Sitting of 27 April 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (OBAN SOUTH PIER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the funding for Crossroads care attendant schemes in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I have received 25 letters about the funding of local Crossroads schemes in the past 10 months.
    Mrs. Michie: Does the Minister agree that the ending of the community programme will have a tremendously adverse effect on the excellent Crossroads scheme, which helps to give respite to the carers of over 4,000 disabled, multiple handicapped, sick people? Does he also agree that those people, who willingly and lovingly look after often confused and difficult relatives, desperately need time off just to do the ordinary things of life and that the Crossroads scheme enables them to do that? Will he tell us whether funding for the Crossroads scheme will continue and under what heading it might come—for example, the social work services group in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with everything that the hon. Lady said about the excellent work done by Crossroads schemes throughout Scotland. There are 42 operating in Scotland, of which 28 receive support from the Manpower Services Commission. There is no reason why funding should be withdrawn as a result of the changes in the employment training programme. Crossroads will be invited to apply to take part in the employment training programme, as will other voluntary bodies participating in the community programme.
    The new programme will certainly place greater emphasis on training, but that need not necessarily mean that funding is no longer available. It is also open to local Crossroads schemes to apply to their local authorities and health boards for support.
    Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment wrote to me on 28 March saying that the idea of a rate for the job will no longer be relevant to those employed on the scheme? Is he further aware that that is one of the main worries of those who are currently running the schemes and that, in East Kilbride, 300 beneficiaries of the scheme are likely to lose out if it does not continue?
    Will the Minister provide the resources to the Lanarkshire health board to enable the scheme to continue? I should like to draw his attention to the fact that one third of the referrals to the scheme in East Kilbride come from the Lanarkshire health board. with no funding being provided by it.
    Mr. Forsyth: The purpose of the scheme is to support carers and to help those in need of support. The question of the rate for the job does not arise. The training allowance is a more appropriate form of remuneration for a training programme. The proposed allowance will result in benefit entitlement, plus a premium of £10 to £12 a week. It will therefore be more attractive to unemployed people with families on higher benefit levels than the existing community programme wage limit.

    Confinements
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current proportion of confinements in (a) general practitioner units, and (b) specialist consultancy hospitals.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The latest figures are 7·1 and 92·9 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that general practitioner units, including those in rural areas, have a good record and an important part to play? I cannot expect him to comment at this stage, but, in relation to the proposals from Grampian health board about Torphins hospital in my area, will he bear in mind that if such proposals go ahead a large area with a big population, which is not easily accessible to Aberdeen, will be deprived of proper local maternity services?
    Mr. Forsyth: My right hon. Friend has made clear his views on the Torphins proposal. Indeed, on 15 April he met my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and members of the Torphins Action Group. I can assure my right hon. Friend that, when the formal submission from Grampian health board goes to my right hon. and learned Friend, we shall take into account all the arguments that he has put forward and, indeed, all the submissions that we receive, before reaching any conclusion.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Are we to take it from his comments that the Minister has not yet received comments from Grampian health board? When does he expect to respond to proposals? What facilities will be offered by the Scottish Office for consultation and negotiation with the many interested parties in Grampian region on the future of maternity units? Does he agree that the centralisation of such facilities would be to the detriment of freedom of choice for mothers in rural communities?
    Mr. Forsyth: For a moment I thought that the hon. Lady was going to congratulate Grampian health board on acceeding to a request not to close the unit at Keith in her constituency.
    As the hon. Lady knows, consultation is the responsibility of the health board. On her question about a submission from the health board, I can say that we had an initial approach, following the board meeting on 7 April. We have yet to receive formal submissions from the board. Obviously, we shall consider them and reach a conclusion as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the health board should act constructively, sensibly and sympathetically to the problems of the far flung parts of our rural constituencies—the glens? Does he also agree that there are difficulties in getting to specialist units for confinement? Does he accept that the recent pay increase for nurses and others in the Health Service will substantially improve morale and service, and that that can only be good for all hospitals?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. All health boards have a duty to review the services that they offer to ensure that the best use is made of resources and that the service meets the needs of the widest range of patients. Obviously, that includes taking into account the rural areas. My hon. Friend is quite right to refer to nurses' pay, which under this Government has increased in real terms by 44 per cent.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Not in Scotland.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says, "Not in Scotland." When the Labour party was in power, nurses' pay was cut by 20 per cent. in real terms.
    Dr. Reid: Is the Minister aware that many hospitals in Grampian and elsewhere, including Hartwood hospital in my constituency, are going through a tendering process for hospital services? Does he recall the Morrison directive, which stated that when considering tendering, cost should not be the only factor? Will he assure the House that he will not use his powers to insist that any particularly hospital must place a contract with the lowest tenderer, if that may result in a worse quality of services for patients?
    Mr. Forsyth: I can help the hon. Gentleman rather more than he asks. I shall send him a copy of the advice that the Department has given to health boards. It makes it quite clear that competitive tendering is not simply about making savings. It is also about ensuring quality of service. We expect that competitive tendering will result in savings and, indeed, improved standards. That has been the experience in England. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to dissociate himself from those in the Labour party and in the trade union movement who fought so hard against competitive tendering, even though it offers many benefits to hospital services.

    Strathclyde (Education Facilities)
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Strathclyde regional council to discuss education facilities in the region.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have no plans to meet Strathclyde regional council to discuss education facilities.
    Mr. Martin: The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), are on record as saying that they want to save Notre Dame school, Lady and St. Francis school and Paisley grammar school, from closure. The Secretary of State even went to the length of getting the Prime Minister to intervene in the case of Paisley grammar school. Parents want to keep open schools in my constituency, such as Colston, Elm Vale and St. Bede's.Why is the Secretary of State making flesh of some schools in Strathclyde and fell of others?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is under a profound misunderstanding. The new regulations enable an appeal to be made to the Secretary of State where schools that are full, or substantially full, are proposed for closure. If schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency fall within those categories, they will be subject to appeal. I understand that St. Bede's is a denominational school. If its Catholic hierarchy is opposed to its closure, under existing regulations it would be subject to an appeal to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen copies of extremely offensive letters that parents of pupils at Neilston primary school in my constituency have been receiving from the leader of the council, Commissar Charles Gray? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that yesterday Commissar Gray announced to the Evening Times that he would refuse to meet the chairman of the Neilston action group, the local minister? Will my right hon. and learned Friend or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State agree to meet me, because people in Neilston are outraged that their letters will not be read by the leader of the council and by the implication that, because parents have had the temerity to write to Charles Gray, Neilston will be victimised? Is that not an outrageous way to behave towards parents and ratepayers?
    Mr. Rifkind: I should certainly be concerned to hear that the convenor of Strathclyde regional council was not replying courteously to the representations of local people. Strathclyde regional council has often asserted its belief in the desirability of consultation. The Government believe in consultation, and we hope that the Labour party in Strathclyde region also believes in consultation. I am only too happy to meet my hon. Friend when he is making representations on behalf of his constituents.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State recognise the problem of falling school rolls in Strathclyde and other regional authorities? Would not his time be better spent on helping education authorities to deal with their problems than on making matters worse by pursuing unwanted ideas, such as school boards, proposals for testing, the curriculum and opting out, which were foisted on him by the Prime Minister and which have made him a figure of derision in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: I recognise the legitimate desire of Strathclyde regional council to rationalise excess capacity, but whether that is best achieved by closing popular schools is another matter. On the latter part of the hon.

    335
    Gentleman's question, I should have thought that today of all days he might have desisted from such comment. We are all slightly intrigued by the Labour party's latest proposals to allow parents and pupils to write confidentially to their local authority about the quality of schools. It would appear that the Labour party believes that assessment is all very well so long as it is conveyed by parents in confidence to a local authority, but not if it is conveyed in public so that teachers and the local authority can be made aware of the matters involved. The Labour party should stop playing double standards in this matter.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making slow progress today. I ask for briefer questions and answers.

    Policy Reform
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if people registering their names and addresses for the purposes of the poll tax will still be required by the registration officers to add further details about their dates of birth.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that this is a scandalous infringement of people's privacy? What guarantees can he give regarding the confidentiality of this peeping-Tom system?
    Mr. Lang: There is nothing extraordinary or sinister about registering one's date of birth. It happens to us all soon after birth. Under section 20 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, access is clearly restricted.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that local income tax, as advocated by the Social and Liberal Democratic party, the Scottish National party and a large number of Socialists, would require far more individual detail than is presently required by the community charge register?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That might not require the registration of dates of birth, but it would certainly require reference numbers of another kind, which would be far more complex and detailed.
    Sir Russell-Johnston: Is the Minister aware that these poll tax forms provide an opportunity for an appeal against definition as a "responsible person"? Will he avail himself of that opportunity?
    Mr. Lang: There is certainly an opportunity for appeal against a definition of "responsible person". It is a new concept which is introduced by this legislation. That seems to be a strange concept to the Labour Benches, which are peopled by irresponsible persons.
    Mr. Harris: In agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about the amount of information required by a local income tax, does my hon. Friend also agree that the so-called Mates amendment would have involved a great deal of confidential information being made available to local councils?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that registration officers in England and Wales will be empowered generally to seek information that they require, which could include dates of birth.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the inquiry form that is now being distributed by registration officers amount to designation under the statute as a responsible person? If so, does the right of appeal arise at this stage? Will the Minister address seriously the important question: is it necessary, when it has been specifically rejected by those drafting the English Bill, to have the date of birth included? Is that not the basis for tagging every adult with an algorithm—an obtrusive and threatening further invasion of privacy? Is it not time that Scottish Office Ministers followed the example of many of their Back-Bench colleagues and re-thought their position? Is it not clear that on a free vote, if such were allowed, the poll tax would be dead and buried? Has it not reached the point where public consent has clearly been withheld, and should not the whole offensive, unjust scheme be abandoned?
    Mr. Lang: Designation does not begin with the issue of the canvass form. The canvass form is to enable the registration officer to designate a responsible person. The inclusion of dates of birth as a requirement on the registration form was at the request of local authority practitioners in Scotland.

    Scottish Special Housing Association (Rents)
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the Scottish Special Housing Association's recent rent increases.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): None, Sir.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that SSHA rents are among some of the highest in Scotland? Is he further aware that the recently imposed rent increases are way beyond three times the level of inflation? Is he also aware that in the same number of weeks we have seen horrific cuts in housing benefit? Will he assure us that he will move to stop the SSHA from levying such an appalling burden on its tenants?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The increases are not out of line with the increases for local authorities. SSHA rents increased by 11·1 per cent., compared with 11·6 per cent., which was the average increase for Scottish local authorities, and the rents paid by new towns tenants are higher. It is important that the appropriate mechanism for lowering the effective rents of those on low incomes or the unemployed should be through the revised housing benefit arrangements, which take account of household circumstances. The SSHA expects to spend 10 per cent. more on management and maintenance, which is the reason for the increase.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree with the evidence that a substantial number of people who are at present in council properties would be happy and delighted to transfer to SSHA properties because of its better record on maintenance and repairs?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am convinced that the SSHA is regarded as a model landlord throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Steel: Given these rent increases, does the Minister accept that, because of the changes in social security benefits and the relatively modest increase in the pension, large numbers of SSHA tenants will find themselves poorer this year than last year? That is the responsibility, not of the SSHA, but of the Government.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have said that for every pound by which the rent of those who are on income support rises, their housing benefit will increase by a similar amount. Further, a housing deficit subsidy is payable to the SSHA. That subsidy was increased to £24·4 million this year. The purpose of the subsidy is to ensure that rents do not rise beyond a certain level.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Following the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), does my hon. Friend agree that it is significant, first, that he has received no representations about these rent increases, and, secondly, that 1,000 local authority tenants in Castlemilk have recently voted to go into the SSHA, despite higher rents, because they would receive higher standards of repair and maintenance?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is significant that I have had no representations. I think it is valuable that the expertise of the SSHA should be involved in urban regeneration projects, and we would like to see more of that.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that those of us who have SSHA tenants in our constituencies recognise that there is a great deal of anxiety about the higher rents and the social security changes? Does he also accept that he would have received representations had the SSHA been an elected rather than an appointed body?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say. There is to be a full debate on the social security arrangements and housing benefit later this afternoon, when the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to put forward that point.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Are not these unwarranted rent increases a bitter foretaste of what is in store for tenants in Scotland under the Scottish Homes organisation? Will the Minister stop playing cat and mouse with 80,000 SSHA tenants and give them a genuine choice, including the possibility of maintaining fair rents and security of tenure by transferring to local authorities when the SSHA is abolished under the Housing (Scotland) Bill?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to confirm—because there has been misinformation in certain areas—that SSHA tenants, when they become tenants of Scottish Homes, will retain all their existing rights. They will be secure tenants and their rents will be set according to the present procedure. As the hon. Gentleman asked about the setting of rents, I should point out that the council of management will determine the rents. In advising the SSHA of the annual deficit subsidy, the Scottish Development Department shows a range of possible increases. It is ultimately for the SSHA to determine rent levels which, with the deficit subsidy, will generate the revenue to maintain its stock in good order.

