Sitting of 8 May 1987

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

  Rates (Ealing)
  9.34 am
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to ask leave to present a petition to
  The honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition of the Greenford Residential Group for the Environment, showeth
  That Ealing Council is demanding an extravagant increase in rates from the residents of Greenford, and the rest of the borough of Ealing to which we object most strongly.
  The petition is signed by a large number of residents especially from the Greenford area. It stands in the name of Mr. N. D. Keating and Mrs. C. A. Keating, chairman and secretary respectively of the Greenford Residential Group for the Environment. They are protesting most vigorously with thousands of other signatories against the horrendous, hideous and totally unjustified rate increase by Ealing Labour council of 65 per cent. for domestic ratepayers and 57·3 per cent. for industrialists.
  Domestic ratepayers are finding it extremely difficult, and many find it impossible, to pay the horrendous increase. The increase in industrial rates is expected to threaten jobs, has already caused people to lose jobs and will increase prices.
  As I have said, there are thousands of signatories.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will do everything in its power to help us in our protest against this outrageous rates increase.
  And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Speaker: It would be for the convenience of the House if the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) presented his second petition now.

  Residential Development (Northolt)
  9.36 am
  Mr. Greenway: I have the honour to present a second petition.
  To the Honourable the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition of the Northolt Village Residents Association, showeth:
  (1) That we wish to register the strongest possible objections to the proposal for change of use of the `Sadia' site in Rowdell Road, Northolt, to incorporate a housing and non-industrial development;
  which includes a mosque.
  964
  (2) That we believe that the proposal, and the circumstances under which the London Borough of Ealing purchased the land and intend to dispose of it need full, frank and public discussion
  and a public inquiry.
  The petition is in the name of the chairman of the Northolt Village residents association, Mr. Harry Hellier, the vice-chairman, Mr. Adams, the hon. secretary, Mrs. Carole Adams, and the treasurer, Mr. Douglas Greatorex, and many thousands of signatories. The petition concerns the proposal of Ealing council to sell an industrial site which has always been a site for jobs and industry to a group which proposes to change its use, build a mosque and residential housing in the middle of the industrial estate. That will add greatly to the traffic difficulties in an already congested area and to the difficulty of residents with jobs on the site. The site is an industrial site and not a residential site. It has never been a residential site. There are strong objections about the proposal and local people have not been consulted by Ealing council.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will support our demand that Ealing Council immediately set in motion the procedures to hold a full public inquiry to review the purchase, disposal and future use of the site
  along the lines of the public meeting that I called, attended by 500 people.
  And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Retirement Age
9.38 am
Mr. Greville Janner: I am pleased to present the petition from citizens of Leicester, other local residents and the officers and members of the pensions and retirement care campaign concerning the state pension eligibility for men.
At present women may retire at the age of 60 on state pension and men may only do that at the age of 65. While some hon. Members and others are fit, willing and anxious to remain at work into their 70s and 80s, too many people who are desperate for a dignified and decent retirement at 60 are forced to stay at work until they are 65 and to retain jobs that others who are unemployed are desperate to have. I pay my special tribute to the Leicestershire union of mineworkers and its leader, Mr. Jack Jones, for collecting so many of the signatures, of which there are over 500.
The petition is from the citizens of Leicester and other local residents.
It sheweth that
the present State Pension Eligibility Age for men is 65 years and that this is discriminatory to the extent that women are elibible at age 60, although they may work to age 65.
Wherefore your Petitioners Pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to ensure the taking of immediate steps to establish a Voluntary Retirement Age of 60 for both Men and Women.
The petition is presented in the light of a petition of over 1 million signatures, of which this is the first stage, and a predecessor of which I had the honour to present some years ago, and in the light of the totally unacceptable arid wretched level of unemployment of Leicester arid throughout the country.
To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day
  Licensing (Amendment) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Licensing (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      VARIATION ORDERS ETC.
      9.41 am
      Mr. Speaker: I call Sir Bernard Braine to speak to his amendment No. 1.
      Sir Bernard Braine: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? When the House adjourned last Friday, I was speaking to amendment No. 1, but also to amendment No. 13. The two are interlinked in such a way that you recognised that there should be one debate. Therefore, I hope that you will allow me to pursue the argument on which I embarked, because of the interrelationship of the two amendments.
      Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I did not make it clear that my selection remains as it was last week, and that with amendment No. 1 we shall take amendment No.1 3, in page 1, line 22, after '11.30 p.m.' insert
      'with a two hour break between the opening hour and closing hour'.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
      I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 22, leave out '11.30 p.m.' and insert '11 p.m.'.
      When the House adjourned last Friday, I was on the point of summing up the case for the two amendments, which is concerned with flexibility and hours of opening. It might help the House if I summarise the beneficial effects of my two amendments on licensees and public houses, and above all in relation to public order, road safety and health.
      I have always made it plain that the overwhelming majority of licensees are decent, hard-working people who need some protection from the pressure of the drink industry for ever-increasing consumption and the extended hours in which it can take place. Hon. Members will know from their own experience that the desire for extended opening hours is not universally held by all licensees or by their wives and families.
      Two days ago I was delighted to receive, out of the blue, a letter from Mr. Eddie Johnson, landlord of The Crown, a public house in High road, Loughton. I have never met Mr. Johnson, but he gives me permission to read the letter to the House. He says:
      "Dear Sir Bernard,
      I would like to congratulate you on your stand against any relaxation of the licensing laws.
      As a publican of 28 years, I have seen how the erosion of everything we hold dear in this country seems to have been accompanied by an increase in drunken, yobbish behaviour."
      Mr. Johnson is making the point that I have made more than once in the House. He continues:
      "I enclose a copy of an article that I had published in the Morning Advertiser three years ago. Since then they have put an embargo on any correspondence from me pertaining to the Flexi Laws campaign—indeed one of the features of that newspaper now is that opposition to the measure they say is nil whereas I know that most publicans of my acquaintance are against reform."
      966
      In the article, Mr. Johnson made it clear that, in his view, longer and more flexible hours are not needed. He also met head-on the argument that tourists grumble about afternoon closing and argue for later opening. He says:
      "Pressure on the Government from the Brewers Society, the Tourist Board and would you believe, the National Union of Licensed Victuallers to allow our pubs to stay open later and longer, is getting stronger. As far as the NULV is concerned, it must be the first time in history a group is supporting an idea that will mean much more work for its members for much less pay. One reason given by the Board is that our licensing laws make tourists stay away and that the laws are silly. Do tourists stay away? London already can't cope with the numbers."
      In 1985 report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry concluded:
      "the tourism industry would greatly benefit by a liberalisation of the existing laws. We consider that, both in regard to opening hours, and in provisions for families to take children with them into public houses, a change in the legislation is needed."
      But where is the evidence for the claim that the availability of drink is a major determinant of people's choice of holiday location? The Scottish experience provides no such evidence. Between 1979 and 1985, the number of overseas visitors to Scotland increased by 8 per cent. In England and Wales over the same period, the number of foreign tourists increased by 54 per cent.
      It is perhaps just possible that the failure of licensed premises to cater for families with children could be a significant factor in persuading British families to holiday abroad, but it is highly unlikely. For there is nothing in our existing law to prevent licensees from setting aside family rooms, provided that the rooms in question do not contain bars. The apparent unwillingness of many licencess or the brewery companies behind them to cater for whole families within the current law surely must be taken as showing a lack of demand for such facilities.
      Compared with factors such as the value of the pound and the idiosyncrasies of the British weather, the difficulty of obtaining a drink in a public house at 4 o'clock in the afternoon is surely of minimal significance in deterring foreign tourists from coming to this country. Would American tourists, for example, be deterred from holidaying in this country by a two-hour break in the drinking day? I think not. Indeed, in the United States, alcohol consumption is falling precisely because of greater public awareness of the health risks associated with alcohol. One third of adult Americans are, in fact, teetotal.
      In New Zealand, as I said last Friday, the Minister of Justice is being urged by a departmental committee to introduce a period of closure of public houses between 2 pm and 4 pm—in view of what has been happening in the House, this reads strangely—on the ground that it would help public houses in New Zealand achieve the "favourable image" characteristic of English pubs. How ironical, and how sad that at the very moment that our system is prasied and may be copied, the sponsors of this ill-considered Bill are seeking to abandon it in this country. There is no reason to believe that the tourist trade would be damaged by acceptance of amendments Nos. 1 and 13. Indeed, it can be argued that acceptance of the two amendments would help to retain the attractiveness of England and Wales to foreign tourists.
      In our previous debates, much of our discussion has focused on road safety. I should like to summarise my views on that as it relates to the two amendments. As my

      967
      hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out last Friday, the issue between the supporters and the opponents of the Bill is primarily concerned with the facts. I agree with him that, in relation to road safety, the primary issue is the nature of the relationship between the availability of alcohol, and death and injury on the roads, and whether increased availability would be likely to increase the number of alcohol-related deaths and injuries.
      Everyone accepts that a definitive answer to those questions is not possible because the statistical information that would decide the matter is not available. It is partly because of the absence of this vital information that the issue between the supporters and the opponents of the Bill is also that of on whom the burden of proof should be made to lie.
      That raises an interesting question. It is not for me, as an opponent of the Bill, to prove that, in the absence of the relevant statistics, the Bill is undesirable. It is those who want to change the law who must show beyond any reasonable doubt, that to do so would not be harmful. I say here and now that prima facie there is a danger that increased availability might lead to increased deaths and injuries on our roads.
      If that is so, the onus should be on the supporters of the Bill to show that increased availability will not lead to increased harm. Until that is done Parliament should follow the safer course. So far the supporters have not been able to do so. Questions to the Department of Transport have not produced figures to support their argument. It is entirely wrong to argue that the onus is on those who oppose the Bill to show positively that increased availability will lead to increased harm. That argument is utterly unacceptable. If the matter in dispute cannot be conclusively decided one way or the other, Parliament must choose the safer course—which, in this instance, is represented by my two amendments. They would go some way to control the availability of alcohol and would especially help to prevent continuous drinking throughout the day.
      Why must we err on the side of caution? Why would continuous drinking hours be likely to increase road traffic accidents? It is clear that the incidence of alcohol-related traffic accidents is already closely related to the hours during which public houses are open. We do not need to look into the crystal when we can consult the book of experience.
      I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has denied that there is a perceptible relationship between pub opening hours and road accidents. I can only ask him to reconsider the pattern of road accidents by the hour of the day at which they occur. I should like to quote the words of Dr. James Dunbar, director of the Tayside safe driving project, who is one of our country's leading authorities on drinking and driving. Incidentally, I believe that Dr. Dunbar went to the same school and university as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood. In a telephone conversation on Wednesday night, he told me:
      "There is a significant difference in the times at which alcohol related accidents and non alcoholic accidents occur. Non alcohol accidents peak during the rush hours when people are travelling to and from work. Alcohol related accidents first begin to occur significantly at midday, an hour or so after the pubs open, and then increase steadily through the rest of the day, peaking at between midnight and two o'clock in the morning, after the pubs have closed."
      968
      Of course alcohol-related traffic accidents are affected by pub opening hours—to what else would we expect them to be related? At the moment, the peak of alcohol-related traffic accidents occurs late at night. The danger inherent in the Bill's proposal for continuous afternoon drinking is that the peak would then start earlier in the day, during the late afternoon, when schoolchildren and other especially vulnerable road users, such as the elderly, are about.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood argued that extended drinking hours would encourage more leisurely drinking, which in turn would tend to reduce the likelihood of drink-related accidents. Although he cannot offer any proof, that is the basis of his case. I begin to despair, because there is no force in that argument at all. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) explained last Friday that even small quantities of alcohol impair driving ability and increase accident risk. He was absolutely right. Thus, the possibility of more leisurely drinking hardly matters in this context. Moreover, and as Dr. Dunbar has pointed out, if my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood were correct, we should expect the average blood alcohol level of drink-driving offenders in Scotland to have declined since the introduction of extended opening hours. However, Dr. Dunbar's own research into the question has discovered no such decline. In other words, there is no evidence of lower blood alcohol levels having been brought about in Scotland by extended opening hours.
      Dr. Dunbar goes further. Other research that he has carried out has shown that approximately one third of drink-driving offenders, aged 29 and over, are already problem drinkers, who habitually drink to excess. They are not simply unlucky people who have been caught out on a single occasion, possibly when celebrating the enactment of this Bill. They are people who regularly drink to excess before driving. It would be naive in the extreme to believe that people with such a weakness would not take advantage of extended opening hours, and that their doing so would not make them even more dangerous drivers than they are already.
      In Dr. Dunbar's experience, an accident that results in death is often an accident that follows all-day drinking. As a Scot living and working in Scotland, he is strongly in favour of a two-hour break in the drinking day precisely to reduce the likelihood of all-day drinking followed by driving, the results of which are all too familiar to him in the mortuary.
      Perhaps the supporters of the Bill can now begin to understand the logic and the good sense of the recommendation of the New Zealand ministerial committee, which, believe it or not, has just recommended that there should be an afternoon break in that country, which has never had one. It has recommended that because of the splendid example set and the splendid image created for English and Welsh public houses by our afternoon break over a long period. Is that not ironic?
      There is a strong possibility that at least one in every 20 road accident deaths involving innocent children is alcohol-related. Twice as many children and young people are killed every year by an alcohol-related road death than were drowned in the Zeebrugge ferry disaster that has so shocked the nation. The onus is upon those who want to abolish the break to prove that not one child will he harmed by the measure. Magistrates must have the power

      969
      to act and to protect life by being able to place a break in continuous all-day drinking. That is the purpose of the amendment.
      Amendment No.13 would not only have a protective effect with regard to the incidence of drinking and driving; it would also serve to mitigate the worst effects of the Bill in a more general sense. A two-hour break in the drinking day may not seem a great amount of time in relation to a single public house but, in a city with perhaps 1,000 public houses and clubs, the total reduction brought about by amendment No. 13 would be substantial—a maximum of 2,000 fewer drinking hours per day. Such a reduction would certainly help to reduce the harm to public health.
      If anyone doubts that the increased availability of alcohol would lead to increased harm, let them explain why the highest incidence of alcohol-related liver disease is found among those occupational groups having the easiest access to alcohol—that is, those who work in the drink industry itself, including publicans and managers of licensed clubs.
      More than 10 years ago I was the chairman of the first working party in the United Kingdom to look into the effects of alcohol in the place of work. I was not popular when we published figures showing which trades and professions were must vulnerable to drinking alcohol to excess. I am sorry to say that publicans and their staff headed the list.
      10 am
      The very awareness of the drink trade that its employees are at special risk of experiencing alcohol-related problems has led to numerous drinks companies, to their great credit, to establish special policies on alcohol problems for their employees. These often include measures to reduce the availability of alcohol during working hours. The working party's examination of alcohol in the workplace was followed up by effective action. Guidance from the Health and Safety Executive to the drinks industry published in 1982 stated:
      "It is recommended that drinkable alcohol producers should have a clear and written policy aimed at protecting both the health and safety of their employees. The policy could form part of their safety policy under section 2(3) of the Health and Safety at Work Act and might include the following elements:

      (a) Control of the availability of alcohol.

      (b) Restriction or prohibition of consumption of alcohol on the premises.

      (c) Establishment of agreed disciplinary procedures for alcohol abuse."

      Amendments Nos. 1 and 13 are based on the truth that the drink trade recognises and applies to its own work force, if not to its customers. The amendments would reduce the overall availability of alcohol in a locality without damaging the principle of flexibility.
      I believe that all the expert bodies concerned with health and safety who have expressed an opinion on licensing reform would support the amendments. The dangers of increasing the already huge problem of alcohol misuse are real and are far too great for us to countenance changing the existing law so precipitately in the direction of extended pub opening hours—a step so manifestly in the dark. The least the nation expects of Parliament now or at any time is that we should take the safer course if there is a risk to health and life.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will forgive me if I do not take up all the important matters he raised. Indeed, during our deliberations we have often discussed the experience in Scotland, and the content of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' report, and argued that there does not appear to have been an increase in alcohol consumption since that change in the law. Therefore, there does not appear to have been an increase in consumption as a result of increased availability of alcohol. There is not much point in my crossing swords with my right hon. Friend on those matters again.
      Amendment No. 1 raised an important matter. The scheme of the Bill provides for licensing justices to pay regard to matters such as nuisance to adjoining residents when deciding the closing hour at night. The Government have made plain their dislike of the scheme of the Bill, not least because of the resource implications. But one is bound to have sympathy for amendment No. 1 because it grapples with a problem with which the House would have to grapple if there were a different scheme of licensing reform and we were, for example, to choose a scheme which allowed individual licensees to decide when they would and would not open.
      I am sure that if such a scheme of reform were proposed, the House would discuss anxiously what the final closing hour should be. We would certainly need to have regard to the convenience of people who lived near the licensed premises and we would have to discuss anxiously the possibility of nuisance being caused to adjoining occupiers. Therefore, it is absolutely right and proper that my right hon. Friend should have highlighted that matter in his amendment today.
      Mr. Alfred Dubs: Yet again the Minister has referred to the experience in Scotland and I fully understand that it may not be appropriate to have another discussion on the different conclusions that can be drawn from it. However, I must repeat that I regret that we did not set up means of monitoring the results of the changes in Scotland. Had we done so, there would have been much more light cast on our deliberations on the Bill. There are seldom opportunities for measuring changes of what some people would call a social experiment, and it is a pity that we have denied ourselves the ability to argue further with precision the consequences of this legislation.
      Mr. Waddington: Obviously, there is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says, but he would not wish to ignore the statistical evidence which is available—he will acknowledge that some important messages attach to it. The statistics reveal that since 1978—that is after the reform had been in place for a year or two—the number of drivers killed over the legal limit has decreased. Certainly one does not see a picture from the statistics that exist of an increased number of deaths on the roads in Scotland, although there has been an increased availability of alcohol.
      Mr. Dubs: Those figures are certainly encouraging, but, without wishing to stray beyond the limits of debating the Bill, there have been other changes in Scotland since 1978, including an increase in unemployment, so lower incomes and people having relatively less to spend on drink than previously. That may well be a factor affecting that period.

      971
      It is difficult to analyse these matters with precision. Had we thought this through when the changes were made in Scotland, we might have devised more methods of monitoring the situation than we did. I am aware that there are figures. Indeed, the Minister has mentioned figures and survey information and I would not deny their existence. But there are differences of opinion among experts who have examined the figures as to what precisely happened and why. We have missed an opportunity, but that is water under the bridge.
      Amendment No. 1 suggests that the latest time to which a licensee may keep a pub open should be 11 pm instead of 11.30 pm — in other words, the normal practice in London. In some parts pubs close even earlier than that now.
      The second amendment seeks to establish a two-hour break at some point in the drinking day. I should like to say something about the significance of these proposed changes. It has been said that tourism, which we all want to encourage, is deterred by our licensing laws. There may be arguments for changes in our licensing laws, but the argument that more tourists would be attracted if we changed them is not a powerful one, because there are many other motives for coining to this country.
      In the past one of the deterrents to tourism was the inability of tourists visiting many parts of Britain to get a decent meal. That is changing and the quality of food in ordinary, inexpensive restaurants has gone up, although as I am a London Member I do not have the same chance to visit other parts of Britain as hon. Members with far-flung constituencies. That improvement has been more important for tourism than the licensing hours.
      Secondly, many tourists stay in hotels and, as many hotels are licensed, guests can go back to their hotel and have a drink at any hour. As hotel residents they are not limited by the licensing hours and can more or less treat the hotel as their home. The House recently passed a Bill that relaxed the hours during which people may drink with meals. The previous provision that people could not drink with meals after 3 o'clock in the afternoon has gone. In so far as we wish to encourage sensible drinking, drinking with a meal is probably the best way to do that and all the medical evidence supports that view. All this makes greater our ability to attract tourists and we do not need to use the argument about extending licensing hours.
      I shall now turn to the arguments about extending the hours to 11.30 pm. People may have difficulty in getting home because public transport is not what it ought to be. This is not the time fully to debate public transport and you would soon call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I attempted to do that. However, there is clearly a relationship between the time people stop drinking and the method by which they get home. It is fine if they are in their local pub and can walk home. That is the most desirable situation. But sometimes they have to find public transport. We know that after 11 o'clock at night public transport is hard to get and after 11.30 it seems to stop altogether. Therefore, there would be an extra incentive for people to visit pubs by motor car, and that is precisely the danger.
      Sometimes when I am on my way back from a constituency meeting after 11 o'clock, I am conscious that I have to drive a bit more carefully in case I encounter people who have left pubs. Such people are quite noticeable sometimes. They are also noticeable at times such as Christmas eve and new year's eve, and at such
      972
      times my wife and I do our best not to get into a motor car at all, because now and again one observes people who should not be driving.
      The later that pubs remain open in the evening, the greater the danger that motorists will have been to them and will have had a bit more to drink than they should have had. As I have said before, it is perfectly clear that even if a motorist is below the legal limit—and in my view the legal limit is too high—his driving ability may be impaired. All the research suggests that every drink will impair a person's driving ability a little, even though the way that it works differs from one person to another. Everybody's driving ability is affected for the worse by having more to drink. Anything that increases the likelihood that a motorist may have an extra drink or two must be discouraged.
      10.15 am
      There is a further point about the effect of later opening on local people. There is no fixed time at which people go to bed, but certainly the later in the evening that people drink the more likely it is that disturbance will be caused to people living nearby. Many pubs are in residential areas. Where they are not, the situation may be different. I know from experience in my constituency that there can be a lot of noise and disturbance.
      Even now when pubs stops serving alcohol at 11 o'clock there is a period during which people are allowed to drink up. By the time they get out of the pub and get into their cars is can be quite late. There will be the noise of car doors slamming, and that disturbance can go on late into the night even with an 11 o'clock finish. If pubs were allowed to open until 11.30, the noise and distrubance caused to people who, for example, may have to get up at 6 am to go work would go on until midnight. We must respect the right of people to sleep and we must respect people's right to have a bit of peace and quiet in the evening. For those reasons, I am concerned about any aspect of the Bill which would make the likelihood of a peaceful night's sleep remote.
      The other powerful argument by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) in relation to the afternoon break is about schoolchildren coming home. It is clear that there are more car accidents in the afternoon than in the morning. It is also clear from the figures that young children coming home from school are more at risk than when they are going to school in the morning. It may he that they are more alert in the morning and walk to school more slowly than they do in the afternoon. Perhaps motorists are more careful when going to work in the morning. Even now, some people driving in the afternoon have had rather more to drink than they should. There are disturbing and distressing instances of accidents that have occurred during the afternoon, but I shall not take up the time of the House by going through them.
      Certainly we want to minimise the danger to schoolchildren on their way home from school. Of course when they leave school in the afternoon they are boisterous. Schools have railings to prevent children from running across the road. However, it is easy for schoolchildren on their way home to forget themselves when they want to go and play football or whatever. A little bit of thoughtlessness on the part of the child and an inability on the part of the motorists to stop quickly enough can cause a tragic accident. We want to minimise the chances of such things happening.

      973
      I view these amendments with sympathy and I fully understand the motives of the right hon. Member for Castle Point in moving them. However, it is right that the House should again have its attention drawn to the possible dangers. Of course, there are benefits on the other side, but they are part of a broader discussion of the Bill and are not part of a specific discussion of the amendments. I hope that amendment No. 1 will be accepted, because it seems sensible and right and will give people peace and quiet and lessen the danger a little.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I shall be brief. I should like to speak about one or two of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) in relation to the letter that he received from Mr. Johnson. I emphasise that, under the provisions of the Bill, Mr. Johnson is not compelled to do anything that he does not wish to do. It is entirely up to Mr. Johnson whether he changes his present hours of opening.
      My right hon. Friend spoke about tourism in relation to Scotland and England and Wales. The overwhelming majority of tourists to Great Britain have to come through London. That is a fact of life, and therefore needs to be taken into account in the tourism argument.
      I live next door to a pub in London. I am in no doubt that there is a strong argument for amendment No. 1. There are also arguments against amendment No. 1, but it does not raise matters of principle in relation to the Bill. In the correspondence that I have received about the Bill, the most significant complaint—I have had many letters of support—has been about later opening hours.
      The remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) about amendment No. 13 have been illuminating. Amendment No. 13, of course, does not technically achieve what my right hon. Friend is aiming for, and that is the afternoon break. Clearly, if amendment No. 13 were accepted, it would be possible for a licensee to open at 10.30 am, to close at 10.35 for two hours, and then continue trading thereafter.
      I am not persuaded by the arguments about amendment No. 1. It is not a matter of principle. I recommend that the House accept amendment No. 1.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
      I give notice that if the Question is agreed, I propose to name Friday 3 July as the day for the Report stage to be resumed.
      The Bill is an all-party measure, involving debates held over two days—30 January and 27 March. It received an unopposed Second Reading and has successfully gone through five Committee sittings. Standing Committee C never sat later than about 7.30 pm. It is not the case that the Bill reached the Floor of the House as a result of unreasonable behaviour on the part of its sponsors. Last Friday, on Report, the Bill had a full day on the Floor of the House.
      It has had magnificent support from hon. Members on both sides of the House who, on many occasions, gave up other engagements to be present to support it. Frankly, it has progressed through the House against apparently overwhelming odds; it was No. 8 in the ballot. Of course,
      974
      it has been opposed for honourable reasons, principally by my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). Some hon. Members are opposed to it to a greater or lesser degree and for different reasons. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who had hoped to be here for the debate but has other engagements, has expressed reservations on some matters. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) has expressed his reservations. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has stated the Government's reservations, which are principally concerned with resources.
      Earlier this week, as sponsor of the Bill, I had to ask myself a crucial question. It was this: given the amendments that have been selected for debate and their grouping, given the days that have been allocated for private Members' Bills, and given my right hon. Friend's formidable debating powers, knowledge and known views, was there any prospect that the Licensing (Amendment) Bill could reach the statute book, even on the most optimistic assumptions? The most optimistic assumptions were that today a large number of supporters of the Bill would be present to win closure votes if necessary and that the general election would not take place until after the summer recess.
      Hope springs eternal, especially in the breasts of private Members who try to get legislation through the House. I had to conclude that, even on such assumptions, the Bill could not reach the statute book. I am not a betting man, but if somebody had been offered odds at 100 to one on the Bill reaching the statute book, he would not have put £1 on, but would have kept it for a rainy day, possibly in Scotland, on which he could have used it to shelter in a pub.
      I wrote to the supporters of the Bill, stating that they should feel under no obligation to be present if they had other pressing engagements today—the rough equivalent of the one-line Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) is here. In Scottish terms, gemmes a bogey. There are good reasons for the belief that hon. Members have many other pressing engagements. I have important constituency engagements this evening. It is a matter of record that supporters of the Bill, both hon. Members and wholly innocent academics, have been subjected to a vicious smear campaign by an hon. Member who is not a member of the Standing Committee.
      In the light of that, I emphasise that I did not move this motion because I have to go to what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) last week referred to as my marginal constituency. It is a matter of record that, at the last election, I received over 46 per cent. of the popular vote and a majority of over 8,000. We in Eastwood will fight for every vote because every vote counts. Let the House be under no misapprehension that my commitments are wholly compatible with my presence here, if necessary, until 2.30 pm. Indeed, thanks to the Government's splendid policy of allowing more competition on domestic air routes, there is an excellent air service between Glasgow and London.
      At the next election I do not expect my majority to be as high as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. I have looked at his results. The general swing of opinion does not seem to matter for him. His majority simply goes up and up. In one sense, the House is about majorities. It is also about the rights of minorities to be heard. In relation to the Bill, my right hon. Friend

      975
      is in a minority. He may wish to express his views in full on the general matters. Of course, that is his right, and I shall be here to listen.
      Let us not forget the circumstances in which the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading — it was certainly by careful planning, but it was not inadvertently slipped through at 2,30 pm. At about nine minutes past two, after a debate in which he said that he would oppose a Second Reading, and after my winding-up speech, the hon. Member for Newham, South did not seek in any way to divide the House. It is possible that the hon. Member may have been persuaded by my eloquence in my summing up, but I have some doubts about that. Both of us knew the consequences of the hon. Gentleman not dividing the House and of my sitting down at nine minutes past two o'clock rather than at 28 minutes past the hour. One of the consequences was that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who had been sitting quietly in his place for some time, was able to speak to his Bill. That is not a Bill which is supported by those of my hon. Friends who support this Bill or by myself, but we felt that there was no reason why the hon. Gentleman should not have his way. That is an important principle.
      10.30 am
      There is another important principle that is fundamental to the House, and that is parliamentary privilege. The hon. Member for Workington is not in his place, but I feel that I have to say that that right has been grossly abused and debased by him. What he said and implied about me last week is not an issue, although to be accused of not caring about the deaths of young children, which was clearly the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said, as recorded in column 528 of Hansard, is not a very pleasant experience. Perhaps my reaction to that reflects the fact that I am used in the main to criticism from Scottish Labour Members, who would never have made that sort of speech. Under parliamentary privilege the issue has been debated at length and I shall not go over it now.
      The hon. Member for Workington has smeared three of my hon. Friends on a wholly bogus point. It has been made clear by Mr. Speaker and by the Chairman of Standing Committee C that they behaved with absolute propriety. In columns 498 and 499 the hon. Gentleman smeared two distinguished Scottish academics. I have been a Scottish academic and I know that an individual's reputation for intellectual integrity is fundamental. Essentially the accusation was that academics had fiddled research data because they were being funded by the Scotch Whisky Association. The hon. Gentleman quoted the exact figure of £49,000, but he did not say that the project in question was funded from various sources, including Her Majesty's Government. The funding from the Government was about £100,000.
      I do not know the motives of the hon. Member for Workington and I do not know whether he was genuinely misinformed. I do know, however, that it is not reasonable to assume that the three organisations which were mentioned—Alcohol Concern, the Scottish Council on Alcoholism and the British Medical Association—would have deliberately misinformed the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member.
      The Bill was introduced for a number of reasons. It is a personal assertion of belief in the Act of Union of 1707, which I believe has benefits north and south of the border.
      976
      That is possibly under greater threat than many hon. Members realise. It is an assertion of belief in the Act of Union for a Scottish Member to introduce on the basis of experience in Scotland measures that relate to England and Wales. Something broadly right in principle was done in Scotland when the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 was put on the statute book by the previous Labour Government.
      It has never been my contention that everything in Scotland is necessarily perfect. I believe, however, that the evidence shows that the results of the 1976 Act are either positive or neutral when set against various criteria. That is what the evidence suggests, and my personal observations both before and after the passing of the Act confirm that. I repeat my invitation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point to visit Scotland and to meet the police in my constituency. I would go further. If my right hon. Friend is minded to do that, I would invite him to address my constituency Conservative association, but I do not suggest that the subject of that address should necessarily be licensing hours. The invitation is a genuine one.
      I believe that the licensing law in England and Wales is a mess. It is highly biased against pubs and clubs, which provide a controlled environment for the consumption of alcohol. I shall exemplify the position, as I did broadly in Committee. Let us assume that a constituent of an hon. Member arrives in London on a July afternoon and wishes to have a drink. What are his options? First, he could come here. He could seek out his Member of Parliament, who would doubtless take him for necessary refreshment. Secondly, he could buy alcohol in an off-licence and then sit in a park and drink it. He could now, as the hon. Member for Battersea said, enter a restaurant and consume alcohol there. He could take a train to Gatwick and back and consume alcohol there. What he could not do under the present licensing laws is enter a public house and consume alcohol there, even if the licensee wished the public house to be open. I do not believe that to be sensible.
      The Bill is not about off-licences. As I understand the state of the law in England and Wales, it is legal for an 18-year-old who is accompanied by two 16-year-olds to be handed £5, for example, by the 16-year-olds on the street and for him to enter an off-licence to buy alcohol for the 16-year-olds to consume on a park bench, for example. No one will have committed an offence, even if the person in the off-licence knew what was happening. I may be wrong in that interpretation of the la w, but I think that the law in England and Wales needs reform.
      The Bill has united many people. It has united hon. Members from both sides of the House and those who may be said to have some self-interest in its passage, such as the National Union of Licensed Victuallers, the Brewers Society, the National Association of Licensed House Managers and the Transport and General Workers Union, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) told the Committee.
      It has the support of the tourist organisations, although I do not think that the tourist argument is necessarily decisive. It also has the support of the three local authority associations in England and Wales — namely, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County

      977
      Councils. Such associations cannot reasonably be said to have a financial or commercial interest in the passage of the Bill.
      If my proposal is accepted, the Bill will not be dead; it will remain on the Order Paper. It establishes an important point, and it could well be debated again on 3 July. There may or may not be a June election. If there is not, the supporters of the Bill, on an all-party basis, would be able to approach the Government and say, "The climate for change has been clearly established. What do the Government propose to do now?" If there is a June election, I believe that, irrespective of the result of that election, reform is inevitable. Such reform need not necessarily take the precise form suggested in this Bill; there are arguments for different types of reform.
      I should like to thank the Bill's supporters, and also to thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for his courteous neutrality. I also thank the hon. Member for Battersea for what he said. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point has opposed the Bill for wholly honourable reasons.
      I hope that the House will accept the motion as an appropriate procedure, so that, after a due interval for the contributions of others—especially, perhaps, from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister — other measures in which private Members believe may also be debated today, possibly the last day of private Members' time in this Parliament.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: I apologise for not being present at the commencement of this morning's proceedings. I spent a very successful day in Carlisle yesterday, where we strengthened our hold on the city council. I motored home late last night, and I had to get up rather early this morning to come here. I regret not having been here on time. It was no one's fault; the time factor was to blame.
      I am glad that I was here to listen to the tail end of the speech by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). As I came into the Chamber, however, I wondered where all the supporters of the Bill had gone. I should have thought that they would be present to give the hon. Gentleman moral support in his endeavours.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: Because of the time when the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber, he may not have appreciated the precise position in relation to my supporters. I explained that earlier, before he arrived.
      Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting me right, and I apologise if I have said anything that I should not have said. Nevertheless, I should have thought that the supporters of a measure of this kind, whatever the circumstances, would have been present right up to the end to give it its funeral. But evidently the hon. Gentleman has done that himself with his motion.
      10.45 am
      I have taken part in a number of debates during my 22 years in the House. I have been privileged to take part in some, on a non-party basis, with the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), and I have vivid and happy recollections of discussing a similar Bill in Standing Committee in the early hours of one morning. We got it on to the Floor of the House on the same day.
      Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman may recall that that Bill sought to bring children under 14, unaccompanied, into licensed bars. No wonder we were able to defeat it.
      Mr. Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right. The tragedy is that the present Paymaster General was the promoter of that Bill. However, Parliament in its wisdom defeated it.
      This may be the last time that I shall take part in a debate in this hallowed place that I have been privileged to serve, and have loved to serve. The work done by the right hon. Member for Castle Point in opposing the Bill, in Committee and at various other stages, should be commended. I should like to pay respectful tribute to his excellent work on this subject over the years. The right hon. Gentleman is not a strict teetotaller, as I am, and I do not hold that against him. However, he and a number of others can see the potential dangers in opening the floodgates. Heaven knows, we have enough of a problem on our hands now. To open the doors for all-day drinking would be a retrograde step, and I do not want it to happen.
      I am all in favour of the principle of flexible rostering, and I feel that the hon. Member for Eastwood should consider it. But I am dead against an extension of the present hours, as are a number of people in the trade, because of the potential dangers, particularly in relation to young people. I admire the hon. Gentleman for bringing the Bill to a conclusion, and I am only sorry—you will correct me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am out of order— that the Selection Committee that selected the members of the Committee to examine the Bill——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. We are debating the motion that further consideration be adjourned, The hon. Gentleman should stick to that.
      Mr. Lewis: I shall try to stick to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to say that I am sorry that, as a result of my intervention in sending a letter and raising a point on the Floor of the House, some hon. Members whom I named, and who are not dishonest people, have now taken a personal dislike to me. That has been evident in the measure of their friendship, and I deprecate it.
      Having said that, let me congratulate the right hon. Member for Castle Point. I know that he will be back, not only in his present capacity but as the Father of the House. I wish him well, and all the others with whom I have been privileged to serve in this place for nearly 23 years. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be as successful in his opposition in the future as he has been in the past.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I am greatly moved by the kind remarks of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis). I do not think that the public fully appreciate how, on some great social issues, the members of the different political parties work together for what they consider to be the public good. I recollect many happy campaigns in conjunction with the hon. Gentleman and members of other parties. I am sorry that he is leaving Parliament; he will be greatly missed by us all.
      The motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) was wholly unexpected, but it was a welcome development and I accept it in the spirit in which it was moved. The whole House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting that time should be provided for further reflection on the Bill. Nevertheless, I

