: consider the pamphlet Why the Vote Must Be No, material published in the Purbeck Mail and the trick vote cards with "Vote No" with the poll number and name. The promoters sought, in answer, to draw attention to this measure of deception in their own pamphlet—which I have seen—upon the issue which divides Swansea, and quotations were made from the Select Committee report.
The result of any poll conducted in an atmosphere of deception—be it wilful or innocent—is always suspect. This poll was conducted—as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has mentioned— in such an atmosphere of deception. Indeed, as part of this campaign a petition was offered for signature, which stated:
"If this Bill is passed this whole area could he closed to the public and the fishermen would he pushed out and our beach lost for five or six years".
There are six reasons why I think—and I do not deal with the question of instructions, because other noble Lords have dealt with that—this poll is of no assistance to your Lordships tonight. It is also of no assistance, I would respectfully suggest, to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who relies so strongly upon it as his main reason to throw the Bill out.
First, there is the campaign literature which preceded this poll and which stated two grounds of opposition—Category A, a bigger sea wall was needed and Category B, no sea wall at all. But the form of the question put by the organisers, against the background of the "yes—no" campaign, was related solely to the proposal in the Bill which the Category A opponents might well have accepted. This is a serious defect in the electoral mechanism, and it flaws any reliance upon that poll.
Secondly, there was the question of the sea wall, as depicted not only in the material for the campaign but also in the Purbeck Mail, which suggested that it would totally obscure the magnificent views of Swanage and the hills. It was a trick, fake, false presentation, and no doubt intended as such. That is a serious matter of deception which renders unreliable a poll conducted in such a way.
It was then wrongly stated that 25,000 tons of sand would be lost. That again was a misleading and totally wrong suggestion. Also it was mentioned—I think it was in answer to a hypothetical question—that there would be no groynes. There is no question about it; there are groynes and there will be groynes. This statement was seriously misleading. With this kind of poll many people who have business interests in the town are disfranchised if they live outside.
As regards to the question of pushing the fishermen out, there is no question of pushing them out. Indeed, the position in relation to the fishermen is fairly straightforward. There are about 30 to 40 boats, with about 12 full-time fishermen who have moorings inside the harbour, and the rest are part-time or seasonal. The part-time and seasonal are outside the harbour but, nonetheless, they use the town boat park. Those moorings are to be replaced free of

679
charge and under the proposals of the Bill a fishermen's quay—which does not exist at the moment—is to be constructed. How, apart from wishing to mislead, can it be said in all sincerity that the fishermen will he put out?
Of course there has been no objective consideration of the merits. For example, consider such matters as sewerage, roadworks and the lifeboat to which noble Lords have referred. The lifeboat would be the latest model, I understand, and would be berthed at the end of the most westerly pier extension.
Another important aspect is employment. For this purpose I am not entering into the area of discussion as to whether Swanage is run down or not. I should just like to deal with the stark fact that it has about the highest unemployment statistics in Dorset. Unemployment is a matter of particular concern—and always has been—to me and, I know,
to all your Lordships. In its construction this scheme will provide, as I understand it—although I am open to correction—of the order of 300 jobs, and, when it has been constructed, there will be a permanent staff.
There is yet another aspect which has not been mentioned and that is that under this scheme there will be safe anchorage, free access to the marina and safe anchorage in storms. That is not a mere trifle because noble Lords who live in that part of the world will know that never a year passes without a boat being lost in a storm. This is a matter of importance and a matter, if your Lordships are so minded, which should weigh with this House.
As I have said, this is not the occasion to argue the merits but, on the grounds that I have sought to suggest, I hope your Lordships will not accept this amendment, which would wreck this Bill, make a mockery of local government and not be wholly in accordance with the accepted practice of the House.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I should just like to ask, before the noble Lord sits down, whether he does not think he is being a little unkind, perhaps a little unfair, to a group of local honest people who are merely doing their best for what they regard as the good of their locality. He poured a lot of cold water on the local poll, which was conducted I understand, according to the law, and then accused the local people who had conducted it of deception. I think that is really going rather too far in the circumstances.
Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord how many permanent jobs a marina for 250 boats is going to produce? About six is the answer. Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has ever—
Lord Denham: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I think the noble Viscount is going a little bit too far in coming in before my noble friend sits down. It is a matter of procedure. We have already had a very long debate and I hope that we can now get on with it as quickly as possible.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if I may briefly answer, I do not withdraw anything I said. I took great care to check my facts before I said what I said. I was relieved to hear that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy took virtually the same points that I took, and if the noble Viscount was present he will have heard him use the word "deception". I do not withdraw it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I did not.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend did not; well, I did. With facts such as these, I am in the habit of calling a spade a spade. I cannot assist on the subject of employment, because I do not have the figures.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord who has just sat down, I have no interest to declare except, perhaps, the preservation of some of the most beautiful spots around our coastline.
First, with the greatest of respect, I shall refer to what the Chairman of Committees said about the proceedings on Third Reading when he doubted the wisdom of voting against a Bill on Third Reading. He will recall that on some distant occasion a similar situation arose. I pointed out from the Front Bench that the Marquess of Salisbury advised the House on the Kent Water Bill of 1925 that the House was bound to support noble Lords in whose trust they placed the committee. Unless new evidence were produced, the House had a moral duty to support the Select Committee. Here is a clear case of new evidence being produced. It is of course rather unusual to have two dissenters publicly acknowledged. Secondly, there has been this debatable poll. That is another issue. I therefore suggest with great respect that there is every reason for the House to reconsider the whole position.
I do not want to take up much time, first, because my fellow dissenters covered the matters extensively. It has been said that there is a danger of some emotional appeal. I can assure noble Lords that there is no question of emotional reaction. Long hours spent listening to conflicting evidence and speeches tend to drain emotion. If any noble Lord has sat on a Select Committee, he will know what I mean.
After visiting Swanage, it is my considered opinion—if I had not visited Swanage it might have made a difference—that the development as outlined in the Bill constitutes a serious threat to the environment and character of Swanage. The magnificent and picturesque sweep of the bay would be eroded by the breakwater at the centre, even at high water. That would completely alter the whole scene. As I said, if I had not visited Swanage, I might have taken a contrary view. One or two other things arose during that visit. One was the attractive and popular little beach at Buckshaw, which will become a car park with added land reclaimed from the sea. In addition, a delightful footpath which we trudged would be diverted. By such diversion, it would lose its

681
attractive character. As I understand it, one would have to walk through the car park on the new footpath.
The housing side of the project was not a matter for the committee, although paragraph 21 of the report notes that it constitutes some change in the character of Swanage. It appears that the local authority is now concerned about stage 2 of the housing development affecting the town's character. I must agree that during the committee's visit to Swanage, the only blot on the landscape was the empty Grosvenor Hotel, which was in the process of being demolished and which we viewed from the garden of the hotel at which we had lunch. Otherwise, in not very pleasant weather, the view was serene and beautiful. I think that all my noble colleagues will agree about that even if they dissented in the committee.
Paragraph 23 of the report says that the economic arguments in favour of the development outweigh the damage to the environment. We had masses of evidence to consider but little by way of economic argument. It was said that the scheme would provide about 40 jobs, but there were no facts to justify that. The estimate is pure guesswork. The number could be six or seven, but who knows? We had no evidence on that point.
The small but thriving fishing industry would be threatened by the construction and development of' the breakwater. At the moment there is a healthy export of lobsters to the Continent. That has been referred to by other noble Lords. The construction of the breakwater, the necessary blasting and the eventual extent of the breakwater, is bound to have an effect upon the fish and alter the tidal flow. It has been argued that when the breakwater is in and is seasoned, it is possible that the lobsters will find it nice accommodation. So far, the lobsters have not been consulted.
We heard conflicting evidence. A great deal of' scientific evidence was given to the committee. I place some stress on the fact that the evidence given by the fishermen came from generations of experience. They know the sea. They know their job. They know how to treat the sea at its worst and at its best. The maceration of sewage completely foxed me. I can only imagine that the digestive organs of the fish will benefit from that maceration. I must confess it put me off fish for about a week.
I come to the debatable point of the poll. I understand that the local authority—it has been confirmed—eventually gave its approval to the proposal by a small majority. Someone said 7:5. Since the Committee report issued on 29th October, we have had this debatable poll. It is a statutory poll. We were told that it was conducted between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. in very wet and windy weather. Anyone who has had any experience of local government elections will know that it is a miracle that 54 per cent. of the people turned out on that occasion. It is evidence of the feeling about the Bill that we saw. My noble colleagues on the committee must agree that there was a great deal of feeling when we went down there. We were treated almost as VIPs.
682
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has referred to all sorts of discreditable things that might have happened. It is possible that there was some exaggeration on the leaflet that was put out. Of course the development company had the backing of an influential, professional PR organisation. I must confess that I know nothing about a free distribution of pens and pencils and so on. If that happened during a local government election, an objection would soon be made to the returning officer, hut that is by the by. I do not know what evidence of that can be produced. It has been said in the House, and therefore must he accepted with some degree of concern.
There has been great public concern. Feelings are and have been running high. That is only natural. Swanage is a small community. In a large urban sprawl, people could not care less about anyone else. In a small community, everyone matters and everything that goes on matters. That is why, whatever its shortcomings, I regard the poll as of great significance. After all, we are a democracy. The view of the majority must be taken into account, protecting as it does the preservation of the character of Swanage. That is what those people voted for and they should be respected. Therefore, I sincerely and strongly support the amendment.
8.50 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will be obliged to me because I intend to be exceedingly brief. I intend to repeat hardly anything that anyone else has said previously and I have something to say which is very nearly original in connection with this debate.
If I were making a sermon which I am not—I would take as my text a sentence at the end of the report which says:
"In the committee's opinion any fears about sewage have been set at rest".
I am afraid that is all too likely to be true. It was evidently so in the case of' the committee, but not for me. I think it is a great danger that anybody should be lulled into a sense of security over this matter, not only in Swanage but elsewhere around our coast, where anyone may be thinking of embarking on a project of a similar kind. I am thinking in particular of sewage pollution within the yacht haven.
Plenty has been said, written and agreed about what comes out of the main sewage outfall from the town. This comes out into the sea. In what must in fairness be said to be considerable generosity, the promoters have undertaken to put this right and to maintain it at their own expense. That is to the benefit of the town council and to the whole of Swanage. However, it is a mistake to think—as some appear to do—that sewage is something which is generated entirely on land. It also comes out of boats. I have no doubt that anybody who has ever seen a large number of boats on moorings together will be quite aware of this fact.
Hardly anything has been said so far, even in the evidence given to the Select Committee, about sewage