    Radiographers
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of Scotland's radiographers within the National Health Service.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Radiographers play an essential part in a range of diagnostic and therapeutic services.
    Mr. Galloway: Scotland's X-ray men and women will clearly see through the hypocritical cant of that answer. The Government have given early retirement opportunities at the age of 55 to physiotherapists and many grades of nurses on the ground that their work is strenuous. Why have they refused to allow radiographers to be considered for early retirement? Is their job not strenuous? Why are radiographers not being given a fair crack of the whip, when they are such an essential and hard-working part of Scotland's Health Service?
    Mr. Forsyth: As to the question of cant, I remind the hon. Gentleman that under this Government radiographer's salaries have gone up in real terms by about 40 per cent. Under the Labour Government, which he supported, their salaries decreased in real terms by 21 per cent.
    The facility to retire at the age of 55 within the National Health Service is a legacy from before the inception of the National Health Service. It was carried across to protect the rights of those who had an expectation to retire at an earlier age than the accepted norm.
    As regards the nature of the job, the National Radiological Protection Board has recently issued advice on exposure limits, and that advice envisages a full working life up to the age of 65.
    Mr. Doran: As well as the shortage of radiographers in the Health Service, the Minister will be well aware that there is a shortage of heart treatment facilities in the Aberdeen area. Will he tell the House when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the review body's findings, with particular reference to the shortage in Aberdeen?
    Mr. Forsyth: First, I advise the hon. Gentleman that there is not a shortage of radiographers in the Health Service. Indeed, quite recently there was concern that there might be an over-supply. We have increased the numbers substantially. Secondly, on his question about providing additional facilities for cardiac surgery in the National Health Service, I shall be answering a written question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) today on that matter.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that on top of the largest ever expenditure on the Health Service, which has been made in the current year, the Government have announced additional expenditure of £1·38 billion including, of course, the welcome pay award for nurses? Does that not show strongly that the Government really do care about health care and that they are determined to have the finest standards in the world?
    Mr. Forsyth: Under this Government the Health Service in Scotland will receive rather more than an additional £200 million this year. That brings spending on the National Health Service to record levels—up by some 28 per cent. in real terms. We have the biggest capital

    339
    investment programme and our nurses are better paid than ever before. If I may give just one example, the maximum salary for a sister on an acute ward will now be £13,925, which represents an increase of 16 per cent., as a result of the pay review award. That represents an increase in pay for sisters who have responsibilities on acute wards of 55 per cent. in real terms or of £4,945 since 1979, so we do not want any lectures from Opposition Members, who presided over cuts in nurses' pay.

    Newbattle Abbey College
    Mr Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further discussions he has had in relation to the future of Newbattle Abbey college.
    Mr. Rifkind: On 10 February I met the hon. Gentleman with some of his colleagues to discuss the future of Newbattle Abbey college, and my officials met representatives of the board of governors on 25 January.
    Mr. Eadie: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his answer, as he is supposed to be a friend of Newbattle Abbey adult residential college, may I ask him to explain the special factors about Scottish education which mean that Scotland has to be deprived of its adult residential college? Can he explain to the House why his office is prepared to fund students who go south of the border to colleges that are akin to Newbattle Abbey, but is not prepared to fund Newbattle Abbey college? Will he come to the Lobby tomorrow, like a real friend of Newbattle Abbey college, when he will get a full explanation?
    Mr. Rifkind: I want the resources that are available to benefit the maximum number of people in Scotland who wish to enter higher education. The fact is that in the past year over 6,500 people over the age of 21 entered full-time higher education, of whom only 40 went to Newbattle Abbey. The conclusion that we have reluctantly come to is that the resources that at the moment are going into educating those 40 persons could be much more effectively used to provide the benefits of higher education to many more people than that.
    Only last week I was able to announce a £1 million programme of wider access to higher education for people in Scotland over the next three years. That shows that the Government give priority to that area. Newbattle Abbey was initiated when there were no alternative means of achieving higher education for those who had not had that benefit in their earlier years, but such alternatives now exist to a far greater extent than would have been thought possible some years ago.
    Mr. Maxton: About 20 minutes ago the Secretary of State said that the Government believed in consultation. If that is the case, will he now tell the House why he made his clear decision and announcement on Newbattle Abbey without consulting the board of governors or anybody else about it? Is that not an odd sort of consultation? Will he now answer the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)? What is different about education in Scotland from that in England and Wales? What makes Scotland different? The Secretary of State did not answer that in the previous question that was put to him.
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is putting forward the proposition that there should be uniformity of policy north and south of the border in educational matters, that is interesting when one takes into account earlier comments on other educational matters for which he has been responsible.
    We gave the governors of Newbattle Abbey college 18 months' notice of our intention to withdraw funding. They have been making representations since then, as has the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), with whom I have had a meeting. We shall carefully examine the representations that have been made, but the hon. Gentleman had better come to terms with the question whether he wants Scottish education to be decided on the basis of Scottish needs or whether, as he seems to be saying, it should be automatically brought into line with whatever is happening south of the border.

    Education Costs
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much is spent on the education of each pupil in primary and secondary education; what were the comparable figures in cash and real terms five and 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Between 1978–79 and 1986–87 spending per pupil in local authority primary schools in Scotland increased in real terms by 34 per cent. The corresponding increase for pupils in secondary schools was 26 per cent. I shall arrange for the full details to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Greenway: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on those remarkable figures? The whingeing Labour party in Scotland should tell people the facts, which are that much more is being spent per pupil in Scotland than in England, Ireland and Wales—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the United Kingdom Parliament and the hon. Gentleman has a question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Greenway: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Scots cannot be basically a nation of slow learners or of less fundamental intelligence than the English, Welsh or Irish? So why is so much more being spent per pupil in Scotland than in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Forsyth: Education costs £424 a year more per secondary pupil in Scotland than in England. It is difficult to be precise about the reasons for that, but they might include, for example, the fact that in Scotland we have a larger number of teachers per pupil and higher secondary teachers' salaries, and we have had less success than England in reducing surplus places. Most significant of all, the rates burden on schools in Scotland is much higher, being 8 per cent. in Scotland as opposed to 3 per cent. in England. Rates account for no less than 25·8 per cent. of non-teaching costs in our schools.
    Dr. Moonie: Will the Minister confirm that the main reason for the higher quality of education in Scotland is that none of our regional authorities have the misfortune to be run by his party?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that the education authorities are well funded under this Government and are provided

    341
    with more staff than are those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. He will no doubt want to reflect that this year expenditure on education in Scotland will go up by about 9 per cent., which is a better performance than that under the Government whom he supported.
    Following are the details:

    Net current expenditure1 per pupil in Scotland

    Primary schools

    Secondary schools

    At outturn prices

    At 1986–87 prices2

    At outturn prices

    At 1986–87 prices2

    1978–79

    395

    771

    719

    1,403

    1983–84

    882

    1,008

    1,368

    1,563

    1986–873

    1,036

    1,036

    1,764

    1,764

    Notes:
    1. Net current expenditure covers the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.
    2. The outturn figures for the earlier years have been revalued to 1986–87 prices using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.
    3. The latest information available on actual expenditure is for the financial year 1986–87.

    Fort William and Glencoe Ski Facilities
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to assist in the development of the Fort William ski area and further development of the Glencoe ski facility; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: The Government's policy is that ski development should be initiated and led by the private sector. We are ready to assist, through our agencies, any viable proposals that are put forward.
    Mr. Hind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I recently spent some time in the Scottish ski resorts—[Interruption.] Is my hon. Friend aware that those ski areas have tremendous potential for tourism and the creation of jobs, and that that potential is not being pursued in certain areas? Will he confirm that the way to deal with that problem is through private sector-led activity? The Fort William development is typical of places where jobs could be created for the betterment of the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was delighted that he was able to benefit from Scottish skiing facilities and I hope that many Englishmen will benefit from them in the future. As regards the development of skiing in the Aonach Mor area, my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is important to have private sector input in any forthcoming development. The previous development plans included 84 per cent. funding from the public sector. Clearly that figure was too high for a project that then had questionable viability. We are, of course, prepared to consider further propositions.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Minister arrange to transport all the Conservative district council candidates to the ski slopes of Fort William and Glencoe so that they can get plenty of practice for the massive slide that they will take next Thursday in the district council elections as a result of the poll tax, cuts in housing benefit and the suffering inflicted on the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I do not believe that that question is worthy of an answer.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that skiing is one of the fastest-growing participant sports in Scotland? I am sorry that Opposition Members do not enjoy it. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that where developments take place it is important that they are on a sufficiently large commercial scale so that any developer can properly fulfil his financial obligations in maintaining the environment of the area?
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Skiing in Scotland is a fast expanding sport, just as Conservative participation in district councils will be fast expanding after next month.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that both the skiing areas that have been mentioned are in my constituency? It might have been a good thing if he had told his hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) that an expansion at Aonach Mor would have been in operation now had the Government taken the positive action towards that development that his hon. Friend appears to be urging upon him.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend urged upon me the strong involvement of the private sector. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will remember that the previous proposition involved 84 per cent. of public money and the cost per job would have been between £60,000 and £80,000. Given the questionable viability of that plan, that would not have been a desirable use of public funds.

    Forestry Products (Isle of Wight)
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of forestry products from the Isle of Wight for the last five years.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The value of timber and Christmas trees removed from Forestry Commission woodlands on the island between 1 April 1983 and 31 March 1988 was approximately £164,000. The value of produce from private woodlands over that period is not known.
    Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the lack of a broadleaved woodland policy in the past has deprived our world-famous craftsmen and shipwrights of locally grown timber? Is my hon. Friend aware that the wooden ships that sailed out to defeat the Armada off the Isle of Wight, manned by the iron men of England, were built from oak taken from Hampshire and the Isle of Wight? Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, with a county council chairman named Drake, should we have to sail out tomorrow for a similar event we could only do so on pine log rafts?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I assure my hon. Friend that, although the Forestry Commission headquarters may be in my constituency, we are conscious of the interests of the Isle of Wight. Most of the productive woodlands on the island are managed by the Forestry Commission, which is presently restocking with broad-leaved trees where the soil conditions are suitable. My hon. Friend has had an invitation from the manager to visit the woodlands and he will discover that many of the trees are larches, which are suitable for boat building on the island.

    Brewing Industry
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the future of the Scottish brewing industry.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such representations.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister not received any correspondence from Scottish and Newcastle Breweries on the question of theft? What constitutes a theft? Is it when a man steals £1,000 from his building society or defrauds the Inland Revenue of £500 or is it, perhaps, when a church-going director of Scottish and Newcastle comes to Workington, to a development area, and steals the jobs of people working in my constituency? Is he not the thief? Is it not fair to say that in 100 years' time, when we are more circumspect about such matters, it will be the director of Scottish and Newcastle who will be seen as the criminal, and perhaps not the others?
    Mr. Lang: Plainly, the hon. Gentleman is an expert on this subject. So far as I am aware, the shareholders of Matthew Brown accepted a takeover bid from Scottish and Newcastle, as they were free to do. I seem to recall that Matthew Brown itself closed down a brewery in Carlisle—Theakston's a couple of years ago.
    Mr. John Marshall: Has my hon. Friend noticed the article on page 25 of The Times today, from which it would seem that that excellent company, Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, was frustrated in 1985 by highly questionable, if not illegal, activities on the part of the supporters of Matthew Brown plc?
    Mr. Lang: I have seen the article to which my hon. Friend has referred. He will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a continuing DTI investigation.