      979
      am not surprised. My hon. Friend's experience as a Scottish Health Minister will have made him sensitive to at least some of the criticisms of the Bill that I have found it necessary to make. I am grateful to him for his kind words. Throughout all our exchanges, he has conducted his case with great courtesy and good humour.
      I am not opposed to the Bill, any more than the hon. Member for Carlisle is opposed to it, because it seeks to allow greater flexibility of opening hours, but I am opposed to the move to lengthen the total number of hours on the supposed ground that it would make for more civilised drinking. That is complete nonsense. It would certainly increase the availability of alcohol. That might he good for the profits of the drinks trade, but it would fly in the face of warnings from the World Health Organisation, the medical profession, the royal colleges and the alcohol care agencies. They have warned that an increase in alcohol consumption is inevitably accompanied by an increase in health harm.
      I shall develop only one aspect which it is important to put on record, as and when we return to the issue. Had we proceeded with the Bill this morning, I should have moved an amendment to draw attention to the prevalence of under-age drinking in public houses and to the serious implications for law and order and for the health of our young people. If debate on the Bill is to be adjourned, it must be adjourned on the understanding that these implications are grasped and that something is done about them. I draw some comfort from what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said this morning: that the Government will have to insist that the implications are grasped and that something is done about them.
      In raising this problem, I am attempting to follow the long and honourable tradition of Parliament, at least in the present century, of protecting children and young people generally against alcohol. The Bill does nothing to solve the problem of under-age drinking. If enacted unamended, the Bill would make the position worse.
      There are several reasons why it is wise to adjourn consideration of the Bill—and, I hope, to drop it—but none is more important than the fact that, contrary to the best intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood, it lengthens drinking time and increases the load on licensees at a time when under-age drinking is causing grave concern to the police, teachers, parents and the public at large.
      I have with me a large collection of cuttings from newspapers that are published in every part of England and Wales that refer to illegal under-age drinking in public houses. The headlines are chilling. I take a few of them at random. The headline in the Basildon Evening Echo reads:
      "Pub kids 12—drinking booze."
      The headline in the Reading Evening News says:
      "Teeny drinkers in health crisis."
      The headline in the Liverpool Echo reads:
      "High on the drink drug — up to 80 per cent. of Merseyside teenagers, some as young as 14, are drinking in pubs illegally."
      And the Manchester Advertiser headline says:
      "Children go to school drunk."
      I could quote hundreds of examples, but those will suffice.
      I have in my hand the monthly press digest for October that is published by the Institute of Alcohol Studies. It reveals a terrifying and nationwide problem. I shall refer to only one article, which, significantly enough, appeared in the Police Review of 19 October 1986. In this article Mr.
      980
      Colin Sheppard looked at the link between juvenile crime and the alcohol consumed by under-age drinkers in public houses. Speaking of a 16-year-old sitting straight in his chair, his fingers gripping it to keep his balance, he reports that the boy said:
      "Where I come from, lads start drinking when they are about 15 or 16, some more than others but usually on at least four days a week including weekends. The usual pattern is to pub crawl around the city pubs, especially on Friday and Saturday evenings, and then look for the wimps to pick off. It's hit and run, really, with us hunting in packs and sometimes being hunted. It's always good fun if Forest are at home and the away supporters are in town, then we get some real sport — a really good boot job on them makes the night. By about throwing out time I have had about eight or nine pints of ale like me mates and then we look for a club. If they won't let us in there's usually aggro—either on the bouncer or damage. Why do I do it? It's the thing to do. Booze and fight—what else is there that matters?"
      Mr. Sheppard goes on to say——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are debating whether we should adjourn consideration of the Bill. He must relate his remarks to that and not make the speech that he intended to make on an amendment that we have not yet reached.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I am referring not to an amendment but to the reason why I am not prepared to accept the adjournment of the Bill. You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to point out that an amendment that has not yet been reached would have gone into the matter in great detail. I do not propose to go into as much detail now as otherwise I should have done, but this is the last opportunity to tell the House and the country what is going on.
      A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood gave a long list of reasons why he thinks that the Bill, which had an unopposed Second Reading in this House, has a great deal of support in the country. Does it? If it does, it must be due to a fit of absence of mind. Therefore, it is right and proper and in the interests of children that I should produce evidence that was published in a recent issue of Police Review. Mr. Sheppard said:
      "I asked 50 male offenders at the Nottingham Senior Attendance Centre. 'When did you start drinking alcohol regularly?' … No fewer than 23 said they had been drinking regularly in public houses since the age of 15. As one put it, 'I don't think anyone could stop youngsters having a drink under 18 if they wanted to. Anyway, why should they'? No-one seems to bother. You never see the copper in pubs checking up on ages and the landlords don't bother because they are making a living.' … More than half the sample — 28 — said that the prime responsibility for under-age drinking was unconcerned parents and 26 felt that the licensee could do more to check on the ages of drinkers … Whereas only 11 saw a role for schools in educating the young about the problems of drink…
      Twenty of the sample said they thought that drinking intoxicants to excess made them want to commit offences and a further 10 thought that alcohol made them more likely to commit offences. In 21 cases, drink was said to be likely to make them more agressive and 19 felt that the effect of drink was to increase their dislike of authority, in particular the police.
      One youth said: 'Booze makes me silly and I hit people. It takes about 10 pints to get me like that and I get through that on Fridays and Saturdays. Where I live there's nowt else to do and that's it really … ' Four of the sample thought they had a health problem related to drinking. One 18-year-old told the group, 'I started when I was about 12 or 13, it was in local pubs, playing snooker and having a pint. I've been at it ever since. Last year I started buying Martini and

      981
      cheap wine and I get through six bottles a week. I drink about 30 pints of beer a week in pubs and I don't really care. The doctor says my guts are in a mess. —that's life.' "
      11 am
      That is the situation about which I am complaining, and about which the Bill is completely evasive. Perhaps hon. Members will begin to see why head teachers are so concerned about what is happening — the deliberate breaking of the existing law, and here I am not talking about the Bill but the seeming impotence of the police in many areas and the turning of a blind eye to a worsening problem.
      When it became known that I was opposing the Bill, I received a great volume of support from people who had begun to feel that nobody cared about the matter. After the Bill reached Committee, I received a letter from Mrs. D. R. Rivilland, MSc., headmistress and the chairman of the health education working party of the National Association of Head Teachers. Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, knew of that worthy organisation in your previous capacity. Mrs. Rivilland wrote:
      "I wish to protest most strongly about the Licensing Amendment Bill being put forward by Mr. Alan Stewart M.P. and I hope that you will include the following points in your opposition. The enormous increase in under-age drinking gives real concern to head teachers of secondary schools, particulary as the existing laws are already so difficult to enforce. Quite young children are now consuming units of alcohol on a regular basis and many parents are unaware that alcohol consumption and misuse by young people is a far more serious problem than abuse or experimentation with hard drugs".—
      I repeat, "with hard drugs".
      It is not only protests of that kind against the Bill, but the inadequacy of existing law, which the Bill would worsen, that should concern us.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood has decided to adjourn the debate on his Bill, and it would be easy for me to accept that and go away quietly. I am not prepared to do that. Successive Governments have felt unable to grapple with the problem and have left it to private Members to introduce Bills, which, in one way or another, have proved defective, and I feel that that the present grave situation in regard to under-age drinking must be looked at in greater depth. That is why I insist that, if we are to accept the motion, we should be given some assurances on that.
      The Justices' Clerks Society, whose members have unrivalled experience in this matter, tells us that the present law is inadequate—I shall deal later with what it says about my hon. Friend's Bill. In its recent report, "Licensing Law in the Eighties" the Justices' Clerks Society states:
      "The question must then be posed. Where do the young persons obtain their liquor? Some steal it, but the majority go to the local public houses and off licences. There is clear evidence that young persons also obtain their intoxicating liquor from registered clubs and disco clubs, the latter allowing young people to buy and consume alcohol until late in the evening or early in the morning. There is no doubt that crimes of public disorder, violence and criminal damage occur after the young people leave the licensed premises. Magistrates talking to each other, and to their clerks, complain of two things:—(1) at the law which makes it so easy for young persons to obtain intoxicating liquor and for licence holders to sell it to them; and (2) at the police for not prosecuting more licence holders for selling intoxicating liquor to obvious minors and more young persons for consuming and buying."
      982
      That is evidence which the Home Office should be considering carefully — the evidence from the justices' clerks, who advise the licensing magistrates and upon whom they depend for help and guidance.
      The justices' clerks go on to say:
      "The police respond by complaining of the difficulties they encounter in prosecuting a licence holder in view of the necessity to prove he acted 'knowingly'. They also say that the courts too readily accept the word of the licence holder when he says that he could not tell that the young person was a minor."
      The justices' clerks beg Parliament to do something about the matter.
      They go on to ask why there is so much under-age drinking:
      "In view of the fact that police, magistrates and clerks— and incidentally parents know that under-age drinking goes on day in and day out all over the country, what is the explanation?"
      Of course, they know where the fault lies. They say:
      "Experience has shown that it is difficult to obtain convictions in view of current legislation and the police simply hesitate to prosecute licence holders and young drinkers. In one police area in the south of England, only two licence holders were prosecuted for selling to minors, which, in the context of the problem nationwide, demands action, and effective action."
      The justices' clerks suggest a course of action—I shall not go into it now, because it would require an amendment to the Bill, which we are not discussing now — that would certainly require a change in existing law that is not contemplated in this Bill.
      I said earlier that for nine years I was the chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism. We built up a network of counselling agencies, and some hon. Members played a valuable role in our work. Indeed, one of the sponsors of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), actually trained as a counsellor, and I pay warm tribute to him for that. I am now president of the Greater London alcohol advisory service, which coordinates such services throughout the capital. I can tell the House from the direct experience that I have gained over the past 20 years that matters have been getting steadily worse. Over that period—and this is why I am so loth to accept the motion to adjourn without qualification—young people have not been exempt from either the growth in consumption or its adverse consequences—especially with alcohol, as compared to other psycho-active and potentially addictive drugs. There is no generation gap or culture divide. It could be argued that young people's drinking patterns have already been aided and abetted by their seniors, and the variation orders in the Bill would certainly aid and abet them further.
      I am not prepared therefore to accept the motion without some promises and undertakings because, over the past 20 years, the number of people drinking alcoholic beverages has increased, because drinking starts at a younger age and is more frequent, and because greater amounts of alcohol are consumed. The facts are known. A report on adolescent drinking was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Security. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) — is with us. Long before she entered this House or became a Minister, she showed a keen interest in these matters. She has a deep knowledge of them. If there is one person occupying a role in government for which she is uniquely fitted by her experience, it is my hon. Friend. She will know that the

      983
      report prepared by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys during 1983–84 was presented to the Minister for Health in October 1985 and was finally released by the Minister in December 1986. The fieldwork was done in 1984 and the complete report was sent to Ministers in October 1985. I had to ask in the House why it had not been published before. It did not see the light of day until the week before last Christmas. That delayed report confirms the view that, for adolescents, the major drug of misuse is alcohol and that they suffer many more problems from it than from all other drugs combined.
      I do not have the slightest doubt that, if the OPCS were asked to conduct similar fieldwork when the variation orders proposed in the Bill have been in operation, the findings which I am about the reveal would be greatly magnified. The survey showed that, by the age of 13, 82 per cent. of boys and 77 per cent. of girls had had their first drink. Twenty-four per cent. of boys said that they were nine or younger when they had their first drink. Among 13-year-olds, more than 26 per cent. of all boys and 17 per cent. of all girls drank alcohol on four or more days a week and 30 per cent. of boys and 38 per cent. of girls drank at least once a week.
      Among 15-year-olds, 34 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively drank on most days in the week. Of those who drank, about half the 13-year-olds drank fewer than four units of alcohol a week, which is equivalent to two pints of beer, while among the 15-year-olds half the boys and one third of the girls drank more than 10 units a week. Nearly one in five 15-year-old boys drank more than 25 units of alcohol a week. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated that the upper health limit for adult men should be no more than 21 units a week; so the younger generation is already drinking harder than the doctors think is satisfactory for mature adults.
      Of 15-year-old drinkers, 55 per cent. of boys and 48 per cent. of girls experienced one bout of drunkenness during the year, half of them more than once. Fifteen per cent. of 13-year-old boys reported getting into arguments or fights after drinking. That proportion rises to 17 per cent. for 14-year-olds and 27 per cent. for 15-year-olds. Half of 15-year-old boys. a third of 14-year-old boys and a quarter of 13-year-old boys report falling over as a result of drinking too much. Since the adolescents were asked to report on the events in the year before the survey, the 13-year-olds were recalling events that happened when they were 12.
      The OPCS report states:
      "The greater the degree of social enjoyment that adolescents recalled as being associated with an evenings drinking, the more likely it was to have been followed by a disagreeable combination of sickness, incapacity and regret."
      The report continues:
      "Heavier drinking among the relatively small minority of adolescents who do drink heavily is not episodic or opportunist drinking, it is an established regular habit … Heavy drinking, including no doubt what is known in adults as problem drinking, among a minority of adolescents (even among secondary schoolchildren) is a regular commitment that forms part of their lives. It is not an occasional adventure … A minority of adolescents have a regular habit of heavy drinking. Some of them are still at school."
      I have already produced evidence to show the anxieties of one headmistress on this subject.
      The report continues:
      "The more money they have the more likely they are to drink, to drink a lot, to get drunk and to get into difficulties.
      984
      Only a minority go right through this process but the better off are more likely than those who have only little money to go down the path."
      Those warnings should sound an alarm bell.
      Under-age drinkers account for one in 14 of all drunkenness convictions — my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State knows that to be a fact. For the first time this century, 16-year-old boys are more at risk from drunkenness than middle-aged men. The rate of convictions per 100,000 of population among 16-year-olds exceeds that of the 30 to 60 age group. Between 1982 and 1985 the number of offences and cautions among 14-year-olds increased from 94 to 224, or 138 per cent.; among 15-year-olds, from 301 to 492, or 63 per cent.; and among 16-year-olds, from 1,047 to 1,538, or 47 per cent.
      How in heaven's name can the Government and the nation ignore figures of that kind? God knows what we are building up for the future. This is not the first time a Licensing (Amendment) Bill has been brought before the House without any consideration having been given to the impact of its provisions on the younger generation. I had to remind the hon. Member for Carlisle that one of the campaigns in which we were engaged dealt with a Bill which—although, of course, it introduced the principle of "flexibility"—sought to permit children under 14 to enter bars unaccompanied. It too was given a Second Reading and went through Committee. But, on Report, the House of Commons suddenly tumbled to what was proposed and threw it out. We cannot go down this line again ignoring the facts.
      11.15 am
      While overall drunkenness offences peaked in 1980, the number of under-age drivers found guilty of drunkenness or cautioned was higher in 1985 than in 1980. Over 1,000 young people die each year in an alcohol-related accident, and so it goes on. I could say much more on that subject, but I shall not.
      There is one other reason why I am reluctant to agree to the adjournment of the Bill without any promise that the break in hours will be restored. The Bill as constituted, even if it were the best Bill in the world, simply cannot be implemented without causing serious disruption for the courts. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department — the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—told us that there were serious resource problems. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has had to remind us repeatedly that there are serious resource problems. We would be acting irresponsibly, would we not, if we were to accept this motion without a clear statement that the resources necessary to implement the Bill are available? Home Office Ministers have referred to this, although not in great detail.
      Let us consider how serious the matter is. In the current issue of The Law Magazine, which reached me only two days ago, Mr. Peter Lydiate a justices' clerk, bluntly warned:
      "the traditional system of administering justice in the people's courts is now under threat".
      When we are told that the administration of the magistrates courts already faces a "deepening crisis", we cannot allow the Home Office to put further pressure on the courts by seeking to implement this Bill until the courts feel that they can cope with the extra burden. Mr. Lydiate states that 310 justices clerks are responsible for a further 1,300 court clerks. Justices clerks have to be barristers or

      985
      solicitors of at least seven years standing. Twenty five per cent. of the court clerks are also legally qualified. If the Bill ever sees the light of day, the work that it will entail must be seen in the light of the burden placed on the courts when the Crown prosecution service comes into operation—I believe it may be already in operation.
      Mr. Waddington: Yes.
      Sir Bernard Braine: It must be seen in the light of the burden placed on the courts since the Crown Prosecution Service came into operation. The new service was to relieve seriously stretched police departments from having to prosecute in magistrates courts. That action has already had an adverse effect on the staffing of magistrates courts, according to Mr. Lydiate. He said:
      "One vast source of potential Crown Prosecutors was clearly the hundreds of barristers and solicitors employed and trained by justices' clerks to act as court clerks … These court clerks were targeted for recruitment as Crown Prosecutors."
      Up to April last year, 21 per cent. of legally qualified court clerks left the service, many to go into prosecuting solicitors' departments. There is little doubt that this serious and dramatic trend has continued, perhaps even at a greater pace.
      I must describe the reality of the situation facing our courts in order that the House might see why my argument is so important. We need to be given assurances that the Home Office will allocate more resources to the justices' clerks, in order to appoint appropriate qualified staff to meet the demands that they already face, as well as the additional work that the Bill will place upon the courts.
      The Justices' Clerks Society is concerned about the length of court hearing times. This has to be spelt out because we have not been told about this burden. The society is concerned about the length of court hearing time and the additional work that will arise if the Bill is passed in its existing form. The society has estimated that each application for a variation order will last on average about 10 minutes. There are some 96,000 licensed premises in England and Wales. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Grantham—told us on Second Reading that 75 per cent. of those, or some 72,000, will apply for variation orders. On the most optimistic reckoning, 4,000 extra court sessions will be required to deal with all the applications. If such applications are opposed, we can double or treble that number.
      To show how this will affect licensing districts, I will give four examples — two large districts, one medium and one small. As the Bill applies schedule 2 to the Licensing Act 1964, it follows that objectors can turn up at a hearing unannounced, thereby prolonging it by up to half an hour or even more. In Manchester, a large district, it has been estimated that if all the licensed premises were made the subject of applications for variation orders, at an average of 10 minutes, an application would require about 180 additional court hours to be accommodated within an already overburdened workload. A normal court sitting lasts three hours, which would mean an additional 60 sittings for licensing justices. If there were objections, as I believe there would be, the 60 sittings could become 120 or even 180.
      In Birmingham, another large court, with 1,200 licensed premises to cater for, 200 hours will be required. This
      986
      would require 66 sittings or even 200 sittings. In Medway, a medium sized court with 475 licensed premises, 78 hours, or 27 to 78 sittings would be required. In Batley, a relatively small court, catering for, say, 100 licensed premises, 16 hours, or five to 15 sittings would be required.
      There are other problems. The Act currently allows for a maximum of eight licensing sessions plus brewster sessions in which to deal with the business for a licensing district. The minimum number of licensing justices prescribed by regulations is five, which in almost all areas will have to be increased to the maximum of 15 in order to cope with the burden that variation orders under the Bill would place on the courts. This will obviously create additional expenditure.
      As the maximum number of justices under the existing law who can sit and take variation orders is 15, that will mean that in Manchester, which has an existing maximum of 18 half-day sittings, with an additional 60 half-day sittings per annum, justices will be sitting on 78 licensing sessions, thereby reducing their availability to deal with criminal, domestic and juvenile work. I have spelt out that impossible situation in detail to show how ridiculous and ill thought out the Bill is. The question of the resources that will be required has not even been considered. This unsatisfactory situation would worsen if hearings were lengthy because of objections to applications.
      In Manchester, as I have already said, the workload would increase to 120 sessions. One could envisage a situation where licensing justices would be spending all their time in the licensing courts to the exclusion of all other work. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that the courts are already experiencing delays because qualified clerks are leaving the service. He knows that the Home Office has allowed one element of the service to compete with another, due to already inadequate finance. The courts must be adequately financed if justice is to be properly administered. The lack of adequate remuneration and the attraction of higher salaries from the Crown Prosecution Service has lured qualified clerks away from the service in their droves.
      Peter Lydiate, in the article I mentioned, stated that he believes that this is deliberate poaching. He said:
      "The plan was simple. Pitch the basic salaries of the new Crown Prosecutors above those fixed for clerks. This was done; it worked."
      The effect of this on the magistrates courts was that large numbers of court clerks were seduced away from the magisterial service, leaving an instant vacuum which justices' clerks have been energetically trying to fill during the past year, with great difficulties. The effects already stare us in the face. As Mr. Lydiate said, many courts have been closed and the hearings of cases put off for weeks or months for want of sufficient court clerks.
      Already, justices' clerks are faced with the training of new recruits. Mr. Lydiate said:
      "Corrective action shows little prospect of success. It takes years to train appropriate barristers and solicitors to a level of competence."
      There is no more difficult and abstruse area than licensing law. Lay magistrates need and expect expert guidance. The Justices' Clerks Society is deeply concerned that the Home Office has turned down suggestions that court clerks should be proficiently qualified barristers or solicitors. We are not matching like with like in our courts. We are opening up a minefield of case law with variation orders.

      987
      Lay justices need the best advice that can be given. Licensees, with the help of their association, will be given barristers or solicitors to argue their cases.
      What Mr. Peter Lydiate said of the magistrates courts applies to the licensing courts. He went on to say:
      "Magistrates courts therefore face a dark period where, in most courtrooms today, the bench of unpaid lay justices will be sitting to hear from a barrister or solicitor acting as Crown Prosecutor, a barrister or solicitor acting for the accused and their court clerk.
      He will be required to give expert guidance on all that is said and done concerning law, evidence, practice and procedure, and to ensure that the justices apply correct judicial criteria to any decision."
      We are not told that the Bill will be withdrawn. It is to be adjourned. It will come back at some future time. Of course, the Home Office will look at it very carefully, but there is no guarantee that the Bill will not come before us again in its present form.
      The Bill is an administrative nightmare. Frankly, I cannot see that it will ever be implemented. Therefore, there will be a need to increase the maximum number of sessions and the maximum size of licensing committees to deal with the work if it ever becomes law. This would involve a change in the Licensing Act 1964, which the Bill does not deal with. The Bill cannot be implemented without amendment to that Act. That fact has only emerged from my close study of the matter.
      I know that the House is not going to pass the Bill now, but how could it ever pass the Bill in its present form? We are entitled to know whether the Home Secretary will be obliged to come before Parliament with new legislation before the Bill can ever be introduced—unless my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister can tell us that the Home Secretary has the powers already. Parliament needs to know, and it has not been told. We deal in generalities with a Bill which, as I have shown, has grave social consequences. I have not mounted the entire case against the Bill as yet. I have taken particular points that cause concern. There is much more that could be said about it. It is not an innocuous little measure but a very dangerous one.
      11.30 am
      Indeed, even if more financial resources were found to implement the Bill, I wonder whether we are justified in pressing it upon the courts. Again, Peter Lydiate issued a warning. He said:
      "Even if the coming years were to bring an increase in salaries to make them competitive with those of Crown Prosecutors, which is by no means certain, it may be too late."
      In short, there will be considerable difficulty in absorbing this extra work without causing additional delays to the hearing of criminal, juvenile and domestic cases. Additional court and court clerk time will be involved, to the detriment of other more pressing work, and that is taking place at a time when recruitment and retention of suitably qualified court clerks is proving increasingly difficult.
      I could go on to describe the financial consequences of all that. Whether the Government will ever find the money for it is another matter. Unless additional resources are made available, there is a great fear in the licensing world that liquor licensing work will grind to a halt because of a total inability to cope.
      I believe, therefore, that the Home Office has a specific responsibility to protect the licensing justices in our constituencies. I hope that I have said enough to convince
      988
      the House that the debate on the Bill should not be adjourned but that the Bill should be quietly dropped. Perhaps some day the present Government, or another, will find the courage to legislate and will grasp the fundamental truth that alcohol, with all its pleasant associations for most of us, is not like other commodities. Its sale must be regulated if the harm it can cause is not to continue to grow as at present.
      I believe that the public will support sensible alcohol control policies. Once the public are told the facts and given a lead — the drink-driving campaign, seat belt legislation and tobacco tax are good examples — I believe that there will be an acceptance of sensible counter policies.
      Above all, when the Government are faced with the choice—I address myself particularly to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister—between the politics of wealth creation—a course which increases the profits of the drink trade — and the politics of health. they would do well to remember the wise counsel of one of our greatest Conservative Prime Ministers, Benjamin Disraeli, who said that
      "the first priority of Government is the health of the people."
      It still is.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): It is appropriate for me to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). One thing is certain; as a result of his deciding to present this Bill to the House we have had a series of interesting debates when right hon. and hon. Members have been able to ventilate their views, not on the precise terms of the Bill but on the danger of excessive consumption of alcohol, the danger to young people, and all those important social issues.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish me to thank my officials in the Home Office on his behalf. Few members of the public realise how much work is done within Government Departments to help private Members with their Bills. My officials certainly gave a great deal of help to my hon. Friend, pointing out to him that it was essential, if his Bill was to make any progress, that he should address his mind, for instance, to the resource implications. Of course, it is no secret that my officials drafted amendments for him to try to mitigate some of the resource problems that would obviously arise from the Bill as originally drafted. Therefore, I thank my officials for their help in that regard.
      It was pleasing to see the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) here this morning. I, among many, am sorry to see him go and that this is his last Parliament. My memories of Carlisle are somewhat mixed, having spent my first days in the Army there, not all of which were entirely delightful. However, I have delighted in my acquaintance with the hon. Member, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point said that he was not opposed to more flexible hours. He said he was opposed only to an extension of the total number of hours. That plain statement of his views is welcome. The public think that there should be reform of our licensing laws. I think that the public think that there should be a measured relaxation of the present restrictions. I think that they will be convinced by the evidence from Scotland that greater availability — by that I mean relaxation of restrictions of hours and licensees being able to decide for

      989
      themselves whether they should open in the afternoon— does not necessarily mean higher consumption. The sort of dire consequences that were forecast after the liberalisation took place in Scotland in 1976 simply have not occurred.
      My right hon. Friend pointed to the mischief that can be caused by excessive consumption of alcohol. None of us need to be convinced of that. My right hon. Friend pointed to the dangers to young people of consuming too much alcohol. None of us doubts that alcohol misuse is a serious problem in Britain and none of us doubts that there is too much drinking by too many young people. However, that is not the question to which we have to address our minds on this Bill. The question is whether that problem, which all of us acknowledge, would be made worse by a modest relaxation in licensing hours. The truth is that there is no evidence that it would.
      I dealt with the evidence, or lack of evidence, in the most interesting debate on licensing reform and alcohol abuse initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) on 27 February. I pointed out that the
      "basic conclusion of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report was that the relaxations in Scotland have led to more leisurely and responsible drinking. The study shows that between 1976 and 1984 there has been an increase in the consumption of alcohol by women, but no significant increase in consumption by men. Alcohol Concern has suggested that the fact of there being no change in men's drinking may be accounted for in part by unemployment, which is one of the points canvassed by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow."
      I pointed out that that was entirely unrealistic because
      "If unemployment was a factor, one might have expected it to affect women as well, and I think that it is fair to assume that drinking by women has gone up in Scotland because of the more relaxed social attitudes to drinking by women." —[Official Report, 27 February 1987; Vol. 111, c. 525.]
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point went on to point out the relationship between alcohol and crime. We all know that. Anyone who has practised in the courts well knows that there is all too close a relationship between alcohol consumption and crime. The question, however, is whether that has anything to do with a modest relaxation in licensing hours allowing licensees more choice as to the hours for which they open.
      On 27 February I said that the statistics for offences involving alcohol consumption must be considered with a great deal of caution and that some changes in trends might be accounted for merely by changes in police policy. One cannot simply point to a smaller increase in a particular offence in Scotland compared with England and say that that proves the point. I went on to point out that opponents of change could find no comfort in Scotland because there had been a dramatic fall in drunkenness offences, and drink driving offences had increased nothing like so fast as in England and Wales. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, therefore, it is difficult to sustain the argument that drink driving offences will increase in England following the same modest relaxation in licensing hours as has occurred in Scotland.
      We must not lose sight of the ball. We are not discussing the dangers of drink. We are considering whether a modest relaxation in the law such as that which has taken place in Scotland would lead to the dire social
      990
      consequences suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. In my view, it is almost impossible even to begin to mount an argument to that effect, bearing mind that none of those dire consequences has occurred in Scotland.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Is it really so impossible? My right hon. and learned Friend recognises the connection between alcohol and crime and I have given him incontrovertible evidence that under-age drinking, from the age of 13 upwards, is increasing in public houses, as is the harm that it causes through the link it has with public disorder and criminal offences. That is all taking place illegally now. If my right hon. and learned Friend cannot cope with an illegal situation of such gravity now, how can he suggest that relaxing matters still more and allowing longer drinking hours will not exacerbate the problem? It certainly will not make it any better. Why does my right hon. and learned Friend run away from that?
      11.45 am
      Mr. Waddington: If it is all happening illegally already, what on earth does it have to do with the Bill? As I have said, it is impossible to find statistics showing that there has been a worsening of the situation in Scotland as a result of the relaxation. I do not accept all that my right hon. Friend has said because I believe that the vast majority of licensees are extremely responsible people who do their level best to conduct their houses properly and to prevent under-age drinking, but the fact that there is such a problem in England today does not begin to be an argument about extending to England some of the changes that took place in Scotland in 1976.
      Lastly, my right hon. Friend said that the Bill raised serious resource problems. He is entirely right. That is why we advised my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood as to how some of the deleterious effects of the Bill could be mitigated and that is why he tabled amendment No. 40. That amendment would have mitigated some of the deleterious effects, but it would not have solved the problems, and I have pointed out throughout our deliberations that his is not the scheme of reform that the Government would have recommended to the House. In the light of that, the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point in seeking assurances that the Home Office would allocate additional resources to deal with the Bill if it became law seem somewhat unrealistic. That is a problem that we should have to consider if a miracle occurred, but as miracles do not occur very often my right hon. Friend will allow me to suggest that we can consider that matter if and when a miracle occurs.
      Mr. Dubs: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) who suggested that his brief contribution to this debate might be his last in the House. Members in all parts of the House will be sorry to know that this is his last Parliament as he has earned the respect of the whole House for his contribution to its work and I am sure that he will be sadly missed.
      In considering the motion before us, it is helpful to consider what has happened during the passage of the Bill thus far. Two approaches could have been adopted. The first is an overall approach considering all the problems related to alcohol and its abuse—licensing hours, health measures, preventive measures, drink-driving, and so on. Such an approach would require a Government measure

      991
      because it is too complicated for a private Member's Bill. Had there been such an overall approach—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the promoter of the Bill would both subscribe to this — we might have approached the measure with more agreement than has been achieved so far. That would also have been my own preferred approach, but that was not the position in which we found outselves when the Bill was introduced.
      I think that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has been a Member of Parliament longer than I have, so I do not wish to seem to speak from greater experience, but I suspect that if he had been a little more modest and confined himself to a rather simpler measure it might have got further. A simpler measure would have involved flexibility within the present overall limit of opening hours. Such a measure would have achieved the main aim of flexibility and the hon. Member for Eastwood would have had the support of the House on that point. Instead of discussing a motion to adjourn further debate, we might have been congratulating him on steering the Bill on to the statute book. If there is ever a lesson to learn from private Members' Bills, it is that they should be kept as simple and as uncontroversial as possible. I would have supported a move towards flexibility, but I would have preferred that to be in the context of a nine and a half hour day and no longer. That would have enabled us to make a little progress and to judge the consequences of flexibility without running the risk of all the dangers that the right hon. Member for Castle Point described so eloquently this morning and on other occasions.
      I regret that the Bill was not drafted in that way. If it had been so drafted, it would have represented sensible progress without the risks and dangers that the measure has aroused in the minds of some hon. Members. There is no doubt that alcohol is lethal. If alcohol was a new product which was not yet legal and we were debating whether to make it legal, not one hon. Member would vote to make it legal if we had any idea of the consequences of alcohol in our society. We are not in that position. It is clear that alcohol is the most widely used drug and intoxicant in the world. Therefore, it is unrealistic to ask whether we can ban it. We must find a compromise for those people who derive pleasure from alcohol—I admit that I am a modest drinker and derive a little pleasure from it—and so prevent some of the worst consequences of alcohol. That is the challenge and that will continue to he the challenge for this House when legislation on this matter is introduced in future.
      We are all concerned about drinking and driving, the effects of alcohol on young drinkers and the effect of alcohol on the health of many people in this country. So many people are in hospital because they have had too much to drink. We must achieve a balance between the pleasure that alcohol gives to many people and the enormous harm that it can cause. We must arrive at that balance in our legislation. I wish that the hon. Member who sponsored the Bill had been more modest and had drafted the Bill in the way that I have suggested.
      I want to pay a tribute to the right hon. Member for Castle Point. He has displayed tenacity and determination and has probably single-handedly— although there was other support for him—in Committee and in the House prevented the passage of the Bill. He has shown energy, attention to detail, commitment and anger about the consequences of alcohol and that has impressed all hon.
      992
      Members. I pay that tribute across the party political divide and I am sure that he understands the reason for that tribute.
      However, I am a little puzzled as to why the promoter of the Bill is seeking to adjourn the debate. The hon. Member for Eastwood paid me the courtesy of telling me in advance of today's sitting of his intention. I do not want to challenge his motives. However, I am rather puzzled about this. I have expressed some reservations about the contents of the Bill while supporting the principle of flexibility. I believe that the hon. Member for Eastwood said that reform was inevitable. At least, that was mentioned by someone in the House and I think that it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastwood.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I said that as a statement of belief. Of course, I believe that reform is inevitable. I want to make that point clear.
      Mr. Dubs: It was a statement of his belief that reform is inevitable. I am therefore puzzled as to why he is calling a halt to the debate now. Whether or not we agree that the hon. Gentleman would have failed in his attempt to get the Bill through its remaining stages this afternoon, if he believes that reform is inevitable, he could have used today's debates as an opportunity to put down a marker for the future. After all, we all know that one of the purposes of private Member's Bills is to put down markers for the future, and the vast majority of private Member's Bills are tabled for that purpose, not in the hope of their reaching the statute book. He would have put down a better marker for the future if he had continued with the Bill today, thereby showing his determination, commitment and attitude to further amendments which he might have been disposed to accept. In future, if a Government or private Member tries to legislate in this area, that further information from the rest of today's debate might well have been helpful.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: My hon. Friend is arguing about why the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) should continue with his Bill. Although some of those who supported the Bill knew that the hon. Gentleman would move the motion, would not my hon. Friend have thought that it was their duty to be with him here right to the end?
      Mr. Dubs: I would have thought so. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that.
      Where there is a difference of opinion in the House on private Members' legislation, those who are most tenacious tend to win the day. There is a contrast between the tenacity of the right hon. Member for Castle Point and the attitude of some of the supporters of the hon. Member for Eastwood. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Eastwood told us earlier today that he had written to his hon. Friends saying that they should not bother to turn up because he would seek to adjourn the debate. Nevertheless, I should have thought that the House and, indeed, the public, would look at hon. Members' commitment when they judge what is going on in the House, not just the words that are spoken. There is nobody more tenacious than the right hon. Member for Castle Point.
      I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has come back to the Chamber. He missed the tribute that I paid to him. All Members of the House are sorry that this is his last Parliament. Indeed, that may have

      993
      been his last intervention—I hope not. We have more time next week, and perhaps even longer. My hon. Friend has earned the respect of all hon. Members for the contribution that he has made, his commitment and his dedication to his beliefs. He will be very much missed, but we all wish him a long and happy retirement——
      Mr. Waddington: As the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) would point out, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) also missed what I had to say about him, which was also kindly.
      Mr. Dubs: My hon. Friend has now had the embarrassment of listening to our tributes, and he can read them twice over in Hansard on Monday. I have not been in the House all that long, but I know that it is always sad when one's colleagues decide that they will stand no longer. They are missed. I want my hon. Friend to know that.
      I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend took all the trouble to come here today. After all, many other people did not. I know that he is concerned about the Bill. After he campaigned in Carlisle yesterday in the local elections, the fact that he took the trouble to come here simply to be present is a further sign of his dedication and commitment. I hope that his successor notes that and takes a leaf out of his book.
      I am puzzled because I should have thought that it would be helpful to the future deliberations of the House if we had the benefit of debating the Bill for the rest of the day. I am disappointed that we have not had that opportunity.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I repeat the point that I made when moving the motion: this procedure enables other private Members to have an opportunity to put a case to the House, with which I may or may not agree. That principle is important, too.
      Mr. Dubs: That is an interesting point, which I shall come to later. I had assumed that that would be one of the hon. Gentleman's motives, but I shall consider the others first because it is important. His first argument was that he thought that he could not get the Bill through all its stages today. Implicit in what he said — he may have said it explicitly—was the view not only that he could not get the Bill through today, but that if there were no election, there would be no chance of getting his Bill through by October, which normally would be the end of the parliamentary Session. So the hon. Gentleman let his supporters go and he gave up his opportunity.
      I am surprised at that because the other day I was on the Standing Committee dealing with the Obscene Publications Bill. The promoter of the Bill was determined — he failed—to try to get his Bill to the Floor of the House for the final day when the Report stage of private Members' Bills takes precedence so that they have a chance of becoming law.
      Mr. Stewart: I do not want to extend this argument, but this is the last day, other than 3 July, on which private Members' Bills can be considered on Report and on Third Reading. Given that, if a private Members' Bill does not get through the House today, it clearly cannot go through another place and be back for consideration on 3 July which is the last day available for private Members' Bills.
      Mr. Dubs: I understand that, but I should have thought that that would have been an argument for continuing until 2.30 pm today, rather than giving up at 10.30 pm, if there is commitment to the legislation. This is an important point of principle because private Members' time is limited and is a valuable commodity. Members fight hard to get a share of the time that is available on the Floor of the House for putting forward their own ideas and Bills. Therefore, to give in quite so easily makes me wonder, but I have already covered that. I understand that this is the last day for the Report stage, but that suggests to me that the hon. Gentleman might have shown more determination than he did.
      12 noon
      The hon. Gentleman hinted that he does not believe that there will be an October in this parliamentary Session or that there will not even be a Friday next in this Session. We are all aware that this may well be the last private Members' Friday before the general election — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman throws his hands up as if to say that he does not know, but perhaps he does know. However, I wonder whether it is right for a Member of this House—of course I accept that the decision must be his — to decide that he will not pursue a private Member's Bill merely because an election might be called on Monday or Tuesday. We have had an election hanging over us for some little while now and there will be other occasions when an election dangles over the House and the country. We should not stop work and forget our responsibilities simply because we think that an election may be called. The hon. Gentleman may have been influenced by the results of yesterday's local elections. However, I believe that he made his decision yesterday evening before any of us had access to those local election results.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: Yes, I did.
      Mr. Dubs: The hon. Gentleman says, yes. Nevertheless, one should not take as a forgone conclusion what the Prime Minister will decide. I cannot help thinking that it might have been a better tactic if the hon. Gentleman had continued until 2.30 pm.
      My last argument, to which the hon. Gentleman gave weight because he intervened on it a moment ago, is that he wants to give an opportunity this afternoon for other Bills to be considered. He said that it would be a generous gesture on his part to allow other legislation to be debated and that that is why he is seeking to adjourn his own. According to today's Order Paper, about 21 other private Members' Bills are waiting to be discussed when we have disposed of the Licensing (Amendment) Bill. I wonder which of those Bills he is seeking to favour because clearly he is giving up his time for the sake of another measure. Therefore, I am looking with some interest at the other Bills to see which the hon. Gentleman wishes to speed on its way.
      Mr. Stewart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not draw any implications from the fact that well down the Order Paper is a ten-minute Bill, which is in my name. I hope that he will not suggest that.
      Mr. Dubs: Of course, I should not do any such thing. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was simply casting my eye down the list of the Bills that are waiting to be debated today. Every one of those Bills stands less chance