683
generated within the harbour. Something is certainly said in the Bill that we are discussing. Clause 38(1) states:
"A person who within the yacht haven knowingly discharges or causes or permits to be discharged into the waters thereof any toxic, noxious or offensive matter…shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale".
Your Lordships know what not to do if you find yourselves on a mooring in this marina—you are not allowed to do it. How will anybody stop you doing it? There are likely to he 250 boats. I do not know how many people there will be at any one time. But if this law is to be enforced there will be the most marvellous outbreak of constipation in Swanage.
The Bill goes on to say:
"Nothing in subsection (1)"—
that is the one which I have read out—
"shall affect the operation of Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974".
The previous subsection was an almost exact quotation from that, except that the Act refers to poisonous, noxious or polluting matter.
I should be quite wrong to give the impression that the promoters are not aware of all this. In evidence to the Select Committee the promoter himself, Mr. Durrant, said:
"The opening of the toilets into the harbour is strictly forbidden and if people are caught they can lose their mooring".
That was on day two, as reported at paragraph 3 on page 29. How will this be enforced? This law has been in force since 1974—for 13 years. Has it been enforced anywhere? Has it been observed anywhere? Can it be enforced anywhere? Is there the slightest likelihood that it will be enforced? I suggest that the answer to those questions is an emphatic no, it cannot be. Therefore, there will be pollution in the yacht haven.
What will the promoters do about that? The answer is in a way rather curious. They have referred to it in a rather oblique manner. Mr. Drinkwater, QC, counsel for the promoters, said:
"If…as a consequence of the construction of the works, any discharge material accumulated in the yacht haven or on the beaches in, or in the sea off, Swanage in such a manner as to be visible to the public",
and so on, they will be responsible for getting rid of it. The technical words used are "discharge material". Discharge material is what comes out of the sewerage pipe into the sea below what we hope is high water. It does not apparently refer to the yacht haven.
Later Mr. Drinkwater referred to discharge material continuing to accumulate,
"in consequence of the construction of the works in the yacht haven or on the beaches in or in the sea off Swanage in such a manner as to be visible to the public in the yacht haven or on the beaches".
The reference is to discharge material visible in the yacht haven.
It is difficult to refer to this issue without being disagreeable. He was still not talking about sewage generated within the yacht haven itself, within the boats. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow,
684
saw the fallacy or ambiguity of this. The noble Lord said this:
"If I understand you right, there are two sources of pollution: one is from the sea outfall of the sewage of Swanage town, and then there is pollution within the yacht haven which comes from the yachts?
Mr. Drinkwater: Yes.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: All this covers both?
Mr. Drinkwater: It does indeed and to the satisfaction, as drafted, of the water authority".
What are they undertaking to do? The undertaking that they have given and that I read out a moment ago applies, according to that last statement, also to the sewage within the harbour. They have undertaken to chop it up small so that it cannot be seen, and that is all. Instead of having visible filth floating about in the harbour one will have invisible filth going down to the bottom. No power on earth will prevent this from being generated in the first place. Nobody is proposing to take it away in the second place. This is what is facing the people of Swanage with regard to the yacht haven. When the sewage goes down into the water I suspect that it will take with it that treasured blue flag awarded by the EC to the people of Swanage in appreciation of the purity of their water.
This point applies not only to Swanage, but everywhere. This is what occurs wherever one has a marina, if one has 1,000 boats or 250 boats. It is only a difference of scale. Although at Swanage the scale may be small it is also important. It is a small, round harbour with only one opening. The tidal currents cannot flow through: they flow in and out. The only ones who will enjoy this situation are the lobsters.
8.59 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to take up the subject that my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has so delicately entered upon in this discussion: the question of sewage. The promoters demonstrated to us in committee that, far from the breakwater bringing sewage on to the shore, it was going to be pushed further out into the bay. We had many pretty graphs and many demonstrations showing that the sewage situation was going to be improved. One of the people rather delicately said that the only matter that worried them was cotton waste and chopped up rubber from the macerators. I shall leave it to your Lordships' consideration what that refers to.
When I was asked to sit on the committee, my first instinct was not to like the idea of the development at all. I thought it was unnecessary. I had not made up my mind. I had read the Second Reading debate but I did not feel sympathetic to the developers. When the committee sat, I had at the forefront of my mind the Instruction moved on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan.
However, I have o been convinced that the development will do good to the people of Swanage. As has been pointed out already by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, Swanage has a higher percentage of unemployed than most of the rest of Dorset and Hampshire. Mr. Bruce, the Member of Parliament for the area in another place, has just told

685
me of a letter that he has received. It is from a lady who says this:
"I have four children. Three have had to leave because there arc no jobs for them in Swanage. Please help the Bill through and they will get jobs."
To pretend that a large development of this nature will not reduce jobs flies in the face of economic logic. It will produce ship's chandlers, a boat repairing facility and a need for people to work in restaurants and shops selling goods, clothing, and so on. To say that it will drive out what is called the "bucket and spade brigade" strikes me as being a fallacy. One has only to go to other marinas on the south coast or to Cowes to see the numbers of ordinary tourists gawking at yachts. It is a fun thing on holiday to go gawking at yachts.
The objectors struck me as being intensely conservative people, intensely worried people and utterly genuine people. But when I listened to the evidence in the case I was convinced in the end that they were misguided.
The leaflet Why You Must Vote No is unrecognisable as against the matter in regard to which I served on a committee for two weeks. Attached to it is a letter that most of your Lordships have received. It contains seven paragraphs. The first refers to loss of a fine sandy beach. This is nonsense. Then there is reference to the destruction of an historic beauty spot by the breakwater. As to the picture on the front, it looks like that if you stick yourself right under the breakwater at low tide and look up and become an aircraft spotter. It is said that the lifeboat will be displaced. The RNLI has not objected to it. It has accepted it. The institution knows its business. If it had been unhappy, I do not believe that we would have failed to listen to it with a great deal of sympathy. The fact that the RNLI did not object destroyed any evidence to the contrary. As I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, 11 fishing boats—it was nine—now have sailable rights that they would not have had hitherto. Their rights have not been taken away.
Then there is reference to pollution of the bay by sewage and fuel. I think that we have heard enough of sewage. Several boats are fuelled by cans rather than by bowser or bunkering. Everybody knows that tipping petrol or diesel through a funnel in a rocking boat with even the slightest of swell is liable to end in spillage much more so than if one is tucked up in a safe bunkerage. Reference is made to a self-contained marina village, including shops and restaurants, posing a threat to local traders. Surely what we are learning very painfully is that competition creates jobs and protection does not.
That brings me right back to the Felixstowe Docks and Harbour Bill. The purpose of the Bill was to impose the dock labour scheme on Felixstowe, an old-fashioned protection racket. That was the price demanded by the then Government for the support of a prices and incomes policy that collapsed. I suggest that in your Lordships' House we are dealing with something quite different.
I respect the sincerity of my two colleagues who voted against the Bill. I think that it was the most enjoyable committee, in which we heard a great deal
686
of well-presented, professional evidence. I would not change my mind; on reflection, I have had my view reinforced. I therefore urge noble Lords to vote to allow the Bill to go to another place so that, if Members of that place do not like it, they can kill it rather than that Members of this House should stop the creation of a few jobs in a place where they are desperately needed.
9.6 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, first I make clear that although I speak from the Opposition Front Bench, I speak in a personal capacity, since this is a private Bill, and not on behalf of my noble friends.
The undertakings given to the Select Committee have gone some way to meeting the objections raised in the House on Second Reading. I am glad at this point to acknowledge the efforts of the Select Committee. I have read all seven volumes of the evidence. Although I did not attend the committee, I believe that I have read just about every word that was said, and pretty hard going it was at times. I take my hat off to the efforts of the committee.
Some substantial objections remain. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, was correct when he said that the lifeboat arrangements were now satisfactory. I think that they are so far as concerns the RNLI. Whatever misgivings we may have about the lifeboat as a children's attraction, the fact that the institution is happy with it should be enough for us. I accept that.
I come to the fishermen. There is still a little to be said here. There seems some doubt about whether the original nine berths have been increased to 12, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said; or to 11, as the noble Earl said. Whatever the figure may be, we know that a minimum of nine, and possibly 12, berths are available. However, it is limiting because it does not accommodate success among those existing fishermen. If a fisherman wishes to expand in the size of his boat or in the number of his boats he is unable to do so. He will then forfeit his right to the moorings.
Mr. Drinkwater said in evidence that he can talk to Mr. Durrant. Perhaps I may quote from Day 7 of the hearings. At page 83, Mr. Drinkwater said:
"My Lords, what about Mr. Durrant? I put him forward to your Lordships as a tough man but a fair man and he has indicated he is a fair man, a straight dealing man, by repairing the pier".
He goes on to say that Mr. Durrant will be sympathetic to any young man who puts forward to him the need for expansion. Clause 51 of the Bill specifically allows Durrant Developments to sell on the development as soon as it is completed. On past experience this is quite likely to happen. What will then happen to the undertaking that was given on behalf of Mr. Durrant? Will the new owners take it on? It does not say so in the Bill. To those fishermen the assurance has little value.
The committee was invited to rely heavily on the good intentions of Mr. Durrant in this and other matters but in the event of his disappearance there is nothing in the Bill that will help our upwardly mobile young fishermen. I wonder whether when he comes to reply the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will clear up that matter for me.