    Rates (Shetland Islands)
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Shetland Islands council regarding rates.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a letter from the convenor of Shetland Islands council asking him to reconsider the council's rate support grant for 1988–89.
    Mr. Wallace: I know that the Minister is well aware of the deep concern in Shetland among domestic and business ratepayers at the 85 per cent. increase in rates. Does he not accept that for many years the needs element awarded to Shetland Islands council under the rate support grant has been much less—indeed, only half—the assessed need of the islands' council? Given the substantial rates increase, what hope can he give for a review of the rate support grant so that domestic and non-domestic ratepayers will get some relief?
    Mr. Lang: I accept that the circumstances of Shetland are exceptional. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have always said that we would be willing to reconsider the position once the Sullom Voe valuation appeal was finally resolved. I am sure he will also appreciate that it is difficult to do this retrospectively when the grant has been fixed for a particular year and the cash has been distributed.

    Hospital Patients
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients were cared for in Scottish hospitals in each year from 1979.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: There was an increase in in-patient discharges from NHS hospitals in Scotland of 104,708 between 1979 and 1987. Out-patient attendances increased in the same period by 464,356 and day cases nearly doubled. With permission, I shall arrange to have the information requested published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not excellent news that the Scots are getting so much treatment? Is it not also the case that even more patients could be treated in Scotland if it were not for the attitude of the Scottish TUC, which is trying to insist that all work within Scottish hospitals is carried out by a closed shop of its own directly employed members at the expense of private sector employees, many of whom are also union members?
    Mr. Forsyth: As I understand it, the STUC has called off official action against competitive tendering in hospitals in Scotland and is setting about ensuring that its members take part in the competitive tendering process, which we very much welcome. My hon. Friend is right to point to the success of the Health Service in Scotland and the effects of industrial action. Some 3,500 operations have been lost as a result of the action taken by the STUC, at a time when we have a major waiting list initiative. We are reducing waiting lists, which had no fewer than 20,000 people added to them because of the last round of industrial action organised by trade unions and supported by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Darling: The Minister of State will no doubt be aware that tomorrow Lothian health board will announce its option appraisal plan for the replacement of the Royal infirmary in Edinburgh. Can he assure us that when the appraisal is finished the Government will fund the replacement of the infirmary so that it is not downgraded to the status of a district general hospital, and so that it can maintain its status as a major clinical and teaching centre in the United Kingdom and the world?
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, for some time we have been emphasising the importance of Lothian completing the review of acute services so that a decision can be taken as to the best means of going forward with Edinburgh royal infirmary, whether on its present site or on a green field site. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to I he success of Lothian health board in establishing so many new capital projects in its area, including the new district general hospital at Livingston, which is one of the biggest capital projects under way in Scotland at present.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Can the Minister state how many hospitals in Scotland have been closed since 1979? Will he state his level of commitment to rural and borough hospitals in Scotland? Will he join in the fight in his own district of Angus to ensure that the maternity units in Montrose and Arbroath remain open to continue their excellent work? Will he state his level of commitment to such hospitals?
    Mr. Forsyth: May I enlist the hon. Gentleman's support in the fight to improve the Health Service, instead of

    345
    concentrating on attacking a Government who have ensured that out-of-date and redundant facilities are closed in order to invest in new facilities? I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a Scottish National Member, would point to the considerable share of the capital programme enjoyed by hospitals in Scotland. Since 1979 there have been no fewer than 53 new hospital projects costing more than £1 million, and 32 more are in the pipeline, yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to ask me about closures.
    Following is the information:

    In-patient discharges, out-patient treatments and day cases in NHS hospitals in Scotland.

    Year ending 31 March

    In-patient discharges

    Out-patient treatments1

    Day cases

    1979

    737,816

    5,206,078

    80,271

    1980

    764,301

    5,268,984

    87,223

    1981

    785,080

    5,367,934

    98,044

    1982

    793,171

    5,433,697

    104,729

    1983

    744,436

    5,278,411

    98,592

    1984

    809,681

    5,519,030

    126,721

    1985

    821,642

    5,593,127

    132,613

    1986

    837,044

    5,668,199

    147,132

    1987

    842,524

    5,670,434

    158,841

    1 Out-patient attendances at consultant clinics.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Allen Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to monitor expenditure incurred by local authorities in compiling the community charge register.
    Mr. Lang: The setting-up costs for the community charge register will be taken into account by local authorities when completing the usual monitoring returns which they send to central Government.
    Mr. Adams: Does the Secretary of State agree that the cost is borne by the local authority? Does he further agree that the registration officer responsible for distributing poll tax forms and cards is an employee of the regional council? If he does agree, will he remind the registration officer for Glasgow that he works for the regional council and not for the Government? Apparently that officer does not agree that he is an employee of the council, and has said so both in court and to the press.
    Mr. Lang: The already generous 1988–89 RSG settlement has made provision for an extra £12 million to be made available this year to meet current expenditure costs for the setting up of the community charge, in addition to which about £20 million of capital costs have been provided over the past two years.
    The powers of the community charge registration officer in Glasgow are clearly prescribed in the 1987 Act. I note that when the hon. Gentleman took his case to court recently he lost on all four counts.
    Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend monitor the cost of non-co-operation of the kind sponsored by so many Opposition Members? As to dates of birth, does he recall that one has to give a date of birth when applying for a driving licence? Does he have any information on whether the Scottish Labour party will insist on people in Scotland giving up driving?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The increased cost resulting from the non-co-operation urged by the Labour party will have to be borne by other community charge payers. As to driving, the one consolation I have is that the Labour party does at least drive on the left-hand side of the road.
    Mr. Dewar: The Minister referred to the recent judgment in Glasgow sheriff court. Does he agree that the sheriff made it clear that the card being distributed by the registration officer, which appeared to suggest that people should not exercise their right to take three weeks to consider their position before returning the form, had no legal validity and could be ignored? Will the Minister take this opportunity to dissociate himself from the widely reported allegations by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the effect that those exercising their rights in raising genuine doubts about their role as responsible persons, and in testing the system, as they are legally entitled to do, may be liable to fines and criminal penalties that do not exist in the statute? That form of near-intimidation, or at least of misrepresentation, has been widely resented.
    Mr. Lang: I would not dream of dissociating myself from anything said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, when accurately represented. As to the court case, I recall that the sheriff regarded the procedure of issuing postcards as being sensible, reasonable and practicable.

    Social and Health Policies
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for the Government's social and health policies of the recently published preliminary return for 1987 for Scotland by the Registrar General.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I welcome the fact that the preliminary return indicates that infant mortality is at the lowest rate ever recorded. However, I am concerned about the level of premature deaths from lung cancer and coronary heart disease and will continue to promote health education measures.
    Mr. McAllion: I am sure that the Minister joins me in welcoming the Registrar General's information that the lowest-ever rate of infant and perinatal deaths and stillbirths was recorded in 1987. However, I draw his attention to a petition printed in today's Order Paper from mothers and members of the Royal College of Midwives in Dundee, which calls upon the Government to face the facts about the under-funding of the maternity services. Does the Minister agree that unless the Government face the facts and provide adequate funding the information from the Registrar General in future years may not be so encouraging?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman takes my breath away. The return from the Registrar General shows the lowest rates ever recorded for stillbirths and of perinatal mortality. That is an example of the success of this Government's investment in the Health Service. It is an example of the success of the Government's investment in the Health Service. It is true that a result of our success in saving infants with a very low birth weight is that they require some six weeks to three months of intensive and special care, and that of course causes intense pressure on

    347
    the available cots. However, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge what is being done in the acceptance of the review body's recommendations on pay for those involved in intensive care in other aspects of the hospital. He should welcome what is being achieved, rather than using it as a means to attack the Government's record, which is excellent.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister have regard to the burning needs and demands placed on the Health Service, both social and medical, and in particular the special implications of the AIDS epidemic on the east coast of Scotland? Is he satisfied that enough money is being devoted, in both social and the medical directions, to cope with the problem in future?
    Mr. Forsyth: Yes, I am satisfied. If we were not satisfied, we would be devoting more resources to the problem. We have made an additional £1 million available to the health boards to help voluntary organisations. As for the resources required for local authorities, the hon. Gentleman knows that a working party has been examining the matter. Its assessment of need is well within the additional resources that we have made available for social work, w hich—I speak from memory—have gone up by nearly one third in real terms under the Government.

    Housing Revenue Accounts
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the net capital allocations for the housing revenue accounts for Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen district councils for the current financial year.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The net housing revenue account capital allocations for 1988–89 are £7·340 million for Edinburgh, £58·828 million for Glasgow, £8·095 million for Dundee and £10·506 million for Aberdeen. Councils may also utilise the actual capital receipts which they generate within the financial year.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister explain why he refused to meet an all-party deputation from Edinburgh district council, which wished to voice its concern about the housing benefit changes that have had such a traumatic effect on the lives of so many pensioners and others in Edinburgh?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have visited Edinburgh district council within the last few weeks, when I was made fully aware of the problems. I do not recall that particular point being an issue, but it will be fully debated later this afternoon. What council members were worried about was the rate at which council house sales might be carried out, and I hope that I was able to reassure them.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give an assurance that tomorrow he will meet a delegation of tenants from Cunninghame district, who are coming to lobby and to express their deep anxieties about Scottish Homes and various other aspects of housing policy? Will he come face to face with people's real and legitimate concerns?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have attended meetings of tenants, and I recently addressed the Scottish tenants' organisation in Glasgow. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to meet me and put specific points, I shall certainly meet him. I leave it at that.

    Community Care
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the recommendations of the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement on his future policy.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Government are considering Sir Roy Griffiths' proposals and reactions to his report. My right hon. and learned Friend will bring foward proposals for the development of community care policies in Scotland in due course.
    Dr. Moonie: Will the Minister let us know when he will publish his answer to the SHARPEN report?
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the SHARPEN report was produced by a working party of the planning council. The council has now had an opportunity to consider it, and I believe that it has been forwarded to the Department. We shall consider the report and the foreword provided by the full planning council, and issue a response in due course.
    Mr. Worthington: The Government's response to the Griffiths report was very depressing, given that the failure to produce a coherent policy on community care is causing widespread suffering among the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government's response will come within the next couple of months, and no later?
    Mr. Forsyth: This Government have done more than any of their predecessors for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped and when the party that the hon. Gentleman supports was in power it did nothing to improve facilities in units such as Lennox Castle and the Royal Scottish national hospital. Far from the Government's response being depressing, it was entirely responsible. The Griffiths report raises far-reaching proposals which require assessment, and local authorities and health boards need to be given an opportunity to respond to that report. We have given them that opportunity, and as a responsible Government we shall give the report considered thought before reaching any conclusions.
    Mr. McLeish: The Minister has made an extravagant statement about the Government's commitment to care in the community. Is he aware of the tremendous work being done by Scottish local authorities in difficult financial circumstances? Will he accept that the Disabled Persons Services, Consultation and Representation Act, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), has still not captured the imagination of the Government? When will they make a commitment to fund the Act before the Griffiths report is implemented?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman said that I had made some extravagant statements. We have made substantial commitments in expenditure on the Health Service and in transferring resources towards the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly, which have been a success for our policies. As to his point about local authorities being hard-pressed for funds, the resources that have been made available to them for social work have gone up by more than one third. It is a pity that they have not devoted more of these resources to providing facilities and devoting

    349
    themselves to joint planning. We are making progress on that, but not fast enough. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his friends in local government.
    Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to use Scottish Question Time as a dressing room? It is bad enough when Members such as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) turn up as imported token Scots in Scottish Questions, but it is even worse when they decide to sport tartan ties for which any normal Scotsman would demand a volume control. When they decide to take them off and pass them round at the end of Scottish Question Time, it is not only an act of provocation but an act of contempt towards the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Speaker: I repeat what I said earlier, that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) had a question on the Order Paper, and many Scottish Members have questions on the Order Paper on other days.
    Mr. McKelvey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Not further to it.
    Mr. McKelvey: On a point of order regarding the changing of dress in the Chamber. At Scottish Question Time some hon. Members come in wearing a kilt. Would it be in order for them to change from their kilt into trousers at the end of Scottish questions?
    Mr. Speaker: Certainly I hope not!