      995
      of becoming law than the hon. Gentleman's Bill. Virtually all await Second Reading debates or are adjourned debates on Second Reading, so they all have further to go to reach the statute book.
      The Tobacco Smoking (Public Places) Bill is an important measure and would add significantly to the health of the nation. If I thought that it had a chance of becoming law I would sit down. Clearly, I would wish to speed it on its way. However, we may not reach it because the Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill [Lords] comes next. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that it will be disposed of quickly so that we can reach the Tobacco Smoking (Public Places) Bill.
      The Tobacco Smoking (Public Places) Bill will help to decrease the amount of smoking. The effect of smoking on non-smokers is damaging to their health and can be lessened by having a legislative basis for reducing smoking in public places. As a non-smoker I should like to see that Bill on the statute book. Indeed, I suspect that most hon. Members would happily jump over the second item of business—I know that our procedures do not allow for that — to the third because we would be helping the health of the nation.
      The fourth item of business is the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill and, clearly, the hon. Gentleman wants that measure, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), to reach the statute book.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: I appreciate the difficulties that we have today, but I would be pleased if we could reach that Bill. It affects many constituencies and Members of Parliament as the problem of coal mining subsidence stretches from the north into Scotland, part of which the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) represents. It is an important Bill and a tragedy that we shall not reach it. The National Coal Board has dealt unfairly with many people, particularly some of my constituents.
      Mr. Dubs: I thank my hon. Friend for explaining that and I share his view that it is an important Bill. If I thought that by adjourning this debate there was a chance of discussing the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill and quickly passing it into law, I would not waste a moment by drawing the attention of the House to its importance. I would want to get on and discuss it.
      Such are the pressures of a private Members' day that, clearly, we shall not reach that measure. My hon. Friend will have to reintroduce it after the general election, when there will be far more support from the Government for it because we shall be sitting on the Government Benches. It will either be a private Member's Bill with Government support or, even, a Government measure. It is a sign of the usefulness and dedication of my hon. Friend that he seeks to do this. The hon. Member for Eastwood has not said whether he supports the Bill, but I suggest that he is sympathetic to it or at least does not want to delay it.
      996
      I do not want to take the time of the House by going through every Bill on the Order Paper, tempting though it is. Clearly, they all have a part to play. However, it is worth saying a little about one or two of them. One of the Bills——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating whether the discussion on the Licensing (Amendment) Bill should be adjourned. While the hon. Gentleman may refer to the other Bills as being a motive for the adjournment of this debate, he must not discuss them in detail.
      Mr. Dubs: I certainly would not want to do that. The hon. Member for Eastwood said that one of his motives in seeking to persuade the House to adjourn this debate was that other Bills were waiting to be discussed. He did not say which Bill he favoured and I am seeking to tempt him to hint which one it is, without debating the other Bills, so that we may know his other motives. That would help us to judge whether we should adjourn now or decline to adjourn and continue discussing the amendments to the hon. Gentleman's Bill. So far I have not been successful in tempting him to give us a hint, but if we did do that we would be clear about the matter.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I am puzzled about why the hon. Gentleman is pursuing this theme. I did not seek to favour any Bill on the Order Paper but was simply making the point that adjournment of this Bill would give other hon. Members an opportunity to speak. That is what happened when I sat down at nine minutes past two o'clock on Second Reading. That gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) an opportunity to have a say, although I disagreed with the measure put forward by the hon. Member for Leyton.
      Mr. Dubs: Nobody could quarrel with that as a statement of willingness to give way to other hon. Members who wish to put forward other measures. The Housebuyers' Protection Bill stands in my name and some time ago I introduced it by leave of the House. I would be less than human if I did not make a passing reference to this important piece of legislation. Much to my surprise, Government Whips blocked it on a previous Friday. I would have thought that the Government Whips would want to encourage protection for housebuyers and would want to find time to debate this simple and modest measure. Even at this stage, I hope that they will decide to let the measure go through as a sign of their commitment to people who are seeking to buy houses and need consumer protection in the process of so doing.
      I shall not test this further by going through the Bills that we might reach today. I have commended my own Bill and achieved one of my purposes.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) to be further considered on Friday 3 July.

  Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
    Clause 1

      AMENDMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1986
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      12.13 pm
      Dame Jill Knight: Would it be in order, Mr. Armstrong, to speak on the Bill as a whole?
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Certainly the hon. Lady may do that. The Bill has only two clauses.
      Dame Jill Knight: This Bill came into being for a very good reason. It has not come into being because there have been vague suspicions that all is not well about the teaching of sex in our schools. It is before the Committee because there is evidence in shocking abundance that children in our schools, some as young as five years, are frequently being encouraged into homosexuality and lesbianism. That is happening in our schools, is being paid for out of rates, and is against the wishes of the children's parents.
      For those reasons, and because of the abundance of evidence, the Bill was introduced in another place where, of course, it has gone through all its stages. It gained unqualified acceptance from all sides and all political parties in the other place.
      As I have said, there are many pieces of evidence as reasons for this Bill. I shall quote only a few examples, First, there is a publication called "The Playbook for Kids about Sex". It is written for young children and is presented in the type of colour and line drawings that would appeal to a child. In fact, it is the most frightening piece of propaganda against children. There is also a book called "The Milkman's on his Way". I shall not shock the House by quoting from it, but, in explicit terms, it describes intercourse between a 16-year-old boy and his adult male homosexual lover. The book glorifies homosexuality and encourages youngsters to believe that it is better than any other sexual way of life.
      Recently, the lesbian and gay development unit of Haringey council made a video called "How to become a lesbian in 35 minutes". Under the aegis of the council, it was shown to mentally handicapped girls, of whom one was aged 18, one was aged 16, and the others were much younger. Another book is being promulgated by a local council. It is called "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin". That book has been the subject of a great deal of public protest. It pictures a little girl of about six in bed with her father and his lover, both of whom are naked. It is a picture storybook, aimed at six to eight-year-olds, and is made available by education officials in and for junior schools. There was a great outcry. Anyone who would oppose the Bill should read that book and consider how they feel about it. It tells youngsters:
      "Jenny is a little girl. Martin is Jenny's dad and Eric is Martin's lover. They all live happily together."
      Eric draws Jenny a series of cartoons of two men saying:
      998
      "I love you, Fred. 'I love you too, Bill.' Why don't we move in together? 'That is a good idea.'''
      It is terrifying to me that local councils have been promoting that kind of stuff. I could give the House many examples, but I shall not go on. There is a pile of filth, and it is shocking when one considers that it is all paid for by the rates. What is the aim?
      Today, one or two of us are thinking about manifestos. I shall not go into the reason why, but certainly we are doing so. I look no further than the gay liberation front manifesto to find the reasons for such stuff appearing before our children and being promulgated and proselytised to them. The gay liberation front manifesto states:
      "We must fight for something more than reform. We must aim at the abolition of the family. This will benefit all women and gays."
      We could argue for some time about how true it is that the abolition of the family would help women, but it is debatable whether it would be anything other than a disaster for the country.
      It is important that the House should understand that the Bill in no way attacks the rights of adult people to live their own lives in their own way. It is a free country. Many homosexuals live their lives totally within the law and would no more think of molesting little boys than a normal heterosexual would think of molesting little girls. Nothing in the Bill is aimed at such people. There is all the difference in the world between allowing adults to live in the way in which they consider is right for them and trying to pervert little children.
      I remember the occasion many years ago when we were first presented with a Bill on homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals. The debate was joined as to whether homosexuals were born or made. An elderly gentleman who had been a colonel in the Indian army told me that it was his belief that homosexuals were made if enough influence was exerted upon them. He said that in the hill country and in parts of Poona, when he was in the Indian army, drummer boys used to be sent out from England —they were often orphans—and sent up to the forward areas to the regiments. He said—I have never forgotten this—that not one of those children had a chance. They all ended up as homosexuals because of the life they were forced to lead. I find it outrageous that little children should have been perverted in that way.
      Those in another place and millions outside Parliament object to little children being perverted, diverted or converted from normal family life to a lifestyle which is desperately dangerous for society and extremely dangerous for them. Any venereologist will say that syphilis, gonorrhoea and genital herpes are characteristically infections of homosexuals. If that were not enough, we now have the terror of AIDS. Very few hon. Members fail to appreciate the seriousness of the danger that AIDS presents to the whole of our society, yet some of that which is being taught to children in our schools would undoubtedly lead to a great spread of AIDS. Even the knowledge of the danger of AIDS has not stopped the promoting of homosexuality among little children.
      Mr. Alfred Dubs: The hon. Lady has suggested that the whole of our society is in danger from AIDS — homosexuals and heterosexuals. There is evidence in some countries of an increasingly wide spread of AIDS among the heterosexual population, and I do not

      999
      understand why she is dwelling on homosexuality. It seems that in the end AIDS will affect all people in about the same way.
      Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman's intervention suggests that he has not done his homework on AIDS. The disease spreads into ordinary heterosexual members of society through contact with those who have had AIDS, and I think that 95 per cent. of those who start AIDS come from the homosexual section. It is from that section that the danger of AIDS has come, and within that section the danger is infinitely more severe than in any other. That is where it started, and I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman, who has a serious regard for morality and good behaviour in life, can fail to appreciate that little children as young as five years of age in our schools ought not to be taught that homosexuality is a normal way of life. It is undoubtedly true that the desperate disease of AIDS starts with and comes mainly from homosexuals.
      Mr. Dubs: It is my understanding that the danger of AIDS is now faced equally by both the heterosexual and homosexual sections of the population, and that there are certain countries where heterosexuals have been as affected by AIDS as homosexuals. I am talking about medical opinion on the likely way in which AIDS will spread in future, unless the spread of this dreadful disease is checked. It is misleading to suggest that the link between AIDS and homosexuality is such that there is not the likelihood of an equivalent link between AIDS and heterosexuality.
      Dame Jill Knight: I must urge the hon. Gentleman to look into the subject with rather more care than he has obviously done so far. If he asks any of the eminent doctors in London—let alone outside London—who are experts on the subject, he will find that AIDS starts among homosexuals, and that they pose the greatest danger. The disease spreads to others when a homosexual with AIDS has relations with a woman, or gives tainted blood that has not been screened. We know of that danger from other countries.
      The hon. Gentleman must not try to hold up our proceedings. He may be seeking information on the matter, but I must tell him, with the greatest courtesy, that at present he is not very well informed on it. Any doctor who has specialised in the subject would say, "For God's sake, do not promote homosexuality as a way of life. It is desperately dangerous."
      Let me return to my main theme. The proselytising in schools of a homosexual society is all paid for by the ratepayers, 99 per cent. of whom strongly object to their money being used in that way. Parents' associations have been set up: the Parents Action Group has been particularly active. Nearly a year ago, a deputation from the group went to protest to the deputy leader of a local council that the policy discriminated against religious beliefs. The deputation included people with a wide range of religions—for instance, Catholics and Muslims—and some with no religion. They were told that the Koran needed updating, and that the Bible should be rewritten. What a thing to tell parents who are anxious about what is happening to their children. Further, a member of the gay and lesbian sub-committee of the council told the group that "parents do not know what is in the best interests of their children … we do." Some of the doctors do, too.
      1000
      Let me add in passing that teachers who have protested strongly at what they have been asked to do have been discriminated against and intimidated in the most frightening manner. That worries me as well.
      Hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent by some councils in promoting homosexuality in our schools. All of that money could be far better spent. I am not talking about boroughs in which no council houses need repairing, and nothing needs to be done about the roads; I am not talking about councils that have examined everything in their remit and have concluded that there is nothing else on which to spend their money. Every penny of the money spent on promoting homosexuality could and should be far better spent elsewhere, and it bothers me to learn that parents and ratepayers who have gone to protest have on some occasions been physically attacked.
      This is a very short Bill, with one main clause and four subsections. Subsection (1) prevents a local authority from giving "financial or other assistance" to any person for the purpose of publishing or promoting homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship, or for the purpose of teaching such acceptability in any maintained school. Hon. Members should note the words "other assistance". The other assistance would cover the provision of local authority premises for a guest speaker or the financing, of conferences to get over the homosexuality message to six-year-olds. Anything of that kind would be banned by the Bill.
      12.30 pm
      Subsection (2) provides that a breach of subsection (1) shall be dealt with in the civil courts, and subsection (3) identifies those who may institute proceedings under subsection (2). They are given locus standi. Subsection (4) sensibly excuses a local authority if it has taken reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the law but its instructions have been ignored.
      Clause 2 relates to the short title. It provides that the Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland.
      The Bill has completed all its stages in another place and support for it came from right across the political spectrum. The Earl of Halsbury, who introduced the Bill, was supported by the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Longford, Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Denning and Lord Bellwin. They feel that the Bill should be enacted as it stands as it would put a stop to the iniquitous corruption of children. I thank all those who have helped in various ways to frame the Bill. Not thousands but millions of people of all parties and of none have said that they support the Bill. I hope that the House will bless it and will pass it.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am glad to take this opportunity to congratulate my kinsman the Earl of Halsbury on his clear discernment of the public mind on an important moral issue. We owe him gratitude and praise for carrying this Bill through all its stages in the other place.
      We live in an age of doubt. Many moral certainties of Victorian times and the orthodox Christian traditions of earlier generations are being questioned, openly challenged and quite often publicly flouted. Everyone should approach moral questions with humility. The Greeks gave us the injunction—"Know thyself."—at the same time as they originated our democratic culture. How many people can claim truthfully to have attained full self-knowledge? The road to self-knowledge often takes us

      1001
      through stony places. Many of our moral beliefs originated with the teaching of the Greek thinkers. Our own Christian testament was written in Greek, yet homosexuality was not always condemned in classical Greece.
      The whole subject remains a source of difficulty and uncertainty in the consciences of a number of people— including, as I know, an element among my constituents in Kensington. But it is an obvious fact that a man's physique shows rudimentary female characteristics, and I think that few men would claim to be entirely devoid of qualities that we associate primarily with the feminine virtues. Few women, I think, would wish to be entirely without any element of manliness. Indeed, some of the grandest figures in history and the most influential personalties of today have a broad sexual orientation.
      I should like, however, to make two points very strongly in support of the intentions of the Bill. First, the physical processes of generation can be fertile or they can be morbid and fruitless. It is repugnant to the majority of people to see the endowments of our bodies, which enable us to recreate our own likeness and to perpetuate human life, turned into useless or unnatural channels. They are not happy, although they are prepared to accept, that such practices take place in privacy. They certainly are not prepared to endorse the policies of certain elements on local councils, such as ILEA or some outer London boroughs, that homosexuality should be presented openly, and even authoritatively recommended, with the support of public funds.
      Secondly, on a more general constitutional consideration, it has become increasingly widely held since the 16th and 17th century wars of religion that the political organs of the state should not seek to govern or to interfere with the freedom of private conscience. In parenthesis, as we move into a post-Socialist political framework, we are coming, I think increasingly to accept that it is not permissible for political figures to intrude themselves into industry or the workings of the economy either. But it is not generally acceptable now that the state should devote substantial efforts and resources to the dissemination even of the tenets of faith, or the enforcement of codes of personal conduct in private, which enjoy majority support. It is certainly quite inadmissible that a small, unrepresentative group should capture control of a local authority and then divert its resources to the promotion of highly controversial minority points of private belief and conduct within families.
      In London many parents — I believe the great majority — are deeply opposed to the promotion of homosexuality in education and will warmly support the Bill. I am proud that it was on my motion last week that the Bill obtained its Second Reading, and I trust that it will now successfully go through its remaining stages in this honourable House.
      The Minister for Local Government (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I have listened carefully to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). I have also read the debates in another place where the Bill received support from all quarters and there were no Divisions at any stage.
      1002
      As is usual with Bills brought in or taken up by a private Member, I intervene to make clear the Government's view of the Bill. As many hon. Members know, the Government's views of the Bill have, from time to time, been misrepresented. Many of those who have written to hon. Members, whose letters have been drawn to my attention and the attention of other Ministers in the Department of the Environment by those hon. Members, have thought that the Government are opposed to this Bill. That is certainly not the case. Bills brought in by private Members or, as in this case, private Peers, fall into a number of categories. Some embody a policy which is totally alien to that of the Government, and those we must oppose and advise hon. Members to vote against. Others reflect Government policy, and may even have been suggested by the Government. Those, of course, we support. Others may reflect the Government's views, but be on a subject about which the Government think that it is for Parliament to make up its own mind. Others may be in harmony with the Government's views but perhaps not deal with the matter as the Government would think most appropriate.
      It is into this last category that this Bill fell when it was introduced. There can be no doubt that every Minister who has been involved with the Bill strongly supports its aim, encapsulated in its long title
      "A Bill intituled. An Act to restrain local authorities from promoting homosexuality".
      The whole country owes the noble earl Lord Halsbury arid his colleagues a debt of gratitude for bringing forward the legislation and ensuring that the topic stays in the front of public debate.
      At the outset of the debate in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale made it clear that the Government have every sympathy with the aims underlying the proposals in this Bill. I re-emphasise in this House that sympathy. The Government share the view that a society is defined by its shared beliefs and habits. There are some kinds of behaviour that Christian charity may lead us to tolerate, but that is no reason why public funds should be spent on promoting that behaviour and no reason why we should tolerate those who spend public funds in that way. Undermining the common standards of society, flaunting behaviour that the overwhelming majority of those brought up in this country and in its traditions find revolting, unsettling the minds of the coming generation is one way — a subtle way — of changing the society in which we live.
      All of us have noticed in recent years an attack on the institution of the family, which is the basic building block of society. A society that turns its back on the family and undermines it in any way will pay heavy penalties in the future. One understands that certain people are born with different interests — I put it as gently as I can. I am certainly not one of those who would wish there to be any persecution of those individuals. I do not think that any hon. Member wishes that. The Bill opposes the positive images of lesbianism and homosexuality, as though they were alternative ways of life that should be shown to all children in schools. Those images imply that one can say to children that they can live in a family with a mother and father, but there is an alternative way of life which is just as reputable, in which one lives with a person of one's own sex, and the two are equal. That could undermine the basis

      1003
      of our society. The vast majority of parents, irrespective of how they voted yesterday or of how they will vote in a general election, feel intensely about this matter.
      One could say that the positive promotion of the images of lesbianism and male homosexuality as though they are equivalent to family life could bring death in one generation. I am not referring to AIDS. I am talking about death in a generation, because there is no future in it— it is the end of creation. Any society that is concerned for its future in every way and for its continuation must have a clear view about what it is doing.
      I am sure that we are all alarmed about many things that have been going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston referred to this. Baroness Cox, who lived until recently in my constituency, said on Second Reading:
      "I was speaking to teachers in Manchester on Saturday and was assured that similar policies are being pursued in parts of the North of England. This should not surprise us."
      She referred to the book "Tackling Heterosexism". I have seen that book, but could not lay my hands on it for this debate. I shall provide the book for any hon. Members who would like to see it, because I was horrified by what I saw.
      Baroness Cox said that the book has
      "been brought out by nine London boroughs, recommends that the Inner London Education Authority and other local education authorities should:
      'put resources into developing materials and changing curricula in order effectively to challenge heterosexism in lessons at all stages in the education system from primary school up to colleges of further education and that a variety of materials be developed, for example videos for use in lessons which would raise the issues of heterosexism and present Lesbians in a positive light … [and that] heterosexism awareness training courses should be introduced as a compulsory part of in-service training and during teacher training programmes'."
      Baroness Cox said:
      -In places such as Brent"—
      a place in the British Isles that I know very well—
      "those who do not pass such courses are to be debarred from sitting on appointments panels, and the implications of that for future appointments are self-evident; namely, that successful candidates in the future will have to be ideologically correct and have the appropriate sexual attitudes." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1986; Vol. 483, c. 320–21.]
      Recently, I was approached in my constituency by parents of all political parties about a document in Brent libraries—"Out in Brent"—which I have with me. It uses a definition that differs from the one that we would have used five or 10 years ago. There are lists of homosexual and lesbian literature; the book was easily available on the lower library shelves and children were picking it up. The name of one library was given to me and many people wrote to me about the matter. I took up the matter. Parents were concerned, irrespective of where they stood on the political platform.
      I quote again from a letter printed last year in the Daily Telegraph by somebody who had before her ILEA's book "Secondary Issues?" which is also available to hon. Members. It is distributed to schools and purports to deal with equality of opportunity in secondary education. The letter says:
      "In the section on school libraries it enthuses 'We have included lesbian and gay contact phone numbers on wall charts giving general advice, produced book lists, and we have positively included work on lesbian and gay people in library worksheets."'
      I draw the following to the attention of hon. Members.
      The letter in the Daily Telegraph says:
      1004
      "The book notes with approval the removal of a section on romance from a school library".
      There is no romance in these sad days, according to how some people would like us to live. ILEA replaced the section on romance
      "with a section on 'relationships'—'encompassing lesbian and gay relationships, heterosexual relationships and family relationships.' Organisations listed for schools to contact include a 'Gay Teachers Group'."
      12.45 pm
      I have other letters, including one to the Prime Minister from another borough in London. I will not delay the House further by referring to other material, except to refer to an advertisement in Haringey's publication "Job Search" that promised preferential treatment for gays and lesbians seeking jobs as play group assistants looking after 5 to 11-year-olds. I remember reading last year that in that borough parents, again from parties of all political views, closed a school for a day because they objected to what was proposed in this type of teaching.
      It is wrong for public funds to be used to promote homosexuality as an alternative to the family way of life. It does not follow from that that it is automatically right to invoke the law to prevent local authorities from using public funds in this way. The defenders of those aberrant local authorities will be quick to point out that they are elected, that they are responsible to their electorate, and that the electorate can turn out the members who support practices of which they disapprove. That is true, but it does not mean that Parliament should stand by and do nothing.
      Hon. Members will know of my interest in 19th-century local government. Before the reform era in the 1830s, local authorities quite often used their powers to line the pockets of their members. In the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, Parliament did not stand by and leave it to the voters. Our predecessors took effective steps to outlaw such practices. It is for Parliament to define the area of action for local authorities. There can be no doubt of the constitutional propriety of Parliament intervening if we think that local authorities are going too far. There can be no doubt about the support of the Government for the principles behind the Bill.
      My noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale also made it clear that the Government have reservations about some aspects of the Bill and it is my duty to comment on those. First, the Bill goes over ground that Parliament has recently traversed. The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 made significant changes in the law relating to sex education in schools. It transferred responsibility for decisions on sex education to the new governing bodies to be set up for every maintained school. It required those concerned to ensure that any teaching on sex is set within a clear moral context and is supportive of family life. There are those who feel that it is premature to enact further measures until we see how the 1986 Act works. On the other hand, the supporters of the Bill have argued forcefully that there is sufficient scope within the Act for the continuance of measures of which we and they disapprove.
      Secondly, the Local Government Act 1986 made provision for a code of recommended practice for local authorities when making decisions on publicity. Again, it can be argued that time should be given for this code to be produced, approved by Parliament, and take effect. My noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale told the other place that we intended to include a provision in the code that local authority publicity should not offend against generally

      1005
      accepted moral standards. I can confirm that today we are issuing that code of practice for formal consultation with the local authority associations, as required by the Act.
      Finally, it can be argued—people have done that through the ages in the House—that it is premature and that we ought to deal with all the areas in which discretionary activity by local authorities is causing concern. That, of course, is what F. M. Cornford in his classic work "Microcosmographia Academica" identified as the principle of the wedge. I have a copy of that book with me, not by accident. As hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will know,
      "The Principle of the Wedge is that you should not act justly now for fear of raising expectations that you may act still more justly in the future—expectations which you are afraid that you may not have the courage to satisfy".
      The House will have to decide for itself whether or not this approach is correct. I conclude by saying once more that the Government have great sympathy for the aims of those who have promoted this Bill. In fairness to the House, we have identified and I have brought to its attention some aspects which may be shortcomings. It is for the House to decide whether those shortcomings are so great that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. It is a private Member's Bill and the House must make up its mind.
      However, the Government do not take the view that those shortcomings are sufficient to deny the Bill a passage. As those who have read my writings will expect, for my part I think that the clause should stand part of the Bill, and I support it.
      Mr. Dubs: I am a little taken aback by the way in which the House has, with a measure that is bound to attract a lot of publicity, bypassed some of the normal procedures. I am not clear what happened on a particular Friday afternoon, but it seems that we gave the Bill a Second Reading on the nod—I assume that is what happened— and then we bypassed the normal Committee stage upstairs and we are dealing with the Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
      Dr. Boyson: I believe that the Bill was moved to a Committee of the whole House. I just say that in fairness.
      Mr. Dubs: I am aware of that. However, we have avoided the normal process of discussion in Committee upstairs and taken it on the Floor of the House. It is my experience that when the House does not give a measure proper scrutiny, it is likely that bad legislation will be the outcome. That has been my experience whenever the House has tried to do things on the nod.
      Dame Jill Knight: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the measure was fully discussed in another place. That is not unusual in itself. There was a wide-ranging debate, including a Committee stage and Report stage, and a small amendment was moved. There has been nothing untoward in the way in which the Bill has been produced or put to the House. Every rule of the House has been adhered to.
      Mr. Dubs: I am not suggesting that every rule has not been adhered to. I am suggesting that, if we can reach the Committee stage of a Bill without the necessary preliminary debate, discussion and scrutiny, although every rule of the House may have been adhered to technically, the real, proper process by which we subject legislation to debate and discussion is not taking place.
      1006
      The fact is that most people were not aware that the measure was coming up for debate. If they had known, not withstanding the local elections yesterday, the House would not have been so empty. It was assumed that we would spend more time on the previous Bill and that we would not reach this point. The House and the country are effectively being taken unawares by the way in which this measure is being dealt with.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I have to object to the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. The Bill was on the Order Paper last Friday for all hon. Members, the Gallery and everybody else to see. I moved that it should have a Second Reading at a time when there were other hon. Members in the House. They could have objected had they chosen, under the long-standing procedures of the House. But not one Member chose to object, with the result that the Bill obtained a Second Reading, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) said, on the nod.
      I did not propose that it should be committed to a Committee of the whole House, but with a one-clause Bill is it not really rather fatuous to insist that it has to be sent to a Committee upstairs, which would be appropriate for a longer and more detailed measure? I think that the whole Bill occupies less than about 40 lines. Surely, on a matter of broad general interest, hon. Members might well be glad to have the opportunity to intervene in the Committee stage which is offered when the Bill is taken on the Floor of the House but which is restricted when the Bill is committed to a group of 16 or 20 Members.
      Every Member of the House could have been present here today to intervene on the Bill if he had so chosen, but I think the vast majority of Members support the Bill and those who have reservations about it are wise enough to keep them to themselves.
      Mr. Dubs: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. We all know what happens on Friday afternoons. This measure has been slipped though and I am sure that most Members do not realise that we are in the middle of the Committee stage of a Bill that we did not expect to reach today.
      Dame Jill Knight: It was on the Order Paper.
      Mr. Dubs: It is no use the hon. Lady saying that it was on the Order Paper. The fact remains that most hon. Members were not aware of it. There are masses of measures on the Order Paper every Friday. There are more than 20 on today's Order Paper. If the first 10 had been withdrawn and we had started making progress on the 11th everyone would have been astonished, as the hon. Lady well knows.
      I do not suggest that any Member has not behaved absolutely properly. I am protesting that we are the victims of a procedure which is undemocratic in practice and denies Members the chance to debate a very important matter. I am perfectly aware that there is concern in our constituencies about this issue. Some of us would have liked to consult further on it, had that been possible. It was not possible because of the way in which we have arrived at debating this measure. I believe that the situation is wrong and undemocratic.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said that the Bill had been subjected to scrutiny in another place, but that is no substitute for a proper debate in this House. Most of our constituents do not

      1007
      follow what goes on in the other House and have no access to Members of that House, so most of our constituents are prevented from making their views known if the only debate is in the other place. If ever there was an argument for abolishing the other House, it is the argument that because a matter has been discussed there we need not bother about it. That is an appallingly undemocratic attitude and I resent the argument by an elected Member of this House that Members of the other House, who are unelected and accountable to no one, have discussed the matter so we need not bother. We are caught in a situation in which we cannot give the measure proper scrutiny.
      The Minister has said that the Government have three reservations about the Bill but that if the House wills it the measure will go through. That is not right either. We are dealing with an extremely important matter which goes to the heart of moral issues in this country and the way in which our children are educated. Whatever one's view— the hon. Member for Edgbaston surely believes in proper debate and discussion—it is wrong that we should be bulldozed on such a sensitive and difficult issue on the basis that it has been slipped through the House of Commons when only half a dozen Members were present, so it can just go through.
      I resent that approach. It is wrong in principle, even if an election is called on Monday, to bulldoze a measure through in this way. It is possible that a majority might have supported it, but there is no way of putting the matter to the test. It has been an abuse of the procedures of the House to bypass normal democratic debate and discussion and I bitterly resent the fact that the House has been put in this position. There is no opportunity for a proper debate because the Benches are empty.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman is continuing to advance an argument which is really contrary to the whole tradition and procedures of the House. The fact that the Committee stage of the Bill was on the Order Paper for today was printed and was known to any hon. Member who chose to take an interest. Any hon. Member who wishes to take part in this Committee stage is able to do so now. I have noticed that there are not many hon. Members who wish to intervene in support of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. That is perhaps something that the hon. Gentleman should also take into account. If he feels that there are large numbers of hon. Members who would oppose the Bill had they appreciated that it was going to have its Committee stage today, would he be so kind as to enlighten us by giving us their names?
      1 pm
      Mr. Dubs: This is preposterous. The hon. Gentleman understands what I am saying. I have said that there should be proper debate. I have not ventured a single comment on the merits or demerits of the Bill. I have said that it is wrong in principle that we should not have the opportunity for a proper debate. We are being denied that opportunity. The Government have said that they wash their hands of the Bill and that someone else should decide. They think that there is no need for the Bill, but they are not prepared to do anything about it. That is quite wrong.
      Dr. Boyson: I want to explain one point for the record. I did not say that I did not think that there was no need for the Bill. I said that, as the Bill stood, the Government may have certain reservations about certain points.
      1008
      However, we support the Bill and I certainly support it as an individual. We did not say that we did not think that there was no need for the Bill. There is a need for a measure to control homosexual and lesbian propaganda in schools. I will not be misinterpreted on that point.
      Mr. Dubs: Fine. I hear what the Minister has said. Nevertheless, I listened very carefully to the Minister's comments. He went through the Bill and then said that he had to express three reservations on behalf of the Government. I accept fully his own personal position. However, he went through the reservations, which suggested to me that the Bill at this point was unnecessary because two other Bills will come pretty close to meeting the same aims. Therefore, it was not necessarily right in principle to have a third piece of legislation until we have had a chance to assess the effects of the other two. That is a pretty fair rendering of what the Minister said. Normally when we are bulldozed in this way, the Government would say that the Bill should make no further progress and we should consider the impact of the other two pieces of legislation first and then decide. That is the proper way in which a responsible House of Commons would legislate, not in the way that we are seeking to legislate today.
      Dame Jill Knight: I remind the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) that earlier today he appeared to suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) the reverse to that procedure. He said that: he would be perfectly happy to skip the other Bills to reach the Bill that he is promoting or one of his hon. Friend's Bills. The hon. Member for Battersea must be consistent. There are rules to which we must all adhere. The hon. Member must not go in one direction in response to one Bill and another direction on a point of procedure.
      Mr. Dubs: I have been perfectly consistent. Let me explain to the hon. Lady why I am being consistent. When I argued that there was a Bill standing in my name further down the list on the Order Paper, it must be understood that I was seeking a Second Reading debate for that Bill so that the House would be able to debate the basic principle of my Bill—
      Dame Jill Knight: That is exactly the same.
      Mr. Dubs: —after which the Bill would have gone to a Standing Committee for further discussion and scrutiny, as is proper.
      Dame Jill Knight: Within the rules of the House, the hon. Member for Battersea is perfectly free to ask that his Bill be taken on the Floor of the House. Every hon. Member must consider the position and the date. Bearing in mind that full debates may have taken place in another place, every hon. Member is perfectly free to decide to have a debate on the Floor of the House, and the hon. Member for Battersea would have been free to make such a decision.
      Mr. Dubs: I am not disputing the right of any hon. Member to make that decision, nor am I disputing the right of any hon. Member to use the small print of our Standing Orders to expedite business that they wish to further. Nevertheless, I also have the right to say on behalf of many other hon. Members that we resent the fact that we are being bulldozed in this way without an opportunity for debate.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Who are those hon. Members?
      Mr. Dubs: It is no good the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) asking from a sedentary position who they are. It is disgraceful that an important Bill that affects the way in which our children are to be educated is to be debated without more than a handful of hon. Members present. Even the hon. Member for Edgbaston would surely not wish her Bill to progress without proper debate or discussion.
      I resent one more thing. We have not had a chance to go to our constituencies and discuss some of the details with constituents who have raised those matters with us so that we can refer to them in the House. I did not know that the Bill would come up in this form; otherwise I should not be making these points. I am not alone in that. Had I known that, I should have been able to come to the debate with more examples, possibly even in support of what the hon. Member for Edgbaston said, or in contradiction of what she said. But, above all, I would have had the chance to speak to teachers and education authorities.
      Technically, the Bill is about local government. The Minister had long experience in education before he came to the House, but there is no representative of the Department of Education and Science on the Government Front Bench. Instead, we have a Minister from the Department of the Environment. I understand why—it is a local government Bill—but the Bill is in fact about education. We are not approaching it as if it were about education, but we should. Then there would be Ministers from the Department of Education and Science and colleagues of mine on the Opposition Front Bench who speak on education, who could address properly and sensibly how best to deal with those difficult and sensitive areas in our schools. I am angry that we cannot do that.
      There is not even the chance for a pause so that the House can reflect on those matters. We have to go rushing through with the measure. That is wrong in principle. I should like to ask you, Sir Paul, whether there is any way in which we can be protected from that procedure, which, although technically correct, in practice represents an abuse of hon. Members' rights.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman and respond to his question. The proceedings are entirely in order, so I am afraid that there is nothing that I can do to assist him.
      Mr. Dubs: I feared as much. I remember when a Bill was being rushed through at an earlier stage in the proceedings than the stage that we have now reached, and Mr. Deputy Speaker said from the Chair that Mr. Speaker did not like Bills being rushed through without an opportunity for proper debate. Although the example is not parallel, that is still the position.
      Having made my protest—I feel strongly about that —I should like to refer to the debates in the other place. More than one hon. Member has said, "Well, the other place has debated it. That is all right. It was a full debate." However much publicity and attention were given to the Bill and its passage in the other place, there was not nearly as much as there would be if we were to debate it properly in the House of Commons. We all know that. Feelings run high on the issue, or the hon. Member for Edgbaston would not have called forth the examples that she gave in
      1010
      her speech. I am sure that some people would oppose the Bill and others would like to understand its details better and the implications.
      Because feelings run high on the issue, it would have been right for public opinion to be made aware that we were debating the Bill today. Whatever excuses we have or do not have for looking at the small print or at the Order Paper for what might come up for debate today, the fact is that the public were not aware of that. I defy any hon. Member to say that a large number of his constituents realised that we would discuss the issue today and that he had letters urging him to take a particular view on the Bill in the debate this Friday. I am certain that not one hon. Member had such a letter or any representations from a constituent.
      Therefore, we are proceeding without regard to our constituents and without the normal processes that allow us, in discussion and by listening to our constituents, which is a key part of our job, to come here with better knowledge and better information.
      I should have liked more detailed discussion with education authorities. The Minister read something from the Inner London education authority. The hon. Member for Edgbaston read something from an education authority and the hon. Member for Kensington also read something that referred to one or two education authorities. However, we have not had a chance to listen to what the education authorities have to say.
      If the education authorities had been aware that this Bill was to come before us, it is absolutely certain that they would have written to us to give us their views for and against the Bill. They would also have given us details and examples and we should have had a better informed debate then we are having at the moment. That has been denied to us and it is why I am resentful about the way in which we have approached this matter.
      In her speech introducing the clause, which, after all, is virtually the totality of the Bill, the hon. Member for Edgbaston said a great deal about AIDS about which I must take issue with her. I concede that I am certainly not an expert on the subject, but I have listened to and read a certain amount about it, as we all have. I resent the hon. Lady's suggestion that there is such a clear link between AIDS and homosexuality and that heterosexuality hardly comes into the issue. It would have been helpful if a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security had been here to clarify the matter.
      I have not come equipped with all the evidence, documents or research that I have received. Quite frankly, I am not sure that the hon. Lady's comments were accurate. She suggested that we must not in any way—I am not sure whether she used the word "promote" but for the sake of example I shall quote from her Bill — "promote homosexuality" in schools, because of the likelihood that that would increase the chance of people getting AIDS. Is that a fair version of what the hon. Lady said?
      Dame Jill Knight: Not really. I mentioned the various diseases which, sadly, are linked with homosexuality. I said that any venereologist would agree with that. I gave a long list of those diseases. I did not intend to speak about AIDS at length. It was the hon. Gentleman's intervention that led me to say a little more about that than I had intended. Our disagreement about this would clearly be settled if the hon. Gentleman would ask doctors about it.