687
I come back briefly to the issue of sewage. Until the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, decided to speak about it, I wondered whether anyone other than me had misgivings about what will happen to it. The agreement seems to be that provided the sewage is not actually visible, all will be well. The seas will be polluted by finely chopped sewage which will get into the crevices of the breakwater. The beach and the haven itself will be polluted. This seems to be acceptable to those who support the development. I do not find it acceptable and I am surprised that others do, especially as the quantity of sewage to be dealt with will be greatly increased by the housing development as well as by the yacht haven itself.
Even if all the practical problems have been overcome, there remains the fact that the people of Swanage are to lose amenities which they have enjoyed for generations. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, was eloquent on this point, and I support everything that he said. They are to lose them without prior consultation and without compensation. They are to see the character of their town changed and their outlook obstructed, even if it is not all the residents, as the noble Earl. Lord Onslow, pointed out. That is no consolation. It certainly would be no consolation for me to go upstairs and see that view from my bedroom if I could not see it from the ground floor.
The developers make much of the fact that the local people have no rights in law. That point has been repeated in the House tonight. That may be so but there is a standing conferred in this country by usage and tradition which is respected by us all. We in this House should be especially sensitive to this convention. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, about respecting conventions as opposed to laws. We cannot have it both ways.
In return for the loss of amenity which the residents are to suffer it is suggested that there will be economic benefits for the town. I have already said that I read all seven volumes of the evidence, and so I did, but I could find very little to uphold the argument in favour of the economic awards. Yes, there certainly will be jobs, but will these outweigh the losses that will inevitably occur as a result of the development?
Many visitors come to Swanage for what it is now. It has a healthy tourist economy. In spite of the remarks that have been made about the bucket and spade brigade, I believe it is still alive and well and flourishing in most of the young families that I know. They still go to Swanage to enjoy that age-old pastime. As the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, said, there is a trend now towards self-catering which explains the downfall of the large hotels. I do not think anyone regrets the passing of the derelict hotel to make way for housing. The residents of Swanage have said on many occasions that they welcome the new housing that has gone up.
In any case the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has told us that, as regards shopping in the town, the developer is installing his own shops by the yacht haven and he will cream off a good deal of the profits which would normally have gone to the existing shops in the town. But I agree that there will be a
688
spin-off from other things connected with the yacht haven.
I share the concern of the residents as expressed in the poll of 12th November. I know that there has been a quite strong attempt to discredit this poll, but I have been involved in local government and in polls of this kind often enough to know what a stout effort it was to get out so many people on such a day over such a very short period of time.
We are told that since only 36 per cent. of the total electorate voted in the poll perhaps we should not take it too seriously; but the vote was two-to-one against of those taking part, and I believe that few of them would have been hoodwinked by the leaflet that went out. It was a true representation of a particular view, and few of them would have read the entire text. Some governments, and many local authorities, have come to office on lower votes than that.
In the interests of time, I am trying not to repeat what has already been said. There still seems some way to go before a development such as this is acceptable to a majority of the people of Swanage. The noble Lord. Lord Campbell, indicated that more public relations work needed to be done. That may well be so; but perhaps it ought to have been done before this exercise was started. It is rather late in the day to do it now.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords would the noble Baroness say to which Lord Campbell she was referring'?
Baroness Nicol: I am sorry, Lord Campbell of Croy.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I did not say that.
Baroness Nicol: I am sorry. When both Campbells are coming it is a hit hard to distinguish.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, felt that Swanage had missed the bus. But they have had two buses along already; and I believe that, given the opportunity, a third may yet come. If the arguments in favour of such a development are so overwhelming, I do not think that they will miss another bus. Until the remaining objections are overcome, if the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, chooses to go to a Division, I shall support him.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be helpful if at this point I briefly intervene to state the Government's view on the Bill. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the proposals in the Bill. It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are necessary and justified.
The Government appreciate that there are strong feelings held about the proposed yacht haven at Swanage on the one hand by the promoters, and on the other by those, petitioners and others, who are opposed to it. The Select Committee, however, considered all the issues very carefully and allowed

689
the Bill to proceed. It is not for us to comment on the provisions of the Bill as amended in committee. We do not wish to take sides. If any organisation, or individual, remains dissatisfied with any aspect of the Bill, it will of course be free to petition against the Bill in another place.
The Select Committee had before it the question of whether or not the Bill should proceed and has reported in favour. In my opinion there would have to be very good reasons for the House to take a different view. I should prefer to take the advice of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House (subject to the amendments it has made and the undertakings given) and accordingly I believe that the Bill should be given a Third Reading.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I shall try to reply briefly to the points that have been raised hoping that this will help the House after a very good natured debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, mentioned the Felixstowe precedent, which is the only one where a private Bill has been killed in recent years. As others have pointed out, that was in a different category. It engaged the national policies of the political parties as a whole and it was not a local issue.
I am sorry that the noble Lord seemed to be critical of the Select Committee in thinking that it had not fully carried out the instruction. He raised the question of the fishermen, as did the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. The fishermen are of course continuing discussions, but the full-time fishermen are satisfied with what has been arranged for them. They would lose all the benefits which do not exist now and which they would gain under the undertakings, and which would not exist if the Bill were to fall.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, raised an important point about Clause 41, which removes the status of Swanage as a fishery harbour. The promoters were perfectly prepared to delete that clause. It is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which has recommended that it remain. I quote from its letter to the parliamentary agents. It says:
"The loss of fishery harbour status merely means that by-laws or harbour orders would have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State for Transport rather than the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It would have no effect on the fishermen's activities".
I can confirm from my own knowledge that this is dealing with harbour management, but in future the Department of Transport would be doing it. Vessel management would be unaffected. There is no change of substance as regards that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred to the lifeboat. The RNLI have signed the agreement and are completely satisfied with it; and I suggest that the noble Lord deals directly with them.
In a thoughtful speech the noble Lord, Lord Foot, accepted the general advice of the Chairman of Committees. However, he said that this was a different case in that a private entrepreneur was promoting the Bill and the scheme. A private entrepreneur must use that procedure; so it is a criticism of the procedure. I can assure the noble Lord that the promoters sympathise with the
690
situation because—briefly, at this time of night—as the foreshore is involved it is necessary for a promoter to go through the private Bill procedure, even though planning permission has already been granted. It must be a private scheme because the previous schemes depended upon public money, which was not forthcoming. Therefore only a private scheme now has any chance of success.
Much has been said about the town poll, which has been compared with an election. It is not like an election, local or general. I was not complaining about propaganda; it was the supposed facts that were being put forward by the "NO!" campaign which were seriously wrong. To many it presented facts about the yacht marina which were incorrect and alarming. In my opening speech I mentioned only three glaring examples in the interests of brevity but there were also others. In an election there is a choice between candidates—shall we say Smith or Jones. If supposed facts are produced that Smith is Chinese and four foot two inches in height, that can easily be corrected. If it is claimed that Jones has a first class honours degree from Cambridge, that can also be checked and corrected if it is wrong. However, if a completely wrong and alarming picture of the project is produced by one campaign in a poll where the electors are expected to vote simply yes or no, it is not easy to put the matter right in time, as can be done with qualifications or the description of a candidate in an election.
My noble friend Lord Cork rightly raised an exceedingly good separate point. It was the question of sewage from boats. I said that the sewage from the town has been well looked after. First, I understand that most of the boats, if not all, now moored in the bay at present discharge sewage straight into the bay. It is intended to have a pump-out system of facilities for boats in the new yacht haven and to encourage tanks and chemical closets in all of them. With that discipline there will be a great improvement upon the system.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting. He says that they will be encouraged to do that, but what form of encouragement is likely to be effective with people coming in from the sea?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, this facility is being introduced in various ports around the coast. The promoters of the Bill are intending that the practice rightly raised by the noble Lord, and which is being carried on at the moment, should be stopped. This is a case where the law is also being changed and if the promoters have powers they will certainly use them.
As the Select Committee has reported, there have been other proposals in the past for a yacht haven. They failed largely because they were dependent upon an element of finance from the public purse, which proved not to be forthcoming. This scheme is not dependent upon public finance and the promoters have undertaken to pay for improvements which might not otherwise have been embarked upon for years; for example, the sewage arrangements.