Opposition Day
[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Housing Benefit (Changes)
  Mr. Speaker: I have to announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Before we start the debate, I point out that no fewer than 34 hon. Members have so far sought to take part and I appeal for brief contributions. If we have them, I shall be able to call a great many of those hon. Members.
  3.33 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
  That this House expresses its concern at the evidence of the hardships caused by the recent changes in housing benefit to many individuals, particularly pensioners with property which is for sale but has not been sold, modest savings or small occupational or disability pensions; recognises that Her Majesty's Government may not have fully appreciated this degree of hardship in framing the new regulations; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to raise the capital disregard so that no one with less than £10,000 in capital assets loses housing benefit, and to relax the taper by which housing benefit is reduced for claimants with any income above the poverty line.
  When the House first debated the changes in housing benefit three years ago, we were repeatedly told that they represented the most fundamental change in the welfare state for 40 years, that they were the outcome of the most profound review of the welfare state for 40 years and that they must be designed to stand the tests of the next 40 years. The then Secretary of State for Social Services, when speaking in the debate on the consultation paper in 1985, said that the changes must prepare the welfare state for the next half century.
  Far from standing the test of the next 40 years, the changes in housing benefit have not survived the test of the first four weeks. Already, over the past three days, we have seen a series of hurried and frenetic meetings between Ministers, interrupted on one occasion, so we are told, by President Mugabe, to get together a package of emergency sticking plaster to put over the cuts. Why? Because the system they introduced after that fundamental and profound review has proved harsh in its social consequences and embarrassing in its political consequences.
  In the last debate on the issue, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State took care to remind us that it had been thought up three years ago. On the surface, they meant that it should have been opposed then and not now. However, the sub-text of what the Ministers were saying was equally clear. The sub-text was that as they were not in office three years ago, they should not be blamed for the measure, as they were both somewhere else.
  The air is already thick with the grinding of alibis. Last Friday, in that curious way that the press have of suddenly being told something, it emerged that the former Secretary of State, the present Secretary of State for Employment, had never supported the figure of £6,000. He had always wanted a figure of £10,000, but the figure of £6,000 was imposed on him. There is only one person who could have imposed such a figure. Yesterday. I read in one of the papers a report still sticky with the thumbprint of Bernard Ingham, which stated that the Prime Minister was furious
  352
  with Ministers for not foreseeing the row over the new rules. Suddenly, no one wants it to be thought that they had thought up the new rules.
  There is no doubt where we stand. From the moment that this issue was first debated, we vigorously opposed the changes. It was our view that one could not without hardship force up rents and force up rates, as the Government have done, and simultaneously cut the housing subsidies to the poorest. It is not just the Labour party that opposed these cuts three years ago. The Child Poverty Action Group, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the National Consumer Council, Help the Aged and every local authority association warned the Government that the cuts in housing benefit were impractical and indefensible.
  The only organisation unreservedly to support the proposals on housing benefit was the Institute of Directors—not the most obvious source of advice on the problems and experiences of social security claimants. Nevertheless, Ministers chose to take that advice. Having marched on with the proposals in defiance of the criticism of all informed groups and all representative organisations, they have only themselves to blame if they are obliged to beat an ignominious retreat.
  The motion magnanimously recognises that Ministers may not have appreciated the hardships that the change will cause. Eagerly, I turned to the amendment tabled by the Secretary of State for Social Services and his right hon. Friends to see if at least that passage had been accepted by the Government. Sadly, I found that that sentence would also be deleted.
  The truth is, as Ministers know, that the two alternatives before them are equally uncomfortable. Either they knew that the changes would cause the degree of hardship that we have witnessed in our surgeries, in which case it was cruel to persevere with them and dishonest to conceal it from their Back Benchers, or they did not know, in which case somebody along the line has been guilty of incompetence on a heroic scale. Charitably, I am inclined to believe the latter explanation.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Member explain to the House why it is Labour party policy that those who have capital should be subsidised by those who are on low incomes and have no capital?
  Mr. Cook: It is perfectly true that the previous Labour Government, and every previous Conservative Government did not apply a capital rule to the treatment of housing benefit or to the rent rebate system that went before it. It is wholly unjust and unreasonable that people with modest savings of £3,000 to £6,000 should be treated as if they are receiving an interest rate of 20 per cent. per annum. Later in my speech, I shall tell the hon. Gentleman about a particular case in my constituency. I shall be interested to hear if it was Conservative party policy to hit my constituent in that way. My constituent will be equally interested, as she has voted Conservative in all her 84 years.
  All the evidence coming in is that the cuts have resulted in financial cuts well in excess of the Government's estimates. We now have the data from the first local authorities that have completed the transfer of claimants to the new assessment. We know how their expenditure under the new scheme compares with their expenditure under the old scheme. The drop is dramatic.

  353
  The Government repeatedly told us that the "savings", as they prefer to express it, would amount to £650 million as against expenditure this year, had the previous system continued. That is an 11 per cent. cut. The experience of every local authority to which I have spoken is that they are experiencing cuts well in excess of that figure.
  Glasgow finds that its expenditure has gone down by £22 million, compared with last year. That is a 15 per cent. cut on last year's expenditure, and it is a 21 per cent. cut in what it might have expected to spend this year. If Glasgow's experience is typical, the cuts across the nation are not £650 million; they are £1,200 million.
  Nor is Glasgow the worst. In Renfrew, expenditure is down 18 per cent. on last year and it is 24 per cent. down on this year. The most spectacular is my local authority, West Lothian, which is down 25 per cent. on last year and 30 per cent. on this year—almost three times the Government's estimate.
  The local authority has supplied me with a table of losers, banded by the amount that its tenants lose per week. It provides an illuminating contrast with the bland assurances given to the House by the Government. Ministers predicted that 8·6 per cent. of claimants would lose over £5 a week. The figures prepared by my local authority's officials, working in the real world and with real tenants, show that 21 per cent. are losing over £6 a week and that a staggering 11 per cent. are losing over £12 a week. The director of finance has already received three threats of suicide from tenants in the past fortnight.
  Mr. David Young: Could I put this in human terms? The case of Miss Turnbull was mentioned last week in The Guardian. As a result of the Government cuts, she will be forced to give up her job, because her mother owns a small house, and remove her mother from nursing care, or she will have to put the onus on the owner of the private nursing home either to subsidise the lady, who needs nursing care, or to expel her. Is that what we mean by a caring Tory authority?
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend suggests that there are a number of cases, to which I shall turn in a moment, where, far from providing an incentive to work, the rules make it almost impossible to reconcile family commitments with their work.
  Given the unexpected ferocity of these cuts, much talk of "anomalies" is now emerging from ministerial briefings. Out there, apparently, there are 5·5 million anomalies who have just seen their housing benefit cut. In the last debate a fortnight ago, the Minister of State accused us of scouring the country looking for hard luck cases. I assure him that we do not need to scour the country; they tumble out of our mail bags. Those are the kind of letters that I alone have received in the past two weeks. They fall into our surgeries every time we open the door. People ring our offices and our homes.
  Having counselled many of those who have been shocked by the loss of their housing benefit, I warn the Government that there are three stages to their reaction. The first is disbelief that the sums can be correct. The second is despair at how they can make ends meet. The third is anger that they should be required to make such sacrifices, an anger that flares all the more fiercely when they compare their losses this month with last month's
  354
  Budget that conspicuously did not ask for sacrifices from people rich beyond the dreams of anybody on housing benefit.
  Let me share with the House some of the cases which I have had to counsel. On Friday I visited a constituent who is an elderly lady living by herself. She retired early due to an industrial injury to her back from lifting refrigerators around a showroom and received severe disablement allowance. She has lost £32·60 a week in housing benefit. After paying rent and rates, her weekly income has fallen from £78 to £47. When I visited her, she was arranging to have her telephone removed. She had just spoken to her granddaughter to explain that she would no longer be able to afford the presents which she used to purchase. A telephone to the outside world and the ability to play one's part in the family are important parts of being able to serve one's retirement in dignity. I cannot get my mind around the idea that there are those who would justify visiting such a devastating drop in income on an elderly person.
  Then there are families with children. I received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Shippam in Wigan who have two children. Mr. Shippam is on a job training scheme. His misfortune is that he receives special hardship allowance, which takes him well over the limit for the housing benefit threshold. He has lost £13 in housing benefit and £6 in free school meals. The total lost to that household is £19 out of a total income of £105. Lest the Government ask us how much that family has gained in family credit, I remind Ministers that Mr. Shippam is on the job training scheme and has been refused family credit, as he is counted as not being at work.
  Then there is the case of Mr. and Mrs. Brown of Windermere. Mr. Brown is a gardener who gets take-home pay of £82 a week. On that, plus child benefit and family credit, Mr. and Mrs. Brown bring up four young children. Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Brown get family credit and, yes, their family credit has gone up by £14. But they have also lost £19 in housing benefit, £10 in free school meals and £2 in milk tokens. They are £16 a week worse off, even allowing for the increase in family credit. How does the party of family values reconcile that cut imposed on a couple struggling to hold a family together on a low wage? Mrs. Brown's letter used words to this effect: "Yesterday when I received the notification of housing benefit, I spent most of the day in tears. Today has not been much better."
  I turn to the treatment of young people. It is difficult to think of a better way of removing the incentive to work than the way that young people are treated under the housing benefit rules. Because young people are now entitled only to a new junior rate of benefit, they start losing housing benefit at the rate of 85p in the pound on any income over £26. Last week in Norwich I met a chef in the National Health Service earning £61 a week who had just lost £24 a week in housing benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has informed me of young people in his constituency who are employed on £55 a week as wardens of sheltered units. It is a condition of the job that they have to be tenants of one of those units and, therefore, they have no control over housing costs. They have just seen their rent and rates go up sixfold.
  These cases will be no worse off—indeed, they might even be better off—if they gave up work, except for the fact that a month ago, perhaps prudently anticipating these changes, the Minister of State took powers to stop their benefit for 26 weeks if they gave up the struggle to square poverty wages with miserly benefits. None of the cases to

  355
  which I have referred would remotely benefit from the change in the savings rule which we are told we might hear about this afternoon.
  The savings rule is devastating in its impact on those caught by it. I turn to the case of the constituent to which I referred the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed). That constituent is a staunch Tory voter. Indeed, in her letter she said that she wrote to me with "great reluctance", as I was a Labour Member of Parliament. She has just over £6,000. Her only income is a non-contributory pension and the income from £6,000. Together, that gives her a weekly income of £32 a week. She has now lost all her housing benefit. Her weekly rent and rates demand is £29 a week, leaving her £3 a week to live on.
  A moment's contemplation shows that such a rule is preposterous and I shall readily give way to the hon. Member for Bristol, East again, if he is prepared to defend his claim that that is Conservative Government policy. Even the readers of The Sun have grasped that the rule is unfair and have voted by three to one on The Sun hotline to scrap it.
  I welcome the fact that the Government, although they will seek to delete that part of my motion calling for a change in the rule, appear to have decided to change the rule. That is quite a turnround from the position of only three weeks ago. We know from the leaked minute of the Cabinet Sub-Committee that, only three weeks ago, the Prime Minister presided over a meeting at which she was plotting even further cuts in housing benefit. Now, instead of more cuts, we are to have higher expenditure. Supply day debates are starting to become expensive for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We must try to make them more expensive.
  As Ministers have accepted that part of our motion, I am all the more disappointed that they appear to be resisting the remainder of the motion, because, although a change in the savings rule will be welcome to those people hit by that rule, they are relatively few. To put them in perspective, such a change would help 150,000 claimants. The Government admit that 5·5 million people, the vast majority of whom have no capital to their names, are losing as a result of the changes. If we are to help those people and to relieve the harshness of any of the other cases that I have quoted, we must tackle the sharp and cruel taper which provides such a savage clawback of benefit.
  There is one compelling reason why Conservative Members should think about changing that clawback and helping those 5·5 million people. The majority of those people are in Conservative constituencies. Fifty-five per cent. of all losers under the new rules have a Conservative Member of Parliament. On average, every Conservative Member has 7,500 losers in his constituency. To express that point more crudely, in case its significance has been missed, that is more than the majority of 115 Conservative Members.
  We have been accused of drafting a motion that embarrasses the Conservative party. It is embarrassing only because many Conservative Members agree with it. If they want to see it passed, they must vote for it. That may be politically embarrassing, but I can assure them that it will be nothing like as politically embarrassing as it will be in their constituencies, if they vote against the motion.
  In case Conservative Members are too embarrassed to ask the questions, let me close by leaving the questions that the Secretary of State must answer when he responds to
  356
  the debate. We were told that the new system would be fairer. Where is the fairness in the way that the system has hit the cases that I have quoted and in the letters that I and my hon. Friends have received? We were told that the new system would target those in need. If those cases that I have quoted are not in need, then who is in need? We were told that the changes would help families with children. It is evident that the changes leave families with children worse off to the tune of large sums of money per week. We were told that the changes would increase incentives to work. The changes plainly penalise families on a low wage, pensioners with part-time earnings and youngsters starting at the very bottom of the labour market.
  Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the major structure of the housing benefit system would remain substantially the same. The letters that I have received and the cases that I have quoted provide a devastating case as to why that substantial structure of the new system is totally unsound. Tonight the House must vote to take apart that new structure and to rebuild it.
  3.55 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'recognising that social security spending has risen by nearly 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979, and now totals almost £48½ billion, and that spending on housing benefit last year amounted to over £5 billion and went to over 7 million, or 1 in 3, households in this country, commends Her Majesty's Government for its determination to tackle the complexities and unfairnesses of the old system.'.
  So far, the debate has concentrated, as does the motion, on one aspect of social security changes—housing benefit. Before I respond and tell the House about the Government's proposals, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) legitimately asked, my hon. Friends will want me to remind them of some of the substantial achievements that are embodied in the new benefit system. I shall briefly do so.
  It is a simpler system, that people can understand. It gives more help for most disabled people and most families with children. In terms of fairness, in many ways it is a major improvement in respect of incentives. Hon. Members will remember the old family income supplement system, whereby a family could be better off earning £75 than £150. The perverse incentives of the old system have entirely gone. The new system has also ended the runaway spending under an abused single payments system, part of the unemployment trap. That was utterly unfair to those m work.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Moore: I shall give way in a second.
  The major achievements meant that there would be inevitable changes and that, as hon. Members have recognised, they would be controversial. That was especially true in relation to housing benefit.
  Throughout the reform debates over the past few years, Conservative Members did riot believe that it was right—they expressed the view many times—to help as many as one out of three families with their housing costs. Therefore, since 1985, the Government have made it clear that we would tackle that. Ironically, in relation to what the hon. Member for Livingston said, the need for