      1011
      Serious diseases are linked with homosexuality but that was only one of a number of reasons why children should be protected from being taught that homosexuality is a way of life.
      Mr. Dubs: The hon. lady is linking two rather different things. It is one thing to say that homosexuality is a way of life from which children should be protected—I shall come to that a little later—but it is another thing to assert, as I think she did, that somehow homosexuality means AIDS and that AIDS means homosexuality.
      Dame Jill Knight indicated assent.
      Mr. Dubs: The hon. Lady is nodding, so that is what she is saying. However, I must say to her that, having seen her own Secretary of State for Social Services on television and having watched some of the educational and publicity programmes about AIDS, I am by no means convinced that the hon. Lady understands these matters as well as she claims.
      Dame Jill Knight: Go and ask a doctor.
      Mr. Dubs: It is no good the hon. Lady saying, "Go and ask a doctor," because doctors appeared on the television programmes. Some time ago the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health and Social Security spoke in one of the Committee rooms at a meeting in this Palace of Westminster to answer hon. Member's questions about AIDS. I have listened to doctors. I am not quite as ignorant as the hon. Lady suggests. She made the dangerous suggestion that AIDS affects only homosexuals and that heterosexuals are all right.
      Dame Jill Knight: I did not say that.
      Mr. Dubs: The hon. Lady came very close to saying that. I gave her three opportunities to put the record straight, but all that she has done is repeat her suggestion. I am happy to give the hon. Lady another chance. To put the matter in perspective, the hon. Lady came armed with information to pilot the Bill through the House and claimed that I was ignorant while she was knowledgeable. If she has all this knowledge, perhaps she would at least explain the matter. I believe that it is both wrong and dangerous to suggest that heterosexuals are not enormously at risk from AIDS.
      1.15 pm
      The publicity, information and statements from the Secretary of State and Ministers at the Department are based on the suggestion that there is an increasing risk of AIDS spreading through the heterosexual population. Not one hon. Member can deny that. We must be aware of that risk, as well as the risk to other groups, such as homosexuals and addicts who use infected needles. Those are the three main groups. One of the great dangers which prompted the Government to spend £20 million on publicity was the enormous risk of AIDS spreading through the heterosexual population. There is evidence from almost every country to that effect, so I do not see why the hon. Lady seeks to deny it.
      Mr. Roger Sims: Is the hon. Gentleman disputing the figures released by the DHSS, which show that so far well over 90 per cent. of deaths from AIDS have been among the homosexual community?
      Mr. Dubs: I am not disputing the DHSS figures. I am not sure whether the figure is 90 per cent., but I take the
      1012
      hon. Gentleman's word for it. My point is that the risk to the heterosexual population of AIDS spreading is great. The hon. Lady suggested otherwise, and I was objecting to that.
      This is not just a debating point on a Friday afternoon to be forgotten. The matter is serious because it affects our ability to educate all people about the risks, so that they know what the dangers are and can take appropriate action to minimise, reduce or prevent their catching AIDS. The Government have paid great attention to that, Ministers have appeared on television and the DHSS has produced many documents. There has been an enormous effort to educate the whole population about it and it is wrong to give a misleading impression, as the hon. Lady did.
      I do not oppose the Bill, but I wish to express the anxieties which many people share. The hon. Lady spoke about promoting homosexuality. I am particularly anxious that we provide proper education about the danger of AIDS and I agree with the Government's efforts to publicise it. We may need more of them, and perhaps the Government started too slowly, but at least they are doing something. We must consider how we shall continue the education campaign against this dreadful disease and we must he careful that we do not inadvertently pass legislation which makes educating our children and young people more difficult. No hon. Member would dispute that. Indeed, in Committee on the Obscence Publications Bill, we were anxious that nothing in the Bill should prevent proper education about the risks that AIDS presents to all sectors of the population.
      The hon. Lady also spoke about syphilis and one or two other diseases. Again, she suggested that they had close links with homosexual people. Unless I misheard, she did not add that syphilis can also affect heterosexual people. Indeed, I thought that the risks were about equal to both groups. She sought to confine her remarks about the risks of syphilis spreading to the homosexual population only.
      That is misleading and wrong. After all, we are talking about legislation that has to do with how we educate our children. It has to do with education in our schools and about how health risks can properly be put to schoolchildren so that the risks and dangers to them can be minimised. The hon. Lady did not seem to pay much attention to that. Clause 1 states:
      "A local authority shall not.—
      (a) promote homosexuality or publish material for the promotion of homosexuality;".
      I should like to ask a question about that. If I had had the opportunity, I would have put down amendments designed to probe more deeply into this matter. Are we quite certain that the phrase "promotion of homosexuality" will not prevent publicity about the risk of the spread of AIDS from homosexual behaviour? That is important in terms of educating our children.
      Whether the hon. Lady likes it or not, it is not in dispute that about 10 per cent. of the male population are homosexual. I do not know how accurate that figure is, but it is one that is generally quoted. If that is the case, it is likely that in any class of schoolboys 10 per cent. of them will become homosexuals whether they want to or riot. That is the way in which physically and biologically they are developing. I am not aware of any medical opinion which disputes the basis of that.
      The Minister spent a good part of his life teaching. I wonder whether we should not pay attention to the fact

      1013
      that in a class of boys about 10 per cent. are likely to develop as homosexuals. Is it not important that schools should publicise the risk of AIDS to those boys? If they are not taught about that, I do not see how we are doing right by the boys in our schools. I should like to see this issue properly debated. Some people may say that the promotion of homosexuality does not mean that, and that one can describe the risk of getting AIDS through homosexual behaviour while not promoting homosexuality. I do not now the answer to that question. If I had the answer and could be assured that that was not a problem, I could move on. However, while I have my doubts, I have to draw the attention of the House to that.
      I am persuaded by medical opinion and by what the Government have said that in the AIDS epidemic we face one of the greatest health crises that has affected us, and indeed the world, for centuries. We must do nothing that minimises our ability to prevent this dreadful disease from spreading. Is this Bill likely to have that effect, or is it likely to hamper the right of teachers to give sex education that will explain these matters, consistent with the 1986 Act about which the Minister spoke? Perhaps he will explain that in a little more detail. That is one of my worries about the Bill.
      My other worry about the Bill relates to what the Minister said about the sort of educational material that can be made available to schools and the rights of parents, governing bodies and teachers to decide together how these matters can be put over in schools. I should like to have a little more information about that. I appreciate that the Minister cannot speak on behalf of the Department of Education and Science, but I am quite sure that he is equipped to throw a little more light on the subject. My two main worries are, first, whether we are preventing the
      1014
      teaching of all students in schools about the dangers of AIDS and, secondly, about the general approach to sex education and how it will be affected by the Bill.
      We cannot deny that homosexuality exists and that there must be some reference to it; otherwise we will send our young people out into the world not very knowledgeable. I repeat that, in the context of advertising and publicising the dangers of AIDS, we have gone some way towards doing that. I should like to believe that the Bill does not stop us going further in that direction.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes Nil.

      Division No. 159]

      [1.24 pm

      AYES

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Lightbown, David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Neubert, Michael

      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      and Mr. Roger Sims.

      NOES

      Nil

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Mr. Alf Dubs.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than forty Members had taken part in the Division, THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN declared that the Question was not decided, and left the Chair.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

  Tobacco Smoking (Public Places) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.35 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As hon. Members will see, this Bill has all-party support. That support includes the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) who unfortunately cannot be with us today, as he has not been well recently. The House will know that the hon. Gentleman is not standing in the next general election. He has been a formidable proponent on the health front, particularly over smoking and tobacco products. The House will miss his contributions in the future, and I am sorry that he cannot support me in today's debate, as I know that he would if he were present.
  The Bill has, as it were, two prongs. Its aim—I quote from the long title—is
  "To limit smoking in public places; to make provision with regard to smoking and employment".
  I have sometimes been described as a vehement anti-smoker. Perhaps I should explain that I am not a great fanatic or zealot on the issue. Nor am I a converted smoker; I have never smoked, although I claim no great credit for that. I well understand the pleasure that other people obtain from smoking. I can even say that some of my best friends are smokers. Indeed, I must confess that my wife enjoys the occasional cigarette, and that my loyal and very hard-working secretary valiantly types out letters about my Bill encompassed by wreaths of smoke. I should add that, as she is fortunate enough to have a room to herself, she would not be affected by its provisions.
  I can also understand people who find that they are, as the saying goes, "dying for a fag". There are times when I feel that I could just do with a tot of whisky. I can also understand those who find themselves addicted to tobacco products. I confess that I, too, have an addiction—to a certain well-known brand of glacier mints. If I were told by the medical authorities that glacier mints were harmful to me, I dare not contemplate what might be the withdrawal effect on me of ceasing to be able to have them. I am therefore not without sympathy for the smoker.
  However, the medical evidence on the harm done by cigarette products is overwhelming. Smoking is the largest avoidable cause of disease in the United Kingdom. The medical authorities estimate that 100,000 people a year die prematurely from smoking. That means that about 10 people die every hour, simply because they smoke. They do not have to die.
  Prohibition is not practicable, and I do not suggest that it is, but it is the duty of Parliament and the Government to persuade smokers to reduce their smoking, or to stop smoking, and to dissuade young people from starting to smoke. To this end, a number of steps have been initiated.
  Some of us were disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not increase the price of tobacco products in his last Budget. Advertisements and cigarette packets carry health warnings, and the larger the warnings and the stronger the language the more effective they will be. Some believe that there is a strong argument not simply for restricting the advertising of tobacco products but for banning it altogether.
  As for the promotion of tobacco products, all sorts of stories are put across by the tobacco companies about what they are trying to do. I am a marketing man and I
  1016
  know the value of promotion in trying to sell a product to new markets. Means are used to attract public attention to tobacco products, such as the sponsoring of concerts and sports events. I am strongly of the opinion that it is wrong that sports events should be sponsored by the tobacco companies, because of the implied connection between sport and health. That is clearly inappropriate. It is particularly sad that from time to time the BBC and the independent television companies have televised events that are sponsored by tobacco companies. I welcome the modification of the extent to which that happens, as evidenced by the recent televising of the snooker championship. There are more subtle and insidious ways in which cigarette companies use their names by promoting concerts and holiday agencies, and they should be the subject of further action. My Bill would be another way to reduce the incidence of smoking.
  I have referred to the proven harm of smoking, but there is increasing evidence that harm is done to the nonsmoker by so-called passive smoking. The House will be familiar with the recent report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health that refers to the increase in the risk of lung cancer from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. It suggests that the risk of lung cancer for people who are living with smokers, is increased to the extent of 30 per cent.
  Apart from the medical arguments, one has to have regard to the social arguments. Smoking creates a very unpleasant atmosphere and a smell that clings to other people's clothes. If I were to go into the Members' Tea Room, or into the waiting room of a railway station, or into an office or work place and produced an aerosol that let out a foul smelling odour, I should be considered at the least, to be anti-social, if not offensive, yet it is considered to perfectly normal in those settings for somebody to light up a cigarette or, even worse, a cigar and to puff smoke all over those in the immediate vicinity. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) is looking uncomfortable— as well he may the next time he sits beside me in the Tea Room. It can be argued that one does not have to be there and that one can leave, but I do not see why one should have to leave because of the circumstances I have described. It is far more difficult for those in a work place. They cannot leave.
  Let me make it perfectly clear that the purpose of my Bill is not to restrict the liberty of smokers but to safeguard the rights of non-smokers who are, after all, in the majority; it is estimated that nowadays probably no more than a third of adults smoke. The idea of setting aside separate places in which people can smoke is not a new one. We are familiar with smoke rooms in pubs, for example. For many years, there have been railway carriages marked with "No smoking" signs, and to the credit of those who run public places, such as restaurants, some now have areas marked "non-smoking". But that implies that there is something slightly eccentric about being a non-smoker—that one is the odd one out, and that special provision has to be made. I should like to change that attitude so that it is accepted that non-smoking is the norm and areas have to be designated for smokers.
  My Bill is drawn in general terms, and I intend that the detailed provisions should be set out in regulations that the Secretary of State is empowered to make. I envisage that, for example, in very small places, or in places to which the

  1017
  public resort for relatively short periods, no smoking would be allowed. That would include lifts, escalators, taxis, shops, public toilets, and so on. Similarly, it would include business and Government offices to which the public had access and, I think, theatres, cinemas, classrooms, lecture halls, hospitals and clinics. It would seem reasonable that in restaurants at least one third of the total area should be designated for non-smokers. In view of the proportion of non-smokers to smokers, which I mentioned, I should have thought that it would be generous to allow two thirds of the space for smokers— unless, of course, a room was particularly small, in which case it would be designated a non-smoking area.
  In places of employment, areas such as the cafeteria should have at least a third of the space designated as nonsmoking areas. It must be assumed that shared work areas are non-smoking areas unless they have been otherwise designated with the agreement of all those who work in them.
  People will ask whether a Bill such as this will be acceptable, whether it will work and whether there is a demand for it. I think that it is certainly acceptable— that is evidenced by the way in which the complete non-smoking policy of London Underground has been accepted. We know, too, that a number of restaurants and cinemas now have non-smoking areas and that in most theatres no smoking is allowed.
  On the question whether the Bill will work, similar legislation is working in the United States, where 40 states have a complete ban on smoking in public places and 11 others have legislation restricting smoking in work places. The Americans have had few problems of enforcement, and it is not uncommon to find that the cost of signs and posters stating whether an area is a no-smoking area is often offset by the cleaning costs. I am afraid that smoking is a filthy and dirty habit. I remember talking to a British Rail employee who had to deal with complaints about labels being scratched off the windows of non-smoking carriages. He said, "You can always tell which are the non-smoking carriages. Just look at the colour of the ceilings." That is perfectly true.
  Is there a demand for this legislation? I can only say that, since my Bill was published, I have received letters from people all over the country supporting it warmly. I shall not take up too much time of the House, but should like to quote from a couple of those letters. A couple wrote:
  "There is nothing more objectionable when going for a meal, to arrive, start ones meal only to find the people on the table adjacent just finishing theirs and lighting cigarettes all round!"
  Another gentleman wrote:
  "I am a sound engineer for the BBC and have to sit alongside smokers for hours at a time. The BBC management gives no support for an all-out smoking ban in studios areas. Legislation is the only real answer. If our ventilation plants leaked smelly dirty smoke into work areas, no one would work there, but smokers see nothing wrong in polluting the air around them."
  Another lady explained how smoke seriously affects her throat and chest, so she must be extremely careful whenever she goes to a public place to ascertain whether people are smoking. I received some interesting correspondence from a public transport operator who is
  1018
  faced with determining the extent to which he can introduce and enforce non-smoking in a competitive environment. He commented:
  "This is a matter which should be dealt with by legislation."
  There is pressure for legislation. I am conscious of the fact that I shall be opposed from at least two directions. One is the so-called libertarian lobby—those who feel that people should be free to do as they like. We all know that life is not like that. To live in a reasonable civilised environment we all have to consider each other and adjust our behaviour accordingly. As I have implied, I believe that my Bill strikes a reasonable balance between the liberty of the smoker to smoke and the liberty of the nonsmoker to breathe smoke-free air.
  The other opposition will come from the tobacco producers—the industry which sees itself, even today, having to become smaller because of the reduction in smoking, and it is very anxious about that. I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) does not mind my pinching one of his best lines, which is that the industry kills off 100,000 people a year, so that it has to find more customers to keep up consumption.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I shall seek royalties from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Sims: Of course there are more subtle ways in which the industry will use its influence, especially by advertising in the press. A few months ago, an article in the Daily Telegraph was critical of those trying to restrict sports sponsorship by tobacco companies. The article was a fair comment on a matter of some controversy and I wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph responding to it and putting counter-arguments. I thought that, perhaps, as a Member of Parliament, and in particular as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary Action on Smoking and Health group, my views might merit publication. Not only was my letter not published but not a single letter responding to that article was published, despite the fact that I know that several doctors wrote in similar terms. I subsequently wrote to the editor of the Daily Telegraph a letter that was not even acknowledged. Despite the fact that I wrote it to him privately inviting him to comment on the fact that there had been no printed response to the original article, I heard nothing further.
  I do not like to feel that the independence of the press is influenced by commercial considerations, but I simply invite the House to note the volume of advertising by tobacco companies in The Telegraph Sunday Magazine and the one-sided presentation of the argument which I have described.
  I accept that there will be objections to my Bill, but I hope that I have persuaded the House about its desirability. In particular, I hope that I have persuaded my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State — the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—who has so effectively promoted the need and the means for healthy living and that she will consider my Bill sympathetically.
  1.55 pm
  Mr. Robert Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on introducing the Bill and on the way in which he presented it. He has made a very good case for it. As a libertarian, I agree principally with the Bill. We should always encourage people to have freedom and to enjoy

  1019
  themselves, provided that they do not impinge upon the freedom and enjoyment of other people. What has influenced me considerably has been the effect of the no smoking ban on the Underground. The effect has been remarkable, not only because the atmosphere is so much better but because there is less litter, dirt, cigarette ends and packets, and bits of silver paper laying around in the tube and on the trains. That has made a remarkable difference to the Underground and has done a great deal to influence public opinion that smoking is all right, but only in the right places.
  I have some reservations about parts of the Bill, such as the places where the public would have access, which could be places such as solicitors' offices or business premises. That will have to be gone into thoroughly and clarified in Committee.
  I am glad that there is provision in the Bill for full consultation with employees so that management and employees can agree on places where smoking should be permitted and where it should be banned.
  I imagine that the Bill will not apply in the Palace of Westminster. However, I would hope that it will have a spin-off effect because, while we have an admirable Smoking Room, as a reformed smoker—somebody who used to smoke large quantities of cigarettes but who went through the painful process of giving it up, for which I feel much better — I have no objection to other people smoking. However, I find smoke a difficulty in some of our Committee rooms, which are rooms where the public has access on occasions. Hon. Members could learn quite a bit about how to improve our own air and environment by introducing the concept that it is not welcome for hon. Members to smoke, particularly in some of the smaller Committee rooms and in other parts of the Palace of Westminster.
  I believe that there will be difficulties in implementing the legislation, if it goes through, in restaurants. I can well sympathise with people who want to sit in a part of a restaurant where smoking will be disallowed. But it is extremely difficult for restaurateurs, particularly in some of the smaller restaurants, to earmark those spaces. It depends so much on their custom and on what sort of bookings they get whether they can place people in those areas.
  It would be preferable to work towards a voluntary code of practice. That is something that could emanate from the debate. Many restaurateurs already say to people, "Would you like to be in a non-smoking area?". If possible, I always go for the non-smoking area. It is not essential that we have legislation to do so much of what is in the Bill. I hope that today's debate will lead to a greater awareness — I believe it will—of the desire of many people to see smoking banned from some areas and concentrated in other areas.
  I suspect that the Bill will not make progress. If a general election intervenes and prevents its progress, I hope that we can return to the subject in the next Parliament.
  1.59 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I do not want to detain the House for very long, but I should declare an interest, as indeed should every hon. Member, as I am presently standing, and a few Members are sitting,
  1020
  in a public place where smoking has been banned for nearly 300 years. The Standing Orders have provided since 1665,
  "That no Member do presume to take tobacco in the gallery of the House or at a committee table,"
  on the assumption that nobody would be so offensive and inconsiderate as to smoke in the Chamber. That was not decided in an attempt to get hon. Members to look after their health but because people found the fumes, smell and smoke from other people's pipes—that is presumably what they were smoking at that time—too noxious to be acceptable in civilised company—if the House of Commons could ever be described as "civilised company".
  I have another interest to declare. As chairman of the London group of Labour Members I was a party to the decision-making process within the Labour party in London which led to the prohibition of smoking on London Transport. I recall that we had a few discussions about whether that was likely to prove unpopular and whether it could properly be portrayed as a gross invasion of people's liberty and so on. We concluded that some people might portray it as an invasion of other people's liberty but that, generally speaking, it would work, be successful and that not many people would take offence. I am glad to say that that is how it turned out because no one in politics likes to be unpopular. I am convinced that the ban on smoking on London Transport, both at the stations and on the Underground trains, has proved to be popular.
  One of the things we need to remember is that that ban has proved popular with the large proportion of smokers. All the surveys show that a large proportion of smokers would like to give up and welcome any outside deterrent because it brings them nearer to giving up.
  All that was done—the House banning smoking and the prohibition of smoking on the Underground — before there was really any substantial evidence to show the adverse effects of somebody smoking close to another individual. That has now been described as secondary smoking, which seems more popular on the Conservative Benches than secondary picketing. However, there is little doubt about the effect now and there are very few people of any scientific merit, except for a few wholly financed by the tobacco industry, who would dispute the claim that the inhalation of other people's smoke is damaging in the long-term. It is not as damaging as smoking but it does make a considerable contribution to lung and heart disease as well as being a general irritant causing people to cough and so on.
  I am not entirely sure whether the Bill of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims)—he has the support of a number of my hon. Friends — will do the trick. However, we need legislation to help the extension of non-smoking in public places. If it is left purely to a voluntary effort we shall not see the progress that we expect. largely because people such as restaurateurs will be as dubious about the effects on their popularity as we in the London Labour party were about the effects on our popularity of banning smoking on the Underground. As their immediate livelihoods would be at stake they might not be willing to take too many risks in that respect. However, we need some legislative back-up for the developments that are taking place.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is now part of the Labour party's

  1021
  official policy that, if by some mischance it was to become the Government, it would legislate to prohibit smoking in some public places?
  Mr. Dobson: The logic of my argument was so obvious to the hon. Gentleman that he has moved on to my next sentence but one. I believe that we should look at the overall problems and at ill health caused by smoking and bring forward comprehensive measures to restrain it in a variety of ways. In formulating that legislation, we should have to give careful consideration to the merits of proposals to restrain smoking in public places. I am not saying that we commit ourselves to that at this moment, so it is no use the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I am. My own view is that some legislative back-up is needed, but we have not concluded that that is necessarily part of our general approach to reducing smoking.
  What we have said, which I believe would have a greater impact on the reduction of smoking that almost everyone wants, is that there should be a total prohibition on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. With 100,000 people dying of smoking-related diseases or afflictions every year, we owe it to them and to everyone else to take whatever steps are necessary to restrain smoking. That would be my first priority and it is certainly that of the Labour party. Nevertheless, we need to consider the question of smoking in public places.
  One of my doubts about the measure before us, although I have considerable respect for the promoter's efforts, relates to the definition of a public place.
  Mr. Colin Moynihan: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Labour party's intention to introduce legislation to ban the sponsorship of sporting events by tobacco companies?
  Mr. Dobson: We have made that perfectly clear for several years. To those who object that some people in sport would be less well paid if their pockets were not being lined by the tobacco barons, I can only say that, having met some of the Middlesex cricketers earlier this week, many sports people in this country have their incomes substantially increased beyond what they could command by getting people to pay to watch them. So far as I know, W. G. Grace did not need any sponsorship to boost his income. Amateur though he was supposed to be, he obtained a substantial income from cricket, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) will know.
  It is totally unreasonable and irrational for any sporting activity in this country to be subsidised, and the pay of people in it substantially enhanced by the tobacco industry, when the clear purpose and objective of such sponsorship is to promote the sale of tobacco and, in particular, of a limited number of brands of cigarette. It is absurd for sporting activities, which are supposed to make people healthy in mind and body, to be used as a vehicle to persuade young people to take up smoking, as a result of which their health will almost automatically be damaged.
  The Labour party has made it absolutely clear that that is our approach. We regard it as wholly unreasonable for any sporting activity to be used to promote smoking and we stick by that view. Plenty of people with much less offensive products and services are willing to sponsor sport. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, East knows,
  1022
  some have even come forward recently in relation to cricket sponsorship. There is nothing new in what I have just said. We have made it clear that that is our policy.
  I am not sure that we accept all the various definitions of "public place", and so on, in the Bill, but I have considerable sympathy with it. As people who work in places in which we or our predecessors have had the power to ban smoking and have done so, we owe it to large numbers of employees to encourage employers, if necessary by legislative action, to provide them with workplaces that are free from other people smoking. We have devoted a lot but not enough effort to making workplaces safe, wholesome and healthy. I believe that it is absurd for an employer to take the necessary steps to make a workplace safe, wholesome and healthy and then for the employees to make things unsafe for their working colleagues.
  I personally have most sympathy for the aspect of the Bill which encourages and, if necessary, would give power to employers to make workplaces free from smoke that workers did not want. That is a wholesome and reasonable proposition that we should explore. However, to return to the point that I was making before the interventions, we need a comprehensive approach to help people to stop smoking and to deter them from smoking. Similarly, we would do better to have a comprehensive approach to the consumption of booze.
  Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I know that he wants to speak only for a short time. However, in view of the arguments that he has put forward with regard to tobacco, would he argue equally as strongly that a Labour Government would seek to place legislation on the statute book to prohibit the sponsorship of sporting events by the alcoholic drinks industry?
  Mr. Dobson: No. The hon. Gentleman is clearly simply getting things written into the record. He knows full well that we distinguish between—
  Mr. Wiggin: That is the purpose of this Bill. That is the purpose of the whole exercise.
  Mr. Dobson: I am sorry, I cannot cope with two interventions at the same time.
  Mr. Wiggin: I apologise for making a sedentary intervention. However, of course we are here to put things on the record, just as the sponsor of the Bill is absolutely certain that it will make no progress. Even if we all voted, there would not be enough support for the Bill to make progress. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) knows perfectly well that that is the purpose of the exercise.
  Mr. Dobson: As long as the hon. Member for Lewisham, East does not race around to the press and say that the Labour party has suddenly enunciated a new policy on these matters, I do not mind. I have been trying to make a short speech so that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security can make her ministerial contribution. We have made it clear that we shall prohibit the promotion and advertising of tobacco products. However, we have not said that about alcohol because there is a clear distinction between the consumption of tobacco products and the consumption of alcohol. The plain fact is that virtually any smoking is harmful, whereas very few people other than those who are

  1023
  dead set against drinking in any form would claim that the limited and sensible consumption of alcohol from time to time in various forms is particularly harmful. Conservative Members must have friends who are habitual drunks, and we all have friends and acquaintances who suffer from alcoholism. Indeed, I do not suppose that there is any hon. Member who does not have such an acquaintance. Therefore, as a society we must recognise that we must pay attention to the way in which we counter alcoholism. It needs a different approach from the one that I and the Labour party take towards smoking. Nevertheless, there must be a comprehensive approach which would involve changes in the licensing laws, but only as part of a comprehensive package.
  I have considerable sympathy with the objectives of the Bill. However, I have considerable doubts about some of the detailed propositions and drafting aspects. The matter must be dealt with as part of a comprehensive Government-promoted approach to the reduction of smoking.
  2.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on his efforts this Session with the Bill. If my postbag is anything to go by, he has a great deal of public support. I welcome the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and I noted the words of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who has found a novel way of keeping me quiet—by talking a lot himself. Never mind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst has a long record in this area, as parliamentary adviser to ASH. He has served his constituents—and indeed the nation — very well in the efforts that he has made and the way in which he has presented his case.
  As my hon. Friend knows, ASH is funded partly by the Department of Health and Social Security. Last year we paid it £177,000. Its grant has gone up by about 52 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79, which shows our commitment to the work that it is trying to do. I have been associated with it. I worked with ASH for no-smoking day on 11 March and in November for the launch of the booklet "Women and Smoking. A Handbook for Action".
  I agree with the suggestion about the way in which norms might be presented in future. I do not like the negative approach. I do not like to talk about no-smoking areas. I prefer to talk about smoke-free zones. Perhaps that is because I am a natural optimist, but it should be the norm that people take a close and effective interest in their health in this country, as people do in many other countries. It should be the norm that our public behaviour is pleasant and non-hazardous to others. My hon. Friend will share with me a memory of the time when, on buses or public transport, there would be a notice saying, "No spitting. Penalty £5." We do not see those notices any more because it is now not regarded as normal to indulge in such behaviour. Perhaps the time will come when certain other types of behaviour join that.
  It does no harm to rehearse the dangers of smoking. Smoking causes lung cancer. There will be about 40,000 deaths from lung cancer in this country this year — about 30,000 men and about 10,000 women. In Scotland, lung cancer is now the leading killer of women prematurely and has overtaken breast cancer. Deaths from lung cancer
  1024
  overall have fallen by about 9 per cent. since 1979, but are up 20 per cent. among women. As the Minister responsible for women's health, I regard those figures with the greatest alarm. Among teenagers, girls now smoke more than boys. What a terrible future heritage that is.
  The chances of lung cancer are 11 times greater for smokers than for non-smokers. About 1 million lung cancer cases are reported worldwide every year, and most of them are dead within two years. The survival rate of lung cancer victims five years from diagnosis is only 7 per cent., which is therefore a worse survival rate than for AIDS and many other things about which we are most concerned.
  Smoking is also associated with most other common cancers, and it is a particular problem for those who enjoy drink. The death rates from cancer to the upper digestive tract for those who smoke and drink are between four and seven times as great as for those who drink but do not smoke. Therefore, I would say to people: "If you enjoy a drink, don't smoke." Smoking is strongly implicated in other respiratory diseases, especially the English disease, bronchitis, and emphysema and, most important of all, it is a factor in our biggest killer, coronary heart disease, which will kill about 150,000 people this year. There is one heart attack in this country every three and a half minutes. One third of all men under 65 will have a heart attack and half of them will die, about 40 per cent. within the first hour or so. Such a toll cannot be tolerated in this country for much longer.
  Why should the Government take an interest? Surely personal freedom should matter. I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that I am probably about as Right-wing as anybody in the House, and I am very proud of it. But there are two reasons why the overriding principle of personal freedom may sometimes be breached. The first reason is if there are substantial costs to the public purse. One of my other deeply-held Tory principles is that I would wish to see public expenditure kept under control. To the National Health Service alone, heart disease has a cost of some £400 million a year. Cancers do not cost quite so much because people tend to die fairly quickly, so they are not a burden for very long, but I would mind less what people got up to if it did not cost the Government and taxpayers an enormous amount of money. We also have to recognise the costs to industry in working days lost and in lost productivity, particularly when the people concerned are cut down in their prime.
  The other main reason is that individual actions may harm others. I am an asthmatic—that is my interest. So smoking is an irritant to me and to the many thousands of asthmatics in this country.
  There is now plenty of evidence that passive smoking causes illness in others. We know of the effect, in a smoker's household, of respiratory diseases in children and other family members. We know also that the contaminants in smoking can cross the placenta of a pregnant woman and damage her baby. That is even the case if she is a non-smoker, but lives with a smoking husband. We now know also that there is a chance that lung cancer can be caused in non-smokers by people who smoke.
  The interim statement of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health was published on 13 March 1987. Having considered the relevant studies., the committee concluded

  1025
  "while none of the studies of passive smoking and lung cancer can on its own be accepted as unequivocal, the findings overall are consistent with there being a small increase in risk of lung cancer from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, possibly between 10 per cent. and 30 per cent."
  That is possibly 200 or 300 extra deaths from lung cancer a year. The final report will be available later this year and the Government will then consider whether action is required, and, if so, what.
  It is probably worth pointing out that that committee was set up by a Tory Government in 1973. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst knows, Tory Governments have been prepared to use legislation to take the sort of action that he seeks. The first legislation against smokers was in the 1960s. However, it was a Tory Government in 1972 who banned smoking among those handling food. It was also a Tory Government who, passed clauses in the Transport Act 1983 to provide opportunities to restrict smoking on public transport. As has been mentioned, that has been taken up by the London Underground, and by air companies such as Loganair and by Belfast Citybus Ltd. British Rail has told me that in the new timetables that are to be published next week only 25 per cent. of the places will be available to smokers. That is a spectacular improvement. Therefore, Governments have taken action on this matter.
  However, even without legislation, the British are now giving up smoking faster than people in any other country. About 2·5 million smokers took part in no smoking day this year. An attitude survey that was conducted in connection with "Look After Your Heart" showed that three quarters of our people do not smoke and that three quarters of those who do wish to change. Therefore, we are making a lot of progress.
  However, I must advise my hon. Friend that at this stage I do not feel that this Bill should join that collection of legislation. I do not like telling people what to do; I would much rather persuade. In principle, I would rather use almost any means but compulsion, and I especially dislike using the law. When, as a Back Bencher, I supported legislation such as that on fluoridation, the sale of scented erasers or that on seat belts, it was only because I had become convinced over a long period—in the case of fluoridation after more than 10 years' experience in the city of Birmingham — that progress on public health would be hampered by the lack of a legal framework. In those cases, I was prepared to support changes in the law. However, at this time, and in the form of this Bill, I am not yet so convinced. I do recognise, with the greatest appreciation, the motives and the evidence presented by my hon. Friend. I suspect that we agree about ends but at this time, we probably disagree about the means.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way, especially as I have not heard all of the debate. As someone who is passionately antismoking, I should like to draw her attention to the problems of the staff within her own Ministry at the DHSS who wish to be able to work in a smoke-free atmosphere. It seems that the guidance given to local offices by the DHSS head office is unclear about that. I have a case of a young woman who medically and emotionally cannot stand smoke in her environment. As a result, she is unable
  1026
  to work in a particular office. Can the Minister give some help to her and to other people in the same position by guaranteeing at least one smoke-free area in each DHSS local office?
  Mrs. Currie: I too have had several letters similar to that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the DHSS we are discussing not only the question of smoking but other aspects of public health and the ways in which we might encourage our staff to take advantage of the facilities that are available, such as the screening programme. If he would like to send me the letter about which he is concerned, I shall endeavour to do what I can.
  The timing of this matter is important. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst will recognise the sense of what I am saying about that. It is not just that this Session may be shorter than it might otherwise be; I am reluctant to take steps before the final report of the independent committee. I am aware that public opinion is shifting fast on this issue and that we still have too many smokers, but many people are being enabled and helped to give up, not least my husband, and I am pleased about that. Therefore, this year we may well see a sharp reduction in the number of people who may be upset, troubled or find the Bill difficult to accept.
  I am also concerned that action now may be counter-productive. I do not wish to antagonise smokers or to put them on the defensive; I would much prefer to proceed on the basis of co-operation, if possible. There are plenty of examples where that is happening. ASH told me that it has had numerous requests for its document, "Smoking and Work: Ideas for Action", and that in many cases employers have reported surges in job applications from top employees of rival firms as a result of providing a smoke-free working environment. That shows that there is a great deal of movement.
  I have a further fear. I am keen that business should take an interest in all aspects of health education, not just smoking, but food in the canteen, drink policies and the encouragement of a fit lifestyle. I am slightly worried that if we legislated only on smoking—I hasten to add that I have no proposals to legislate on any of the others—we may be seen to be putting the other items in the background. However, if a company, its employers and employees co-operate successfully on smoking they may wish to go further and to give attention to other practical issues, all of which will help to contribute to a healthier nation. I would be happy to see progress in all those directions.
  The Bill has objectives which, from the point of public health, we support. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the reasons for our slight reluctance to accept it now. I congratulate him on all his efforts, which I know will continue and I wish him well with them in future.
  2.26 pm
  Mr. Sims: By leave of the House, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her remarks about me and for her comments on the Bill. In the light of what she has said and possible impending events, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion and the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

  Coal Mining Subsidence Bill
  Order, for Second reading read.
  2.27 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It appears that I have three minutes to put my case. It is not only my constituents who are suffering from the problem of coal mining subsidence, but those of right hon. and hon. Members who have coal mining in their constituencies. British Coal has made a wicked decision on the cases of some of our constituents. The legislation makes it clear that one must claim compensation for repairs to property within six years of the cessation of coal mining beneath that property. In Nottinghamshire, for example, the National Coal Board, as it was, allowed a 12-year period, but not long ago British Coal decided to shorten it to six years. The result is that many people have been left outside that six-year period and the NCB has rejected their claims.
  A few days ago the chairman of British Coal had a meeting here to talk about the future of the mining industry. At the same time I had the opportunity to question him about what he would do about the problems of people whose applications for compensation for repairs to their property damaged by coal mine workings had been rejected, but I did not receive a satisfactory reply.
  The Bill has been introduced with a view to introducing some fairness in the system. The Government encourage people to be home owners and many of my constituents have bought their own homes, even from the local authority. However, when homes are damaged many claims are rejected by British Coal, which does not want to know about them. British Coal has a responsibility to meet these claims and I had hoped that perhaps we could get this Bill on to the statute book.
  It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to he resumed upon Friday 15 May.