691
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked me to reply to a particular point as regards the fishermen. I confirmed that 11 berths were mentioned; but that number has now been increased to 12. At the moment there are nine full-time fishermen. I understand that no newcomers are visible but three places are now available. As far as I know, that immediately carries out the proposal of the Select Committee. As regards the fishermen in general, in my opinion they will be as well off, if not better, under the proposed arrangements as they are now. As I think many noble Lords know, I have been active on behalf of sea fishermen for more than 40 years, including my time in another place representing a fishing constituency. I can recognise a good deal for fishermen when I see it and I would not commend a regime which put them at a disadvantage or damaged their interests. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, to think very hard before he takes action this evening which would put at risk the further consideration of this Bill.
Much has been made of the poll. Was it on this scheme or was it on a horror haven conjured up and described in alarming terms? If the poll is a matter to he taken into account now—it took place only a month ago, after the Select Committee's work—then it ought to be considered properly by a Select Committee in another place. I hope the noble Lord will also heed the advice of the Chairman of Committees the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.
Whatever the result this evening—and I am sorry that many peers have to be at engagements elsewhere and cannot be with us—I have every expectation myself of being here in 10 years' time and, if I am spared, 20 years' time. I will ensure, with the help of the Whips of the day, that the Swanage situation is raised in 10 years' time, by an Unstarred Question or in some other way. If this scheme has been frustrated and the town and its area have clearly been what the Select Committee term the losers, then I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, will be in his place and will accept his share of the responsibility for what has happened.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, I will, if it happens. As the debate has proceeded so noble Lords have answered most other noble Lords' points. There are just one or two to which I think I should refer. The noble Lord. Lord Orr-Ewing, who is not in his place, was in favour of a marina, any marina, every marina. He did not get my point that this is not any marina. Of course marinas can be a good thing, but not here.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, made quite a number of accusations about misleading statements and was corrected on one. Yet he made one which is starkly misleading. It shows that one cannot be too careful. He described the part of the bay taken by this marina as being only 2.5 per cent. of Swanage Bay. Of course, Swanage Bay is two miles across. I was very careful to try to describe to your Lordships that the part of the bay that is involved is in fact only a tiny part, and the only bit which is sheltered. So we are not talking about 2.5 per cent. of Swanage Bay. We are talking about half the parking area for boats. As far as I can judge, the marina itself, with its area of
692
jurisdiction, is about 20 acres, and there are about another 20 acres on either side of it. It will go in the middle. So you are talking about its taking half of the usable area of Swanage haven.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? In the generally accepted sense the limits of Swanage Bay stretch from just off Peveril Point to the Old Harry Rocks. I can appreciate that that might cause a little concern to the noble Lord. Some people might think that the limit should perhaps be taken from what I think is called Ballard Point. But even so, this would still amount to no more than about 5 per cent. of the bay.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, the noble Lord's point was to try to minimise things. He accused me of trying to maximise them. The fact is that it is not a fair percentage. We are talking about roughly half the usable area of the bay. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, also said that it would enhance the fishing. That is something I did not understand. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, gave us to understand that there would be a boat-repairing facility there —something that I have never heard before. I should like to say to him that yes, indeed the lifeboat has accepted the position. But it has had to put itself right with the developer as the only sensible thing to do—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I interrupt very briefly and say this to the noble Lord? If the RNLI had in any way objected to any of the proposals given to it, I would bet my last shilling that it would have lodged a petition. It certainly has the money, the expertise and the experience. If the RNLI had not been completely happy, it would have lodged a petition. It was not a question of no choice at all.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, the lifeboat would rather stay where it is; but if it is put into the marina it shall accept that it is put into the marina. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, talked about the designation as a fishery harbour and said that the Ministry of Agriculture was against it. I pointed out that the Sea Fish Industry Authority was advising the fishermen against it, so this is another uncertainty. This Bill is surrounded by uncertainty and this is yet another one which has not been resolved.
Many noble Lords tried to cast doubt upon the significance of the poll. That only shows how important, how significant, they think this Bill is. It is a significant matter. That is something that led me to put down this Motion. There are two points of principle which have very much concerned me and many noble Lords who have spoken against this Bill, but which do not seem to have struck noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it in the same way.
The first is the point of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that the onus of proof is upon the developer to show that the Bill is for the public benefit, or is necessary and justified, as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said. It has not been demonstrated that the Bill has that quality.

693
Much has been alleged today about the decline of Swanage; but not one bit of evidence was produced to the committee or was contained in the report, or has been produced this afternoon to support the view that the town is in decline. The committee received three expressions of opinion from people who were strongly in favour of the scheme that they thought the marina would benefit the town. But they produced no figures, and no research has been undertaken in the matter.
Yet I am told that there are only three commercial premises unlet out of 192; that in the season the place is choked with cars; that the caravan parks surrounding the town are expanding; and, as the noble Earl, Lord Cork, said, the beach has the rare accolade of an EC blue riband. No evidence has been produced that the marina will much benefit the town or that the town requires the benefit that a marina might bring.
Secondly, there is the principle which exercised my noble friend Lord Stewart; that of enclosing what is now a noted public amenity for a private benefit. I specifically underlined this matter in my speech and addressed myself to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, but he did not respond and I believe that he had not considered the point. It just shows how differently two people can view things. It is a matter of very deep concern and I cannot better express the essence of the matter than by quoting a boatman who gave evidence to the committee. Speaking of the part of the bay which would be taken by the yachting, he said:
"It is the most precious and used part of Swanage. Everyone uses that part and that is going to be taken away".
Some places have to be protected. Some developments have to be refused. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that this is one of them. I ask your Lordships to join me in voting for my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, the original Question was, That this Bill be now read a third time; since when an amendment has been moved to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months"). The Question is, That this amendment be agreed to.
9.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 45.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Milford, L.

Blease, L.

Monson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Nicol, B.

Caldecote, V.

Oram, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Parry, L.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Raglan, L. [Teller.]

Faithfull, B.

Russell, E.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Shannon, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill. L.

Kennet, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Walston, L.

Lockwood, B.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

McNair, L.

Wynford, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Forte, L.

Alport, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Greenhill of Harrow. L.

Arran. E.

Greenway, L. [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Boardman, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara. L.

Lindsay, E.

Brain. L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux. L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Selborne, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Sharples, B.

Davidson, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Denham, L.

Terrington, L.

Dundee, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Draft Air Navigation Order 1987
9.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order, which is made under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, is the fifth of its kind and is intended to replace the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1986. As on earlier occasions, we thought it preferable to revoke the existing order rather than introduce an amendment order. The reason for this is to simplify what otherwise might be a complex document. Having studied the draft order, it will be apparent to your Lordships how well we have succeeded in that aim.
I should perhaps explain that the seeming complexity of this short order is due to the numerous categories of aircraft and related standards, which for the most part vary with the type and weight of the aircraft, and the date when the certificate of airworthiness for either the prototype or derived version was applied for. Furthermore, when dealing with newer designs of jet aeroplanes the type and number of engines is also relevant.
The draft order is intended to give effect in the United Kingdom to the recommendations and noise standards agreed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection at its first meeting held in June last year. We regard the work of the committee as important, and my department plays an active part in it. These standards will be promulgated by the ICAO early next year. The UK will be one of the first to introduce them.
The main change from the 1986 order is the introduction of new noise certification standards for light propeller-driven aeroplanes. This involves an increase in the weight limit from 5,700 kg to 9,000 kg in the definition of this class of aeroplane. The new test, entailing a change from measurements made during level fly-over to recording the noise levels following take-off, is designed to be representative of that phase of the flight which causes the greatest disturbance.
We are also introducing a requirement that foreign registered microlight aircraft should be capable of meeting the UK's most stringent microlight noise standards when operated in this country. These are our own standards. In this field we are ahead of ICAO.
A number of other minor changes have been made to bring the order into line with existing ICAO recommendations.
Perhaps I should make the point that the standards which ICAO develops are set at levels which have been shown to be technically feasible and economically reasonable for the particular category of aircraft to which they apply. They try to ensure that all types of aircraft have equally stringent standards applied to them and that the latest technological advances in making aircraft quieter are
696
quickly reflected in a tightening of the standards. This, of course, is why there are so many of them.
Like the order it replaces, the new order is structured to bring within its scope whole categories of aircraft, while provision is made for exemptions to be granted by the Civil Aviation Authority after consultation with the Secretary of State. Thus to appreciate the full effect of the order it is necessary to refer to the Civil Aviation Authority's Official Record Series 4, which gives details of exempted aircraft. Copies of this and of the British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, Section N—Noise, dated 1st January 1988, which is, if you like, the technical manual that fleshes out the standards contained in the order, have been placed in your Lordships' Library. Broadly speaking exemptions are given to those categories of aircraft for which no ICAO standards exist.
At this point I should like to assure the House that our manufacturing industry and my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have known of these impending new standards for some time and are satisfied that they can meet the challenge they offer.
Although it is coincidental, the date when this order would come into effect (1st January 1988) is important for another reason. From that date all subsonic jet aircraft which do not satisfy the requirements of this order will be banned from operating in the United Kingdom. Such aeroplanes on the UK register were banned on 1st January 1986, which ensured that early jet aircraft such as the Trident—a good but noisy aeroplane—could no longer operate. I know that this measure gave welcome relief to many people living around our major airports. The 1st January 1988 ban completes the phasing out of these older aircraft. On this, as in other noise matters, the UK has taken the lead. We have been firmer than our European colleagues, often in the face of strong pleas from foreign airlines which find the ban inconvenient, or even costly.
I believe that it might be helpful to refer to two potential forms of aircraft disturbance which are not covered by the order. The first, airships, is one which a number of people have already experienced, while the other, prop fans, is at the development stage.
It will perhaps come as no surprise to this House to learn that I have received a number of complaints from members of another place about the operation of Airship Industry's Skyship 600 last summer. The company, aware of the annoyance its airship caused some people, agreed to limit its speed—and therefore peak noise levels over built-up areas. It varied its routes as much as possible and put a lot of work into reducing the noise at source. Regrettably its efforts were not as successful as one might have wished. I understand however that it has since developed a new silencer which it is confident will make a significant difference to the noise levels.
Last summer we asked the Civil Aviation Authority to undertake a number of noise measurements for us, and if the airship returns next year we shall ask them to continue to do so. The disturbance caused by aircraft noise is very real, and I do not believe that people should be exposed to it