  357
  structural reform of housing benefit was the social security matter of greatest consensus throughout all parts of the country.
  Despite what the hon. Member for Livingston said, the Green Paper and subsequent debates produced little disagreement with the structural proposals. I recognise the point that was made. Today's debate and the criticisms are about the effects on some people at the point of the change—I recognise that individuals have been mentioned—but I stress the key point that they are all individuals above the income support level.
  It is important briefly to consider the reason for the general agreement that existed on the need for reform of the old system. Two things were critically wrong with it. First, it was hideously complicated—no hon. Member who had constituency surgeries over the years, let alone those who sought to help claimants, would deny that—and, secondly, it was indefensibly unfair.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Housing benefit was a Tory scheme.
  Mr. Moore: I shall refer to that point in a moment.
  The worst feature of the system was the unfair way in which it operated against people in work. For those out of work and on supplementary benefits, quite properly the old system paid 100 per cent. of rent. For those not on supplementary benefit but with similar incomes, the calculations were based on 60 per cent. of rent. We were in a position that we all knew was ridiculous—someone was much worse off simply because his income came from work, while his neighbour's came from benefit.
  Faced with such unfairness or injustice, what can a Government do? [Interruption.] That is precisely what we would expect from the Opposition. A Government can do what Opposition Members did when they were in office—nothing at all, because any change would provoke a storm. It is no good Opposition Members pretending that, when they were in office, they did not know about the fundamental unfairness in the problem. They knew about the problems.
  In 1976, the Supplementary Benefits Commission highlighted the inequality between the treatment of those in work and those on benefit. It pointed out to the then Government—the Labour Government—that 400,000 families were receiving less than they were entitled to. Faced with the complicated choice between asking for help with housing and approaching their local authorities and social security offices, they made the wrong choice. That was an outrage that the Labour Government ignored. They accepted it and did nothing to tackle fundamental reform.
  This Government were not prepared to ignore the problem. The reforms of 1983 and 1986 have got the structure right. What that means—most outside observers accept this—is that people in work, or out of work, and with the same characteristics or level of income, will receive the same level of help. That must be right, and it is a major achievement. The Opposition funked reform, but my right hon. and hon. Friends, rightly, would have wished me to do what I have been doing in the past few weeks—listening carefully to them. They expect the Government to watch carefully and to monitor the changes. [Interruption.] I recall that not too long ago we
  358
  had debates about the social fund and one or two other issues. The changes about which we were talking affect 8·5 million citizens—not simply those changes we are addressing today, which only affect those above income support level.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends would expect me to listen carefully, and they have used Parliament and information from their surgeries to draw my attention to problems. They and I would not be surprised if, in the biggest structural change for 40 years, there were not some areas that merited not only concern but action. While they welcomed—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important debate. I know that the whole House is anxious to hear what the Secretary of State has to say.
  Mr. Moore: While the overall structural reforms and the many improvements that I have outlined have been welcomed, since the introduction of the new housing benefit scheme, hon. Members—particularly my hon. Friends—have raised a series of concerns about how some aspects of the scheme have worked in practice. I wish to respond to those concerns.
  Sir Peter Hordern: The reform of social security is not only long overdue but wholly welcome, and my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated. The issue causing concern among some hon. Members is housing benefit. It is the Government's policy to encourage local authorities to increase the return on their assets by increasing rents. That places an unconscionable strain on those who have been accustomed to housing benefit but who, because of the £6,000 limit, will no longer receive it. Will my right hon. Friend address himself to that particular point?
  Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that I am moving to that point.
  I wish to respond to hon. Members' concerns in a number of ways, which I believe recognise the most serious difficulties experienced at the time of the change over. The issue that has been most often mentioned—my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) mentioned it again—in public discussion of the new housing benefit scheme is the capital rule. Most people accept the need to take capital into account and to have some limit. The problem is a difficult one, even given that general agreement.
  None of us wishes to discourage people from saving, yet it is clearly wrong that the taxpayer should be expected to pay the rents and rates of people who have some capital and could be expected to draw on it. The question is what the level should be before they turn to their fellow citizens. I recognise that the £6,000 limit in particular has been the cause of concern. I am responding to those concerns today by increasing the limit to £8,000. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Sir Anthony Grant: My right hon. Friend is aware that some of us have been critical not of the principle but of the detail of the reforms. Is he aware, therefore, how we appreciate the way in which he has responded to the advice of his loyal friends, which is particularly wise given that the official Opposition are hopelessly ineffective? What would the capital disregard be today if the figure of £6,000 in the Green Paper of 1985 had
  Mr. Moore: If the figure had been indexed up to today's prices, it would be £6,500. In that regard, the increase that I have just announced is substantial. It will bring considerable extra help—
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Minister saying that, with all the wealth of expert advice that was available to him before these changes, he was incapable of foreseeing the suffering and anxiety that his proposals would cause?
  Mr. Moore: No. I am saying that the Government are responding to the very sensible pressures that my hon. Friends and others have put on us to examine the position properly. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to give the Secretary of State a fair hearing.
  Mr. Moore: The increase will bring considerable extra help to a further 100,000 people. It will be effected by a change in the regulations, about which we shall quickly consult local authorities so that it can come into effect as soon as possible. It will cost £30 million.
  There is a second question concerning capital where I believe that a change is merited. Under the new regulations, a person entering a care home is excluded from income support from the moment that they become resident if their former home is worth more than the capital limit.
  The thinking behind the change is sound. The old system was wide open to abuse by those—perhaps the families of claimants—who made little effort to sell the home, while the taxpayer paid large sums to cover the care home fees. In one instance, the property remained unsold for 10 years.
  The new regulation is too inflexible, and we must have regard for the genuine difficulties that some elderly people have faced. I cannot return to the previous position of laying the taxpayer open to exploitation, but I propose to relax the regulation to allow people six months in which to dispose of their property. In exceptional circumstances of genuine difficulty, that time could be extended. Such judgments will be for adjudicators, subject to the usual appeals procedures. The regulations will be introduced soon, but local offices can make payments as though this relaxation had been in force since 11 April.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Andrew Bowden rose—
  Mr. Moore: I should like to make one or two further points, which the House might like to hear, but I shall give way once more.
  Mr. Bowden: I am deeply disturbed that, if I have understood my right hon. Friend correctly, although he is increasing the basic capital figure from £6,000 to £8,000, he is not altering the basic tariff. If he will not alter the figure of £3,000 at which full housing benefit would become applicable, a pensioner who has £6,000 saved and receives only a state pension will lose over £8 per week. I believe that to be completely wrong.
  Mr. Moore: I shall not give way again—[Interruption.]—because if my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will listen until I have finished, they might be pleased to hear what I am about to say.
  360
  The House will know that we have already acted so as to ensure that where, for example, a wife has to leave the marital home because the marriage has broken down, she will not be excluded from benefit.
  These measures are important but are not in themselves sufficient to deal with the difficulties of which we are aware, and which hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Livingston, has raised. There is a group of people on quite low incomes and without significant capital who have lost largish sums in housing benefit because of the interaction of various parts of the new scheme.
  One important factor has been ending most local authority discretion to run different schemes of housing benefit. That decision was right. It cannot be fair that in different parts of the country different rates of benefit should be paid and different rules applied. That had to end as part of the reforms, although, of course, we have left it to local authorities to maintain the most widely used discretion in respect of war pensioners and war widows. Other losses have occurred—for example, through ending the old housing benefit supplement. We think it right to ease the transition in such cases.
  We do not think it right to compensate for those increases in rents introduced to coincide with the new housing benefit scheme, nor increases in rates. That would cut across our firm purpose to increase local authority accountability. But we intend to offer transitional help to those significantly affected by the changes to the scheme, including the ending of local authority discretion.
  I propose to make good those housing benefit losses in excess of £2·50 per week arising from the changeover to the new scheme which have affected pensioners, disabled people, families with children and lone parents. We estimate that perhaps 300,000 people will benefit from this. We will be spending an extra £70 million in this way.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Did I understand the Secretary of State to say that this applies to people on housing benefit supplement, or does it apply more widely?
  Mr. Moore: This covers those above the income support level who may have suffered by more than £2·50, if they are pensioners, disabled people, families with children and lone parents.
  Parliamentary approval for the payments under this new scheme will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure up to £25 million will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.
  The payments will be made by my Department through a new central unit, in order to provide the quickest and most efficient response to cases. Clearly it will be some weeks before such a unit can be properly operational, but I can give the House an assurance that the transitional arrangements will deal with the relevant losses to the vulnerable groups which have occurred since 1 April. That includes people with capital of less than £8,000 who have been affected by the £6,000 limit which has been in operation since 1 April. In other words, any payments will be backdated to 1 April.
  This proposal meets the concern which has been emerging at constituency surgeries. These transitional arrangements are announced and the money will be for—[Interruption.]—the year in question and, obviously, it