  Private Members' Bills

    MATRIMONIAL INCOMES AND REMUNERATION (NOTIFICATIONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Hugh Dykes: Postponed to Friday 15 May, Sir.

    LATE PAYMENT OF DEBTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred to Friday 3 July.

    LICENSING (RETAIL SALES) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Not moved.

    MEDICAL ACT 1983 (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    FIXED PARLIAMENTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    PARENTAL LEAVE BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [27 March].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 3 July.

    DRUG COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

    WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT (PROTECTION OF BIRDS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading Read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

    PENSIONS TRUSTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Postponed till Friday 3 July, Sir.

    FREEHOLD ENTITLEMENT BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Postponed till Friday 3 July, Sir.

    OPTICAL APPLIANCES (BLIND AND PARTIALLY SIGHTED PERSONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Frank Haines: On behalf of my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, Friday 15 May.

    HOUSEBUYERS' PROTECTION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday 11 May.

    PENSIONERS' RIGHT TO FUEL AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday 11 June.

    INFANT LIFE (PRESERVATION) AND PATERNAL RIGHTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday 15 May.

    PATENTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: With the leave of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 3 July.

    HUMAN RIGHTS BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [6 February].
    Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put and agreed to.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

    INTOXICATING SUBSTANCES (SUPPLY) ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  National Health Service (Newham)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  2.34 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: An acute crisis of medical and nursing staff afflicts the National Health Service in the London borough of Newham. It is getting worse. That is why I sought this emergency debate in Parliament to lay bare the facts and to seek a response from the Government. Newham, as I have often explained to the House, has more than its share of difficulties. In health matters, the borough is caught in a pincer. As recent authoritative reports have shown, much sickness is caused by deprivation and the debilitating effects of an unhealthy environment. Good health greatly depends on adequate incomes, diets and good warm housing.
  Since 1979, Government policy has doubled the number of people in Newham living in poverty on supplementary benefit, and actually trebled the number of unemployed. Cuts in housing expenditure have led to a waiting list of 12,000 people, and the worst housing in London. That damages health, especially for the most disadvantaged. Yet, when my constituents seek health care they suffer again, for they are confronted by a service in crisis, which is breaking down under the strain of trying to cope, and is under-staffed and under-resourced. A frightening burden is being placed on devoted but overworked staff, while local people endure longer waiting lists and delays in treatment. Sometimes for patients, the hours of waiting can negate the benefits of treatment and cause unnecessary pain and distress. Acute staff shortages make it difficult to maintain standards of care.
  I have raised these matters before and have given Ministers the details in correspondence, but there has been no satisfactory or adequate response. It is because the situation in Newham is worsening that I deal with the matter again today.
  Services for and health care of Newham patients are suffering because of shortages of staff right across the board. I spent a large part of last Tuesday discussing the matter with the Newham community health council, Lady Sherman and her colleagues at the Newham health authority, and Mr. Richard George, the manager of Newham general hospital. At present, there is a shortfall of staff of 420 in the Newham health authority. They range from medical staff locums, nursing staff, medical records staff, medical secretaries, occupational therapists, audio technicians, pharmacy staff, chiropodists, and many others. The shortfall of nurses is particularly grave. Shortages are acute among operating theatre nurses, operating department assistants, intensive therapy nurses, paediatric nurses and midwives.
  The health authority is being forced to use untrained people and to have extensive recourse to agency staff, which, of course, is more expensive. But that does not help to make up the shortfall. One clear reason for the shortages is the abysmally low rates of pay in the NHS, the competition that it faces from local authorities and other employers who offer higher salaries, and also the additional London weighting that is offered by neighbouring areas. The Government recently agreed to pay this year's pay review body's recommendations on nurses' and midwives' pay. I welcome that, but the unanimous view of all those to whom I spoke was that it

  1031
  was too little, too late. It still leaves salaries unacceptably low—well below those of comparable white-collar jobs —and will not solve the problem.
  There was also agreement that the level of London weighting was hopelessly inadequate and in no way compensated for the high cost of housing and living in London. Contrasts were made with central banks and building societies that offered London allowances of up to £2,000 on top of already higher salaries. I was assured that, unless some flexibility and improvement is given in the face of the aggressive action of the institutions that I mentioned, the position will get worse.
  Newham health authority's problems in attracting nursing staff are compounded by the inducements being offered and the vigorous recruitment drives being mounted by countries such as Australia, the United States and Saudi Arabia. Another worry is the difficulty in recruiting and retaining administrative and clerical staff, particularly for medical records departments. It is vital to have records available for all out-patient clinics and for in-patients on the wards, and it is important for patients' continuing care that their GPs are aware of what treatment is being given to them or is proposed. Yet a medical secretary on personal secretary grade gets £4,912 to £5,855. For HCO grade the salary is from £5,418 to £6,556. How many hon. Members could get a secretary for such miserly sums? When agency staff have to be employed, they are paid double. The City of London, with its big bang salaries, is only 20 minutes away on the tube, so why should secretaries work for the NHS? Yet doctors need their records.
  Incidentally, I do not understand why, as Mr. Jim Franklin, a carpenter at Newham general hospital told me, fully skilled building craftsmen are being offered £29 a week less than maintenance craftsmen. Perhaps I could have an explanation.
  The shortage of midwives is extremely grave. The birth rate in Newham is booming. It increased 20 per cent. last year, yet the local school of midwifery is closed because of an inability to recruit midwives. Newham is 20 per cent. short of midwives, and Newham general hospital is 15 short. That places a huge burden of stress on those who remain. It is the mothers and babies who suffer. Out of some 250,000 qualified midwives nationwide, only 30,000 are willing to practise in the NHS. This begs the question of their rewards. Even after their increase, a staff midwife receives only £7,730 per annum minimum, to £8,600 maximum. Can anyone say that that is enough?
  Another acute shortage is of occupational therapists. At St. Andrew's hospital there are none at all at the moment. At Goodmayes hospital, which caters for many Newham people with mental illnesses, there is only one. She, with untrained helpers, has to provide a service for between 100 and 180 clients daily. The other vacancies have not been filled for a long time.
  One of the most worrying shortages is of nurses. The monthly reports of the director of resources show a steadily worsening position, with extra costs due to the shortage of agency nurses yet still a shortage of 21 per cent. The high use of agency staff of up to 10 per cent. has serious implications for continuity of care and accountability. On Tuesday in Newham general hospital I was shocked to learn that, although there should be 10 operating theatre nurses, there are only two.
  This has had a disastrous effect. The four-theatre operating suite, allowing for routine maintenance, should
  1032
  provide 34 sessions a week. However, this was reduced to 30 on 6 April because of nurse shortages, and on Monday of last week this had to be reduced further to only 20, a cut of 40 per cent. The surgeons cannot work for lack of nurses and the waiting list for patients grows longer. There will be 20 sessions a week for a fortnight, and no one knows what will happen after that. The hospital also has a one-third shortage of operating department assistants. There is a shortage of intensive care nurses at the hospital. These nurses give care on a one-to-one basis to patients in beds with much expensive hi-tech equipment. There are four such beds in Newham general hospital, but at least one is usually shut down.
  There should be eight paediatric nurses at the hospital working with children, but there are only two. There is only a quarter of what there should be. At St. Andrew's hospital there are 90 nursing vacancies. There were once three accident and emergency departments in Newham and there is now only one, which is at Newham general. It was designed to take 32,000 to 33,000 cases per annum but it is now having to cope with 70,000. The congestion can be imagined. The waiting time for patients is usually around four hours, but is often longer. This causes great frustration and sometimes violence. The stress and strain on nurses can be imagined. Is it surprising that morale suffers? And let us recall the meagre rewards that we offer nurses. Even with the increases, a student nurse will now receive from £4,540 to £5,170. An enrolled nurse will be paid from £6,250 to £7,750. A staff nurse will receive from £7,300 to £8,600.
  The service at Newham's accident and emergency department is not just on the brink of collapse; on several occasions it has collapsed arid has had to be closed because of a shortage of nurses. On 5 January it closed at 5.40 pm until 10 am on 7 January. In other words, it was closed for 40 hours. On 20 March, it closed at 5 pm until 10 am on 23 March. In other words, it was closed for 65 hours. Ambulances were diverted to as far away as Romford, yet my constituents should be able to rely on the casualty service.
  The position was explained in an article in the Newham Recorder on 15 April, which referred to hospital neglect of a dying woman. The article reads:
  "Damning allegations about lack of nursing care for a dying 71-year old woman were admitted last week by Newham General Hospital. Hospital chiefs upheld her son's claim that she was left unattended for four hours after falling and badly cutting her face. The Hospital Manager … said: 'We apologise unreservedly. We accept that the state she was found in was unacceptable.' He said the ward she was in was understaffed, and had many nurses who were only temporary, when the incident happened over Christmas last year. 'We have been trying to improve the care on that ward ever since', he said."
  The article continues:
  "When her son David visited on Christmas Eve he found her slumped in a chair, unattended, with blood on her face. He stayed with her for four hours but could get no treatment for her. Mr. Cookson, who lives in America, told Newham General he was 'disgusted' with their treatment of his mother."
  I can well understand that Mr. Cookson was appalled at the treatment received by his mother—so would all of us be. But Cabinet Ministers do not suffer such treatment. They do not use the service The Prime Minister claimed that the NHS was safe in her hands, but she does not consider herself safe in its hands. When she requires treatment she goes private. We are getting double standards, a good standard for the wealthy who can buy

  1033
  privilege and a second-class one for the rest. It is a two-tier system with profit-led care for the haves and an inferior cash-starved service for the have-nots.
  The Government's encouragement of private practice is of no use to the people of Newham. My constituents see only a faltering commitment to the NHS, with a lack of resources damaging the standard and quality of health care, undermining the basic principles on which the NHS was built.
  The NHS was built by a previous Labour Government on the noble socialist principle that in sickness wealth should be no advantage and poverty no disadvantage, that the best treatment should be available to all free at the point of use and paid for from general taxation. In this way the healthy support the sick. Now we have a Government who cut taxation while starving the NHS, thereby vandalising a service of which this country was once so proud.
  I make no criticism of the medical staff. They are devoted to their tasks but overworked and underpaid. They are bearing the brunt, unfairly, for the under-resourcing of the NHS. The system is kept afloat only by working dedicated staff into the ground. The Government often boast about the increased throughput of more patients despite fewer beds, but higher throughput means patients are more dependent, and therefore more demanding when in hospital. But a price has to be paid, and it is being paid by the nurses. They endure stress, depression, fatigue and often poor job satisfaction through lack of time to do work properly, in deteriorating conditions. Is it surprising that morale plunges?
  We must obtain practical and effective solutions to the real and pressing problems in Newham today. The Government must show that they care. I hope that I do not hear from the Minister the tired, stale old excuses or the jargon-riddled evasions that I have received in official letters before, when I have raised these matters on behalf of the people whom I represent. Action needs to be taken now, and I hope we shall see some new thinking and positive steps taken quickly to alleviate the pain and distress that exists.
  First, let me deal with pay. I welcome the agreement to implement nationally the proposals of the pay review body. However, in the Newham context, we must go further. Our borough, for some inexplicable and bizarre official reason, is not considered inner London, although it is impossible to imagine a borough more "inner city" than Newham, whatever criteria one takes. Not only that, but Government statistics reveal that we are the most deprived local authority area, bar one, in the whole of England and Wales. So why this absurd and unjust discrimination? Newham should immediately be classified "inner London". That would straight away give higher salaries to many of the staff, and bring them up to those paid to our neighbours. Unless and until that is done, the attraction will always be to the adjacent boroughs, thus denuding Newham because of its low salaries—despite its high living and housing costs, the threat of crime and the other drawbacks of deprived areas.
  I wrote to the Department about the matter twice last year, and received replies from the Under-Secretary on 20 May and 19 August. In his last letter, he talked of the boundaries of the London weighting. Of course a line has to be drawn somewhere, but surely it must be plain that
  1034
  it is ludicrously drawn at the moment, with St. Andrew's hospital on one side and Newham general on the other, and leaving the borough of Newham on the wrong side. Remedying that nonsense is something that can be beneficially done now. In addition, the Government should consider other ways of providing premium pay for areas with shortages of staff. I should have thought that that fitted in with their own ideas of "market mechanisms".
  In his letter to me, the Under-Secretary said:
  "In the longer term, we have identified as a top priority for the NHS Management Board, and Len Peach as Director of Personnel, achievement of an adequate supply of well-trained and motivated staff and securing action on significant shortages of manpower. Work is in hand to find ways to reflect local economic factors in pay arrangements whilst preserving the essential, national framework of the service.
  " So "work is in hand". That was many months ago. What has happened to that work? Why the delay? Why not get on with it? Will the Minister announce something advantageous to us today, as she has the opportunity?
  Then we must look at housing. Why should staff journey to work in Newham from other, possibly leafier, suburbs? It is impossible, with prices soaring far out of their reach, for staff to buy houses in the borough. On the contrary, many nurses have been driven out, and are leaving for other parts of the country with cheaper houses and lower living costs. We shall never solve our staff shortages until we tackle the accommodation problem.
  What do the Government propose? I ask the Minister to reply specifically on that point. The Government have slashed the money to local government for housing by well over half, and have cut Newham's housing investment programme allocation by over £150 million since 1979. That has resulted in an exacerbated housing crisis in Newham, with over 12,000 people on the waiting list and hundreds of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  The borough council can do little. The Government have a responsibility: what are they going to do? I want to hear the answer today.
  Finally, I make a proposal of my own. The Government never tire of telling us that the London Docklands Development Corporation is regenerating east London. What has it done to regenerate the National Health Service? A considerable population is growing in Beckton, all of whom will need health care; they will make demands on the National Health Service. There are, of course, plenty of flats for sale in docklands, if one has the spare £350,000 to pay. But the nurses do not. Will the Government take action to see that the development in Docklands not only makes demands on the NHS but also contributes to it? This is one of the few places locally with land available. Will the Government speak to the LDDC now, with a view to building nurses' accommodation in Docklands at low cost? That would attack the problem. It would be a practical idea, and this afternoon we want to hear from the Government some practical ideas. We want to hear not what they cannot do but what they can do.
  I look for an assurance that the Minister and her officials will give their full attention to the staffing of the NHS in the borough and that they will take all the action that is necessary to remedy the scandal of the gross and dangerous shortages that exist, and to ensure that the people of Newham have a good, adequately funded, resourced and staffed health care system, on which they know that they can rely.

  1035
  I look forward to the Minister's reply. She must know that, unless urgent action is taken now, the NHS in my area will slide further into a spiral of decline from which it will be difficult to recover.
  2.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): As is the usual courtesy, I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) on his success in the ballot and on choosing this subject for today's debate. He has made a number of my points for me, such as pay and Len Peach's suggestions about pay flexibility, but I am afraid that shortage of time means that I shall be unable to answer all his questions. Perhaps he would write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who I am sure would be interested to hear from him about housing in London.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: What about the boundary point?
  Mrs. Currie: If Opposition Members want an answer to some of the questions for which I have responsibility, I hope that they will provide me with an opportunity to give them.
  The Newham health authority is one of the best in London. Under the leadership of Sally, Lady Sherman, and all her staff, it is doing an excellent job in caring for the people of east London. It is a caring, thorough and responsible authority. Recently I visited Plaistow hospital for the rededication of the chapel, which was led by Princess Alice. I was most impressed. I understand that substantial improvements in health care have taken place since the Newham district general hospital was opened in 1983.
  I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss briefly today the staffing of such an authority. The hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that there are problems. I have obtained a list of the directly employed staff of Newham health authority at 30 April 1987. If he wishes to have it, I shall arrange for the hon. Gentleman to have a copy of this information. It shows that in certain specialties, not just nursing, there are serious problems. Nursing is the most spectacular simply because large numbers of nurses are employed. The number of budgeted establishment places for trained nurses is 946, but only 752 are in post. The authority is all right for untrained nurses in post. It has 180 out of the budgeted number of 183. The budgeted learners establishment is 250, but only 188 are in post. I suspect that that has much to do with the drop in the enrolled nurse training intake that has taken place recently all over the country.
  The authority should have 28 pharmacy staff but it has only 21. It should have 18 operating department assistants but it has only 13. It should have 32 radiographers, but there are only 27. It should have four audiologists, but it has only one. It should have 41 physiotherapists, but it has only 34. The authority has 19 speech therapists, and that is its budgeted number. The authority is very short of occupational therapists. There should be 17 occupational therapists in post but there are only seven.
  The authority should have 285 administrative and clerical workers, but there are only 256 in post. I confirm that the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to how difficult it is to attract medical secretaries. That problem
  1036
  exists not just in Newham or in London but in a number of other parts of the country where alternative employment is readily available.
  The hospital is all right for library staff; it has one post and one person in post. Severity-seven of the 90 catering posts are occupied, but there are only 127 domestic and cleaning staff out of an establishment of 151. Portering, linen and transport are all satisfactory. The engineering services are slightly down, but not substantially so, although, of the 18 posts in building services, only 12 are filled. The hospital is up to establishment in garden maintenance and health education services. The problem therefore seems to be specific to certain activities. l note with great interest that some of the unskilled posts seem to be filled and that the problem seems to be in recruiting to fill the skilled posts. If I have time, I shall come back to that.
  The authority tells me it has experienced some difficulties in recruiting permanent nursing staff up to the complement, although most of the vacancies are filled with agency nurses, which does not cost more, because the authority is obliged to pay the nurse only at the midpoint of the scale relevant to her qualification. A number of measures have been taken to boost the recruitment of nursing staff. The authority is seeking to remedy the shortage of theatre nurses by pursuing an in-house training programme and, in the long term, by developing links with the English national board's theatre course at the London hospital. The authority has involved itself in a little reverse brain drain by recruiting in Ireland, where it interviewed 500 possible recruits. Eighty-four training places were on offer and 30 applications from trained nurses are now being processed along with a further 280 letters of inquiry. We welcome that development.
  The health authority is planning to spend an extra £66,500 in 1987–88 to promote recruitment. In addition to that normal advertising, health authority officers run a weekly job shop at Plaistow jobcentre and plan to extend the scheme to other jobcentres. Resources have been set aside for London Transport and local bus advertising, and efforts have been made to recruit staff in areas of high unemployment such as Liverpool and Yorkshire. There has been a good response to the authority's clerical and secretarial register, which will act as an employment bank.
  Therefore, it is not a question of money, and the problem is certainly not to do with the funding that goes to the health authority. In 1982–83, the gross revenue expenditure of the health authority was £30,613,000. This year, the initial cash allocation is over £44 million, which represents a substantial increase and an increase in real terms. The authority's funding this year shows a 4 per cent. change from the previous year.
  The problem is not affecting patients. The number of in-patient cases has risen from 21,000 in 1982 to over 22,000 while the number of clay cases has increased from 1,600 to 35,000. Added together, those figures show that the number of patients who are treated per year has risen by about a seventh. Out-patient attendances are affected by changes in the arrangements for ear, nose and throat and general surgery and other changes that have been made since the new hospital was opened. However, the waiting list in Newham is very much better. The improvement is among the best in the country. The number of people waiting for urgent treatment dropped

  1037
  from 2,000 on 31 March 1983 to 1,188 on 30 September 1986, the last date for which figures are available, and very few have to wait for longer than the required one month.
  Similarly, the number of non-urgent cases has dropped from 1,819 to 1,115. The improvement applies to general surgery, and trauma and orthopaedics, for which the number of non-urgent cases on the waiting list dropped during that period from 532 to 393, and only 64 cases now have to wait more than a year. I accept that that figure is too high, but there has been a spectacular improvement.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Currie: I am sorry, but there is no time.
  Mr. Spearing: There are four minutes left.
  Mrs. Currie: With the gaps in staffing that we have seen, but with a substantial increase in funding, a leap in patient treatment and a clearing of waiting lists — an improvement of some 40 per cent.—there are a number of points that are clear and worth putting on the record. [Interruption.] The National Health Service staff are clearly all working like Trojans. Since those people are the constituents of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) I hope that he will join me in recognising the extraordinary spectacular efforts that are clearly being put into Newham by all National Health Service staff. Any company—indeed, any establishment—would be proud of the way in which staff are working in that health authority. It is remarkable. I was particularly pleased when I was there to see how good morale was and the cheerful and pleasant atmosphere all those staff had created for patients.
  One of two things is happening. Newham may be managing perfectly well without its full "paper" establishment of staff. The authoriy tells me that it is using overtime and agency staff and, as a result, is within 2 or 3 per cent. of establishment. That may be a sensible way to respond to fluctuating need, but management would be wise if it looked at its funded establishment to see whether it has the pattern and teams — the mix — that it still wants, or whether changes are needed. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East agrees that it serves no purpose to put numbers on a piece of paper. But this also raises the question how staff in scarce specialties can be well and effectively used. As a result of today's debate, I shall send the figures to the regional health authority and Lady Sherman and ask if they can give some thought to the sort of questions that I am raising. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me.
  Either Newham is managing perfectly well by managing its staff in a way that does not show on paper, in which case it should be more explicit about it, or it is not managing perfectly well and staff should be recruited.
  Mr. Spearing: Boundaries.
  Mrs. Currie: My guess is that it is not a matter of boundaries. We find these difficulties in a number of parts of London. Therefore, poaching from other neighbour-hoods would not solve the problem.
  I was interested recently to meet nurse trainers from the West Lambeth health authority who are making a considerable effort to recruit and train young men and women from the Brixton area—people who do not have the paper qualifications to come into the traditional forms of training but who, they feel, have a great deal to offer the Health Service. They find that they are meeting an enormous enthusiastic response. I have spoken to the chairman of that district health authority about the efforts of those nurse trainers and asked him to support them.
  It is significant that Newham is able to recruit people for the unskilled posts but has the most difficulty in recruiting for the highly skilled posts; yet there are supposed to be 300,000 unemployed people in London. Perhaps, as a result of today's discussion, which I welcome, we can draw the attention of all concerned to the question whether our patterns of recruitment and training, particularly in London where these problems seem most acute — and not just in nursing because, as we have demonstrated, the problem seems to be reflected in a number of other jobs—are appropriate to the labour force which is available and which wishes to work for us.
  It may well be that nothing much will come out of this, that we shall continue in the same way and that health authorities such as Newham will continue to use overtime and agencies as they have done so far. If they continue to look after more patients and to bring down their waiting lists, I have to say that we should work on results as much as on input.
  Perhaps, as a result of today's discussion, a spark has been struck which may help the constituents of not only the hon. Member for Newham, North-East but other London Members and people throughout the Health Service. I am more than willing 'to have an open mind on these matters and I shall endeavour to take the action which I have described.
  3.3 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister has not answered the central points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) about the recruitment of nurses for an accident and emergency service, about the whole question of boundaries and about adequate incentives for skilled secretaries——
  The Question having been proposed after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at four minutes past Three o'clock.

ENERGY
  Coal Mining (Subsidence)
  Coal Mining (Subsidence)
  Energy Management Companies
  Energy Management Companies
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Handicapped Students
  Handicapped Students
  University of Wales
  University of Wales
  Butler Report
  Butler Report
  University Funding
  University Funding
  Education Reforms
  Education Reforms
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Deaf and Dumb Children (St. Helena)
  Deaf and Dumb Children (St. Helena)
WALES
  EEC Visits
  EEC Visits
  Physical and Sensory Disabilities
  Physical and Sensory Disabilities
  Rural Schools
  Rural Schools
THE ARTS
  Education
  Education
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Overseas 'Voters
  Overseas 'Voters
  Police Overtime (Solihull)
  Police Overtime (Solihull)
  MV Earl William
  MV Earl William
  Burglaries (Merseyside)
  Burglaries (Merseyside)
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Neighbourhood Watch
  Neighbourhood Watch
  Prisons
  Prisons
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  North Atlantic Assembly
  North Atlantic Assembly
EMPLOYMENT
  HFW Plastics, Gateshead
  HFW Plastics, Gateshead
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Age Concern (Scheme)
  Age Concern (Scheme)
  Construction Equipment
  Construction Equipment
  Deregulation
  Deregulation
  Women's Skills Centre (Tyneside)
  Women's Skills Centre (Tyneside)
TRANSPORT
  Public Transport, London
  Public Transport, London
  Helicopters (Stornoway)
  Helicopters (Stornoway)
  Road Safety Review
  Road Safety Review
  Wheelchair Passengers
  Wheelchair Passengers
DEFENCE
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Search and Rescue (Privatisation)
  Search and Rescue (Privatisation)
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
ENVIRONMENT
  Freshwater Biological Association
  Freshwater Biological Association
  Estuarial Developments
  Estuarial Developments
  Ministerial Speech
  Ministerial Speech
  "Action for Cities"
  "Action for Cities"
  River Avon (Fish)
  River Avon (Fish)
  Conference Centre, Harrogate
  Conference Centre, Harrogate
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Power Station Emissions
  Power Station Emissions
  Capital Allocation (Hampshire)
  Capital Allocation (Hampshire)
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Radiochemical Inspectorate
  Radiochemical Inspectorate
  Hedgehog Ladders
  Hedgehog Ladders
  Noxious Emissions
  Noxious Emissions
  Land Use
  Land Use
  Anti-fouling Paint Regulations
  Anti-fouling Paint Regulations
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Government Support
  Government Support
  Farm Animals
  Farm Animals
  Milk Quota
  Milk Quota
  Butter
  Butter
  Bovine Somanotropin
  Bovine Somanotropin
  New Zealand
  New Zealand
  Discrimination
  Discrimination
  Fertilisers
  Fertilisers
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Food Safety
  Food Safety
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Dairy Farming
  Dairy Farming
  Fishing
  Fishing
  Rural Economy
  Rural Economy
  Farming (Young Entrants)
  Farming (Young Entrants)
  Capital Taxes
  Capital Taxes
  Marketing
  Marketing
  Small Producers
  Small Producers
  Marginal Areas
  Marginal Areas
  Beef
  Beef
  Environment
  Environment
  Tenancies
  Tenancies
  Salmonella
  Salmonella
  Children's Food
  Children's Food
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Farm and Countryside Initiative
  Farm and Countryside Initiative
  Hedgehog Ladders
  Hedgehog Ladders
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Health and Social Services (Expenditure)
  Health and Social Services (Expenditure)
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Strip Searching
  Strip Searching
  Police Federation
  Police Federation
SCOTLAND
  Physical and Sensory Disabilities
  Physical and Sensory Disabilities
  Pipeline Assembly Yard, Ross-shire
  Pipeline Assembly Yard, Ross-shire
  Capital Projects
  Capital Projects
  Electoral Registers
  Electoral Registers
  Postal Voters
  Postal Voters
  Student Fees
  Student Fees
  Prescriptions (Low Income Earners)
  Prescriptions (Low Income Earners)
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Physical and Sensory Disabilities
  Physical and Sensory Disabilities
  Disability (Assessment)
  Disability (Assessment)
  Elderly and Disabled People
  Elderly and Disabled People
  Mentally Ill People
  Mentally Ill People
  District Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  District Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  NHS Capital Schemes
  NHS Capital Schemes
  National Health Service Staff (Statistics)
  National Health Service Staff (Statistics)
  Cash and Cost Limits
  Cash and Cost Limits
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Companies (Purchasing Policy)
  Companies (Purchasing Policy)
  Pinewood Studios
  Pinewood Studios

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

Civil Defence Regulations: PPI
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether all the local authorities required to do so under the planned programme for implementation have submitted their plans under the Civil Defence Regulations 1983.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the PPI is a rolling three-year programme setting a series of monitoring targets for all the requirements of the 1983 regulations. The first target date in respect of plans is 1st October this year. All the initial PPI meetings with individual county authorities have been completed satisfactorily.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that unexpectedly encouraging reply. Is he aware that some local authorities, ignoring Chernobyl, persist in declaring themselves nuclear-free zones, are irresponsibly breaking the law and are failing to prepare the civil defence plans which they are required to prepare? What do the Government propose to do about such authorities?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not aware that any of those so-called nuclear-free authorities are refusing to meet their statutory obligations. As I said, monitoring the planned programme for implementation will help to ensure that all local authorities fulfil their responsibilities.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a local authority which makes it clear that there is no such thing as civil defence against nuclear war is merely telling the truth?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, if some of the policies of noble Lords opposite were followed, civil defence might be our only defence.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what part the civil defence co-ordinator has played in this programme? He may recall that the co-ordinator was appointed in 1981. At that time he was said to be preparing a review. What progress has been made? Has the co-ordinator been visiting the local authorities?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, a report on local authorities' preparedness was made available last July. A copy is in the Library of your Lordships' House. It makes it clear that despite encouraging progress in many areas a great deal remains to be done.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it the case that the co-ordinator was responsible? Is he still in situ and doing his work? Will the Minister say what backup, assistance and staff he has?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, no. I think that is another main Question. I shall look into the matter and reply to the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is not another Question.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are 173 nuclear-free zones, including places such as Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford and Southampton? In view of the recent local election results, would it not be an extremely good plan to remind those authorities now of the duties which will be required of them this coming October?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, officials have now held meetings with all county-level authorities in England and Wales. They have discussed their work for the coming year. We have been encouraged by their constructive approach. We believe that we have laid a more solid foundation for rapid and consistent progress in the future.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of these exchanges, can the noble Lord clear up some confusion about nuclear-free zones? Is it not true that a nuclear-free zone in the usually accepted sense of the phrase means an area in which there are no nuclear weapons stock-piled, stored or deployed? As that can scarcely be the business of local authorities, would it not be more accurate to say that they are zones free of protection against nuclear attack?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, yes. I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in the event of a nuclear weapon dropping in the middle of a large or small town in Great Britain, what are the instructions for civil defence?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the plans are those now being implemented with the local authorities.

Civil Defence Volunteers
11.10 a.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, on the basis of the plans so far submitted under the planned programme for implementation, they are satisfied with the performance of local authorities in recruiting and training volunteers.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, much more undoubtedly needs to be done by most local authorities in accepting and training civil defence

353
volunteers. The planned programme for implemention suggests that initial priority should be given to the completion of detailed operational plans. But as the programme develops we shall be giving increasing attention to the role of volunteers.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that much more realistic reply. Does he agree that those plans cannot be implemented without the help of a large number of volunteers, that some counties have hundreds of them and that other local authorities have none or too few? What steps will be taken to remind those local authorities which are failing to recruit and train volunteers, as they have a duty to do?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, there is a wide variation. One county had over 2,000 community-based volunteers and 20 counties had none. However, there was a total nationally of over 18,000 volunteers, and only three counties had no volunteer activity. Under the PP1 naturally we are progressing the volunteer question but, as I said, we are addressing other priorities first.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that civil defence volunteers are chiefly to be found in rural areas and that there are hardly any in urban areas?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I do not think that that pattern has been established.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend is aware of the publication Protection from Radiation which is issued by the West Sussex County Council and which applies to urban as well as rural areas? Is he aware that many of us have volunteered and that we have been to Chichester on an assessment of residential buildings course for protection against radiation? It envisaged a truly horrendous scene, in our case a one megatonne bomb on Portsmouth and another on Gatwick. Can my noble friend tell us how many other county councils are as well prepared as West Sussex?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I cannot of course this morning give exact figures on such matters, but I am pleased to hear about the preparations in West Sussex in which the noble Viscount has been involved.

Nuclear Weapons Release: Consultation
11.13 a.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before deciding to launch nuclear weapons, the Prime Minister would consult the Queen.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, it has been the practice of successive governments not to discuss arrangements
354
for nuclear weapons release, nor to answer questions directly or indirectly about the position of the monarch.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give the House an assurance that the Prime Minister is at least as likely to consult the Queen as to consult the United States Administration?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, as I made clear in my original Answer, both these matters are confidential. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot give any assurance one way or the other.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Viscount recognises the difficulties arising from this Question. However, can I have an assurance that whatever happens regarding the discharge of these terrifying weapons, we shall not—I repeat, not—consult the noble Lord, Lord Kennet?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, that would not be a matter for me.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that as the matter rests in the hands of the President of the United States of America, in reality the Government are unlikely to have any opportunity to consult anyone?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord will not tempt me to depart from my original Answer. As these matters are confidential, I do not wish to say anything one way or the other.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a nuclear war is the least likely of all the hazards of peace and war for which we should be prepared? Experience over the last 40 years has shown that more realistically we should be ready for the possibility—I put it no higher—of a conventional conflict.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I must not be tempted to break the rules which it is my duty to your Lordships to help the House to follow. That duty is not to answer questions which do not arise directly from the Question on the Order Paper. Having said that, I agree entirely with my noble friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Viscount the Leader of the House confirm—it could not be revealing any confidentiality—that there is an arrangement, acknowledged by the Prime Minister, under which very close liaison exists with United States' personnel in this country relating to the release of nuclear weapons? That is a fact; and there need not be too much alarm.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, that may all be very well, but I have answered the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not unusual to involve the name of the monarch in a Starred Question on a controversial issue?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I simply did what I believed was my duty to your Lordships. I replied to a Question that had been put down on the Order Paper and therefore had to be answered.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Viscount talks about confidentiality. There is nothing confidential about the fact that the President of the United States is commander-in-chief of all American forces. To the extent that those forces are linked with nuclear weapons in this country, is it not a fact, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins has pointed out, that the Prime Minister is constitutionally bound by agreement to consult with the President of the United States before there is any question of British nuclear weapons being used? Is that not a public rather than a confidential fact?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, whether it is a confidential or non-confidential fact, it does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us can see no point in these kinds of mischievous Questions appearing on the Order Paper?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, however that may be, if they appear, it is my duty to your Lordships to answer them.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, if the noble Viscount agrees with his noble friend Lord Renton that nuclear war is highly unlikely, and even impossible, what is the point of organising civil defences against such an eventuality?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I have to abide by the rules which the House has laid down on all of us and say that that question simply does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
11.18 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill now be read a second time. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill that we have before us this morning is the first thorough revision of the emergency legislation since 1975. The 1978 Act was purely a consolidation measure. In bringing forward this legislation, the Government's aim is to ensure that the security forces have adequate powers to enable them to carry out their onerous and dangerous job of protecting the community in Northern Ireland from the threat of terrorism, while at the same time attempting to achieve the fairest possible system of justice in a situation where, sadly, terrorism prevents the operation of the normal system of justice which we should all like to see. In framing the legislation the Government were guided by the report of the late Sir George Baker on the operation of the 1978 Act.
356
The Bill will strengthen the hands of the security forces by cracking down on paramilitary extortion rackets which masquerade as private security businesses; by creating new offences concerning proscribed organisations and the collection of information useful to terrorists; and by allowing longer periods of remand in scheduled cases. The Bill will extend the statutory rights of persons accused or suspected of terrorist crime by changing the law on bail, and on the admissibility of confession evidence, requiring reasonable grounds for suspicion before certain emergency powers can be exercised, and putting on a statutory basis the rights of terrorist suspects in police custody. Other provisions should help reduce delays in bringing scheduled cases to trial.
I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I briefly set out the purpose of the various provisions in the Bill. Clause 1 reverses the onus of proof in bail applications involving scheduled offences so that it now rests on the prosecution rather than the defence. It also clarifies the position concerning the power of a magistrate to grant bail into military or police custody to members of the security forces charged with a scheduled offence.
Clause 2 enables a magistrates' court to remand a person charged with a scheduled offence in custody for up to 28 days, thus reducing pressure on court resources and reducing demand for policemen to escort remand prisoners. Clause 3, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to set time limits on preliminary proceedings in scheduled cases, and Clause 4, which enables the Lord Chancellor to direct that a particular trial of a scheduled offence be held elsewhere than at Belfast, are both intended to help reduce delays in bringing such cases to trial.
Clause 5 provides that a statement made by an accused shall be inadmissible if there is evidence that it was obtained by the use or the threat of violence. It also declares that the judge has a discretion to exclude statements in the interest of fairness to the accused or in the interests of justice.
Clause 6 in effect abolishes the power of arrest under Section 11 of the 1978 Act. Your Lordships will be aware that this enabled a member of the RUC to arrest without warrant any person whom he suspected of being a terrorist, and to detain that person for up to 72 hours. Sir George Baker commented on the overlap which arose in Northern Ireland between this power and the UK-wide police arrest power conferred by Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. He also commented on the confusion which this could generate.
The Government's response has been to propose the repeal of the police arrest power in the 1978 Act, leaving the RUC to rely on Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act as the main emergency arrest power in Northern Ireland. Under that section the RUC may still arrest persons without warrant but they must have reasonable grounds to suspect—that is an interesting rider—that such persons have been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorist acts, or are in breach of an exclusion order, or have committed an offence under the Act. Another difference is that the maximum length of time for which the RUC may on its own authority detain a person following an arrest under Section 12 of the