697
if it can be reasonably avoided. It is for this reason that we shall be monitoring closely the activities of this airship and any others that may be operating. It will not surprise your Lordships if I point out that there are few operational airships and that the international organisations have not contemplated the introduction of noise standards for them.
I turn now to the question of prop fans, or unducted fans, or ultra high bypass ratio engines—they have been given a number of names. This new form of propulsion has aroused a great deal of interest among airlines in view of its claimed low fuel consumption. While manufacturers have not as yet released noise data, they have indicated that aeroplanes equipped with these new engines will comply with the most stringent international standards for jet aircraft, which relate to noise on take-off and landing. They should not, therefore, add to the noise problem around airports.
On the other hand, there have been reports expressing concern about possible levels of noise while such aeroplanes are climbing at high altitudes and during cruise. Before allowing this new type of aeroplane to operate I propose to seek international agreement to standards that will ensure that these aeroplanes will not add to the disturbance experienced by people living under flightpaths. To this end we are involved in the studies being undertaken by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the recognised body for aircraft noise regulation, into the problems of setting new noise standards, including standards for noise made by aircraft en route, for this class of aircraft.
There are no easy solutions to the problems of aircraft noise. Our noise certification policies have made a significant contribution to alleviating the problem over the years and the purpose of this order is to further that process. I commend the draft order to your Lordships and beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I have just a few observations. I agree with the premise of the Minister when he said that anything that can be done to lessen the difficulties of people living in the vicinity of airports should be done. I believe he has explained that satisfactorily.
When the 1986 order was brought before the House I believe I said that but for the explanation of the then Minister, it would have been a very complicated document. Despite the assurance by the Minister, I still find it a very complicated and technical document. However, his explanation has been satisfactory.
I looked at three particular points; namely, the scope of the order and the fact that, generally speaking, it applies to all aircraft landing and taking off anywhere in the UK; secondly, certification which is quite clear in the order; and thirdly, enforcement. Those three points are thoroughly satisfied. With the explanation given by the Minister to make this a little
698
more understandable, I welcome the approach made to reduce noise pollution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit (Transfer of Functions and Abolition Order) 1987
9.55 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit is a non-departmental public body established by the Weights and Measures Act 1979 to co-ordinate local authority administration of the then new Community-wide "average" system of weights and measures control.
Just before the NMCU came into existence, the local authorities had set up their own co-ordinating body on trading standards, known as LACOTS, which co-ordinates local authority administration of most other consumer protection law on a non-statutory basis. LACOTS would have been the obvious choice for co-ordinating average system administration too, but it was felt then that a statutory body would be more appropriate to oversee the introduction of this radically new system of control by local authorities. That is why the NMCU was set up as a separate statutory body. However, it was agreed during the passage of the 1979 Act that the day-to-day running of the NMCU should be firmly in the hands of the local authorities. In practice, the NMCU shares membership, accommodation and staff with LACOTS.
The Department of Trade and Industry recently conducted a policy review of the NMCU which concluded that the unit should now be abolished. The reason for this is that after eight years the average system is now so well established that there is no longer any need for separate statutory co-ordination of administration. Instead, LACOTS has agreed to include the average system with its other work on behalf of the local authorities on a non-statutory basis.
The order which is now before your Lordships will abolish the unit and transfer its functions to the Secretary of State. However, this is only an interim measure. Apart from some minor registration required by EC law, the Government certainly have no wish to assume permanent responsibility for what is essentially a local authority function. Therefore, as soon as time can be found, we will introduce primary legislation to repeal virtually all the present statutory duties.
My department has had constructive discussions with the NMCU and the local authority associations during the review and on the implementation of its recommendations. During these discussions we confirmed that funding for LACOTS from the rate support grant should reflect its new responsibilities in co-ordinating average system administration.
Finally, I know that business has a high regard for the way in which the unit has overseen the co-ordination of average system administration since its introduction in 1979. I certainly endorse that view. On the evidence of its other co-ordination activities, I have no doubt that LACOTS will be able to maintain these high standards. From 1st January, I am confident that it will be "business as usual" in average system co-ordination.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the draft order at its meetings on 24th November and 1st December. It drew attention to two points. Your Lordships will wish to note that my department has submitted a memorandum to the committee commenting on both points as follows.
First, the joint committee felt that while the overall effect of the draft order is within the powers conferred, by putting abolition before transfer its form does not follow the sequence in which those powers are listed in the Act. However, the form of the draft order is intended to reflect its primary purpose of abolishing the NMCU, with transfer of functions to the Secretary of State as a secondary effect. In practice, the stages of abolition and transfer are to take place simultaneously.
The joint committee's other point concerned the removal of the criminal sanction against disclosure of commercially sensitive information. It was concerned that this would appear to allow disclosure in future of trade secrets and other confidential information by former members and employees of the unit. However, having reconsidered the position and reconsulted the unit, I am satisfied that there is no realistic possibility of any improper disclosure. With that, I beg to move the draft order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his very clear explanation of this order. I should like to say from this side of the House that we accept that the intention of the order seems a very reasonable and practical one. I note that the Minister has said that he may come back to the House with primary legislation a little later, so if there are to be any discussions or debates perhaps we can reserve them for that time.
I am also grateful to the Minister for having clarified what the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments said regarding the two minor defects in the order. He has given a full explanation which is very acceptable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arms Reductions and Defence
10.1 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will clarify their understanding of the relationship between strategic arms reductions and anti-ballistic missile defence.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have a very limited and precise Question to put to the Government tonight. I gave the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, precise advance notice of it some two or three weeks ago. However, before I put the Question and describe exactly what is meant by it, I should like to mention two general points about the present political situation.
Immediately after the summit last week, Mr. Gorbachev went back to Russia and said that despite President Reagan's belief that it was not, SDI is still an obstacle to further measures of nuclear disarmament. This is certainly the third and perhaps even the fourth time that this has happened. Time and again we in the West are informed that the Soviet objections to SDI have been withdrawn, but time and again we find that that was false information.
It is not a very difficult problem to see what ought to be done. It is a question of interpretation of treaties—for example, the ABM Treaty. The way you interpret treaties is laid down in international law. The first thing that happens is that the two parties who differ sit down together to see if they can agree what it means, what the text means. If they cannot, they look at the preamble together and see if they can agree what that means. If they cannot, they look at the negotiating record together to see what that means. All this is to be done together.
There exists a joint Soviet-American body for the very purpose of looking at the ABM Treaty together, if there is a disagreement about interpretation. The United States is unwilling to use this body. Of course, if the two signatories of a treaty cannot agree on these things together they are free to go to the World Court for an opinion on the meaning of the treaty. None of these things is being done and I think the world is the sufferer for that. The point I wish to make in going into that is that SDI is still alive and that the proper channels for getting over the obstacle are still not being used. Therefore, we have to take it a little further in countries like ours.
A second background point which will be less familiar to everybody concerns ATBM—anti-tactical ballistic missile defence as opposed to strategic anti-ballistic missile defence. Tactical is the shorter-range, middle-range stuff.
The Government have a great contract with the United States, arranged under the memorandum of agreement, which is a bilateral treaty, to study something called European architecture. This is a curious code phrase which means to study how one could have anti-ballistic missile defence against short-range ballistic missiles and even medium-range ballistic missiles (INFs) in Europe; how that could best be arranged and how it could best be done politically between the different countries. They are studying this.
There has been a recent development. Noble Lords may not have noticed that within the past week Israel has been accorded alliance status with the United States on a par with that of NATO. All rights and privileges, as it were, that NATO partners now have in Washington are equally shared by Israel. This reminds us—or should remind us—that it is about