  361
  will be kept under continuing review. [Interruption.] It will be kept under continuing review, because people's circumstances change.
  This proposal meets the concern which has been emerging at constituency surgeries. It is that, despite the substantial improvement in the structure of housing benefit, the change for people who are used to a particular level of help is too abrupt; and that we must act to stop losses which for some represent too high a proportion of their total income. I am confident that we have found the means to tackle that effectively.
  The social security reforms which came into effect a few weeks ago have created a fairer, simpler and better targeted system than anything seen previously. Overall, the majority of claimants will be better off or will get the same as before. I have announced today an increase in the capital limit, a relaxation of the rules covering the disposal of properties and, most important, a scheme of transitional help for those who have faced large losses.
  The effect of the package of measures will add a further £100 million to the largest ever social security budget. Nothing could better show this Government's commitment to those who need to look to us for help. Because of our extremely successful management of the economy we have been able to respond to the tune of £48 billion a year. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call Back-Bench Members, I again make a plea for brief speeches.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. James Lamond: I have just heard one of the most remarkable speeches in my 18 years in this House. It is rather sad to see a Secretary of State signing his own death warrant. I do not think that he can last very much longer, even after the concessions which have been wrung from him and the Cabinet in the past few days.
  It surprised me to hear the Secretary of State set the new capital limit at £8,000 without mentioning the £3,000 bottom limit which has already been drawn to his attention. The effect on those whom he was trying to help will nevertheless be severe. He tried to say that many more people have benefited than have suffered from these changes. That is hard to understand, because I have received many letters from my constituents, as have many other hon. Members. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of conversation on both sides of the House. I ask for a fair hearing for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Lamond: Yes, I understand why conversations are going on: I am sure that Conservative Members are trying to work out the statement, as we are. It is rather unfortunate—this is a criticism that we can make of the procedures of the House—that the last people to receive any information about such a statement are those who are expected to debate it. Early in the Secretary of State's speech I observed copies of the changes being handed round the Press Gallery, so they have an advantage over us.
  362
  Many of my constituents have written to me who cannot bring themselves to believe that the changes will have the effect that they are having. They are angry with their local council because they think that it is responsible for the changes, and that elderly people and mothers who have had to go to hospital, a nursing home or a council home for the elderly are being told that they must sell their homes to finance the cost of staying in that old person's council flat. They do not understand that, and cannot bring themselves to believe it.
  I wish to cite one instance from my constituency, because we cannot debate this matter on cold statistics. I know that Conservative Members would like to debate this on percentages and not individual cases, but it is of individual cases that we speak. The changes affect individual people, many of whom are the poorest in our society.
  A male constituent works full time as a butcher. He has one son aged two and three daughters between six and 10. This case is authenticated by the chief executive of my local authority. That man's net earnings, working full time as a butcher in Oldham, are £79·02. Although this point does not directly affect what we are discussing today, I would like Conservative Members to take note of that man's wages. We have often heard those hon. Members speak of cutting wage levels, and say that people are pricing themselves out of jobs. If they tried to live on £79 per week take-home pay, with four children, they would have to curtail their lifestyles a little—and so would I.
  In addition to the £79, that man has child benefit for his four children of £29, and family income supplement of £25·70. That is a total income of £133·72. Under the new scheme, his family income supplement is replaced by family credit. That amount is increased from £25 to £39. I suppose that he is counted as one of the 5 million or 6 million people who are considered to be gainers under the new system, as against the 1 million losers.
  However, if we look at it a little further, instead of having a rent rebate of £22 against his rent of £34, which involves him paying a rent of £11·81, under the new scheme he does not receive any rebate at all. His rent is going up to £37·23, and the cash available to spend on himself, his wife and four children is reduced from £122 to £110. He is £12 a week worse off. In addition, he has lost his three daughters' entitlement to free school meals, which amounts to £9·75 a week. His total available income is now £100·04.
  I ask Conservative Members to place themselves in the circumstances of that family. That is my only reason for intervening in the debate. If the Minister is saying that he will not allow rent rebates to be reduced so drastically, I will welcome that alleviating action. However, I am concerned if he sets a time limit, because that family will. not be able to improve their circumstances so as to make up the loss of £20 from an income of £120. That man and his wife are very worried by that loss of £20.
  I know that many Conservative Members are reasonable people, and I cannot understand how they sleep at night. When people such as this man come to my constituency surgery, weeping about what is happening to them—ordinary decent people, trying to maintain a home and look after a family, working hard but having nothing to spare for holidays or anything of that kind—I find it difficult to sleep at night, and I would if I were a Conservative Member. Whether Conservative Members like it or not, and whether they table clauses saying that

  363
  they do not agree with such moves, they are responsible because they support such moves in the Lobby with their votes, so I cannot understand how they can go home and sleep soundly in their beds.
  4.25 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: I am not prepared to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), although he speaks with great conscience on this matter, in seeking to make such an attack on the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this debate. As the first Conservative Member to be called, I must tell my right hon. Friend how appreciative I am of the changes he has made. I will not use the word "thanks" to my right hon. Friend, because this is not an occasion for that word. What we have received from my right hon. Friend is more than that. We have had a rapid and sensitive appreciation that, at least in the housing benefit provisions, anomalies have occurred—I do not want to use the word "anomalies" again—which need some rapid changes.
  Two things flow from that. First, I believe that my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled respond to the pressures that are put upon them by members of the public, by members of our party and, no doubt, by Opposition Members. That responsiveness is a welcome sign.
  Secondly, my right hon. Friend has rightly shown the capacity to exert political judgment, when faced with a difficult situation. That is not to say that my right hon. Friend has embarked upon a course in which we shall not support him. Of course we will. Indeed, we fought the election on the reform of many of the structures which have been in place in the social fabric of this land for over 40 years. That is what the electorate expected this Government to do, and that is what we expect my right hon. Friend to do in handling the major issues of social security, which he has only inherited in recent months.
  I advise my right hon. Friend that there will be others among his colleagues in the Cabinet—I refer to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—who would do well to look at the way in which my right hon. Friend has responded to what happens when implementing major changes. I trust that my right hon. Friend recognises that this is not a matter for U-turns, grovelling or anxiety, or even for being particularly outrageous in turning the existing policy. However, the art of the possible and the art of the practicable are two of the essential ingredients of a successful Government. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done, although there are two other points which I wish to make.
  First, while recognising in the case of housing benefits that the anomalies created were both active in their expression and urgent, that could also be the way in which many other aspects of the major changes that my right hon. Friend has introduced will ultimately give witness. I am a little worried that, in seeking to respond to this and to the other changes announced today, as he has done, he may give the impression that, wherever the shoe happens to pinch, there will be an immediate response.
  In the debate three weeks ago, I urged my right hon. Friend to monitor the implementation of the changes. I said that if the Government failed in their commitment to ensure that the majority of people in need will benefit from those changes, my right hon. Friend should amend the
  364
  necessary regulations. What he should not consider tonight is seeking to offer a panic result to substantial and sudden pressure.
  The social security benefit changes represent a watershed in social policy, to which this Government are committed and which are endorsed by the electorate, alongside the changes in education and local authority financing. The changes are a fundamental shift in policy. There will be difficulties, and we as Conservative Members of Parliament will have to bear the brunt. I believe that we can do that in the knowledge that there are occasions when it is right to make changes. This is one such occasion. There may be others in due course. Our task is to support the principle upon which we were elected. I am glad to support my right hon. Friend.
  4.28 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: In having to deliver his speech this afternoon the Secretary of State does, in one sense, deserve sympathy from all quarters of the House. As his hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) has just said, if political sense prevailed within the Government, this was bound to be an occasion when decisions would be taken which would offer some concessions to Tory Back Benchers in order to try to quell the revolt. It must have been galling to read in the press at the weekend that even allowing for the fact that the Secretary of State would be making a speech that would provide some relief—if not sheer relief—for his Back Benchers he was still having to fight a battle to make the speech in the first place. That does not say much for the support that he has from the closest quarters within the Government. I am glad to see at least one Conservative Back Bencher nodding in acquiescence of that view. However, I shall not name him.
  I return to the opening of the debate, when we were reminded by both the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and the Secretary of State of the purpose of the social security reviews when they were first set up, with public hearings and so on. One of the principal objectives for which this Government and the previous Administration were aiming was simplification. Following the further rehash that has been announced this afternoon, welcome though aspects of it are, there can be no doubt that the Government are steadily retreating further and further from the simplification that they claim is one of the most welcome hallmarks of the system. They are doing so—
  Mr. Moore indicated dissent.
  Mr. Kennedy: The Secretary of State is disagreeing with me. He should go to the nearest social security office and ask the staff there, who have to cope with what has already been pushed through, how with declining staff resources they will cope with the further changes that have been announced, some of which have been backdated to the beginning of this month, when the original changes were implemented.
  The consistent simplification that the Government have always claimed has been departed from, and correctly so, given the changes and the policies that they were going to implement until their Back-Bench revolts of the past few days and weeks.
  Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
  The Secretary of State should be under no illusions. He is departing from that principle. I happily give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Beith: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that one change that the staff are having the greatest difficulty in explaining in this now complex situation is that a miner's widow who receives concessionary coal does not have that counted against housing benefit, but a miner's widow who, because her house has been converted by the council to central heating, gets cash in lieu of concessionary coal, has that amount counted against her benefit and it is reduced? My hon. Friend recognises the problems of the staff, but can he imagine trying to explain that to a miner's widow?
  Mr. Moore rose—
  Mr. Kennedy: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Moore: I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. Opposition Members should remind themselves that it is the local authorities which handle housing benefit, not, as they in their confusion seem to suggest, my DHSS officers.
  Mr. Kennedy: The Secretary of State referred to regulations. The argument that I have just made is that social security officers, who, as the Secretary of State is aware—after all, amongst other things, he is the Secretary of State for Social Services—are having to carry through the bulk of most the social security changes will, like the local government system, have to react to some of the changes that he has announced this afternoon.
  The example that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) gave was excellent, though sad, but it again reveals that this great, sweeping simplification has given rise to further crazy anomalies which are thwarting the very purpose of the Government's plans.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon rose—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
  Mr. Kennedy: I give way to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As the North of Ireland has to endure these terrible housing benefit regulations, it is only right that the Secretary of State should be accurate. Housing benefit is not administered by local authorities in the North of Ireland. It is administered by a different agency.
  In relation to what the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has been saying, one problem about the legislation is that those who understand it cannot explain it, and those who can explain it do not understand it.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am not sure that that point is as much for me as it is for the Secretary of State, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it.
  I now deal with the specific areas with which the Secretary of State dealt. First, on the question of capital disregard, which has caused so much difficulty and so much revolt on the Conservative Back Benches and in other quarters of the House, I refer to the position that
  366
  prevailed when the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) served at the DHSS. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in his place at the moment, although he was here for the Secretary of State's speech.
  When at the DHSS, the hon. Gentleman considered the alternative of notional interest, which, in a sense, has now almost been conceded by the transitional arrangements which the Secretary of State announced today, in preference to an absolute cut-off point for capital disregard. Notional interest is the assumed interest that could be earned from any capital owned by a benefit recipient.
  I endorse what the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said in an intervention during the Secretary of State's speech, when he referred to the continuing concern over tariff income and the £3,000 level. Given that, prior to this afternoon, above £6,000 there would have been a total loss of housing benefit, surely the DHSS would have done better to stick to the scheme or regime that was preferred by one of its previous Ministers.
  In a recent interview in The Guardian the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green recalled that, when he was a Minister examining this matter,
  "DHSS civil servants put forward two alternatives. One was a simplification along the lines of supplementary benefit, with a cut-off for claimants whose savings reached £3,000. The other involved deducting only the notional interest from savings when benefit was paid."
  The article then said that the hon. Gentleman had
  "examined Treasury costings and found no difference in implementing either scheme."
  The hon. Gentleman was reported as saying
  "Civil servants were determined to introduce the first alternative because it was much easier to administer, and I had to fight them all the way.
  It is much easier for an official just to cut off the benefit once savings reach such a figure than to work out the interest on savings and then deduct it from housing benefit payable."
  If that was the experience of someone who until fairly recently was a Minister at the DHSS, one can only wonder why, when the matter was re-examined by the present incumbents prior to the full implementation of the social security and housing benefit changes, Ministers chose to go down the path that they did with regard to the cut-off point for capital disregard, which, in turn, has led them into this afternoon's partial retreat, with all the resultant administrative considerations.
  The second point with which I wish to deal is the disposal of capital income, or assumed capital income, and the fact that discretion will be given to local officers, or adjudicating officers, to waive the rules, as presently constituted, in exceptional circumstances. It is extremely welcome that the Secretary of State has bowed to the understanding that there should be a degree of local and regional flexibility. However, in recognising the correctness and the acceptability of that approach, it is somewhat puzzling why he does not recognise the need for flexibility in the third aspect of the changes that he announced this afternoon—those relating to housing benefit itself.
  Even given the assurance—if it can be called that; after all, it is a transitional assurance—about what would happen if someone lost over £2.50 per week as a result of the overnight change in the housing benefit regime in the four categories that the Minister outlined in his speech, we should not be to sanguine about what the Government are doing. It is a transitional arrangement to achieve what was understood to be the Government's objective before the Secretary of State got to his feet this afternoon. It is a