357
1984 Act is only 48 hours, though that period can be extended by the Secretary of State for a period or periods not exceeding five days. The power of a constable to enter and search premises for the purposes of making an arrest of a suspected terrorist—which had featured in Section 11 of the 1978—is, however, preserved by Clause 6.
Clause 7 reflects developments in the technology available to terrorists by extending the powers of search and seizure under Section 15 of the 1978 Act to cover such things as scanning receivers as well as transmitters. Clause 8 confers on the Secretary of State a power to authorise the closure and continued closure of highways. As your Lordships will be aware, many border roads in Northern Ireland are closed under the authority of a general order made by the Stormont Minister for Home Affairs in 1970. In view of the political, economic and social consequences of road closures, the Government believe it right that all closures should have the specific authority of the Secretary of State.
Clause 9 amends Section 21 of the 1978 Act by creating offences concerning meetings in support of proscribed organisations; such offences already exist in Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Clause 10 amends Section 22 of the 1978 Act, which makes it an offence to collect information likely to be useful to terrorists about members of the security forces and the prison service, holders of a judicial office and officers of the courts. The clause extends this protection to former members of any of these categories. As originally drafted, the clause would also have included elected representatives, but it was amended in another place after two of the honourable Members most closely concerned unselfishly objected to being singled out for protection in this way.
Clause 11 amends Section 25 of the 1978 Act to bring the offences concerning dress and behaviour indicating membership of or support for a proscribed organisation into line with the equivalent offence in Great Britain. Clause 12 improves the arrangements for compensation for damage caused by actions carried out under the Act.
Clause 13 makes the 1978 temporary provisions Act renewable annually, rather than every six months, and provides for the whole Act to be repealed after five years. This reflects the Government's view that the emergency legislation should not remain in force longer than necessary.
We then gravitate to Part II of the Bill, which puts on a statutory basis the rights of a person in police custody under the terrorism provisions to have someone informed of his location and to have access to a solicitor. It specifies the circumstances in which the exercise of these rights may be delayed. The provisions are broadly comparable to Sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as they apply to terrorist suspects in England and Wales.
Part III provides for a new regulatory scheme for the private security industry in Northern Ireland. This does not detract from the Government's general view that the security industry should be self-regulating, but in Northern Ireland there is a particular problem which requires legislation. Paramilitary organizations
358
are known to use some security firms as a front for extortion and intimidation. The Bill tackles this menace by making it an offence to provide or offer security services without a certificate from the Secretary of State.
Many people have argued that the Bill does not go far enough towards dismantling the emergency legislation. In the view of the Government the continuing security situation remains sufficiently serious to justify exceptional measures. The events of the past few weeks have—sadly and starkly—supported this view. The emergency legislation which applies in Northern Ireland must strike a balance between protecting the individual rights of persons suspected or accused of involvement in terrorism and enabling the security forces and, let us not forget, the courts to deal effectively with terrorism, in the interests of protecting the whole community.
It is a difficult balance to strike, but this Bill has provided an opportunity for Parliament to consider the emergency legislation and to adjust the balance slightly in a number of areas. The Government believe that the Bill as amended in another place strikes the right balance. We were encouraged by the constructive spirit in which the Bill was debated in the other place, and I look forward to equally interesting and useful debates during your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. With that, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lyell)
11.29 a.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should say at the outset that we welcome this important and long overdue Bill, although we are sad that there is a need for it. A Bill relating to the affairs of Northern Ireland makes a very rare appearance indeed in your Lordships' House. In the lifetime of the present Parliament this is the only Northern Ireland Bill to have come before it. That is not to say that there has been no legislation relating to Northern Ireland. In the past 12 months about a dozen Orders in Council made their contribution to the life of the Province, dealing with such important matters as education, local government, social need, mental health and public order; but Orders in Council, as has so often been observed in your Lordships' House, cannot be and have not been amended.
It may strike some people as odd that this Bill, which has taken such a long time to reach this Chamber, may yet be denied a Committee stage in your Lordships' House. We on these Benches have no brief for violence in order to achieve political ends. In the present bleak circumstances in Northern Ireland we have no choice but to support the continuance of emergency provisions for the Province. Emergency legislation of some kind or another will be necessary so long as the problems posed by the paramilitary bodies cannot be defeated. Regrettably, the fact remains that hardly a week goes by without weighty evidence to show that the paramilitary forces have not as yet been defeated. Indeed, there is evidence that their campaign may currently be escalating.
Parliament is always reminded, as it was reminded by the Minister this morning, that when it considers

359
this kind of legislation it has throughout to try to strike a balance between the maintenance of civil liberties and the protection of the community from acts of violence. Most of us assent to the philosophy of the balance, at least in abstract terms, but there are one or two difficulties with this concept. First, how do we know whether we are achieving the correct balance in practice? Secondly, the concept itself implies the erosion of civil rights which in turn may be counterproductive because it undermines public confidence in the legal system. There is that difficulty about the concept of balance.
Last November, in a notable speech to the Institute of Foreign Relations in Munich, Mr. Nicholas Scott, for whom we on these Benches have great respect, reflected publicly on the lessons the Government have learnt in the course of the sustained disorder in the Province. Mr. Scott said:
"I believe democracies have to be careful in seeking to defend their democracy by not adopting means which play into the hands of the terrorists, and therefore I think we should seek to derogate as little as possible from the normal standards of justice and government which we would normally apply".
It is therefore right that there should be an independent review of the emergency legislation periodically; indeed, possibly annually.
Four years ago, the late Sir George Baker, on the initiative of the Government, considered carefully how the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 was working out on the assumption that temporary powers were necessary. Sir George completed his review and reported within a year. That was the last time there was a review of this legislation. His report contained 74 recommendations. I think it is generally agreed that he did not recommend any radical departure from the provisions of the 1978 Act. Some of the recommendations have been implemented by administrative action and a few have been embodied in Orders in Council. This Bill gives effect to a number of the other recommendations, while it also incorporates matters not referred to in the report.
According to the information I have received from the office of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, it seems that when this Bill becomes part of the law of Northern Ireland about 60 of the 74 recommendations will have been implemented. I think it would be helpful to those who are concerned with the impact of emergency legislation if a list of the Baker recommendations which have been accepted by the Government were to be placed in the Library of the House. I shall refer in my speech to the Baker report because it is an authoritative document based on careful and detailed consideration of the evidence, sometimes confidential evidence, which was made available to Sir George.
We welcome Clause 1, which as the Minister has explained transfers from the defence to the prosecution the onus in bail applications of proving why bail should not be granted pending trial. However, the clause does not provide a presumption in favour of bail. We also welcome Clause 6, which repeals the police powers of arrest without warrant contained in Section 11 of the 1978 Act. But as the police will continue to have the power to arrest under
360
Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984, can the Minister explain what is the real significance of the repeal of Section 11?
We confess to some unease that the Bill does not repeal the powers of the Secretary of State contained in Section 12 of the 1978 Act to detain a person without trial. Perhaps I may read just a few sentences from paragraph 235 of the Baker report where he discussed the possible repeal of the detention powers. He said:
"The case for the repeal of Section 12 is pressed not only by the various bodies concerned with human rights, as is to be expected, but by many others, including those who have been involved in operating detention. A summary of their experience is that detention never worked and will never work; it is always counterproductive in the end".
Given this authoritative and unqualified view of Sir George Baker, do the Government have a convincing case for retaining this power?
We approve Clause 5, which strengthens the guidance for excluding alleged admissions made by an accused in criminal proceedings for a scheduled offence. The clause adopts the substance of Sir George Baker's suggested draft wording. Henceforth a statement will not be admissible if the accused was subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment—and here the clause follows the wording of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights—or if he was subjected to violence or threat of violence in order to induce him to make a statement. It was strongly argued in another place that a statement should be admissible only if it was made voluntarily, which is the position in England and Wales. Will the Minister explain why the criteria for England and Wales are not being applied in Northern Ireland?
Clause 12 of the Bill deals with the compensation payable to a person whose property is taken, destroyed or damaged by members of the security forces in the course of their duties. There appears to be some uncertainty about the principles which determine the payment of compensation and also about the claims procedures. Claims have to be submitted within 12 months of the date when the damage or destruction occurs, but it may be the case that the damage—for example, damage to the foundations of a building or damage to underground drains—could not be apparent within 12 months of the date of the act which caused the damage.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us what percentage of claims have not been settled within 12 months of their submission to the department. I am told that there is a backlog of cases. If that is right, what is the cause of the delay? I think it is for consideration whether this criticism is justified and whether the principles and procedures of compensation could be clarified or modified, possibly along the lines of the relevant section of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 or the Latent Damage Act 1986.
The Minister has explained that Part II of the Bill brings the law into line with the relevant provisions of Sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This provides a right for a person who is detained under the emergency provisions to have a friend or relative told that he is being detained and where he is being detained. It goes on to provide a right of access to legal advice for the detained person.

361
These provisions were not referred to in the Baker report. But they are decent rights and we very much endorse them. We are particularly pleased that the Government accepted an opposition amendment in the other place that a detained person must be informed of these rights. We note however that the exercise of them can be delayed on many different grounds, and we are mindful that unjustified delay affects the quality of justice.
We approve Part III of the Bill which seeks to choke off one important source of financial support for the paramilitary bodies. It must be the Government's hope that Clauses 17 to 23 will be effective in preventing such organisations from managing protection rackets under the cloak of security services. In practice, it may well be that the effectiveness of Part III of the Bill will depend on the willingness of people to give evidence, and possibly also on the definition of security services.
Turning to Part IV of the Bill, I should like to say how much we welcome Clause 25 and paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 1. The effect of these provisions is to substitute the words "has reasonable grounds to suspect" for the word "suspect" in the context of the powers of arrest and search specified in Schedule 1. But it is still not clear to me why these amendments should be described in the heading of the schedule as "minor amendments", or even as a rider. In each case we believe that the amendment is a helpful step forward.
I wish now to mention three omissions from the Bill. We believe that an important omission is Sir George Baker's recommendation that a prisoner held in custody for over 12 months for a scheduled offence without having been committed for trial should automatically be granted bail without surety. I understand that about 12½ per cent. of the prison population in Northern Ireland are persons awaiting trial, though not necessarily for the scheduled offences. The average period of remand in Northern Ireland for a scheduled offence is 15 months, but in some cases it has been more than two years or even three years. This is clearly unsatisfactory. Many people are greatly troubled about long detention as it can affect the individual and his family.
We acknowledge that Clause 3, which was added at Report stage in another place, goes some way to meet the criticism. This is the clause which allows time limits to be set through regulations by the Secretary of State seeking to ensure that the system operates without undue delay. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House why the Government have rejected this clear recommendation by Sir George Baker. They have therefore failed to provide in the Bill a specified time limit to the period in custody.
There is still much concern that the right to jury trial is not available for the scheduled offences. I accept however that there is a division of opinion on this issue. I, for my part, accept that it is unrealistic to restore jury trial for terrorist offences because of the problems of intimidation of the jurors. But this places on the Government a duty to keep the scheduled offences and the discretion of the Attorney-General to certify cases out of the schedule under constant review.
362
As I understand it, the scheduled offence is a concept essential to the emergency legislation because the purpose of the schedule was to impose non jury trial upon those offences thought to be commonly committed by members of paramilitary bodies.
Many of those who have studied the evidence about those scheduled offences which have come to trial would like more cases to be channelled back into the normal jury system. This has been supported by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. In general, Sir George Baker went along with the advice of the standing commission and recommended that the Attorney-General's discretion to certify cases out of the schedule should be extended.
Among the offences Sir George recommended should be capable of being certified out, where there was no observable connection between the particular case and terrorism, were robbery and aggravated burglary. Again, we appreciate that the Government have gone a considerable way to accept the Baker recommendations in respect of increasing the discretion of the Attorney-General to schedule out. But they have not increased the discretion in respect of these two particular offences where it is known that there is no connection with paramilitary bodies.
The significance of these two offences in this context is to be found in a study carried out by Mr. Desmond Webb who concluded that a substantial number of convictions under the Diplock procedures were related to robbery and aggravated burglary and had no connection with terrorism. It would appear to us that where there is no such connection, then the accused ought to have the benefit of jury trial, and that it ought to be possible for the Attorney-General to certify the offences out of the schedule.
There is one other omission to which I want to refer. As I understand it, there is disappointment among many members of the Catholic community that advantage has not been taken of the new legislation to place some limitation on the right to stop and search the citizen at random. That is to be found, I believe, in Section 15 of the 1978 Act. There is a great deal of evidence which suggests that the power is being abused, and that it is being used too often to harass the citizen.
If that is so, then the citizen has a genuine grievance which should be tackled. When this abuse of power was discussed at Report stage in another place, the Minister of State promised to consider what had been said in favour of placing some limit on the exercise of the power to stop and search at random, but the Government have not produced an amendment. Are we therefore to conclude that they do not consider that there is evidence of real grievance arising out of the exercise of this power?
I have tried to cover some of the main grounds of this important Bill and I have indicated our concern over some omissions. In conclusion, we would emphasise the pretty obvious message that when the Bill becomes part of the law of Northern Ireland it will be of help to the security forces. But the Province will still be faced with the immense task of seeking a political solution to its problems. It must be an earnest hope that the political parties in Northern Ireland, which themselves reflect the divisions in Northern

363
Ireland, will decide that at long last the time has come for them to concentrate on the common goal of restoring peace to their land and to their people, and to work together to that end.
11.50 a.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill. It is not an occasion to seek party political advantage, despite the circumstances in which we may find ourselves next week. I think that the British people can be proud, despite the abuse and criticism poured on them from some quarters in Northern Ireland, that an attempt is still being made in this Bill better to see that justice is clearly and impartially carried out.
We regret that the Bill is necessary but we accept that at present it is. The Bill follows the careful survey of the position by Sir George Baker a little time back. As we are told, the Bill contains provisions which are intended to strengthen the authority's hand in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland while extending the statutory protection given to the rights of persons suspected or accused of terrorism. I hold in contempt extremist leaders of both communities who, despite the agonies experienced. in the Province over the past 17 or 18 years, seem still not to have learnt the first thing about the value of co-operation, conciliation or compassion.
The Bill had a harmonious Third Reading in the other place and we on these Benches support it. There are one or two points where we have criticisms to make and I shall raise these in a brief survey. We regret that Diplock courts are to continue to act under only one judge. For some time we have pressed for there to be three judges as is the case in the Republic. The 12th annual report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (page 59) argues the case fairly. There would not be a better quality of justice, for tribute is paid to the present judiciary, but it would be seen and seem to be fairer. We accept that this would be the best arrangement at present when the possibility of intimidation makes trial by jury unfortunately impossible. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has also touched on this point. We support the fact that a number of categories of cases are to be removed from the schedule lists.
Another cause for concern, not mentioned but relevant to the Bill, is the talk of the reintroduction of internment. We should like our strong opposition to even a remote possibility to be placed on record. The experiences of the early 1970s should surely show that, while a number of known troublemakers may be picked up and taken into custody, it is at the price of arousing a great deal of from the supporting community at home.
We are also concerned, as clearly are the Government, that the time that accused people are held in custody before being brought to trial is far too long, and in many cases it can lead to a feeling of unfair treatment. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned that matter. We welcome the fact that at least some schedule cases will, by the terms of this Bill, be heard other than at Belfast Crown Court, thus reducing the pressure on court accommodation. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies,
364
mentioned, in his report Sir George Baker recommended that persons having been held in custody for 12 months without having been committed to trial should automatically be given bail. The Government do not seem prepared to accept that, and we regret it.
Following Clause 1, we agree that the onus should be on the prosecution to show where bail should not be granted. We support Clause 2. It makes sense that a magistrate should be allowed to remand a person charged with a scheduled offence in custody for 28 days, and not have to have him brought forward every seven days, taking up time and causing inconvenience. Clause 5 deals with the admissibility of evidence. I am surprised that it is still necessary to say that it is inadmissible. I quote from the explanatory memorandum:
"if evidence is adduced that the accused was subjected to violence or the threat of violence".
But of course we support this clause.
Clause 10 extends the categories of person about whom it is unlawful to collect information likely to be useful to terrorists. We note with interest that MPs and Peers were removed from the list as a result of the action of Members in another place. Clause 11 makes it an offence for a person in a public place to dress or to wear, carry or display any article in such a way as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a member of a proscribed organisation. But will it be possible to enforce this against the hooded thug? Turning to Clause 13, it makes sense that temporary provisions of the Act should need to be renewed annually, while the whole Act will be repealed after five years. We support this.
Part II, Clauses 14 to 16, deals with the rights of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Northern Ireland. We accept the need for some restriction on access to legal advice. Part III, Clauses 17 to 21, contains provisions requiring the certification of private security businesses in Northern Ireland. It seeks to make illegal protection rackets run by those who are members or close associates of paramilitary organisations. We certainly support this policy, but how far illegal intimidation can be reduced by this measure is very much open to doubt. It is at least a step in the right direction.
With those brief comments, I repeat that in general we wish the Bill well. I take the opportunity also to repeat that we remain as convinced as ever that the way forward must be progress under the terms of the Anglo-Irish agreement. We hope that after a general election a more positive attitude will be taken by both communities in Northern Ireland.
11.57 a.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for kindly having invited some of us to meet him earlier this week to discuss the provisions of the Bill. I regret that unfortunately I could not be present but I am grateful for the comprehensive brief which his department was good enough to supply.
In my view, and in the view of the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, the Bill is generally to be welcomed. However, I add the words "as far as it goes". Noble Lords have quite rightly pointed out that a balance must be achieved and preserved between civil rights on

365
the one hand and the prevention of terrorism and maintenance of law and order on the other. I fully recognise that that is a difficult balance to achieve.
I turn to look at a few of the provisions. Clause 1 appears to bring the law of Northern Ireland into line with the Bail Act 1976, which is effective in England and Wales. That is a perfectly sensible provision. Clause 3 is most important because it has been a grave injustice that on many occasions those who have been apprehended but not yet convicted have had to spend long periods of time on remand in custody awaiting trial. In some cases it has been up to two years. It is worth bearing in mind that two years spent on remand in custody is the equivalent of a four-year jail sentence with 50 per cent. remission. That is quite clearly unjust and I sincerely hope that the Bill before your Lordships' House today will have the effect of drastically reducing these incidents of delay.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to add something? I agree entirely with what he has said. However, there is a feature which arises not only in Northern Ireland but also in this country, although it occurs much more often in Northern Ireland. It is that the accused is happier to be where he is and deliberately delays his case coming to court. My feeling is that any arrangements made ought to make it clear that this kind of thing puts him out of court as regards appealing for an earlier trial.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and I am very interested to hear what he says. In fact when I was elected representative I never received complaints from the family of a prisoner because his trial came forward too soon. It was always the other way round: "My father/brother/son has now been languishing in custody for 18 months and there is still no word of his trial coming up".
As I say, I was interested to hear what the noble Lord said, but I think in this context there is truth in the saying, "Justice delayed is justice denied". It should be the right of all those who are awaiting trial to have justice meted out with the minimum of delay. So this is to be welcomed and is in accordance with Sir George Baker's recommendation. The Secretary of State's discretionary power to deal with extraordinary or unusual circumstances is also provident.
I welcome Clause 2 because before now in your Lordships' House I have had occasion to voice my disquiet about the apparent liberty the paramilitaries have to thumb their noses at the security forces and at the law-abiding population—indeed, they probably offend quite a lot of the mourners as well—by turning up at funerals in paramilitary gear, firing shots over the coffins and so on. I sincerely hope that this clause will eliminate that in future, recognising what a very tricky job the police have in dealing with such sensitive situations.
Part II seems to be based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As such, I think it is consistent and makes sense. Part III is most welcome; indeed, it is long overdue. Reference has been made to the protection rackets that have been enabled to operate as
366
a result of so-called security services. I think also there have been worse things even than that, with so-called security men abusing their position of trust so as to get information about properties they are supposed to be guarding and then passing on that information, which is very useful to people who want to burgle the property.
Having welcomed those clauses, I must ask whether the Bill goes far enough. Many suggestions have been made in the past to the effect that the Diplock courts ought to have three judges presiding rather than one. I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, might have been down to speak before me, because I am sure he knows more about this than I do. One argument against having three judges is that it would put too much pressure on the judiciary, but the noble Lord may be able to throw some light on that argument. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, urged that there should be three judges, and that would be our view as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested that with certain offences of a less serious nature trial by jury might be resumed. This is something that we would welcome where possible. One recognises the difficulties and the risk of jurymen being intimidated. But a move towards normality of that sort and towards justice as we always used to know it in a democratic state would be welcomed if it could be brought about. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, say that this would he in accordance with Sir George Baker's recommendation.
However, having said that any movement towards normality is to be welcomed, I am sorry to have to add that just at the moment one has to concede that Northern Ireland has receded somewhat from normality in the last few months. One of the factors which would make a significant difference and which is not covered in this Bill would be the elimination of the right of silence. That again is the sort of thing that one does not like to have in a democracy, but unfortunately a substantial number of suspected persons who are taken in for interrogation when faced with questioning say absolutely nothing. And that is their right. They can sit there and have questions fired at them, and they can just look at the wall opposite, the floor or the ceiling and say nothing at all.
This makes the job of the police very much more difficult. There might be an argument that in the same way as a suspected drunken driver is guilty of an offence if he declines to give a sample, the suspected terrorist would be guilty of an offence if he declined to answer questions. I know that this is something which is unpleasant and not entirely acceptable in a democratic state.
On the matter of remission, so far as I understand it, if the prisoner keeps his nose clean he gets 50 per cent. remission automatically. This means that even prisoners who have been given what one would normally regard as heavy sentences get back into circulation again fairly soon. There was the example the other day of a gentleman who had bad luck. He had come out of prison after seven and a half years (serving, I think, half of a 15-year sentence) and within a couple of weeks he was once again trying to plant a bomb. Unfortunately for him, it went off in his hands

367
so that he is no more. But the fact that after seven and a half years in prison he was able to get back into active service with the IRA so soon indicates that all is not what it ought to be. I wonder whether 50 per cent. remission is perhaps too freely given and whether there ought to be more strings and more conditions attached.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, expressed his feeling of revulsion at the very thought of any type of internment being reintroduced. I should feel similar revulsion, but I must report to your Lordships that there is a school of thought that the present level of violence is just containable while things remain the way they are and the only way to reduce it is to round up the godfathers—those who do not run the risks themselves or get their hands dirty but who plan and organise the acts of terrorism. Internment of any sort is something against which I argued in the early 1970s and I should be very hesitant to see it happen again now; but perhaps Her Majesty's Government should be aware, if they are not already, that there is a school of informed thought which feels strongly that such a measure should be considered.
Whatever is done in this field will not be effective in the absence of full co-operation with the security forces in the Republic of Ireland. Looking at the tragic murder a short while ago of Lord Justice and Lady Gibson, one wonders whether that co-operation is all that it ought to be. How that car could have been left between the two frontier posts unattended, with a bomb inside, if the security forces on both sides of the border had been acting in full concert and had been fully alert, is difficult to understand.
That leads me to ask what results we have yet seen from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, where cross-border agreement was one of the most significant results that were predicted. Northern Ireland still has on display its "Ulster says 'No"' banners. They are getting a bit bedraggled by now, which is perhaps symptomatic of the campaign itself. I did not say no at the tme when the agreement was debated in your Lordships' House in November 1985. I said, "Yes, but". I said "yes" to the objectives of the agreement, which we would dearly like to see realised. I said "but" to the question of whether it would work. Now, 18 months later, what do we have to show for it? Those who have said no from the start can throw in the faces of people like myself and my colleagues, who said that one should not just shout "no" but wait and see whether it worked, the question, "What can we see 18 months later? What results are there to show for it?". That is a difficult question for us to answer.
I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will find it possible to instil a little more confidence in the mind of the public by letting results be seen. I know that many of the things that take place have to happen behind closed doors for security reasons, but I believe that confidence would be reinforced if results from co-operation between the two police forces could be seen. After 18 months one would expect to see results from two forces which, so we are told, have been working closely together for the previous 14 years.
I welcome the Bill but I wonder whether it goes far enough. Certainly it cannot do any harm but I doubt
368
whether we shall see any noticeable change in the security situation as a result of its provisions. Nonetheless I wish it well.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain how the security forces in the Republic of Ireland could in any way be held responsible for the detonation of the car when that occurred at least half a mile north of the border to which they had escorted Lord Justice Gibson?
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I did not hold the Garda responsible for the detonation. I said that it was very difficult to envisage how the car could have been left there unattended with a bomb inside it if both police forces had been fully co-operating with each other.
I am not apportioning blame to one side compared with the other. I am merely saying that such incidents ought not to happen if the two police forces are closely in touch. In the army we should have called it a rear link between one command and the other so that each would know what the other was doing. That is what I am saying. I can assure the noble Lord that I was not blaming the Garda.
12.12 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in this debate. He speaks with great authority on the affairs of Northern Ireland, and we always listen to him with great attention. I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and his department, for the briefing on this Bill which they have given us. That was very helpful.
I am sorry that so few noble Lords have put down their names to speak in the debate. It is true that the Government always table debates on Northern Ireland for Fridays or late at night but to some extent the small number of speakers reflects a degree of public indifference in England to the affairs of Northern Ireland, which is symbolised by the dust covers that we see on the television cameras. The Bill is not particularly controversial and I join with the noble Lords who have spoken in giving it a general welcome. I am especially glad that it is proposed to implement a large number of the recommendations in Sir George Baker's admirable report.
As I understand it, one of the objectives of the Bill is to strengthen the authorities' hand in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland while at the same time extending the statutory protection given to the rights of persons suspected or accused of terrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has said, and as the Minister told us, this is a difficult balance. However, it seems to me that the most essential right for anyone living in Northern Ireland is to be able to sit in his or her own drawing room or to walk down the street without fear of being shot. They are not enjoying that right at the moment. We need to concentrate on the first objective.
Two days ago in another place the Secretary of State admitted that there had been "a serious deterioration" in security. Indeed, there has. I believe that this year the murder rate is running at 250 per cent. above the same period in 1986. I understand that the Government do not propose to amend this Bill in the

369
light of the present very serious situation. That surprises me a little, unless they plan other measures, in which case perhaps the Minister will inform us of them. If this Bill is lost I hope that in due course we can have a replacement that reflects the need to reverse the deterioration of which the Minister spoke.
I want to say a few words about the general situation against which we have to consider the Bill and particularly about the emergency (if that is the right word) for which emergency provisions are needed. First, there is the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which I think it is fair to describe as the main plank in the Government's policy for fighting terrorism. When he introduced it to this House in November 1985 the noble Viscount the Leader of the House told us that the agreement:
"can contribute significantly to the aim, which we all share, of peace, stability and prosperity in Northern Ireland".
He went on to say:
"it offers a real opportunity to make progress towards reconciliation between the two communities in Northern Ireland and to tackle cross-border terrorism in a determined way."
[Official Report, 26/11/85 cols. 798 and 801.]
On that occasion, I said that as I understand it
"the agreement…seems to be based on a calculation … that if representatives of the Government of the Republic can, through the Conference, put forward views and proposals on their own account or on behalf of the Catholic minority about the most important aspects of policy in Northern Ireland, then nationalists may withdraw support for Sinn Fein and the IRA, so that the terrorists lose their support and the level of terrorism is drastically reduced. …If that really happens then obviously it will be an enormous gain…But will there really be such a dramatic improvement? The prospects seem to me to be far from certain".—[Official Report, 26/11/85; col. 842.]
My doubts then were not widely shared, but I think that now they are. I noticed two pieces in the press recently which your Lordships may also have seen. On 26th April, the Sunday Telegraph said:
"After the murder of Lord Justice Gibson and Lady Gibson, the onus of proof is on those who believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has contributed to cross-border security.
We hope that the Government of the Republic and the Catholic community in the North will not merely express their outrage, but also demonstrate a new-found determination to apprehend the murderers. If not, it will be difficult to argue with Unionist outrage".
And in an important leader on the 28th April, the Independent said:
"There is no indication that the accord has reconciled many Nationalists. It has, however, done much to alienate Protestant opinion".
It went on to say that the argument was often made that in fact there were improvements in security taking place, and that too much publicity would jeopardise recent gains and make it difficult for the new Taoiseach to continue on the path of sweet reasonableness. On that issue they said:
"There comes a point at which such arguments have to be resisted and that point was surely reached this weekend. In order to restore morale and to engender some confidence the two Governments ought, as a matter of urgency, to give public indication of the ways in which co-operation in security matters has been stepped up. Moreover, it would be valuable for Mr. Haughey to give his unreserved public blessing to the higher profile military presence which will now be necessary on the border and elsewhere in Northern Ireland".
I hope that the Government will pay attention to those views and to similar views that have been put forward.
370
As regards the emergency provisions and the measures actually taken to deal with the situation, in the first place, I welcome the steps announced by the Secretary of State two days ago in another place to strengthen the UDR, the RUC and to take measures which have been interpreted as a proposal to send in the SAS. I also welcome that part of the Secretary of State's speech in which he said:
"I make it absolutely clear that our determination is to pursue our efforts until such time as terrorism is destroyed."
However, can that firm and admirable statement be reconciled with what the Government actually do? In the subsequent debate a number of speakers, including the Unionist leader Mr. Molyneaux, talked about the restrictions on the actions of the army which they claimed meant that under the rules and with the yellow card the terrorist must always fire first and that if any of our soldiers shoots first he is liable to prosecution. Mr. Molyneaux quoted an officer in the British Army who said that many of the soldiers there felt like "tethered goats". That seems to me to be an appalling position in which to put our troops. What is the real position? If we are to destroy terrorism, as the Secretary of State says we must, the army must have some of those shackles removed because it cannot destroy terrorism with its hands tied behind its back.
My slight doubts about the Government's will to win were increased by what I read about a case of which I have given the Minister notice which concerns a supply teacher in Northern Ireland called Kathleen Gleeson. That lady was widely reported to be a member of the IRA and to have used her position as a teacher to recruit pupils from her class into the IRA. She has had three convictions, two of them for assaulting the police. However, I noticed an article in The Independent the other day which reported that she had been reinstated. I wish to ask the Minister whether the Government consider that such a person is suitable to teach the children of Northern Ireland.
Indeed what is needed at this time is a firm signal, essentially from the Prime Minister, that enough is enough and that we intend to put a stop to terrorism. I shall give your Lordships a parallel. In Canada in 1970 there was an outbreak of serious terrorism by an organisation called the FLQ in Quebec. Your Lordships may remember that one of our trade commissioners was kidnapped and that a Quebec Minister was kidnapped and subsequently murdered. Many people in Canada thought at that time that the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, being a progressive and very often described as a wet and a strong liberal, would do nothing but wring his hands and that the terrorism would continue. In fact, quite the contrary happened. Mr. Trudeau made it absolutely clear that under no circumstances was his government prepared to put up with the terrorism in Quebec. He brought into force the War Measures Act for the first time in peace-time in Canada. He sent in the tanks, arrested a large number of people and made it absolutely clear to every Canadian, to every member of the Canadian Forces, to everyone in Quebec and to the terrorists that the Government were going to stop the terrorism, and it did stop. That was 17 years ago and there has never been a cheep out of the terrorists since. It was stopped effectively because of the Government's will to stop it.

371
Are we prepared to do likewise? If we are and if we make that determination I imagine that the army would require changes in the legal framework so that there can be no question of prosecuting our soldiers for shooting terrorists in the course of operations. Will we give the army those powers? That matter is far more important than merely increasing the numbers of troops. Will we place some such provisions in this Bill or in its replacement or in any alternative?
There are other steps that we can take at the same time. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said about the question of the right of silence. We should give consideration to removing that. A short time ago in your Lordships' House there was discussion about the prosecution's right to appeal against excessively lenient sentences in Great Britain, and a number of very distinguished noble Lords, including the Lord Chief Justice, argued that the prosecution should have that right. Whatever happens in Great Britain, it should certainly have that right in Northern Ireland where it is even more important.
The question of detention, or selective detention, is very difficult. Clearly it resulted in damage when it was carried out in a wholesale way. It alienated the minority community, which was clearly a mistake. Nonetheless, we cannot allow the present situation to continue. It is certainly disturbing when we see that the courts in Belfast and Dublin sometimes appear to be competing as to which can release the most terrorists into the arms of their jubilant supporters. We should encourage the Government of the Republic to move in parallel with us in taking strong measures against terrorists.
One other question in relation to the Bill, discussed in Committee in another place on 26th February, was that of the proscription of Sinn Fein. As your Lordships may know, it was proscribed between 1922 and 1974, and the IRA and the INLA remained proscribed. But Sinn Fein, of which the Baker Report quoted from the Daily Telegraph as "the IRA in drag", is not proscribed. That is thoroughly discussed in the Baker Report. I hope that those of your Lordships who have not read it will look at chapter 9, pages 116 to 123, where there is a full and fair discussion of the question. Sir George Baker quoted a suggestion made to him by Professor Wilkinson, of the Department of Politics at Aberdeen University, whom he described as an international authority on terrorism. The suggestion was,
"that those political parties which refuse to renounce the use of violence should be disqualified by statute from fighting parliamentary or other elections".
Sir George added that,
"the proposal seemed well worthy of further thought."
We should pay attention to that because, at the moment, there is an anomalous situation in that Ministers, quite reasonably, will not meet members of Sinn Fein although it is not proscribed and is free to fight parliamentary and local elections.
There is the linked question of terrorist publicity. Your Lordships may have heard "The World This Weekend" on the BBC last Sunday when the question of terrorism in Northern Ireland was discussed. There was a long interview with Mr. Danny Morrison who was treated just as if he was a political leader in the
372
United Kingdom. He described the aims and objectives of the IRA and the progress it had made. That is quite wrong. However, even more wrong was the article which some of your Lordships may have seen which appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday, 5th May. The article quoted,
"a senior figure who said he was speaking for the general headquarters staff".
He described the bomb which killed Lord Justice Gibson and his wife and explained that it contained,
"1,0001bs. of explosives, and not 5001bs. as estimated by the authorities. It was made of fertiliser base burned by cortex high explosive cable to give uniform combustion. The cable was set off by benzine primer".
There were all those details. The article went on to quote the spokesman as saying that,
"the IRA still needed rifles capable of piercing the chest and back armour protection worn by the security forces … The IRA has inadequate guns to penetrate the armour so we have to get in close for head or stomach shots".
It is appalling that a paper with a great past like the Guardian should quote that sort of stuff, which is sickening to read, from a terrorist spokesman. It should be an offence to give publicity to the views of terrorist spokesmen in that way.
To sum up, there ought to be a clear signal that the Government intend that this situation should stop. There should, I believe, be consequent discussion with the security forces. I believe that amendments would be required to legislation, either in this Bill or in an alternative. Clearly, action in the security field is the first priority. But political action is necessary, too.
I think that the Anglo-Irish agreement gave the IRA grounds for thinking that we were giving in to their ultimate objective. We need to make it clear that we are not. To that end, we need to remove the political uncertainty hanging over Northern Ireland. I have already suggested in this House that we should treat the province much more like Wales or Scotland. We should make it clear that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that it will remain so.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I take up one point that he made? He said, if I understood him aright, that he was not sure that the Government had a real will to win. I think that that is an absolutely unjust reflection on the present policy, because the answer to the noble Lord's very understandable complaints about things going wrong the whole time—that has been happening for 20 years in Northern Ireland—is to be tougher and everything will come right.
The curious fact is that the one thing that the terrorists, particularly the INLA, are working for above everything else is to produce a strong reaction. It is the only way that they can develop their case or get friends at all. So it is a good deal more difficult than the noble Lord suggested.
12.32 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I think I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the great majority of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland never have supported the IRA and still do not. Having said that, I welcome this belated move to implement some of Sir George Baker's recommendations, and it is