701
now that West European ATBM research is being married up, by the United States army bureau concerned, with other allied ATBM research. That principally means Israel, which is researching hard in the same way as ourselves.
I had a courteous and helpful answer from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to a Written Question that I asked last week. My question was about the future of "European architecture" studies now that there was to be no more INF deployment in Europe. The noble Lord said that that would continue for shorter range nuclear weapons. He introduced the, to me, new phrase "theatre architecture studies".
We are now engaged in investigating theatre architecture in the abstract. Western Europe can be a theatre of war. That is familiar. Israel can be a theatre of war. Israel is a nuclear power. That is less familiar. Our research and Israeli research are being mixed up. Will what we come up with be shared with Israel? Is that a fact? If it is not, will the Government state it? If it is a fact, does this House welcome it? I submit not. It is dangerous and should be discontinued.
I shall deal with the Question of which I have given notice. It concerns an apparent contradiction in various passages of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on the last Unstarred Question on this subject on 18th November. He said (at col. 276 of Hansard):
"The United Kingdom deterrent is the minimum we judge necessary to deter an aggressor. It is based on a small number of submarines carrying the minimum number of warheads necessary to penetrate the defences of a potential aggressor."
He further said (at col. 277):
"We have said we would consider associating the United Kingdom deterrent with arms control only if there were very substantial reductions in the strategic arsenals of the super powers and no change in the defensive capabilities of the Soviet Union."
That is something we can understand. It is sensible. It makes good sense. We back the Government in that attitude. If the defences must be taken into account in settling the level of a country's offensive nuclear weapons which are held for deterrent purposes, let them be taken into account. That is common sense. They must be.
I shall now quote some other passages of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. He said (at col. 275):
"It is widely known that the major obstacle to achieving a START agreement"
(that is, strategic arms reduction between America and Russia)—
"is Soviet insistence on linking progress to constraints on SDI. We consider it unacceptable that progress towards those reductions is being held up because of Soviet opposition to research into defensive technologies."
He continued:
"The Russians have argued that such US research will nullify their strategic arsenal, and that no cuts can therefore be contemplated: That seems fanciful".
Again:
"But START reductions should not be held hostage to arguments about an ABM treaty".
My question is: why is what is true for Britain untrue for the Soviet Union? If we cannot start to change the level of our offensive weapons until we
702
know what the level of Soviet defensive systems is, how can the Soviet Union start changing the levels of its offensive weapons without knowing what the level of United States defensive systems will be? It is as simple as that. What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Will the Government please look bifocally at this matter?
I look forward very much to hearing whether there is any justification for using a different standard in our calculations from that which we expect the Soviet Union to use in its.
10.9 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in last week's communiqué on the INF treaty, the Geneva negotiators were instructed to work out an agreement:
"that would commit the sides to observe the ABM treaty, as signed in 1972, while conducting their research, development and testing as required, which are permitted by the ABM treaty, and not to withdraw from the ABM treaty, for a specified period of time".
As the noble Lord, Lord Rennet, has said, that has been interpreted in the Soviet Union as a halt to SDI research and deployment. It has been interpreted in the United States as a carte blanche for continuing SDI. We need to know where Her Majesty's Government stand.
Perhaps I may first say that 15 years ago my noble friend Lord Brockway wrote a book called The Merchants of Death. I wish to warn noble Lords that the European defence industries, facing a slump in their export markets to the impoverished third world, are already pushing for an increase in high technology projects in Western Europe. This is predicated on the continuing division of Europe. I submit that the INF agreement gives an opportunity to end this division. But military disarmament depends on political disarmament. The objective has to be genuine disarmament and genuine understanding on both sides. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, at the moment there is one law for the East and another for the West. I submit that the British Government must not be allowed to block progress towards genuine political and military disarmament between East and West by a subjective attitude to the ABM Treaty.
There is a link in the chances of cutting strategic weapons in half with the ABM Treaty. Her Majesty's Government and in particular the Prime Minister, quickly jumped in to condemn Reykjavik over 12 months ago. They have stated that they are opposed to a nuclear-free Europe. I wonder when they will be prepared to put that to the test of public opinion.
I wish to concentrate on one specific item in the Government's attitude to the ABM treaty. It is an item that I have raised in this House before: the position of the Fylingdales radar system. According to the 1972 ABM treaty, no long-range strategic early warning radar is allowed. Secondly, it is not allowed to be deployed. Thirdly, if it has been built since 1972 it breaks the treaty. Fourthly, if it is built outside the United States it breaks the treaty. The British Government have taken the line that the new developments in Fylingdales constitute modernisation, replacement and upgrading. That is

703
quite irrelevant. The new developments at Fylingdales break the ABM treaty because they will be deployed simultaneously with the existing radar arrangements.
Article VII of the ABM treaty explicitly permits the modernisation only of ABM radars. It does not extend this licence to early-warning radars. Article VI(b) commits each party,
"not to deploy in the future radars for early warning of strategic ballistic missile attack except at locations along the periphery of its national territory and oriented outward".
Fylingdales lies far outside the national territory of the United States. The early warning radars in question are obviously coming into being at the two sites, Thule and Fylingdales, "in the future" with respect to 1972. When it is explicitly stated that the new installation at Fylingdales—what the Government call the modernised installation—will operate simultaneously with the existing installation, can this by any stretch of the English language be interpreted as modernisation?
The new LPARs at Fylingdales will be complete replacements for the existing non-phased-array radars at the existing site. The simple fact that at Fylingdales the old and the new radars will be operational concurrently for a considerable time—perhaps as long as a year—must lead to the conclusion that the United States will in future deploy radars for early warning of strategic ballistic missile attacks at Fylingdales and, by so doing, will be in material breach of the ABM treaty.
This is not my argument only. The case is supported by, among others, Lieutenant-General K. H. Burke, United States Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, and by John Rhinelander and Ray Gartoff, respectively the United States legal adviser to and deputy head of the United States SALT I delegation. All three have testified that the LPAR will breach the ABM treaty.
I ask the Minister to accept this as a rational argument—even though he may disagree with it—supported by United States experts in the field and by many other people who have examined the treaty at diplomatic and scientific level. If the Minister disagrees with it, I ask him to state the Government's case to meet the assertion that the Fylingdales development breaches the ABM treaty. By breaching that treaty, it is undermining the possible development from last week's INF treaty towards bridging the political and military division of Europe.
If the Minister disagrees with the argument, I ask him to put the Government's case against it to show where the weakness lies instead of offering the usual evasions based on dogmatic and unproven assertions. I ask him to treat the argument seriously, put forward as it is by serious analysts of the situation, and to let us know where Her Majesty's Government stand. I ask the Minister to give us the Government's answer to the clear analysis, deduction and conclusion that what is proposed to be done at Fylingdales is in direct breach of the specific clauses of the ABM treaty. Unless the Government can do that, they stand accused of deliberate sabotage of the
704
opportunity that now lies before Europe to put aside the Cold War, to put aside military competition and to usher in a new era of understanding and friendship among European peoples.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennet, has introduced a subject which deserves an earlier hour and a fuller House and he has put forward a clear and interesting inconsistency in the attitude of the Government on SDL When the Russians improve their anti-ballistic missile defences the Government use this as an argument to increase the strategic capacity of the British deterrent, first, by Chevaline and now by Trident; and that is logical. When the Americans propose to construct an anti-ballistic missile system the Government reject the right of the Russians to raise their capacity for offensive weapons to match. This is a clear inconsistency and I am bound to say that I see the logic of the Soviet position.
If an American SDI system can intercept and destroy a proportion—and no one puts it higher—of incoming missiles, surely one quite simple and not very expensive way of countering that is to increase the number of offensive missiles that one launches at the United States. That is absolutely logical. Of course one can do other things. One can increase anti-satellite capacity. One can start on SDI. But the obvious logical consequence for the Russians is to increase their strategic weapons. Therefore if it is true that the Americans are still hard about proceeding with research and development on SDI, that is bound to be a serious obstacle to progress next year towards an agreement and treaty on the reduction of strategic arms.
My question to the Government is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. What is the position between the Americans and Russians now on SDI? As the noble Lord said, we have had contradictory reports. We are told from the United States that a formula has been reached and that both sides are prepared, so to speak, to fudge the issue. We also read Mr. Gorbachev's statement that SDI remains an important obstacle to a treaty on strategic weapons. First, we want to be told whether Her Majesty's Government know what the position is between the Russians and the Americans on this issue. They should have been informed. All the NATO allies should have been informed. May we be reassured that the Government know it? Secondly, may we have the Government's view on this subject?
Noble Lords will remember that at the beginning of the debate about SDI a most admirable and sceptical speech was made by the Foreign Secretary. We want to know whether that is still the position of the Government or whether the Government agree with the Americans that SDI must go ahead even at the risk of sabotaging a strategic arms agreement next year. We are entitled even at this late hour to a clear answer to those two questions. Do the Government support the narrow interpretation of the treaty, as the Russians evidently do, or do they support the broad interpretation of the treaty which is the position, as I understand it, of the United States?