  367
  transitional arrangement that may head off a partial revolt in his party—which may have been anticipated—but it will not deflect the Government from their pursual of the policy that has caused so much anguish and anxiety among hon. Members of all parties.
  For housing benefit, it would surely have been better to announce a much higher earnings disregard and a lower marginal tax rate—the 65 per cent. taper—at the beginning, than to have a transitional scheme of this sort now. I appreciate that there was movement in that direction in the Minister's speech today, but surely it would have been better to do as I have suggested, both in the conception and in the delivery.
  The disabled and the severely disabled stood to lose much as a result of the social security changes. The disabled premium has to an extent been an over-simplification in response to the myriad single payments and different benefits for which a severely disabled person could qualify. Now, however, by going too far in the opposite direction, the Government have left great anomalies.
  The Minister singled out the disabled as one of the four categories, and the emphasis that he put on helping them was welcome, but the Government must concede that if their concern and convictions were as strong as they claim in this area of social policy they would have been slightly more anxious to implement fully many of the changes heralded by the passage of the Disabled Persons' Rights Act 1987 than they have been. From the Report stage of that Bill and from social services questions it has become all too clear that changes in line with the provisions of that legislation have been the result of haranguing by Opposition Members rather than of genuine progress initiated by the Government. The changes on disability in today's announcement must be seen in that context.
  Finally, the Minister was at pains to talk about the need to encourage greater incentives by the changes to social security. Single parents are among those who will suffer most from those changes, even after today's announcement, and they will suffer because of the incentives with which the Secretary of State was concerned. Before the changes of 11 April, single parents were assessed as a couple for the purposes of housing benefit. I accept that there is now an additional premium of just over £8, but the 65 per cent. taper for withdrawal will leave many single parents signficantly worse off in low-paid employment than they were on state benefit.
  Even after the alterations to the scheme, that was not the original intention or objective of the Government. So when the Secretary of State assesses the effects of the transitional provisions that he has made today I hope that he will pay particular attention to single parents, whom he highlighted in his speech and who have suffered so much as a result of the initial changes. I suspect that they will continue to suffer, even allowing for the transitional provisions.
  In conclusion, we should not allow the concessions—
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member has already said "Finally".
  Mr. Kennedy: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so obviously hanging on my every word.
  The concessions at the margins that these changes bring about should not allow us to obscure what is happening at the heart of the tax and benefit policy of the Government.
  368
  This policy has been clear from the trio of debates that we have had this week. On Monday we discussed the poll tax, which will hit some of the poorest because of its flat-rate system. On Tuesday we debated the tax-cut provisions, which give the most to some of the most affluent people in society. Today, we have heard of a welcome change in housing benefit which arose because the poorest would have suffered from the alteration in Government policy that was implemented from the beginning of April.
  Taking those three components together, it is clear that the rich are still benefiting most and the poor are receiving something only because of extreme pressure from both sides of the House. That is not a moral pursuit of policy, and it will not command our support in the Division Lobby tonight.
  4.46 pm
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: During the debate on the Social Services Green Paper in 1985, I urged the Government to consider the implications of the proposed housing benefit changes, saying that I could not believe that the Government really intended to penalise 4 million pensioners.
  In the context of the motion before us the House should look back briefly at what has happened to housing benefit since April 1983, when changes were made which meant that 1,150,000 pensioners suffered losses and 120,000 lost all housing benefit. In November 1984, 1,200,000 pensioners lost further entitlement and another 210,000 lost all housing benefit. In November 1985, a further 1,470,000 pensioners lost benefit and an additional 270,000 lost all entitlement. In April 1987, 2,600,000 pensioners lost some housing benefit entitlement, with a further 60,000 losing all entitlement. In April 1988, about 2,570,000 pensioners lost some entitlement and 750,000 lost all their entitlement to housing benefit.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend must be aware that in 1978 the Government were spending £1·24 billion on housing benefit. By 1987–88 that figure had risen to £5·2 billion—a colossal sum. Should that figure have been bigger?
  Mr. Bowden: If my hon. Friend will listen to my arguments, I am sure that he will fully understand the position.
  My hon. Friends and the Government sometimes pose a basic question: why should taxpayers' money be used when people have what some would describe as substantial savings? On the face of it, that is a convincing point, but let us consider the position again.
  The generation of pensioners that I am discussing is the wartime generation, which made tremendous sacrifices and suffered great hardship. Those pensioners proved themselves to be one of the great exceptional generations in the history of the British nation. They were a generation that in most cases had little or no opportunity to buy property, and every pound that they saved represented a real struggle, a struggle that today's younger generation cannot contemplate or understand.
  The House will be aware that, as each general election goes by, more and more younger Members join the House and fewer and fewer older Members remain. Therefore, fewer Members remember world war 2, lived through it, and faced the sacrifices that went with it. Therefore, what

  369
  that earlier generation suffered—the loss of life and the number of war widows—is no longer fully appreciated by the House.
  That wartime generation, unlike almost any other, prepared for its retirement. What happened to those who scrimped and saved and gave up holidays, smoking and drinking to manage to save a little? Those people retired in the 1960s and early 1970s and, although they would not be rich, they believed that they would live in an era of relative peace and prosperity. In the 1970s and early 1980s, however, they found the value of their savings totally destroyed, largely as a result of Labour Government policies. I for one will never forgive them. At the time of those policies we declared that we recognised the problems faced by those people and that we intended that housing benefit should be some small compensation for the total destruction in the value of their savings.
  Let us link those savings to the employment pensions that some, by no means all, of that generation had. In the 1960s and early 1970s the majority of people in that category retired on a non-inflation-proof employer's pension. The House will be aware that, when we compare the value of a 1960s and early 1970s pension with the pension today, it is virtually worthless. For that reason the circumstances of that generation are different from any other generation. That is why it is totally justified to use taxpayers' money to give some compensation to that group who, through no fault of their own, now find themselves on the financial breadline.
  On many occasions we also said—how often have I listened to the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially when we were the Opposition—that we should give help to those with just a little bit above the state minimum. Sadly, we are not doing that to the extent that we should. The wartime generation saved. It was responsible and thrifty, but now it has been penalised.
  I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled. On 23 March he sent me a letter in which he said:
  "The April changes are not cuts."
  I wish he would tell that to the thousands of pensioners in my constituency. I wish he would tell that to the war widow who has £6,200 in savings and, as a result of the recent announcements, has lost £15 per week.
  Let us consider the announcement that was made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that I have got it clear, but it is difficult for us to absorb the exact details and implications. If I have got it wrong, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me immediately. As I understand it, the announcement means that the maximum limit for capital will go up to £8,000. It will still mean, however, that if a person has £8,100—there will be many pensioners on the basic pension who have no other income or savings apart from that sum—he will lose benefit in excess of £10 per week. If people have savings of £7,900 we have a guarantee, as I understand it, that they will not lose more than £2·50 per week for one year. What will happen at the end of that year?
  The Government must do a lot of hard thinking and there must be more revisions and changes. I must tell the Government and all my colleagues that this problem will not go away. Until all the British people believe that justice
  370
  has been done, we will, quite rightly, be showered with letters and cases will appear at our advice surgeries in ever-increasing numbers.
  Let us consider further the implications of today's announcement. I have some rough figures on the information given that may not be exactly accurate, and I ask the indulgence of the House and the Minister. As I understand it, it is still true that a pensioner aged 65 with nothing other than the state pension and an occupational pension of £10 per week, together with savings of £8,100, will still lose £12 a week housing benefit. In other words, his entire occupational pension is wiped out and is of no use to him.
  There are many changes still to be made. I congratulate the Government on the start that they have made and I give full credit where it is due. The Government must, however, do a lot more thinking regarding the implications of the recent changes.
  I welcome this major step in the right direction, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that my original intention was to go into the Opposition Lobby, as I have done in the past. In view of what the Secretary of State has said, I hope only to abstain. I shall listen extremely carefully when my hon. Friend replies because I need some positive hope not just for one year, but for the future. We must ensure that we do not continue to neglect the pensioners.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). During his speech I was reminded of a debate on procedural changes in the House, which was introduced by R. A. Butler. On that occasion he said that the Government would find it impossible in the House of Commons were it not for the thick Tory squires behind him. He then gently turned round to smile at them. One can understand why Mr. Butler did not become leader of the Tory party.
  Mr. Cormack: Where are the squires?
  Mr. Field: They have gone as well.
  If the Government had 100 Members like the hon. Member for Kemptown, they would be in much greater difficulties than they have been in the past few days.
  It is a convention of the House that if one intends to attack an hon. Member, one gives him notice. Therefore, I am sorry that the Secretary of State is no longer present, although I note that a message is now being sent out to get him. I shall speak extremely slowly until he arrives. I hope that it will not damage his future career if I say that today I thought he gave his best performance since becoming Secretary of State for Social Services. He can draw a moral from his performance: that, when defending the social security reforms, he goes down better with his Back Benchers if he comes to the House with a few hundred million pounds in his pocket. Perhaps in the next few weeks we shall see even better performances from him.
  The difficulty that we face is that many of us had prepared contributions, but, having heard the Secretary of State, we are confused as to what he announced. Therefore, I suppose that we must also congratulate him on another score. So that we shall not continue to be

  371
  confused, the basis of my contribution will be some questions to the Minister. I shall be happy to give way as I go through so that we can be clear about the changes.
  We are told that no one will be worse off by more than £2·50 a week. Does that include the 20 per cent. rates payment, or is that separate?
  The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott)indicated assent.
  Mr. Field: It is separate. That is one point that has been clarified. Later, perhaps the Minister can tell us why they hit on £2·50 a week.
  That ties in with another question: what would have been the cost if full transitional protection had been offered to those in receipt of housing benefit? The group about which I wrote to the Prime Minister was covered by housing benefit supplement. That tells us something about the Government's guarantees on transitional arrangements. Prior to housing benefit we had a system of locally run housing rent rebates and allowances and a rate rebate scheme.
  The Government brought in a new scheme. Under the old scheme, people qualified for supplementary benefit if their income was below the scale rate, plus their housing costs. Under the housing benefit scheme, the housing cost was transferred to the new scheme. Because state pensions were a few shillings above the level for supplementary benefit, many pensioners were floated off supplementary benefit but gained little or no help from housing benefit. Therefore, they were substantially worse off and were many pounds below the supplementary benefit poverty line.
  In order to protect that group, the Government introduced housing benefit supplement. However, that was abolished a week before the new scheme came into existence. Until then all changes in housing benefit supplement had been made by the affirmative resolution procedure in the House. The week before the new scheme came into being, changes in housing benefit supplement were made by negative resolution. In other words, we did not have to debate them. The effect of the change was that people's incomes fell drastically in the first week but they did not qualify for benefit under the transitional arrangements because they were already regarded as having a lower level of income. Can the Minister of State tell us whether all those who previously received housing benefit supplement will be protected after they have made the first £2·50 additional rent payment?
  What did the Secretary of State mean when he said that transitional arrangements will be kept under constant review? When challenged, he said that people's circumstances change. We know that. As their income rose, they would automatically be floated off the transitional protection. That would not alter the structure of transitional protection. We want to know whether the Government intend to buy votes tonight by giving transitional protection for a year. Will transitional protection remain until no one qualifies for it because increases in pensions and other benefits will have taken everyone beyond the qualifying levels for the amount of support that was announced by the Secretary of State earlier?
  Those are questions to which we desperately need answers if we are to make sense of the debate as it progresses. Conservative Members do not like to hear the
  372
  case being put so bluntly, but we must pay them a compliment for the changes which are being brought about by the Government. The last few hundred years of English history show that one of the greatest struggles has been by the poor trying to get money from the rich. Since 1979 we have seen an attack by the rich on the poor. Conservative Members do not like it. We see cuts in the income of people who are on income support—
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: Can the hon. Gentleman assist me? How does one define the rich, the poor, and wealth?
  Mr. Field: I advise the hon. Gentleman, if he has not done so already, to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who knows exactly who is rich and exactly who is poor because he has been cutting the level of income of many poor people.
  Over the past few weeks, we have been debating cuts not in the rate of increase in benefit but in rates of benefit. Despite the effect of today's statement, many of our constituents will suffer a cut in benefit each week of at least £2·50, plus a 20 per cent. rate payment, plus, for some, the loss of any increase in benefit because they were protected by the transitional arrangements. That is what I mean by the fundamental change that the Government have brought about. We must take back the message to the country so that people understand more clearly next time they vote than they did last time.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: The review of social security rightly began by asking the fundamental question, where does poverty lie? In a period when pensioners enjoy occupational pensions and often own their own houses, the inquiry discovered that poverty is now concentrated largely on low-income families, on single-parent family groups and on the disabled, and that whereas 20 years ago pensioners retired just on the state pension and needed widespread recourse to additional benefits, they are no longer, on average, in the same predicament. It was important that the review, when implemented as a new benefit system, should recognise that fact. The new system rightly gave most of the increased resources to those most in need. That I welcome, and substantial amounts were put on the table with that in mind.
  The second important point was that the implementation of the review should take place against the background of spreading economic prosperity so that money was available to provide additional resources for the benefit system. How much I welcome the fact that our economic success means that in this year there will be £2,000 million extra going into welfare and almost £2,000 million extra going into health. So almost 3p of income tax has been allocated to increases in welfare payments. I compliment the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues on obtaining those resources while the Chancellor was still able to reduce tax rates across the board, particularly to help those on lower incomes out of the tax and benefit trap.
  Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that 3·5 million people do not earn sufficient to pay income tax in the first place, even under the Chancellor's Budget? They will not benefit at all. Will he also comment on the fact that, as a precondition