373
particularly good that the measure comes to us in the form of a Bill and not of an unamendable order.
I should like to welcome the onus now being put on the prosecution to show why bail should not be granted. I welcome also the time limits regarding preliminary proceedings for scheduled offences. But I ask the Minister when the regulations will be published and whether they will be available to us in draft form. Will the limits be comparable to those now existing in Scotland after which bail must be granted? Here we should also refer to recommendation No. 22 of Sir George Baker's report.
I should like to welcome the limited attempts in this Bill to harmonise its provisions with those of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Much more could be done here, because the overlap of emergency and prevention of terrorism provisions is undesirable in principle and unnecessarily complex in practice. The objective, I suggest, should be for Northern Ireland to have a single Act containing all emergency legislation.
I should also like to welcome the word "reasonable", about which the late Sir A. P. Herbert could be so eloquent, which we find both in Clause 6 and in Schedule 1. This is a major step forward and will, I hope, eliminate the so-called "fishing trips" which have so often in the past been counter productive by antagonising the local community where they occurred, and especially the most law-abiding members of the local community.
I should like to welcome Clause 11, though there is still a strong case for making the same organisations illegal in the whole of the United Kingdom, and indeed if possible in the Irish Republic as well. I welcome Clause 14, which protects the rights of people arrested, especially since in the nature of things some innocent people are bound to get arrested and some, whether they are innocent or guilty, will be under 18. When this happens, we know all too well that it causes very strong alarm to the parents and relations of those young people.
The Bill is, however, remarkable for the things that it omits. For instance, as has already been mentioned, the power of executive detention is retained. This is contrary to Sir George Baker's recommendation No. 26. I can foresee that at some future point an opportunity might occur for arresting a significant number of the godfathers of terrorism, against whom there will probably be insufficient evidence to prosecute. But if this situation ever does arise, I should have thought they could be held under the powers of existing legislation until such time—and it has to be a fairly short time, I agree—as Parliament could pass a detention measure tailor-made for specified persons.
I note that nothing is being done in the Bill to amend and clarify the law on the reasonable use of force by the security services as it applies to firearms. Nothing is being done to create a new offence lesser than murder or manslaughter covering the honest—and by that I mean the non-malicious—use of excessive force. This is a point on which again I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
As to the "certifying" out of scheduled offences, nothing seems to be done to give the Attorney-General
374
greater flexibility so that he may "certify" out any offence for trial by jury which he thinks proper and fit. This is where we come again to Sir George Baker's recommendations Nos. 12 to 17. Can the Minister please say why it has been that some 30 to 40 per cent. of the applications for certificates were refused in each year from 1982 to 1986 inclusive? It seems that this escape route towards normality is not working quite as well as one might hope.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Dunleath, I regret that the Bill offers nothing on the vexed question of the single judge without a jury in the Diplock courts. I suggest it is highly significant that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights—the Government's own appointed watchdog on this subject in Northern Ireland—has recommended a three judge court. It did so by a majority of the order or 15 to 2. Here I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the members of this standing advisory commission. It has been in existence now for 12 years or so and has had to walk through the minefield in a very sensitive area, subject to claims and counterclaims, to propaganda and to agitation of every kind. It has discharged this onerous duty in a very admirable way, with the aid of a small permanent staff.
I believe that there have been miscarriages of justice in a limited number of terrorist cases, both before a jury in England and before a single judge in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, an improvement in the composition of the Crown Court in Northern Ireland is highly material to perceptions of justice in that jurisdiction.
We have evidence from the special criminal court in Dublin that three judges sitting without a jury can work perfectly well as a court of first instance. I commend to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government the paper by Mr. John Jackson, who is a barrister and lecturer in law at Queen's University, Belfast. That paper is printed in full on page 63 onwards in the twelfth report of the standing advisory commission. The paper sets out how a three-judge court might function in practice and how the Bill could be amended to make that possible. Four different methods are listed on pages 73 to 75. I trust that the Government will soon give a considered reply to the standing advisory commission, since they have had the recommendation from that body since October of last year. Can the Minister say when that reply may be forthcoming?
If the real objection to three-judge courts is simply a lack of judges, we should make use of retired judges, of resident magistrates and of barristers of more than 10 years' standing. I think that it is worthy of note that Mr. Brice Dickson of the Law Faculty of Queen's University has recorded his opinion that only three extra full-time judges would be needed, who could well be found from a pool of some 60 qualified and experienced banisters. If the Government do not accept the recommendations of the standing advisory commission, the least I feel they could and should do would be to appoint an independent inquiry into possible improvements to the present Diplock courts. I also agree with the commission that so long as we have two Acts on the statute book, both intended to counter terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Emergency Provisions Act should have an annual review by an

375
independent person in the same way as the Prevention of Terrorism Act for the whole of the United Kingdom. I think that that was one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
There is urgent need for codes of practice and conduct for the Royal Ulster Constabulary similar to those which have been adopted for England and Wales under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They set out clear guidelines for the police and a detailed statement of the rights of an individual and the safeguards available to detained persons. Perhaps I may ask the Minister when he replies to say when those codes will also be available for Northern Ireland.
Finally, I should like to welcome Clause 6, which concerns admissions and confessions. In doing so I also ask whether those new clauses cover violence or threats of violence to members of the immediate family of the accused. Such threats could be just as serious as direct threats to the accused person.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for having missed the first part of his speech. London is one gigantic building site at the moment and the average speed of traffic is down to about five miles an hour this morning.
It is refreshing to see Northern Ireland legislation embodied in a Bill at last, rather than in a wholly unamendable and hence unsatisfactory order. It is good, too, that for once we are dealing with an Ulster matter at a marginally more convenient time than is usually allotted to us. By and large, the contents of the Bill are to be warmly welcomed, although I briefly wonder whether Clause 13, which provides for the eventual repeal of the 1978 Act, is not giving hostages to fortune. I also have some reservations about Part III, but do not intend to elaborate on those reservations until we come to the Committee stage. Having said that, yesterday's local government election results make it increasingly unlikely that the Committee stage will be reached. I should therefore like to make a few general observations.
It was revealed in The Times six days ago that 244 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been murdered since the onset of the troubles. I say "revealed" advisedly because nowadays Fleet Street tends to give minimal coverage to the murder of a policeman or policewoman in Northern Ireland or the murder of anyone else for that matter, unless they happen to be unusually important people. Fleet Street may protest that circulation figures are all that matters and that their readers simply are not interested. The more frivolous tabloids aside, I do not think that that is a good enough answer. If separatists in Brittany, Corsica or Martinique had killed several hundred soldiers, policemen and members of the CRS over the same period of time, together with many tens of thousands of civilians, whether metropolitan French or les français d'outre-me, I believe that coverage in the French press would be much more comprehensive and prominent.
Perhaps I should say that ITN and, latterly the BBC news, after some of us had protested against the disproportionate coverage and attention the BBC gave to the hunger strikers, behave much better in this
376
respect. Let us give credit where credit is due. However, the playing down of the murder of hundreds of mostly innocent people matters. It matters because the public are said by the press to have a right to know: at the moment, they are not being given that right. More importantly, it creates a sense of alienation, in both directions. If murders in Belfast are given no greater prominence than similar murders in Bolivia or Bangladesh, then the English, the Welsh and, to a lesser extent because of their proximity, cultural and otherwise, the Scots public are subconsciously going increasingly to bracket what is part of the United Kingdom with those distant lands.
Meanwhile, the sense of alienation on the other side of the water, as well as the sense of cynicism and resentment, will grow apace, and morale will plummet even further. There may be, indeed I am sure that there are, some who will secretly welcome such a trend. But I warn them that the consequences may not be those to which they secretly aspire.
Returning to statistics, 244 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been murdered since August 1969. That is the equivalent of 8,750 policemen and policewomen murdered in England, Scotland and Wales, pro rata to the population: an average of 500 murders per annum. If 500 police officers had been murdered on the mainland every year on average for 17½ years, together with over 750 men of the Regular Army and the Territorial Army and over 2,000 wholly innocent civilians—by that, I mean those totally unconnected with extremist organisations—there would be no question of a one-column-inch report appearing regularly at the bottom of an inside page. On the contrary, the balloon would go up.
It is not too far-fetched that hysteria would reign. The public, the press, back-bench politicians and indeed many front-bench politicians would be crying for the most extreme responses: the right of hot pursuit; the re-introduction of capital punishment; a state of emergency; internment, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath; a shoot-to-kill policy; and possibly Israeli-style raids upon terrorist bases across the border. I am not arguing that all or any of those policies are necessarily desirable. But the British mainland is an effective democracy, where strong public opinion counts very much. The Government in such circumstances would be forced to take strong measures, possibly even against their better judgment.
As Northern Ireland is now, for various reasons which we need not go into at the moment, it is not an effective democracy. The Government are in a position virtually to ignore public opinion in the Province. The sole response to the latest wave of violence has been to recruit more RUC men, some of whom are to replace those who have been murdered, and to send a few more SAS men into the border areas.
It may be that the ability virtually to disregard local public opinion is a blessing in disguise; that unencumbered by the burden of responding to public opinion, the Government are able to reach the wisest decisions; and that the Government's relatively "softly, softly" policy (in a world context) is the most effective one. I certainly hope so, but must admit that I am not at all confident.
12.50 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we are indebted to the Minister for the careful and sober way in which he has presented this measure to the House. As in all debates on Northern Ireland, the House is exceedingly well served by those who are well connected with Northern Ireland and who bring to our debates their experience and views to the benefit not only of the House but also of the people of Northern Ireland. I have listened to every contribution with deep respect. Those of us who do not live in Northern Ireland but who perhaps, once removed, take responsibilities in these matters are certainly indebted.
Last September, with the full approval and help of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and I visited Northern Ireland. That visit gave us an insight, but it was nothing like the insight of those noble Lords who live there, and who can tell us of the problems. My purpose in having as it were, a second bite of the cherry on behalf of the official Opposition, is in no way to repeat what has been said, because there is a general welcome for the Bill not only in your Lordships' House but also, as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies mentioned, in another place.
The Minister was fair enough to acknowledge that the Bill was improved in another place. He also understands that in Northern Ireland, perhaps more than in any other spheres of government activity, there is a desperate yearning on behalf of all opposition parties to see the Government succeed. In many instances the opposition parties make the Government's job more difficult. However, when we are looking at what the Government are doing as regards Northern Ireland—namely, protecting innocent men and women, and bringing back to the province peace, security and stability, as well as progress—then no sane-minded opposition would wish to thwart that will.
Therefore, the Minister knows at the outset that we wish the Bill and its aspirations well. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said—and this was echoed by almost every speaker—that there is the satisfaction that we are dealing not with a series of orders or Motions but with something concrete and positive. By and large I echo the view of all noble Lords who have spoken that there is not very much with which one can disagree, but one expresses disappointment that some of the provisions that we would have wished to see in the Bill are not there.
When one looks at the provisions of a Bill of this kind, by normal standards one may take the view that it is unreal and grotesque. I say that because the conditions with which the Government, the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the United Kingdom have to deal in Northern Ireland are grotesque and unreal. However, it is not a question of using desperate measures. I remind the Minister and the House of the wise words of his ministerial colleague Mr. Nicholas Scott, who said:
"I believe democracies have to be careful in seeking to defend their democracy by not adopting means which play into the hands of the terrorists, and therefore, I think we should seek to derogate as little as possible from the normal standards of justice and government which we would normally apply".
It is an indication of the dangers and difficulties in Northern Ireland that we have had to derogate to the
378
extent that we have in the Bill. No sensible democrat wants to impose upon a system of justice in Northern Ireland the kind of provisions contained in the Bill.
I recognise that the Government have been seeking to maintain the balance—a balance which is always very difficult to strike and even more so in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the Government are right almost to bend over backwards to ensure that the civil liberties of the individuals, and even the terrorists and the organisations that they support, are taken fully into account when putting legislation on the statute book.
I wish to remind the Minister of the wise remarks of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. He said that what we want to see is support for the trend of channelling back into the normal jury system. The Government want normality but it is a question of pace.
The terrible murder of a judge and his wife on the border and the subsequent events remind us that there is a dreadful price to be paid if we do not maintain a proper system of security. My noble friend was also wise not only in welcoming the many provisions in the Bill but also in reminding the Minister—if indeed he needed reminding—that substantially we are talking about security and justice. Moreover, the solution in Northern Ireland will be found only when politicians find a political solution that is acceptable to everyone.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, when he raised the issue of treating silence in the face of interrogation as something akin to a driver who refuses to give specimens for tests. Although it is an interesting theory, it does not sound attractive to me because it is one of the frustrations and hurdles with which police and security forces of all nations have to contend. The alternative is to use methods of breaking the silence, but certainly we on this side of the House would have nothing to do with them.
In conclusion, I remind the Minister of the points about which my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said that we were uneasy. I am talking of matters that we would raise at Committee stage, which under normal circumstances one would envisage taking place within the next two or three weeks. However, these are not normal times because we are living in the period immediately before the calling of a general election. But I think that the record ought to show where our unease lies.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies expressed unease that the Bill does not repeal the powers of the Secretary of State contained in Section 12 of the 1978 Act to detain a person without trial. He also indicated that Clause 12 of the Bill deals with the compensation paid to a person whose property is taken, destroyed or damaged by members of the security forces in the course of their duty. My noble friend mentioned the uncertainty of the principles which determine the payment of compensation and also the claims procedure. Perhaps the Minister has those points in mind and will deal with them in his reply.
My noble friend then drew to the attention of the House, as did other noble Lords, the concern in Northern Ireland that the right to jury trial is not available for a wide range of offences. Perhaps the Minister will also deal with that point. We accept that

379
it is unrealistic to talk of the restoration of the normal jury trial system.
My noble friend then raised another omission; namely, the disappointment among many members of the Catholic community that advantage has not been taken in this new legislation to place some limitation on the right to stop and search citizens at random.
I want merely to repeat what my noble friend said. It is deeply regrettable that such legislation is required. However, we share the view of the Government and the Minister that it is required. We are pleased that the measures have been codified and brought up to date in the Bill.
1 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has summed up our discussions on this Bill. All the remarks that have been made about the measures contained in this contentious legislation, which have been with us while the emergency has existed, have been extremely well balanced and thought out. They have given me and the Government food for thought. I hope that I shall be able to cover most, if not all, of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to your Lordships for giving me some indication of the points that may be raised and the markers that may be put down at later stages of the Bill.
At the outset I wish to take 30 seconds of your Lordships' time to allude to one sad event among the many that have taken place in Northern Ireland during the security emergency. Last Sunday an especially sad event occurred with the death of the Dowager Duchess of Westminster, who, as your Lordships may be aware, was Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant for the county of Fermanagh. It would be remiss of me personally, and on behalf of the Government, to allow that terribly sad event to pass unremarked in your Lordships' House.
All of us who have been connected with service in Northern Ireland in government, or in any other way, have noted the marvellous contribution made by the late dowager Duchess for many years. She had just retired from the position of Lord Lieutenant, which she had held since 1979. To say that the dowager Duchess was loved by all sections of the Northern Ireland community would be an understatement. We mourn her passing.
We have had an interesting and illuminating debate. I shall start by trying to reassure your Lordships that we too are pleased that we can include these measures in a Bill. Every speaker has drawn attention to that fact. We are grateful that it has been noticed.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked whether I could place in the Library those of the Baker recommendations that had been dealt with and those which had not. I have put in my notes, "Library; why not?" I hope that I can do that. I shall place in the Library the information that we made available earlier this week. If I can, I shall try to fill in any gaps in the information about the Baker recommendations. I shall discuss the point with my advisers and then take action.
380
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about a number of points. First, he asked about the repeal of the police arrest powers contained in Section 11 of the 1978 Act. That is covered by Clause 6 of the Bill. The significance of the repeal of the police arrest power contained in Section 11 of the 1978 Act is that it removes an overlap in the emergency arrest powers contained in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and similar powers contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. We consider that the system we have evolved in Clause 6 and the continuing powers under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act provide all the grounds we believe to be necessary for arrests to be carried out in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also mentioned Clause 5, which replaces Section 8 of the 1978 Act and deals with the admissibility of confession evidence. The provisions relating to the admissibility of confession evidence in England and Wales could not be applied to terrorist cases in Northern Ireland. All your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Dunleath and Lord Fitt, are aware of the situation in Northern Ireland. We do not think that those provisions could safely be applied.
There is a risk that the Northern Ireland courts would of necessity return to the pre-Diplock interpretation of the law, which resulted in the non-admissibility of virtually all statements made in police custody although there was no ill-treatment and the statement could only have been made by a person who was, to all intents and purposes, guilty. I ask noble Lords to accept that such provisions relating to the admissibility of evidence would not be practical and would not work.
The noble Lord also asked me about the Attorney-General's discretion to certify out. That power has not been extended to cover robbery or what I think the noble Lord called aggravated burglary. Those would be the only two scheduled offences in which a weapon is used. Certifying out has not been extended because of the difficulty in determining the accused person's motive. I believe that the noble Lord will accept that. There would also be a difficulty in reaching an objective decision about the appropriate method of trial.
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Graham, asked about the stop and search provisions. I hope that noble Lords will accept that stopping and searching has to be random if it is to be effective, first to deter, and, secondly, to prevent terrorist activity. We are alert to the difficulties caused by the possible abuse of those powers. We take the greatest care to try to reduce all abuses. Your Lordships will be aware that during the past two years we have tried to ensure that those unpleasant measures are carried out as politely and humanely as possible. I hope that I have your Lordships' support for these regrettable but necessary measures. I believe that they are welcomed by most people in Northern Ireland, because they help to protect the entire community.
Your Lordships will of course be aware of the enormous haul of explosives, weighing well over one tonne, which was made last weekend. I am not aware of the full details, but that indicates to your Lordships

381
the circumstances which exist in Northern Ireland and that random searches of traffic and people are necessary. We shall continue to try to reduce any abuses.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about compensation claims. They are covered by Clause 12. He asked how many compensation claims had not been settled within 12 months. I hope noble Lords will accept that the new compensation provisions in Clause 12 require notice of a claim which should be submitted within a maximum of 12 months. The noble Lord is seized of the point that the claims do not have to be settled within 12 months. I stress to him that most claims are settled within the period unless the claimant is dissatisfied with the settlement offered. Your Lordships will therefore see that there is a very fair mechanism with which these grievances can be redressed. Noble Lords will find the provision at pages 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill.
The noble Lord raised the question of a field of grain for a farmer. That matter would arrive on my desk in the Northern Ireland Office; indeed, most matters of drainage seem to end up with me. The example given by the noble Lord would become evident within 12 months. Most farmers are swift to take precautionary action, which is all that is needed under the terms of Clause 12 of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, referred to the police procedures with regard to persons such as the late Lord Justice Gibson and Lady Gibson or any person who might wish to cross the border in either direction at any time. I am able to stress to the noble Lord that the chief constable of the RUC is pursuing very urgently his inquiries into the circumstances of the murder of Lord Justice and Lady Gibson and the security procedures and advice provided for those such as the judiciary in Northern Ireland who are under constant threat from terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already signed a vehicle control zone order making it illegal for vehicles to stop on that stretch of the A.1 immediately north of the border where vehicles are at particular risk from car bombs such as the one which murdered Lord Justice and Lady Gibson.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, also spoke about the elimination of the right to silence. I note very carefully what he said about the problems which are raised for the investigating and prosecuting authorities by the principle of the right of a suspect to remain silent during questioning. Your Lordships will understand that this is a very difficult area which the Government would hesitate to enter without considering very carefully the whole issue of civil rights of individuals.
Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place in the lengthy debate on security last Wednesday. My right honourable friend said:
"That is why we are continuing to consider ways in which the work of the security forces can be helped to bring terrorists before the courts. While maintaining fair treatment under the law, we will ensure that if terrorists are found guilty, they are subject to the full rigour of the law. I do not propose to comment any further on those
382
matters now. However, I hope that the House has listened carefully to what I have said and will be under no illusions about the seriousness with which I regard that aspect of the problem".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/5/87; cols, 741-2.]
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that my right honourable friend has taken these points on board, and in particular the point on the right to silence. However, we should not take a step to remove the right to silence with regard to the provisions today, and in particular when we look at Clause 5.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, also raised the question of the discretionary approach to 50 per cent. remission in sentences. I note what he said. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his very helpful comments. He raised two points to which I shall come later. One was the question of three- judge courts and the other was that of internment and detention. I have also noted the thoughts of the noble Lord on Clause 11 of the Bill. I share with him the hope that these measures can be enforced. We certainly believe that there is a strong probability that they can be enforced and offenders brought before the courts. We believe that the attempt to stamp out this menace will be successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, was kind enough to give me notice of the case of the teacher, to which I shall come in a moment. He referred to the murder rate being 250 per cent. higher than in the same period in 1986. I stress that the Government share the concern of the noble Lord about the recent upsurge of terrorist murders in Northern Ireland but I hope he will agree that we do not want to play into the hands of the terrorists, and of those who support them, by adopting draconian measures which would undoubtedly be counter-productive in the Government's consistent policy over a number of years to isolate terrorists from the community which they falsely claim to represent.
I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I hope that he can be classified as a friendly Member of your Lordships' House inside and out. I hope your Lordships will accept that we have to maintain the balance between justified and essential means to counter terrorism which we are using in Northern Ireland and other methods—which we insist are necessary in a democracy—that we have in Part I of the Bill. We want to maintain the balance between adequate powers for the security forces and protection for the basic rights of all citizens. It is still the fact that citizens are innocent until they are proved guilty, even with the situation in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, also spoke of the powers of the security forces to take on terrorists. Under the law the security forces can use whatever force—and that includes lethal force—is reasonable in the circumstances. Those four words restrict the security forces in a way that I believe your Lordships will consider absolutely essential.
It is rightly a matter for the courts to decide in particular cases whether the use of lethal force was justified. I stress to the noble Lord that there is no legal or regulatory requirement for the security forces to hold fire until the terrorists open fire. I hope that the

383
noble Lord will accept that statement; it is essential that it is clearly understood.
I do not wish to go down the avenue of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in this debate this afternoon. Nevertheless, the Government believe that the agreement continues to offer sufficient reassurance to both sides of the community in Northern Ireland to enable them to engage in constructive political dialogues. The agreement, however, provides a very important framework for co-ordinating security force activity on both sides of the border. Members of the Government have made no secret of the fact that the agreement would not achieve results overnight. I do not accept that this upsurge in terrorist activity is necessarily connected with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That may be the opinion of sundry people in Northern Ireland but we do not accept that as being the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was kind enough to warn me that he would have one or two complicated matters to raise. One of the points that he wished me to cover was the response of the Government to the letter from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in October, recommending the introduction of three-judge courts to try scheduled offences. The Government took into account the views contained in the SACHR's letter before we arrived at our decision, which my honourable friend the Minister of State explained at an earlier stage of the Bill in another place. I hope he will accept that we took the point on board. That is as far as we can go today.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the matter of compensation. I hope that he will find that the period of 12 months in Clause 12 is sufficient. I stress once again that the measures in Clause 12 are there merely so that the aggrieved person may give notice of his intention to make a claim.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and other noble Lords raised a question on detention and whether the word "internment" also was covered by detention. I shall cover them under one heading. I am sure the House will accept that the Government have a responsibility—even more, we have a duty—to ensure that the appropriate powers are available to protect the entire community in Northern Ireland from the effects of terrorism. We also have to take into account the possibility of deterioration which could not be foreseen in the security situation and in the ability of the courts to deal with terrorists. The Government have considered these two aspects very carefully. We concluded that it would not be right to repeal the provisions for detention at this stage. I stress that they have not been used since 1975. They have not been in force since 1980, but while they remain on the statute book they constitute a reserve power which could—I stress that conditional—be implemented at short notice in response to an emergency.
The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Hampton, raised the matter of three-judge courts. We have a proposal that three-judge courts should be established for the trial of scheduled offences in. Northern Ireland, but we see three substantial objections. The first is that the current Diplock procedures contain powerful safeguards which in our view sufficiently compensate
384
for the absence of a jury. I think your Lordships will know that in the detailed paper on the proposal the Standing Advisory Commission emphasised that there was no reason to believe that the current Diplock procedures had led to any unfairness. There is statistical evidence to show that the percentage of cases which go to the appeal court from a Diplock court—every convicted person from a Diplock court has a right to appeal—is the same as that for any other cases which go to appeal.
Secondly, there would be substantial practical and procedural difficulties. Thirdly, as your Lordships are aware, the divided society in Northern Ireland places us in a situation where in practice three-judge courts would be most unlikely to promote public confidence in the administration of justice. For those three main reasons I am afraid we are not persuaded that it would be right to provide in this Bill for the establishment of three-judge courts for the trial of scheduled offences. But I stress that we look forward to the day when jury trial can be restored for all cases in Northern Ireland.
A question on time limits was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. We have time limits in Clause 3. As noble Lords will see, Clause 3 provides for the grant of bail if what we call the custody time limit is exceeded. I cannot say when the regulations which will impose time limits will be drafted. Before introducing time limits we want to await the outcome of the experiment being carried out by the Home Office with actual time limits. These experiments began only on 1st April this year. We shall then be collecting more data from our own monitoring exercise, which has been running for less than a year. I hope we shall have something more to report then.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a query about overlap and the problems of confusion with arrests for the emergency provisions Act and prevention of terrorism Act powers and whether these should be contained in a single Act for Northern Ireland. But in Clauses 6, 14 and 15 the Bill seeks to tie the two Acts together and to create what we hope will be a coherent package of anti-terrorist law for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also kindly warned me about his query on certifying out and the percentages of applications which were refused. The noble Lord was in correspondence with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on one of these aspects. In these cases my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General would have concluded, on the basis of detailed notes submitted to him by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that it would not be right to issue a certificate to enable the cases to be tried before a jury in the proportion of cases mentioned by the noble Lord. I stress to the noble Lord that this decision is one for the Attorney-General.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether the Government proposed to establish an independent inquiry into the procedures of the Diplock courts. The late Sir George Baker studied the whole issue with great care. He recommended that there should be no change. The Government have given detailed consideration to this matter and have concluded that the procedures we have are satisfactory. We think they

385
are those which are likely to remain in the confidence of the public.
I can help the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced that he is considering the appointment of an independent person of standing to review the operation of the emergency provisions Act each year. That is the position at the moment. If there is anything further on which I can help the noble Lord I hope that I shall be able to do so before too long.
The noble Lord also asked me about a code of practice and a code of conduct for the RUC. This is a matter for the chief constable. I understand that the matter is in an advanced stage of preparation, but I stress that the code will not bite on the exercise of emergency powers or on the exercise of power by the armed forces. My honourable friend the Minister of State announced on 8th April that the Government would be publishing and bringing into force a non-statutory code of practice for the exercise of emergency powers by the RUC and the armed forces.
I am sorry that I have my notes out of order. I shall be winding up straight away. There was one last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about a teacher whom he mentioned. The Department of Education became aware in October 1986 that during the past two years this lady, Miss Gleeson, had had three criminal convictions—impersonation at an election, assault on the police and obstruction of the police. The department informed this lady that it proposed to withdraw her recognition as a teacher on grounds of misconduct, subject to any representations which might be made by her. These representations were heard and in all the circumstances the department decided not to withdraw recognition. She was informed by letter on 10th April of this year and at the same time was given a stern warning as to her future conduct.
I hesitate to say that I have covered all the points that have been raised during this debate on what is a short but complicated Bill. I hope that I have covered most points, but if there are any others we shall no doubt be able to pick them up at a later stage. I should like to thank all your Lordships for giving such close and detailed consideration to the Bill. It stresses that these are emergency provisions and, as your Lordships know, we are in an emergency situation in Northern Ireland. The Government are grateful for the consideration and tolerance with which it has been considered. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit Order 1987
1.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 7th April be approved.
The Government have always recognised the concern which residents of the Stansted area feel about
386
the development of Stansted airport. That is why we made it an explicit condition of planning permission for the expansion of Stansted that development should be phased so that local infrastructure can gradually absorb the increasing demand. Our commitment to phased development was confirmed in the 1985 White Paper when we promised to restrict development in the first instance to no more than about 7 to 8 million passengers per annum—about half the 15 million passengers per year for which planning consent has been given—by means of a limit on air transport movements. The 1985 White Paper promised also that decisions on ATM limits should be for Parliament, and we have kept that promise too, for Section 79 of the 1986 Act permits an ATM limit order to be made only with the approval of Parliament on the affirmative resolution procedure.
Turning now to the detail of the order itself, the Government propose that there should be a limit of 78,000 air transport movements at Stansted to correspond to a passenger throughput of about 7 to 8 million passengers per year. The figure of 78,000 ATMs has been calculated on our most recent air passenger traffic forecasts and is generated by two factors: the relative proportion of different traffic types that we expect to be serving Stansted when passenger throughput nears 8 million passengers per annum; and the average aircraft passenger loading at that time. In suggesting a limit of 78,000 ATMs our calculations assume that all categories of traffic at Stansted will experience significant growth, such that, at 8 million passengers per annum, Stansted would have about 10 per cent. domestic passengers, roughly 37 per cent. short-haul charter passengers, about 19 per cent. short-haul scheduled passengers and the balance—a little short of 35 per cent. of long-haul passengers.
The second element of the calculation, the passenger loading, has been estimated by comparison with Gatwick. In the light of the similarities between Stansted now and Gatwick in its early years, one can reasonably make inferences about the passenger loadings that might operate at Stansted when it is handling 8 million passengers per annum and the passenger loadings at Gatwick when that airport had an identical passenger volume. An absolutely precise parallel cannot be drawn. Corrections have had to be made to take account of increased average aircraft capacities and to eliminate distortions resulting from the low passenger loadings on the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link operating then, each movement of which constituted an ATM.
The Government have naturally considered the possibility of different traffic and passenger loading outturns and have tested the robustness of the proposed limit against varying assumptions. We considered two outlying scenarios in particular: rapid growth in short-haul scheduled services, the result of extensive liberalisation and deregulation; and rapid growth in the charter market, with short/medium-haul charter passengers forming a much larger proportion of the annual total. Neither scenario revealed a difference of more than I per cent. from the 78,000 figure.
The draft order is in five articles. The first two define the limit itself and its period of operation. The remaining articles address those classes of aircraft

387
movement not counting towards the proposed limit. During the passage of the Airports Act 1986 we described what an ATM limit would and would not cover. In particular, we explained that the limit would exclude diversion, positioning, air-taxi and general aviation movements; and, in accord with our White Paper undertaking to limit development in terms of passenger volume, the proposed limit bears on passenger air transport movements only.
The measure to which the Government now seek your Lordships' approval is both apt and timely. It strikes a balance between the acknowledged need for additional airport capacity in the South-East and the local interests of those who live or work in the Stansted area. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th April be approved. [18th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order and I recognise that the Government have adhered to their undertaking to have an ATM limit at Stansted. However, I question whether the proposed limit of 78,000 is a proper one to have put forward at this stage.
As the Minister said, Article 3 details various exclusions—the positioning of aircraft, air-taxi and general aviation movements and cargo only flights. I understand that in 1986 the number of cargo only movements amounted to something like 4,500. That would be 6 per cent. of the 78,000 ATM limit. I gather that the number of cargo flights has been increasing and could increase further. They fly over the area where I live on the edge of Epping Forest. Fortunately, they are sufficiently high so that they do not worry me greatly but they will worry people in the area of the airport itself.
It has been estimated that the movements excluded by Article 3 could be as many as 10 per cent. in addition to the 78,000. When considering the Airports Bill it will be remembered that I urged that there should be consideration of environmental aspects. I do not withdraw anything I said on that matter. I welcome the attitude taken by the Government and repeated by the Minister in giving some assurance to residents living in the area.
There are other factors which do not appear to have been taken into consideration. At present the number of movements at Stansted is about 16,000. The 78,000 will be five times the present limit. It would appear that the 78,000 ATM limit would be the maximum possible under the first phase of up to 8 million passengers per annum.
This would give an average of a little over 100 passengers per flight. The maximum order does not appear to have any relation at all to traffic distribution policy, except within the South-East area, which we have debated on various occasions. In this respect I regret the failure to consult the North of England Regional Consortium or JACOLA (which, as noble Lords will know, is the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities), even though it has been stated by the Minister in the other place that some 31 bodies were consulted. I recognise that there is no statutory
388
requirement to consult the two bodies to which I have referred. Undoubtedly the CAA has been consulted, as has the airport operator affected, which is Stansted. I understand the operators of aircraft flying to and from Stansted have also been consulted.
There is provision in Section 32 for any local authority or authorities which appear to the Secretary of State to be affected by operations of the airports also to be consulted and that has been interpreted as being those in the immediate area of Stansted. I suggest that this order for an ATM limit at Stansted goes far beyond the immediate area. It would seem that the regional airports must be affected by this order. That is why I referred to the fact that there should be some consideration given to traffic distribution policy.
The Minister has given the estimated division of the various categories of flights. Obviously, domestic and short-haul charter flights will be of interest to regional airports. But, in particular, the estimated 35 per cent. of the maximum ATM of long-haul passengers will be of vital interest to them. If 35 per cent. is to be the figure reached for long-haul passengers, that means 2,750,000 more passengers on such flights going to and from Stansted.
From where will they come? This must be of interest to the regional airports. That is why I regret that the two bodies to which I have referred, even though there is no statutory requirement to do so, have not been consulted by the Minister. It would have been wise if he had done so. Instead of fixing the maximum limit of 78,000, which, of course, can be breached as soon as circumstances allow, surely it might have been preferable to have phased in the ATM position at Stansted in relation to a traffic distribution policy nationwide, not merely for the South-East.
I am naturally concerned that if the 8 million passenger throughput and the 78,000 ATM are reached—I am not going into the question as to whether the present Administration will be looking after this; that is another matter—there will be a tendency to proceed for parliamentary approval for increase the throughput to 15 million for which, as the Minister reminded us, there is planning permission. An even higher ATM would then be sought leading eventually to the possibility of 25 million for which the runway has the capacity.
When we debated airports' policy we heard of the views expressed by a body which called itself the National Policy for Britain's Airports. I remarked at the time that it did not originate in the Essex area but from outside it. It is the same with nuclear policy; somebody else's backyard, never our own. I recently attended a seminar arranged by this body. I put the same point that all the bodies that were represented appeared to be well outside the Stansted area. There must be consideration given to these factors.
I welcome the Government keeping to their pledge and taking into consideration environmental matters. To go right up to 78,000 at this stage, without consideration of a national traffic distribution policy and the consideration of regional airports, is a grave mistake.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, though for precisely opposite reasons, I am not at all happy about this order. I hope that my noble friend will not mind if I say that it is depressing to those of us who believe in the expansion of British civil aviation to find an order being produced which would inhibit the expansion of an airport into which a great deal of public money is being invested and which is undoubtedly necessary for the proper development of British civil aviation.
Civil aviation is one of our success stories of recent years. It is one of the things that we do extremely well in this country. I need hardly say that to the bearer of a great name in the aviation world such as the Minister. It seems to me to be unhappy that we should he imposing an arbitrary limit on this expansion.
I have no sympathy at all, I am afraid, with the complaint by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the Government did not consult organisations operating rival airports. It would be quite wrong to inhibit the development of a particular airport, in which the Government themselves are seeing that a considerable investment is made, with a view to driving operators away from an airport they want to use to others which, ex hypothesi, they did not want so much to use.
It would be quite wrong because, as I understand it, the Government are imposing this limit not to interfere with the free choice of airport by the airlines but simply to seek to appease the excitements of local people who fear environmental disturbance if the airport develops.
I hope that the Government are not going to be too tender in that direction. We went through all this over the development of Gatwick. Some of your Lordships may remember that I had the honour, as the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, of taking the decision to develop Gatwick. We had every sort of local environmental trouble.
We faced it, and, as a result, Gatwick has now brought an enormous amount of wealth into West Sussex. It provides a great deal of first-class employment and has helped enormously in the development of that part of the world. A proper, full-throated development of Stansted can do the same in Essex. Therefore, personally, I regret a limit being imposed.
Incidentally, if your Lordships look at the terms of the order, you will see that it is an example of a non sequitur of a kind so extraordinary that it is rarely seen anywhere outside the law courts. It first of all says that as the runway is not being fully used, we are going to impose a restriction on the amount of use given to it. That is a complete non sequitur.
I hope that my noble friend will realise that if he had wished, in his efforts to appease local irritation over development of this airport, it would have been more logical to have said (if he could have done, but, of course, he could not) that it was because the runway was being so much used that it was necessary to impose a restriction. But to say that because it is so little used it is necessary to impose a restriction is wholly illogical. There is perhaps some objection to enacting illogicality in delegated legislation.
390
On the more serious side, my noble friend did not say a word about what is highly relevant—the fact that all expert forecasts of demand for airport facilities in the South-East predict a substantial shortage in capacity before the end of the century. Indeed, my noble friend may remember that some of us, a little time ago, were pressing the Government for information as to what they were doing about it.
That, of course, meant that we felt—as I certainly feel—that given the time it takes to develop airports, it really is important for the Government to be getting ahead with further airport development now. All we are given here is an order which, if it has any effect at all, is an order to restrict development. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, the figure selected—it is an odd sort of figure, too—for the limit of movements in the year is well above the current level, it must be something of a discouragement to those who are responsible for developing this airport, and for the operators who want to operate out of it, to know that the Government are putting an arbitrary limit on the number of movements that may take place.
Generally speaking, it is government policy—it is certainly the policy of this Government—to encourage the maximum development and the maximum output of the various industries with which we are concerned. But, here, you are placing a barrier beyond which, legally, it would be impossible, while this order lasts for the airport to develop. Psychologically that is unfortunate. If I may be allowed to take the matter a little further, the whole story of Stansted is extraordinary.
The development of Stansted as a major London airport was approved in 1964 by the Government of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. Since then there have been innumerable public inquiries which have done no good to anybody, except perhaps members of the Bar who have made a very good living from them. Here we are, 23 years later, nervously restricting the use of one runway at Stansted. If government civil aviation policy had been more consistent and sensible, Stansted would by now have developed to something at least of the scale of Gatwick. Perhaps, unlike Gatwick, it would have been allowed a second runway and would be serving a major part in the development of British civil aviation. I do not blame my noble friend for those delays because out of the 23 years involved he has hardly been responsible for 23 weeks.
However, I am sorry to see him following the policy of playing down and trying to restrict the development of this airport. I should like to see the number of its movements rise and increase, and I should like to see the Government encouraging that. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, it is true that at the moment this particular figure will have no practical effect, although it has adverse psychological effects. I hope that the Government will watch this matter. If the number of movements comes anywhere near to it, as I hope it will before long, the order will have to be withdrawn and either be replaced by another at a much higher figure or, better still, be replaced by no order at all.
I hope my noble friend will obtain this order. I hope he will not take it with the feeling that it is an order which arouses much enthusiasm among those of

391
us—and I hope that he will include himself—who want to see British civil aviation continue to develop and make a major contribution to the well-being of the British economy.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I doubt very much whether the honourable Member for Saffron Walden will hear those remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with much enthusiasm.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? If the honourable Member for Saffron Walden understands economics, and if he studies the benefits which the development of Gatwick have brought to the constituencies of the Members in the area, he should welcome them. If he is a sensible man, I am sure that he will.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we can doubtless draw that matter to his attention at an appropriate moment during the next few weeks.
I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his vision of the whole of the South-East of England covered with concrete and with aircraft coming in every minute of the day and night. I think that that sort of dark satanic mill approach to aircraft movements is not one that we on these Benches wish to follow.
I should like to thank the Minister for introducing this order and to ask him to clarify two points that have already been dealt with to a degree by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Can the Minister give some figures for the number of aircraft which, in the Government's scenario, are likely to be involved in positioning flights? The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also asked how many aircraft are likely to be involved in cargo flights. They are important numbers because very often cargo flights are noisier than passenger flights. The aircraft tend to be older and more heavily loaded. They are likely to cause some disturbance to those living in the area around the airport.
There is certainly no great opposition to this order from these Benches. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, we believe it is a pity that the other regional airports were not at least asked for their views; not that the Government should necessarily fall in line with any such views. One of the matters which I have become a little fed up with is the northern airports in particular beating Stansted about the ears. As things stand, I do not think that they will suffer greatly from the increased movements at Stansted. However, the people around Stansted are entitled to consideration. I think that the Government have shown some consideration, even if the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the response of noble Lords to the introduction of this order; although there are mixed opinions from opposite sides of the House as to whether we are not going far enough (from my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter) or are going too far too quickly (from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill). I should like to think that we probably have it just about right. In any case, all that we are doing is fulfilling the undertakings that we gave during consideration of the White Paper and the Airports Bill.
392
I endorse entirely what was said by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in connection with the success story of the history of civil aviation in this country. I am also grateful for the remarks that he made as regards my family connections in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke of the possibility of consultation beyond the immediate area. The important point is that the ATM limit is a local measure, designed to enable local infrastructure to absorb the impact of the Stansted development. The consultation on the proposed limit reflects the local nature of the measure. The purpose of making the ATM limit subject to affirmative resolution is to provide for the most searching scrutiny by Parliament. That is what we have done today to some extent.
As regards the effect of the Stansted development on regional airports, to which the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, referred, we have no evidence to suggest that there will be an adverse effect on traffic at regional airports. The development is being timed to meet the forecast need for additional capacity to serve the London area airports. Some of the regional airports are at the moment enjoying pretty good traffic growth on their own account. I entirely agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter: that one cannot force people to fly from places they do not want to go from. Indeed, the idea of using an ATM limit order to reallocate traffic, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, we do not believe to be a good one.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, is it not the case that it is necessary to force aircraft to go to where they do not want to go? Everyone wants to go to Heathrow at the moment. I accept that passengers may want to go to Gatwick but, on the whole, airlines want to go to Heathrow. Some of them cannot go there and that is why they must go to Stansted. By putting limitations on developments at Heathrow, one is forcing people to go to Stansted. It is not a totally free market.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that it is not a totally free market but that is because Heathrow is at the moment operating at virtually full capacity. That situation does not arise elsewhere. Traffic distribution is not the purpose of an ATM limit. The purpose is to control the rate of expansion at an airport. The Airports Act provides different powers for traffic distribution rules in Section 31. The rules which were made last year took account of the Government's intention for an ATM limit at Stansted.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, queried the capacity in the South-East of England at the present time. Both BAA plc and Stansted Airport support the order. Naturally the Government are keeping longterm capacity under review, as doubtless will BAA plc as the main provider of airport capacity in the South-East. The CAA will also keep a close watch on capacity issues in the light of its duties under Section 16(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, asked about the volume of cargo flights. I can confirm that the current usage figures show that there were 4,337 all-cargo movements last year, but only 584—or less than 14 per cent.—were by jet aircraft.