705
I should like to make another point in my brief intervention. This debate gives the Minister another opportunity to explain the policy of the British Government on the question of circumventing the new INF treaty. We now know—the matter is not contested—that consultations with France are at an advanced stage on a new nuclear weapons system, the joint production of cruise missiles with a range of 300 miles to be carried by Tornados. I think this is not denied by the Government, and I read in the newspapers statements by Mr. Younger and the Foreign Secretary confirming what I have just said.
Is this just modernising? That is what we are told. We are told that it is the modernisation of what we have now, which is the free fall bomb, the W177. The Government's position is that they are modernising the 177s. Well, it is obviously ridiculous. It is escalation. Of course the new weapon system will be far more effective. It will be longer range, with the Tornado range added to the 300 miles. It will be longer range than the 177. It will be more powerful. It will have greater penetration. It is in fact escalation.
I draw the Minister's attention to the reply I received in the debate on 9th December from his noble friend Lord Glenarthur. At col. 274 he said, referring to my speech:
"I cannot, however, agree with his declaration that modernisation is escalation. We are not escalating nor circumventing the INF agreement".
Of course it is escalation. Everybody knows it is escalation.
When the Russians said they were modernising the SS.4s and the SS.5s by producing and deploying the SS.20s the Government mocked them, and quite rightly. They are open to the same derision when they go in with France on a new weapon system of airborne cruise missiles having a range of 300 miles and call it modernisation of the free fall W177. They will open themselves to derision in the same way.
When the Government say that they are not circumventing the treaty, I note that Mr. Younger said yesterday:
"We are talking about weapons"—
the weapons system I have discussed—
"which are entirely permitted within the INF treaty".
Of course, when you say that we are circumventing the treaty, that means being obedient to the letter of the treaty but, in effect, taking action which nullifies it. This is what the Government are apparently planning to do with the new weapons system.
After all, INF deals with the cruise missiles based at Greenham and elsewhere. But the new weapons system that the Government are now considering with the French has just as large a range as the Greenham Common banned cruise missiles. It is just as important and has a similar missile. It is a similar warhead with a similar range. It is in fact replacing the capacity which is banned by the INF Treaty.
I do not dispute that it is compatible with the lettering of the treaty. But it is plainly contrary to its spirit. Therefore, I ask the Government: is this new weapons system not escalation, and is it not
706
circumventing the INF treaty? I hope that we can have a clear and precise answer to these questions from the Government.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I profit from this occasion—of not longer than five minutes, I assure your Lordships—by recalling that my own opposition to star wars dates from its actual inception in March 1983. Although the President may, as we know, be among those very few who sincerely believe in his dream that it will result in the total abolition of all nuclear weapons, I assure your Lordships—and I have assured you before—that in my view the real object of the promoters of this unfortunate project was, and still is, in the first place to make immense sums of money for the armaments industry and all those institutions and persons associated with it. Then next to spread abroad the impression that the Republican Party is in favour of what is called peace. Finally, to block any limitation of nuclear arms on the legitimate assumption that the Russians will never willingly agree to any effective violation of the 1972 ABM treaty.
I believe that the so-called broad interpretation of the treaty by the United States is, in effect, a violation of it; and many lawyers agree with that belief. However, we must recognise that the Americans accuse the Russians of violating it, too. None of those alleged violations, distributed by the Pentagon, are confirmed; they are only suspected. The exception is the installation of the phased array system at Krasnoyarsk. There the Russians have accepted inspection by American experts who have visited Krasnoyarsk and looked over the whole show. At Fylingdales, where the Americans are strongly suspected of violating the treaty, the Americans have made no such concessions and no Russian experts have been invited there. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, regarding that matter.
Some people now say that Mr. Gorbachev's admission that Russia is indulging in some form of special ABM research justifies the proposal of a vast scheme of research and development, and the eventual deployment of SDI; but that is quite irrelevant. There is no doubt that the Russians are experimenting with lasers and directed energy; no one denies that, and Mr. Gorbachev has confirmed it. However, given the obvious necessity on the part of Russia to spend less on existing armaments to rehabilitate its ailing economy, it would be prepared, if necessary, to spend countless billions of rubles on the equivalent of star wars. That makes no sense whatever.
As my noble friend Lord Mayhew pointed out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has constantly said, if the Americans press ahead with SDI, the Russians will not reduce—as is now hoped—but conceivably double the number of strategic missiles. In that case, any hope of general nuclear arms restrictions would disappear.
The whole possibility of what is known as nuclearisation of space seems now to be at issue, irrespective of the President's dream of one day

707
establishing a totally leak-proof dome over each super power, if not over Europe. There is always the possibility of the destruction by one side or the other of the other's satellites, and research on SDI may well contribute to that end. Surely, in the present improved climate (I think that it has been improved) the super powers should agree at least to a truce in the fatal rivalry of preparing to destroy each other's satellites. Should it not be the duty of all Europeans, including our own Government, to encourage them to do so? We in this country always allow people to give advice. The Prime Minister is always giving advice to President Reagan; why should she not give advice to this effect? I cannot see why she should not.
As regards star wars, with luck Congress may now substantially reduce funds earmarked for the project and eventually liquidate it after the next election. That must be our hope and it is a reasonable prospect presumably before the ratification by both sides of any agreement on strategic weapons that may be signed next year. That is on the assumption that Mr. Gorbachev is not removed from power by the Nomenkleture or the KGB, and that the so-called hard-line Republicans do not provide a President of the United States. No one can be sure that one disaster or the other will not occur.
In Western Europe, all we can do is to ensure that reason and not emotion prevails in the crucial years that lie ahead. If we simply plunge ahead with the nuclear arms race (for that is what it will be if there is no agreement) there is no guarantee whatever that we shall be able to avoid what may well be the destruction of the world.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am certain the Minister is anxious to answer the question which is contained in the submission by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and it is not my business to stand in his way. I certainly would not subscribe to the view of my noble friend Lord Hatch, who asked if we are to be met by his usual evasiveness.
I expect clear answers to clear questions. From all sides of the House for the past 35 minutes colleagues have deployed their arguments, as many did in the very important debate last week. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who has persisted in trying to get answers to the queries he raised in the Unstarred Question on strategic arms reduction on 18th November. The Minister can do the House, and many people outside the House, a service by giving us something more positive than we have had so far.
The major debate last week cleared up a number of things. The summit in Washington clarified a number of others. However, it left some uncertainty on the future of SDI, and the joint statement issued by President Reagan and Secretary-General Gorbachev was ambiguous on that point.
Commentators argue that the Soviet Union has temporarily shelved its opposition to SDI on a number of grounds. First, Congress is placing restrictions on it; as part of the recent budget negotiations, the US administration agreed to adhere to the "narrow" interpretation of the ABM treaty until September 1988; secondly, budget cutbacks will further hamper the project, and Defense Secretary
708
Frank Carlucci is planning to cut 33 billion dollars from next year's defence budget; and, thirdly, given President Reagan's personal commitment to SDI, it may be easier for his successor to strike a deal with the USSR on it. Defence Secretary Carlucci has also said:
"Mikhail Gorbachev still ties confirmation of a strategic arms deal to the strengthening as well as adherence to the anti-Ballistic Missile treaty".
What the House would like the Minister to tell it is not our interpretation of what happens between America and Russia but what is the view of the British Government in this matter. The Minister will recall that the Prime Minister wrote to President Reagan prior to the summit stating that,
"a mutually agreed timetable for star wars research, and a long-term commitment to the ABM treaty are the two essential preconditions for reaching a strategic arms limitation deal."
Can the Minister confirm that this is indeed HMG's position? And can he tell us what Mr. Gorbachev's response to it was when he met the Prime Minister last week?
In our debate on strategic arms reduction of 18th November, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, stated that the Government,
"consider it unacceptable that progress towards those reductions is being held up because of Soviet opposition to research into defensive technologies."—[Official Report; col. 275.]
However, by 9th December the noble Lord was not only recognising that such opposition existed, but was suggesting a means of defusing it, when he said that,
"the way to resolve differences would be a commitment both by the United States and by the USSR not to withdraw from the ABM Treaty for a number of years, together with exchanges of information over both sides' research programmes." [Col. 271.]
We on these Benches support this more constructive statement. If there were added to it the need to reach agreement on interpretation of the ABM treaty, and provision for negotiation prior to deployment, we should have a very solid basis for agreement between the super powers.
I just want to reinforce the very persistent and proper way in which my noble friend Lord Hatch asked extremely searching questions about the illegality of what is going on at Fylingdales, because Peter Pringle, who writes from Washington for the Independent, said:
"American lawyers who helped to draft the ABM treaty, among them Gerard Smith, the treaty's chief negotiator, and John Rhinelander, legal adviser to the US negotiating team, say that all three radar deals violate the treaty. A still-secret internal US government analysis of the treaty made at the time also indicates that the three radars are illegal…Those who say it is illegal do so on the basis of Articles Six and Nine of the treaty".
I know that the noble Lord is far more familiar with that and other matters than I am. But I am genuinely seeking a reconciliation with my understanding of what that treaty says, because, in respect of large phased-array radar, LPAR, the treaty quite clearly states that it bans LPARs with certain exceptions. They are permitted only within agreed ABM missile deployment areas, at agreed ABM test ranges, for the purpose of arms control verification, for tracking objects in space and for early warning only if sited at the periphery of the national territory of either the USA or the USSR.