393
The vast majority—over 86 per cent.—were by small propeller-driven aircraft, which are relatively quiet. Therefore, I hope that that will not add significantly to the noise nuisance at the airport.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked me about positioning flights. I am afraid I have not got an answer for him at the moment but if at all possible I will write to the noble Lord. I hope I have covered most of the points made by your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Offshore Employment) Order 1987
2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th May be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that these draft orders be approved. First, however, I regret to have to draw your Lordships' attention to a technical error in the printed copies of the schedules to both orders. The schedules define, by means of coordinates, the Norwegian part of the Frigg natural gas field and paragraphs 1(b) of both schedules refer to the parallel of latitude 50°50'00"N. The correct parallel of latitude is 59°50'00"N. I am given to understand that the earlier version embraces most of the South-East of England. The revised versions of both orders, containing a manuscript amendment, were laid before your Lordships' House on Tuesday 5th May, and I hope your Lordships will accept my apologies for this error.
The orders have a simple but important purpose and one which I am sure all Members of your Lordships' House will appreciate and welcome. The orders will extend the coverage of the equality laws—the Sex Discrimination, Equal Pay and Race Relations Acts—to offshore employment on the United Kingdom continental shelf, except for those areas where the law of Northern Ireland applies. By offshore employment I mean, to quote the wording of the orders:
"Employment concerned with the exploration of the seabed or subsoil or the exploitation of their natural resources".
The orders will therefore extend the legislation I have mentioned to employment connected with the oil and gas industries' offshore activities in the North Sea and elsewhere around the coast of Great Britain.
The orders will also extend coverage of the three Acts to employees of British and British-based companies anywhere in the Frigg natural gas field. This field straddles the geographical boundary line between the United Kingdom and the Norwegian areas of the continental shelf—one rig is, I understand, actually part in the UK and part in Norway. It was of course necessary to obtain the Norwegian Government's agreement for extension to the Frigg field, and this we have done.
The powers for extending the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act to offshore employment in the specified activities are to be found
394
in those Acts in Sections 10(5) and 8(5) respectively. Section 10(5) of the Sex Discrimination Act also provides similarly for the extension of the Equal Pay Act. Given the progress towards equality which has been made since these Acts were passed in the 1970s, the Government believe it is time to bring these powers into use.
To take sex discrimination first, it is now generally accepted that women should have the right to the same employment opportunities as men. At the same time, traditional attitudes still persist in some areas and indeed are held by women as well as men. A 1984 study prepared for the Equal Opportunities Commission showed that women were only 0.1 per cent. of a normal shift in the offshore industry. It would be surprising if the exclusion from the legislation has not had something to do with this. My noble friend Lady Platt and the Equal Opportunities Commission, who have done so much to advance the cause of equality, are, I know, very concerned that the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act should be extended to cover offshore employment.
I am encouraged by the responses to the consultation the Government have undertaken in connection with these changes, which have confirmed our belief that employers in the offshore industry, like employers generally, are opposed to discrimination. Even so, I am sure that women's talents are still not being used to the full. This legislative protection will not only ensure that employers will have to change unjustifiable discriminatory practices, where these continue to exist, but will also give women greater encouragement and confidence to put themselves forward where job opportunities occur.
As regards racial discrimination, there is already a very considerable mix of nationalities and racial groups among persons employed offshore. I cannot say because of this that discrimination never occurs. Where it does, the race relations order before us today will give individuals a right of redress. I know that this will be welcomed by the Commission for Racial Equality.
I mentioned consultations. The Government have of course taken the views of both sides of industry—the CBI, the TUC and the Scottish TUC—before proposing these changes and I am delighted to report that all supported them in principle. The CBI was, however, concerned that there should be an adequate lead-in period for employers, and the TUC and the STUC were concerned that problems over provision of separate sleeping accommodation and other necessary facilities for women should not become an easy avenue of escape from the legislation.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about both these points, which were the only substantive ones arising from the consultation. Taking due account of the CBI's concern, the draft orders have a commencement date of 1st November 1987. This will give employers just under six months, including the all-important summer months, in which to make any structural alterations which may be necessary for their compliance with the Sex Discrimination Act. As your Lordships will appreciate, most structural work offshore is possible only in the summer months.
The same commencement date is proposed for both orders in order to avoid confusion, although the considerations that I have just outlined are relevant only to extension of the sex discrimination legislation. The Government hope that employers will take full advantage of the lead-in period where alterations to accommodate women are necessary and practicable. However, Section 7(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act covers circumstances in which it would not be reasonable to require the provisions of separate sleeping accommodation and sanitary facilities so that both men and women can be employed. I appreciate that that lies at the heart of the concern that has been expressed by the TUC and the Scottish TUC. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, who is sitting opposite will express those views.
Perhaps I should say against that background that when the legislation is extended to offshore employment, Section 7(2), as it does at present for onshore employment, will provide a defence for an employer who employs one sex only in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to expect him or her to provide accommodation and facilities for both sexes. The point about Section 7(2) that I wish to emphasise this afternoon is that it does not provide employers with a blanket defence. If an employer's decision not to provide for both sexes were challenged, the facts of the matter would have to be considered by an industrial tribunal and it would be for the tribunal to decide whether in all the particular circumstances the employer's decision was reasonable. I should stress that I am confident that tribunals will ensure that the protection of employers in Section 7(2) is not abused. I understand that in the limited number of cases where tribunals have had to consider this matter they have always held it reasonable that employers should provide separate facilities. Because of this, the Equal Opportunities Commission commented in their document Legislating For Change? that they considered no amendment to Section 7(2) of that Act was necessary.
Of course, I shall be happy to respond to any questions that may arise from my opening remarks. I commend both draft orders to your Lordships. I believe that they represent a small but nevertheless significant further step towards equality, and that they will point up in a very particular way the importance and good business sense of choosing the best person for any job, regardless of sex or race. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 5th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
2.10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure that nobody in your Lordships' House can possibly wish to object to any move to enlarge the scope of the race relations and sex discrimination Acts, and on that basis we welcome these orders. Indeed, many people have said that this step should have been taken before now.
As the Minister has said, the EOC has always pressed for sex discrimination legislation to be extended to offshore employment. However, I believe
396
that there is a problem. There is no doubt at all that the offshore oil industry is a male dominated industry. The Minister himself has referred to the excellent survey, Women in the North Sea Oil Industry, that was produced some time ago by the Equal Opportunities Commission. That survey underlined, as he has said, the fact that there were hardly any women working in this industry. However, there are now increasing numbers of women, particularly those qualifying as geologists, who see the offshore oil industry as a career opportunity. There is no doubt also that they are not getting these opportunities, and I wonder whether the order is sufficient to enable them to do so even now.
The report of the Equal Opportunities Commission ends with the two conclusions that:
"there are well educated and highly motivated women wishing to work offshore who are denied the opportunity to do so simply because they are women—and for no other reason"; and
"At a lower point in the occupation scale women are denied access to relatively well-paid work in offshore catering and from the opportunity to experience the work environment of the North Sea. They are denied this opportunity because they are women—andfor no other reason."
However, the reason that is often advanced by employers for not employing women is that there are no proper facilities for them—those are the points put forward by both the Scottish TUC and the TUC. They say that there are no toilet and washing facilities and so on, and that therefore the environment is not suitable for women. As the Minister has indicated, they are able to do so because of the existence of Section 7(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act.
I believe that as the order now stands it will still permit the use of this defence by employers. For that reason I believe that the order does not go far enough since it will not in practice result in equal opportunities being extended to women and the provisions of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts will not apply when it comes to it.
I suggest that the Minister takes serious account of what has been said. I do not wish to oppose the order because, as I have already said, I should not wish to give the impression that we are in any way opposed to the extension of the cover of the Acts to offshore employment. Quite the reverse is true. We are concerned to ensure that the extension really is an extension and that the rights that seem to be available in the order really will apply when it comes to the practical application.
I understand that the Norwegian industry, which has a relatively low female workforce—about 12 to 13 per cent.—provides appropriate facilities for both sexes as a matter of course. I do not see why our industry should not do so and why failure to do so should be used by employers under Section 7(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act as a reason for frustrating the intentions of the order. I very much fear that, unless some steps are taken to ensure it does not happen, that may well be the case. However, I do not wish, as I said earlier, to oppose either order.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for her acceptance of the order before us this afternoon. I shall just underline what I attempted to say in my opening remarks. In touching on the question of the number of women working in the

397
British sector of the North Sea, I regret it is a fact that there are no comprehensive statistics for the number of women employed offshore on the UK continental shelf on relevant activities. The only information that we have is that contained in the research prepared for the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1984. That research provided a best estimate that only about 0.1 per cent. of the workforce, or some 22,000 all told, were women. Therefore only about 25 were working offshore on a normal shift basis.
I am aware that in the past women have perhaps been discouraged from applying for those jobs but I believe that the order will remove some of the obstacles. I am equally aware of the concern that the Trades Union Congress and indeed the ASTMS, of which the noble Baroness is the general secretary, expressed that employers might evade the new legislation and might see the suggestion that Section 7 should not apply to offshore employees.
However, I must say that Section 7(2) defence will certainly not permit an employer to disregard the requirements of the Sex Discrimination Act. All it does is to enable an employer to argue before an industrial tribune that the particular circumstances of the workplace and the employer's circumstances, including of course financial resource, are such that it would be unreasonable to require the provision of sleeping accommodation and sanitary facilities for both sexes.
The employer who deliberately seeks to use that section to evade the legislation will run a grave risk of a decision against him, which could involve him in paying not only compensation but also costs.
It would be an unwelcome, but perhaps more than that, an unnecessary departure to single out a particular industry for exclusion from the section. The noble Baroness referred to the Norwegian law and practice, but the Norwegian law does not contain a provision such as that in Section 7(2)(c). Again, I refer to the report prepared in 1984 for the Equal Opportunities Commission. The report pointed out that in Norway there are not quite the same—how can I put it?—cultural restraints on shared accommodation as there are in the United Kingdom. Despite that legislation in Norway. it is interesting to note that women working offshore remain concentrated in what some might have described as women's traditional occupations. Therefore I do not believe that even with that legislation or the absence of it in the United Kingdom, women have been denied opportunities nor will they be denied opportunities in the higher echelons.
In conclusion, perhaps I may simply reiterate that while the numbers of employees affected may not be very great the orders represent a quite significant milestone in the progress towards full equality which I am quite sure your Lordships will accept.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Race Relations (Offshore Employment) Order 1987
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move.
398
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th May be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Personal Files Bill
2.20 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is the proud boast of the Liberal Party, which is enshrined in the preamble to its constitution, that its aim is to create a society,
"which in all things sets freedom first."
Therefore noble Lords will not be surprised to see a Bill of this sort coming from the Alliance Benches dealing with what, I believe, is one of the most compelling elements of individual freedom; namely, freedom of information and particularly the freedom of individuals to have the right to know what has been recorded in documents about themselves and, furthermore, the right to correct any wrong or inaccurate information.
But I hasten to say that this is not a party Bill. It was introduced as a Private Member's measure by my honourable friend the Member in another place for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, who had the good fortune to come high in the ballot for Private Member's Motions. It does him great credit that he chose this subject. It also has had all-party support throughout the length and breadth of its discussions in another place. I have every hope that it will receive similar support in your Lordships' House today.
It has also had a very considerable amount of support from organisations outside. I have here a list of people who were supporters of the original Bill, which includes organisations such as the Association of County Councils Policy Committee, the Association of Distict Councils, Scottish Local Health Councils, the British Association of Social Workers, the Child Poverty Action Group, the College of Health, the Howard League, and so on. So it has had very wide support in the country as well, and indeed by the time it got to Second Reading in another place more than 140 organisations had said that they supported the Bill.
The principle which this Bill deals with is already enshrined in legislation where computer records are involved, and from November this year the Data Protection Act will, as noble Lords know, allow individuals to seek personal information held about them on computers. It has therefore been an anomaly that similar information held in ordinary files does not come within the terms of that Act. Indeed—and your Lordships will remember that this was raised when the Data Protection Act was being discussed—it provides something of a loophole through which people can get away from the terms of that Act. So for the first time this Bill which is before your Lordships today extends this right to cover manually held records.
Unfortunately it only covers a few classes of records—far fewer than the Bill when it was originally drafted covered. I shall come back to that in a few minutes. The main benefits of the Bill are that it

399
enables people to keep themselves fully informed about steps that an authority is taking in relation to them. It provides the basis for a more equal relationship between the individual and the authority or professionals with whom he or she deals and it provides the opportunity to detect errors—I believe that this is one of the most important aspects of the Bill—which might otherwise be acted on by officials who have no direct knowledge of the person involved.
One of the classic cases—it is a question of medical records, which are not now covered in this Bill, but it is a good example of the sort of thing that can happen —was that of Helen Mann, who is a 26 year-old chef. She was astonished to find that her GP accused her of being a heroin addict. She did not realise at first that he was serious and she became anxious when she found that errors had been passed to him in the medical notes of her former GP. It took her many months to discover that a drug addict had been impersonating her at her former GP's practice.
Included in the notes were four references to drug addiction and another reference to a hepatitis episode at Charing Cross Hospital. Fortunately, she was able to show that at that time she had not been in the country. As a result, she was recently allowed access to the records. However, she expressed anger at the fact that it took 10 months and 17 letters before she was able to find out what was causing the problem. That is one occasion when errors were detected. There are many cases involving medical and other records where people do not know that errors have been put into files of which they know nothing.
The other benefit is that the Bill is a safeguard against poorly thought out or unfair comments being recorded. If we were talking here about doctors or social workers putting their own private thoughts about someone into a private diary, I should not have much objection. But information may go down on files which, although they are confidential, may be passed on to other people in the discipline. Mistakes keep on coming up year after year. There is no way in which they can be corrected.
Indeed, many local authorities, doctors and employers have voluntarily opened records. They have found that course to be beneficial, first, because it signifies that they have nothing to hide and that they are doing their best either to provide a service or to ensure that individuals are being fairly treated. But, secondly, that action dispels unjustified suspicion which arises when people do not get treatment, which is very important both in the social services and in the medical profession. People often assume that they are being unfairly treated when in fact delay is caused by a long waiting list or some such factor. Some authorities report that, although people often ask to see their records out of suspicion, they go away impressed by what they discover.
Perhaps I may now deal with the scope of the Bill. As it stands, it covers local authority housing and social service records, although, as I said, earlier it covered a wider range. Although education records are not included on the face of the Bill, a practical agreement which accompanies the Bill includes an undertaking by the Government to make a comparable provision for access to education records under
400
powers which already exist. There are assurances, as noble Lords will know from the debates in another place, which reaffirm the Government's position.
I shall give your Lordships a few examples of situations covering both housing records and social services records. The first is contained in a letter to my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood. The person writing it says,
"I would like you to know that I have been trying to gain access to my files from the council for the last 15 years and have been told that it is not council policy to let me see them. I tried to see them and had an interview with the Housing Manager who said as far as he was concerned the accusations… were factual but I have no right to find out what accusations were made… I was served notice to quit my council house… I was given no opportunity to defend myself… I want to see the allegations made against me… I am nearing 70 years old and want to live the rest of my life with an easy mind".
That seems to me to encapsulate the problem so far as housing records are concerned. There is another case which is going in front of the European Commission. Mr. Gaskin, who has spent the bulk of his life in the care of the Liverpool social services department claims that his traumatic experience in numerous foster homes and institutions has left him a psychological wreck and as such he argues that the Liverpool social services department was in breach of its obligation to provide him with the appropriate level of protection and care.
That is a well known case which has been written up in a book published in 1983. It was followed by an interview with the BBC and a considerable number of discussion programmes on television. The fight is continuing and the case is currently before the European Commission. The case is raised under Articles 8 and 10. It alleges that he is unable to have access to his case file for the purpose of providing how badly he was treated. I make no judgment whatever on this matter because it is before the commission. I do not know the facts of the case but it seems that problems would have been averted if the person had been able to have access to his file.
The Bill is a purely enabling Bill, and the right of access is dependent upon regulations which are to be made. Those regulations may also provide for authorities to correct records which contain inaccurate information; for appeals to be made against decisions to deny access or to refuse to correct records; for authorities to charge a fee up to a prescribed maximum for giving access; and for some exemptions from access. The question of exemptions is critical. All those who advocate the right of access accept that certain restrictions need to be imposed, particularly to protect the rights of third parties.
Originally, the full Bill spelled out the exemptions in detail. They would have included the need to protect the privacy of third parties and the identities of members of the public or family speaking to an authority in confidence; the safety of third parties; the interests of a child, in cases where a parent sought access to the child's record; and the subject of the record in circumstances where immediate access could be harmful. The Bill proposed that in such circumstances access could be deferred for a period to allow the disclosure to take place after, rather than during, a period of acute disturbance.
Although, precisely, the right solution may not have been found in each case, the exemptions as originally

401
framed were narrowly defined in terms of the particular interest that each was intended to safeguard. It is now hoped that departments, when they come to issue their own regulations, will resist any temptation to define these exemptions in very broad terms which would allow authorities to withhold information merely because they felt that disclosure would cause embarrassment or because they would find it difficult to justify what had been written.
As it now stands, the Bill is only a small part of what was originally proposed. We, and others in your Lordships' House, regret that the Bill now deals only with local authority records. The original proposal would have included records held by central government, as well as employment and medical records.
As regards medical records, I know that a number of doctors agree with the need for this provision but I have received a letter from the British Medical Association which it has asked me to mention. The letter states:
"Although health records do not form part of this Bill, no doubt the issue of access to medical records will be raised.… We would like those taking part in the debate to know that we are currently discussing this issue with the Home Office and the DHSS. Because the DHSS and doctors can see problems as well as advantages regarding patients having access to their medical records, we feel it would be helpful at this stage if these discussions were allowed to continue in advance of any legislation being considered".
Far be it from me to wish to put an end to discussions, but I hope that at the end of the day the difficulties are not allowed to outweigh the benefits and that in the very near future similar legislation can be enacted relating to medical records.
There remains a considerable amount of support for the measure, watered down as it may be. One of the penalties of having a Private Member's measure going through the parliamentary system is that compromises have often to be made in order to get the measure on to the statute book. In view of that, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading today and that it may not be necessary to amend it. It is my hope that we may get the Bill through in time to reach the statute book before certain coming events cast their shadows too deeply across it.
In Committee in the other place, the Minister of State, Home Office, Mr. David Waddington, gave a series of undertakings on behalf of his ministerial colleagues concerning the regulations upon which the Bill depends. One is grateful for those undertakings. They are crucial, because without them the promised regulations will not come into force and therefore no right of access will come into force.
As I understand it, the undertakings are for social work and educational records in England and Wales and housing, social work and educational records in Scotland. The Government have said that regulations will be made, and that they will use their best endeavours to make them by the end of 1988. The regulations on educational records will be made under the powers in the Education Act 1980 and equivalent powers in Scottish legislation.
The one notable exception from the list, short as it is, is housing records in England and Wales. So far, the Department of the Environment has not given a 100
402
per cent. commitment that it will definitely make regulations on housing records. I urge the Government to give that undertaking as firmly and as quickly as possible. Having given the Minister some indication that I should be raising that point, I hope that he can give us some further reassurance today.
Nevertheless, Mr. Waddington said in Committee in another place that although the Department of the Environment cannot say with 100 per cent. certainty that it will make regulations, he could assure the Committee that the likelihood of it failing to do so was remote. That is "government speak", and occasionally we should like things a little firmer on what is after all not a Draconian measure.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that although in a letter to Mr. Kirkwood from Mr. John Patten the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction he continues to say that discussions are necessary with the various local authority associations, it is now more than two years since Sir George Young answered a parliamentary question in which he said:
"My Department has today written to local authority associations, to organisations representing tenants' interests, and to other interested bodies, to seek their views about how such information can be made more readily available. Public sector tenants sometimes believe that their landlords' files contain misleading personal information. In this area, and subject to proper safeguards, they ought to be able to check that mistakes are not being made. A copy of the consultation paper is in the Library."—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/84; c. 238.]
The fact that consultations are continuing gives one some grounds for concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us further reassurance. I hope that I have said enough to explain what the Bill is about and the need for it. I ask your Lordships to support the principle and the detail of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Tordoff.)
2.38 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his able introduction of this Private Member's Bill into your Lordships' House. Of course we all believe that it is right that people should not have allegations, comments or information about them on files which is not true and which they have no way of countering.
Inevitably, I talk about the social services.. As your Lordships are aware, social services have under their remit the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped under the Mental Health Acts, the chronically sick and disabled under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, children and families under the Childrens and Children and Young Persons Acts, care and services to the elderly under the Health Service and Public Health Acts, and of course families in trouble.
Every social worker knows that so far as possible and so far as practicable it is right that every person with whom they deal—most of them are the vulnerable in our society—must be dealt with with integrity, dignity and complete honesty. Perhaps a little further consideration of the Bill may be necessary. I am not against the Bill but I feel that certain matters have not yet been covered. I speak in particular for the Association of Directors of Social Services.

403
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, talked about exemptions and third parties. In the social services it is recognised more and more that no one department can give a service to the vulnerable. It needs to be a number of departments. Not only that but it needs very often to be people who are outside local government, and that is the voluntary sector. On the question of information which is given by a third party, if we do not have this co-operation between various departments and people outside the department, and if we do not have a safeguard for third parties giving information which they consider should be confidential, we may be doing a disservice to the very people whom we want to serve.
Perhaps I may give one example. It may be known to somebody that a man has been accused of and proved guilty of offences against children. He applies for a job working with children. Yet the person who knows this fact feels unable to divulge it unless they know that the information will be confidential. This is particularly the situation with the police. I have the greatest admiration for the way the police safeguard the information that they have. But unless the police feel that the information that they give will be treated confidentially, then they may feel unable to give it. At the end of the day that will be a disservice to the very people whom we seek to serve.
The noble Lord has talked about exemptions and the mechanism of appeal. In my experience there were examples of facts that one knew which were not in the real interests—and I say that with deep feelings—of the cases concerned. I could cite many examples, in particular where children were concerned. If parents want to know everything about a child, and those parents do not always have discretion in what they do or do not tell the child, they may easily tell him or her facts which are damaging.
While in principle I support this Bill, I think that there is much that has to be discussed. The social services are completely dependent on the medical profession. I know that when one was taking a case to court and wanted to decide which home to put an old person in, one was absolutely dependent on the doctors and their reports, and rightly so. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, there are debates taking place currently. We all know that that is so because we have all had the same letter from the British Medical Association. I hope that in these debates the position will be discussed with regard to the social services and medical reports received from doctors. Do we keep the medical report separate from the social file, or do we put it on the file? If so, we are then breaking confidentiality with regard to the doctors. In the service of the vulnerable we must also have complete integrity concerning those we work with and how we use the information we are given. I do not believe that this has been completely thought through. The association of directors also feels that this has not been thought out properly and needs further discussion.
There is one last question I wish to ask. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, may be able to correct me, because I may not have read all the Acts I should have read. I am not sure about age. As a children's officer and as a director of social services, I sometimes had children coming to me of 12, 13 or 14 years asking to
404
see their files. There is a school in the north, Aycliffe School, where when a case conference is held both the children and the parents are present. Very little is withheld. But in certain cases it would be very damaging to a child, particularly in adolescence, to see a file which stated exactly the kind of life that the parents, the mother, the father, or both, lived.
I always used to try to tell every child going out of care at the age of 18 what their background was, but there are certain things which children and adolescents particularly cannot tolerate. It would be to their disadvantage to know the details and to see their files. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell me whether there is an age limit.
I support the principles behind the Bill, but I believe that further discussion is required on a number of the points I have raised.
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has given us a very full and clear explanation of what the Bill is all about. He leaves me just to make a few comments about it. I welcome this Bill as a small but very worthwhile step towards giving people the right to know what information is held about them by public authorities. What gives me a personal attachment to it is that I introduced a debate on this subject on 6th November last year. I was therefore very gratified when the Access to Personal Files Bill was introduced as a Private Member's Bill in another place.
I first reiterate the fundamental beliefs on which this Bill is based; namely, that the right to see personal files is an important way of increasing people's control over their own lives. It will enable them to learn more about what is happening to them and give them the opportunity to take a more active part in discussions with authorities and the professions about their own affairs. It is also a safeguard against the possibility that records will contain inaccurate information or even unfair or prejudiced comment.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has made a very good case proving this and has given some striking examples. I remember that after my Unstarred Question I received many letters giving me some heartbreaking examples of how things could have been very different if the people in question had been allowed to check up on their own records.
While I welcome the Bill I also regret the fact that it is so limited in its scope. Were it not rather late on a Friday afternoon—and a very beautiful sunny afternoon at that—I should have been tempted to reminisce for a moment about the high hopes that so many of us had about promoting the cause of freedom of information in those early days when the Bill was first being dreamt up. However, as we all know, during the passage of the Bill in another place the Government made it clear that they would not accept a measure which included a right of access to medical or employment records or to government benefit records.
As a result those records, though initially covered, have had to be dropped. The absence of those, particularly medical records, as has already been said by the noble Lord and by the noble Baroness, will disappoint

405
many people. The level of support for the right of access to those has been striking. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned the leading consumer, voluntary and professional bodies which declared their support for a legal right of access to health records. I too received the encouraging letter from the British Medical Association. The very fact that it wrote to us shows its strong commitment to continue with discussions and pressure on the principle that people should be allowed to see their records.
The Government have said that they want to encourage greater access on a non-statutory basis but I have no doubt that pressure for legislation will continue. I hope it will not be long before we have the opportunity to debate a more all-encompassing measure. Without wishing to make a party point from these Benches, I should like to point out that in recent days the Labour Party has put forward proposals for a patients' charter which would most certainly include giving patients a right of access to their medical records.
I have one or two reservations about the Bill as it now stands which I should like to put forward. I do so not to seek to impede its passage. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, it certainly needs to put its skates on. I should like to record these few reservations as representing the disappointment that many of us feel. First, there are the exemptions from access. Naturally there must be some to protect the privacy and safety of third parties; and no doubt these will be laid down in the regulations which the various departments will introduce. I hope the exemptions will be limited to those that are strictly necessary. If departments are too free with let-out clauses it could undermine the purpose of the measure.
For example, in 1985 the DHSS issued a consultation paper on access to computerised social work records which suggested that one category of exempt information should be social workers' provisional options. What is a provisional option? The department suggested that an opinion or an assessment would be regarded as provisional and therefore not accessible to the person concerned until after a decison based on it had been taken. Surely the purpose of opening up records should be to allow people to participate in decisions affecting them. That proposal would have the opposite effect by keeping the information from people until it was too late to influence a decision.
My second concern relates to charges. The Bill envisages that local authorities could charge a fee for allowing someone to see his or her records. I have serious worries about this aspect. Anything other than the most nominal of fees will effectively deter people from applying for records. This is not an area where a deterrent is needed. I doubt whether people will seek access to their records for any kind of trivial or flippant reason. They will want to see their records because they are anxious about a problem and hope that they will throw some light on it. They should not be discouraged from doing so by the imposition of high fees. Indeed a recent survey revealed that some local authorties are charging people as much as £.15 a time to inspect files and background papers which they are now entitled to see under the Local Government
406
(Access to Information) Act 1985. This is quite wrong and I hope the maximum prescribed fee set by the regulations will be a low one and that in practice local authorities will decide not to levy any fee at all.
Finally, there is the question of whether regulations in all the areas covered by the Bill will be made at all. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, brought up the example of the Department of the Environment, which has been unwilling to give a commitment to make regulations, as indeed have other departments. The Department of Education and Science has said that it will make regulations on education records. The Department of Health and Social Security has said that it will make regulations on social work records. If it can be done for social work records, which by their very nature are likely to contain information about sensitive matters and vulnerable individuals, it is hard to understand why the much more straightforward question of housing records should be causing the Department of the Environment so much difficulty. I am pleased to see that the Scottish Office has undertaken to make regulations on housing records in Scotland. So it is rather intriguing to know what particular English problems the department anticipates in housing records south of the Border.
Despite a feeling of regret for what might have been, I hope that the Bill has a speedy passage on to the statute book. My reservations should not obscure the fact that the Bill is a worthwhile measure which will benefit many people. It will at least serve to enshrine the principle that people should have the right to know more about their own affairs, and perhaps it will prepare the way for many other freedom of information measures that I feel are strongly needed.
On the way here today, a rather striking analogy hit me. I was driving along behind a small Mini with a rather appealing sticker in the back which said, "When I grow up I am going to be a Rolls- Royce". I hope that this rather small Bill might one day grow up to be a veritable Rolls-Royce of a Bill which represents true freedom of information for people who need it.
2.56 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for explaining the history of this measure. The Bill, as first presented by its sponsors in the other place, embraced a much wider range of records, including those held by central government, local authorities and the private sector. It also contained some very complex and detailed provisions on the procedures to be followed in granting access to records. At that stage, the Government made it very clear that they were not opposed to the basic principle behind the Bill as to the benefits for an individual in obtaining access to records of personal information held about himself.
The Goverment themselves endorsed that principle in the Data Protection Act 1984 which gives an individual a statutory right to receive a copy of any computer record held on him. We saw it as natural that computer records should have the first priority because of the ease with which they can be manipulated or disclosed to third parties, and also because of the importance to our businessmen that we should implement the European Convention on Data Protection. The right of access to computer records

407
under the Data Protection Act is due to come into force in November this year.
When faced with the inital version of this Bill, we came, with some reluctance, to the conclusion that now would not be an appropriate time to extend the right of access to a wide range of manual records because of the large bureaucratic and financial burden it would place on record holders, particularly at a time when they were preparing to shoulder the burdens imposed by the Data Protection Act. For that reason, we suggested that the Bill might be limited to a small number of areas in which developments were already planned and progress might be made within a reasonable timescale. After lengthy discussion and negotiation with the sponsors of the Bill, all of which were held in a friendly and constructive atmosphere, we managed to emerge with the solution that is before the House today.
The present Bill provides for a regulation-making power imposing obligations on local authorities to provide access to records in the two fields of housing and social work. In addition, the Government have promised to make progress with new regulations providing access to education records, using the existing powers under the Education Act. In all three fields of housing, social work and education, we have given a specific undertaking to use our best endeavours to make these regulations by the end of next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has raised the question of the undertaking given in respect of housing records in England and Wales. It was made clear in the debates in another place that the undertaking on these records was slightly different from the unconditional guarantee given in respect of the other records to which this Bill will apply. Given that consultations have to be undertaken with representatives of the local authorities concerned, and these must be genuine, the Department of the Environment did not feel able to give a categorical assurance that the regulations will be made.
It has been made very clear, however, that difficulty would arise only if the department were convinced, at the end of the consultation process, that there was no practicable way of making the regulations. The department regards the possibility of reaching that situation as remote. This may not fully satisfy the noble Lord, but I hope that it will go some of the way to reassuring him. I would also tell the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that following consultation it is not now proposed that social workers' provisional judgments should be exempt from access.
The Bill now before us therefore constitutes a significant step forward in the granting of access to personal records. We recognise, of course, that it does not go as far as the sponsors and some other supporters of the Bill might have wished, but I think it represents an honourable compromise between the views of both sides and that the sponsors can claim an important achievement in having taken this first statutory step in the field of access to manual records. I am therefore very happy to say that the Government are able to commend the present Bill to the House and that we hope it will achieve a speedy passage through its remaining stages.
3 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and to the two noble Baronesses who have spoken in this debate. I should like to answer two points that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The matter is not entirely in the hands of the sponsors of the Bill because this must be achieved by regulation. Clearly the Government and Secretary of State, in making the regulations, will take into account the needs of the professionals as well as the needs of those whose files are kept. That balance must be right and we must be sure that it does not always come down on the side of the professional. It is not always in the interests of professionals that they should have complete confidentiality because very often they receive the wrong information. The right of the individual to see what is being said about him or her must be balanced so that it can be corrected. Even though it may be something damaging, if it is correct then it is perfectly right and proper that it should remain on the file. At least people then know why judgments are being made in respect of them.
I accept that in certain cases it may be difficult for people to accept that sort of judgment. However, the regulations must provide for periods of time where proper counselling can take place. I am sure that those in the social services with whom the noble Baroness associates are well skilled in that matter. I know that they are extremely busy people and do not want to take on additional burdens, but at the end of the day their clients will be the better for it. So far as age is concerned, the same point will apply: it will depend on the regulations which are laid down. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her general support for the principles of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, is to be thanked for her support and for paving the way for this Bill in the speeches she has previously made in this House. I agree with her reservations that the exemptions must be restricted to the minimum possible. When regulations are laid before your Lordships' House I think that it is incumbent upon us all to challenge them if they are too extensive. We do not want to provide room for coaches and horses to be driven through the regulations.
As regards charges, I was horrified, as was the noble Baroness, to see the figures of recent charges made by local authorities for access granted under earlier Acts. I liked the reference made by the noble Baroness to the possibility of having a Rolls-Royce of a Bill later on. I hope that when that time comes we can all be shareholders.
I thank the Minister for his acceptance of the Bill. We are still worried about the housing record and, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, it seems odd that Scotland is a different case from England. I do not think that the Minister has explained the difference between the problems in Scotland and England. Nevertheless, the assurances have been repeated. We are assured that the chance of anything going wrong is remote. I think that what we have asked for, and what we have received, is a feeling that the Government are determined to make these regulations sensible and make them work. After all, that is what is behind the Bill. I believe that in passing this Bill today, as I hope we will, we shall take another small step

409
down the road to the freedom of information and the freedom of individuals. It is on that basis that I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Banking Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes past three o'clock.

  FARM AND COUNTRYSIDE INITIATIVE
  FARM AND COUNTRYSIDE INITIATIVE
  DEREGULATION: IMPACT ON BUSINESS
  DEREGULATION: IMPACT ON BUSINESS
  NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS: CONTROL MEASURES
  NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS: CONTROL MEASURES
  NORTH-EAST NEW TOWNS: FUTURE
  NORTH-EAST NEW TOWNS: FUTURE
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG
  REMAND PRISONERS: ACCOMMODATION
  REMAND PRISONERS: ACCOMMODATION
  PESTICIDE INPUTS: MAFF EXPERIMENTS
  PESTICIDE INPUTS: MAFF EXPERIMENTS