709
Those are my questions. My claim to fame tonight is that I have made the shortest speech in the debate.
10.43 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in rising to reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I am bound to observe that this subject was extensively covered in considerable detail during a five-hour debate in your Lordships' House as recently as last Wednesday, not to mention in the Starred Question on 18th November to which the noble Lord referred. But I make no complaint about that. The noble Lord is entitled to ask whatever questions he likes, whenever he likes, and I shall do my best to answer. But it will come as no surprise to noble Lords who recall that five-hour debate if I say that the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, does not permit of a simple answer.
Let me first set out the Government's position on Alliance strategy, strategic arms reductions, the conditions relating to inclusion of the United Kingdom deterrent in arms control negotiations, and the Government's position on ABM defence. Against that background I shall then attempt to answer the noble Lord's Question.
Our starting point is that the Alliance strategy of deterrence has served us well for 40 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. To be credible it must continue to be based upon an appropriate mix of nuclear weapons and strong conventional forces. That is not to say that we oppose strategic arms, reductions. On the contrary, we fully support the Reykjavik goal of 50 per cent. reductions in the Soviet and US strategic offensive forces. It is agreed that the United Kingdom deterrent has no part to play in the present negotiations. Our position is that we would consider associating the United Kingdom deterrent with arms control only if there were very substantial reductions in the strategic arsenals of the super powers and no change in the defensive capabilities of the Soviet Union. As the Prime Minister made clear after her meeting with Mr. Gorbachev at Brize Norton on 7th December, our nuclear deterrent is an irreducible minimum and until the negotiations on nuclear weapons have gone a lot further than a 50 per cent. reduction, there is no question of even thinking of bringing ours in.
It is a fundamental principle that arms control measures must at the very least maintain current levels of security and preferably enhance them. However when Trident is deployed it will still represent a smaller proportion of Soviet strategic warheads after a START agreement than did Polaris when it was first fully deployed in 1970.
To include the United Kingdom deterrent in arms control negotiations until substantially greater cuts had been made in superpower arsenals would not therefore meet that basic criteria. The essential difference is that we maintain as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur-said a minimum deterrent while as both parties to the START negotiations acknowledge their strategic arsenals would still be capable of maintaining deterrents after 50 per cent. cuts. If they did not believe that, they would not be at the negotiating table.
710
The Government's position on SDI which so exercises the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is based on the four points agreed between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan at Camp David in 1984. I shall recite them again if I may for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, because I sometimes think that the view he advances on this matter suggests that he has not fully studied those four points, and I hope that he will take the time to do so.
They are these: first that the United States and Western aim is not to achieve superiority, but to maintain balance taking account of Soviet developments. I might say incidentally that General Secretary Gorbachev has recently confirmed that the Soviet Union is working in that area. Secondly, that SDI deployment would, in view of Treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation; thirdly, that the overall aim is to enhance deterrence and not to undermine it; and fourthly that East/West negotiations should aim to achieve security with reduced levels of offensive systems on both sides.
Let me underline that the SDI programme is a research programme to determine the feasibility of a system based upon the principles that have been enunciated. It is not a programme to deploy a system of that kind. That could only take place following negotiation under the Treaty as drafted.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether or not the Prime Minister agrees with the broad interpretation of the 1972 Treaty?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is not for the United Kingdom to interpret the ABM Treaty. We are not parties to that Treaty any more than is the noble Lord, if I may say so. The fact of the matter is that, as I say, we are not parties to the Treaty; but we have indicated that we should support the narrower interpretation and hope that the United States will do so as well.
Against this background, the most obvious and topical connection between strategic arms reductions and anti-ballistic missile defence lies In the linkage placed up to now by the Russians on parallel progress in both areas. The Russians' argument that their deterrent could be undermined by SDI is without merit, since it postulates that all cuts in strategic arsenals must hang on the Russian perception of a research programme which falls within US/Soviet Treaty obligations and the deployment of any product of which will be a matter for negotiation.
Even optimistic estimates do not foresee initial deployment of a US anti-ballistic missile system before the mid-1990s. Moreover, professed Soviet concerns appear more than a little hypocritical. Mr. Gorbachev has recently acknowledged that the Soviet Union is itself conducting a considerable research programme into those areas covered by the strategic defence initiative. This confirms a fact which this Government have long known and repeatedly stated. Indeed, the Soviet programme is of long standing. And of course the Soviet Union has the world's only existing ballistic missile defence system. That in itself is sufficient justification for the SDI programme—the West cannot afford to lag behind in

711
this field of research. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, studies what I have said on the matter. I believe that if he does so, he will see the disadvantage of the arguments which I have put forward to the House tonight.
Lord Gladwyn: My position remains exactly as it was.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord has advanced his position on the matter repeatedly over the past two or three years—ever since I have had the responsibility for answering on occasions from the Dispatch Box. I confess that the noble Lord's position has changed not a jot during that time. However, I believe that if he studies the arguments which I have put forward, he will realise that the position is worthy of further consideration. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the Minister has recited the alphabet with great proficiency. When we come to this point in it, the Government always repeat that the Soviet Union has the only operational ABM deployment in the world. That is of course true. It is specifically and expressly provided for in the ABM Treaty, and the Americans had one as well until they decided to cancel it unilaterally. Am I right or wrong?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. There is no difficulty—at least so far as I am aware—as regards the ABM Treaty and the Soviet system, which is land-based and located in the Soviet Union. However, the fact that the United States does not have such a system makes it all the more important that it should proceed with research on a more modern system as it is now doing.
In that context, I remind your Lordships of the third of the four points which emphasised that the purpose of the strategic defence initiative is to enhance deterrence and not to undermine it. It is not realistic for the Russians to argue that progress on ridding the world of very substantial numbers of nuclear weapons cannot proceed until there is agreement on limiting a defence research programme whose feasibility has not yet been proved and which, in any case, is only a long term prospect and subject to negotiation before it could deploy. It is a research programme, incidentally, upon which the Soviets themselves now admit that they are embarked.
Of course we favour measures which allow both sides to reassure themselves that they will not one day wake up to find their deterrence outdated by a new defence system. That is only prudent and must contribute to strategic ability. We advocate confidence-building measures which would allow greater predictability in research into new areas. The Prime Minister has proposed to Mr. Gorbachev that such predictability could be achieved by a combination of an agreed period of non-withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and mutual information on research plans.
Indeed, the outcome of the summit meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev gives us some cause for optimism that a solution along those lines may be possible. The superpower
712
delegations at Geneva have been instructed to work out an agreement which would commit the two sides to observe the ABM Treaty for a fixed term of years. Not later than three years before the end of that period, the two sides will enter into intensive discussions on strategic stability. If, after those discussions, no agreement has been reached, both sides will be free to decide their course of action. That instruction leaves open a number of important questions. However, the optimism of the United States and the Soviet Union for the prospects of a START agreement next year suggests that the difficulties over the linkage between strategic arms reductions and anti-ballistic missile defence can be overcome.
As the technical feasibility of the SDI is clearer, we will need to consider its strategic implications very carefully indeed. But it is not a position on which I could take a categorical position today.
Perhaps I may turn briefly at this late hour to the points raised by other noble Lords. I fear that I shall not have time to deal with them all. Perhaps I may touch on the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, concerning the radar at Fylingdales. The ABM Treaty actually says:
"not to deploy in the future radars for early warning".
I underline the words "in the future". Fylingdales predates the treaty and is being modernised. But we are satisfied that such modernisation is not in contravention of the treaty, which is, as I have already mentioned, a bilateral treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union.
It was, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, who asked me a question at Question Time the other day on that very point and I hoped that I had made that point clear on that occasion. I am sorry that I failed to do so. I hope that the explanation given tonight has reassured the noble Lord.
Your Lordships will understand from what I have said that the relationship between offensive and defensive strategic forces is not one which can be made subject to a simple formula. The Government firmly believe that we must strive to achieve 50 per cent. cuts in strategic weapons and that these cuts will in no way jeopardise the strategy of deterrence which is the bedrock of our security. Concerns about hypothetical defences must not stand in the way of concrete cuts which we can make in strategic missiles.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the question of Fylingdales, is he aware that the Soviet Government have offered to pull down Krasnoyarsk if the United States will pull down Fylingdales? If so, has he any comment to make on that offer?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is not a proposition in which we would be involved. That would be something for the United States and the Soviet Union. It does not sound to me like an arrangement which would enhance our security.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has said again that Fylingdales is being modernised. How does he equate the word "modernisation" with

713
two installations working simultaneously side by side? How can that be modernisation rather than the addition of a new installation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is easy. It is a very thorough modernisation.

British Waterways Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before eleven o'clock.

  GULF CONFLICT: ATTACKS ON BRITISH SHIPS
  GULF CONFLICT: ATTACKS ON BRITISH SHIPS
  SOVIET AIRCRAFT CARRIER
  SOVIET AIRCRAFT CARRIER
  CANADA: PURCHASE OF NUCLEAR SUBMARINES
  CANADA: PURCHASE OF NUCLEAR SUBMARINES
  RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS: TRANSPORT BY AIR
  RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS: TRANSPORT BY AIR
  ARCTIC RESEARCH
  ARCTIC RESEARCH
  POWER STATIONS: BUILDING PROGRAMME
  POWER STATIONS: BUILDING PROGRAMME