  373
  of the introduction of the poll tax, everyone on housing benefit has to pay a 20 per cent. rates contribution, which means that everyone will suffer a 20 per cent. cut in housing benefit?
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman forgets that all those on income support are compensated for the 20 per cent. of the rates they pay. He also forgets that the reason why some of those people are no longer in the tax net is that the Government have taken almost 2 million lower paid people out of taxation altogether and made a substantial improvement in their lifestyle because they no longer have to pay that tax.
  What we have seen this afternoon and will see in the rest of the debate is an Opposition in complete confusion. They came here with speeches designed to attack small elements of the scheme which has rightly been amended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Those prepared speeches are vacuous and unnecessary, because the necessary fine tuning has been accomplished. We also find that Opposition Members are forced into defending every element of the old system.
  Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer to vacuous and empty speeches, he should read his own words of a couple of weeks ago, when he denounced the Opposition for being so stupid as to call for changes in the regulations.
  Mr. Redwood: It was my right hon. and hon. Friends who drew attention to some provisions that needed amending. I welcome their interventions and am delighted by my right hon Friend's response. The Opposition are now in the position of having to defend every element of the old system, knowing that, in practice, it was rotten. Have they forgotten the fact that, if claimants' circumstances changed, they had to apply week after week to establish whether they qualified for special individual payments? Did the Opposition like the system under which, if people were poor, they had to go to the benefits office and reveal many details time after time if they wanted one extra item that was beyond their budget?
  Is it not much better that premiums should be built into benefit rates once and for all, so that, once people qualify, they may enjoy additional income without means testing? Do the Opposition wish to return to the means testers' charter which was the special payments system? Do they wish to return also to the situation that was common in the mid-1970s, when 200,000 people lived in families having to face marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates of more than 100 per cent and who, if they worked, were worse off by the extent to which they derived an income from that work? It was a crazy arrangement, and I welcome the system of family credit, which means that everyone in the family unit who wishes to return to work, now that jobs are more widely available, is not confronted by a tax and benefit withdrawal rate of more than 100 per cent., which is the economics of the madhouse.
  Do Opposition Members want a return to the situation of 1975 and 1976 when, under a Labour Government, they were compelled frantically and frenetically to ask questions of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Services about which benefit might be cut next, whether the Christmas bonus to pensioners would be withdrawn, and whether the real
  374
  value of incomes and savings risked erosion by the massively high rate of inflation? They had to ask also whether the value of benefits would wither away because inflation was then so high. The present Government uprate benefits in line with prices and keep inflation under control, so that people who have made provision for their future, and who have retirement savings, will enjoy the benefits of them.
  The Opposition record on social services and welfare was atrocious. It was a story of cuts, and of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who boasted in the House that £1,000 million had been cut from the budgets because the IMF had forced him to do so; proudly claiming that there had been real cuts across the board in public spending. Not only do the present Government not make overall real cuts in public spending, but, because of the successful economy and their prudence in so many other areas, they manage to provide growing real resources for health and welfare—[Interruption.]
  How much Opposition Members dislike the truth can be gauged by the level of their barracking when one tries to point out their record, which was so mean on the poor. Why is it that we have been compelled to increase benefits to the disabled by 80 per cent. in real terms? It was because the benefits of the mid-1970s were so mean that they were an affront to both Opposition and Government Members. The Opposition would probably find it impossible to rise in defence of the real levels of disablement benefit that existed in the mid-1970s, and they would condemn the Government if all they had done was preserve those real levels and not allow the disabled to benefit from the country's growing prosperity.
  I am delighted to support a system which means that no longer will 400,000 families have to face the impossible task of working their way through the complex system to secure the benefits to which they are entitled. I am delighted to defend a system that provides people with an incentive to work, to provide for themselves, and to defend an economic policy that has delivered a 21·5 per cent. improvement in real living standards and incomes for those on half average earnings. That is true welfare policy in an economy that works; an economy that produces the goods and which rewards people across the scale.
  In a recent poll, people asked about Labour party policy said that they did not deny that the Opposition would like to see benefits increased, but did not believe that Labour would ever be able to deliver the goods and to afford the benefit increases that they wanted to see. This Government not only want to see benefits increasing for those in most need, but they produced those benefits. They are a Government who deliver the goods and who have increased the prosperity of all the people.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I shall be brief because I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate. I associate myself with most, if not all, of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). He is a proven fighter on behalf of pensioners, and I pay tribute to him.
  Every Member of Parliament has a right and a duty to bring to the House the benefits of his or her constituency experiences. Their sum total must contribute to the overall breadth of knowledge on which the House draws when

  375
  debating and passing legislation. Unfortunately, today we are discussing the effects of a fait accompli—the new social security legislation which has caused such misery and suffering since 11 April.
  Before coming to the House, I was a councillor in my constituency and, before that, chairman of my local community council and tenants' association. Therefore, I have been involved in public life for more than 10 years, but I have never known such desperation as that seen since 11 April. I have received reports from housing offices within my constituency which have witnessed the most distressing scenes as senior citizens have broken down in tears when informed of cuts in their housing benefit.
  If any section of the community deserves our support, it is the present generation of senior citizens. They came through depressions, fought and won for us the second world war, rebuilt the country after that war, and played a major role in its economic recovery.
  I remind the Government also that, along with us, they encouraged that generation to provide for the future and to be thrifty. We are seeing that same generation now being penalised by the Government for their thriftiness and sense of responsibility. The changes in housing benefit are causing hardship, with 0·75 million pensioners losing all entitlement, while another 2·5 million will have their housing benefit reduced. If the changes announced today will help in that situation, they will be welcome—but I submit that they will give too little, too late.
  I make no apology for citing the specific case of an elderly couple in the Castlemilk part of my constituency. They are both 73 years of age and the husband has a works pension amounting to £33 weekly for industrial deafness. Before the changes, the couple paid rent and rates of £5·69 per month. Now they hve to pay £98 per month, with no increase in their income; they must find from somewhere an extra £90 a month. The main reason for that change would seem be that the husband's works pension is now included in the calculation, whereas before it was regarded as compensation for a medical condition. Perhaps that is the worst example I have encountered, but there are many others where housing benefit cuts have resulted in a dramatic decrease in senior citizens' total weekly income.
  I do not believe that the Government Benches are full of evil men; many of them have a social conscience, in the tradition of one-nation Tories. I appeal to those Conservative Members who do not like what is happening to join us in the Lobby tonight. That way, the Government will realise that they cannot continue along the path of social injustice. It would be easy for us on these Benches to fall into the trap of allowing the Government to commit electoral suicide, as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said, but we must try to change their approach by vigorous opposition. We look for further changes and moves towards helping senior citizens and other sections of the community, and I ask all fair-minded Conservative Members to join us in the Lobby tonight.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Many of us, while canvassing in our constituencies at election time—or, indeed, in our surgeries—have been faced with people complaining bitterly that they are unable to claim benefit of one sort or another because they are just on the wrong side of the threshold. Those same people are often able to point out others who live in the same road, or whom they
  376
  have known all their lives, who can claim benefit. They sometimes complain that those who have been profligate can claim benefit although they, who have been thrifty, cannot. To explain that position is one of the hardest tasks that a Member of Parliament can face.
  The current reforms improve the position relating to income support. The threshold has been raised from £3,000 to £6,000, and Opposition Members should recognise that the people concerned are now better off. When it comes to housing benefit, however, there is no getting away from the fact that the position is substantially worse. I believe that we must make a fundamental choice. We can accept a system in which there is a cut-off point, wherever that cut-off point may be. Such a system will leave more resources for the really badly off, such as the disabled and families on low incomes, who have gained from the reforms.
  The alternative, proposed by the Opposition in the Standing Committee, is universal benefit, much of which would go indiscriminately to the better-off. The corollary would be many people paying taxes on the one hand, and receiving money back inefficiently in benefits on the other. The losers would be the really needy.
  I believe that it is far better to have a targeted system. If we believe in such a system, we must accept a threshold, with all the inequity that it implies. The original £6,000 capital limit may have been too low, and it is possible that the proposed £8,000 limit is also too low. We must recognise, however, that wherever the level had been set, we would have received exactly the same complaints from those on the wrong side of it. If the limit had originally been set at £10,000 or £15,000, we would have been told that a nest egg of £15,000, in this age of generous redundancy payments and lump sums, is not very much.
  Before Opposition Members become carried away by their own self-righteousness, it is worth remembering that under the last Government, the threshold for the main benefits was below even the old £3,000 limit that obtained until these reforms. It is also a fact that many who are now on the wrong side of the new £8,000 limit are paying far less tax than they were before, far less than they paid under the Labour Government and, indeed, far less than they would pay under the system of universal benefits proposed in Committee by the Opposition.
  Under the old system, many who were able to draw housing benefit—many, but not all—were relatively well off. It is worth remembering in particular that since 1979 pensioners' incomes have grown, on average, twice as fast as those of the general population, and four times as fast as they did in the 1970s. Those people have often gained from the success of industry and the City, through their pension funds and their investments—institutions that the Opposition despise, deride and oppose.
  On the other hand, I believe that the Opposition and many other critics of the reforms have ignored one of their true weaknesses. Although some of the worst of the poverty earnings traps have been partially dealt with for those on very low incomes, the trap remains very severe for many single people on low incomes, discouraging them from taking jobs. Perhaps, rather than concentrating on the relatively well-off, we should have concentrated on the groups who are not so well off and have no savings at all.
  It seems to me illogical for people on the one hand to say that they are saving so that they need not be dependent, and on the other hand to demand benefits, although they have some savings—not all of which they

  377
  would be required to use up before gaining benefit. While all the fuss has been going on about a sector of society that is relatively well off—I emphasise the word "relatively"—critics have often ignored the fact that groups such as the disabled and low-income families are often substantially better off as a result of the reforms. That salient fact seems to have passed beneath the notice of the pontificating prelates and the Pavlovian pundits who automatically salivate with sneers of "obscene", "offensive" and "a war on the poor", whatever the Government's policy, without even bothering to find out the truth of the matter.
  The fact is that any realistic system of social security will contain injustices and inequities. The safety net will inevitably catch those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, as well as those who are playing the system for all it is worth. It will also unavoidably miss out many who have been careful and thrifty, and who have savings. The Opposition are quite within their rights in trying to make partisan profit out of that, but our job on the Conservative Benches is to explain why the system has to be as it is, not to pretend that there is a simple, magic solution, or to add interest to the insults of our opponents.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I am still amazed by the facility with which some Conservative Members can justify the way in which the simplification of the system has struck millions of people in Britain.
  My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) cover the borough council of Ogwr in south Wales. The council sent out 17,000 forms for the introduction of the new system. Three thousand people did not return them, probably because they saw immediately that they were no longer eligible for benefit—although, to be fair to the council, it is to circulate those people again to check whether that is the case.
  Of the 14,000 who returned the forms, on the first day on which they received their new rent and rates assessments 1,400 people contacted the council to say that there must be some mistake. In the first week, 6,000 took that course. The officials in the council, working rapidly, effectively and efficiently, checked all 6,000 claims and found that the increases were, unfortunately, exactly as they had been assessed.
  If the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) thinks that this is just a criticism of small elements within the system, he must have both a small mind and a small heart to still think that when he hears of some of the effects of the system on individuals. I should like to mention four such cases this evening.
  The first concerns a Mr. Williams, who lives in Bridgend. He is a pensioner, an ex-miner who suffers from silocosis and whose wife is an invalid. He fought in the Royal Navy during the second world war. He finds that, as a result of the Government's munificence and their simplification of the benefits system, he is £21·63 a week worse off, and he has to find the money out of a relatively small income.
  In my village of Cefn Cribwr, a family receiving a disability benefit is £19 a week worse off. Down the road, in the village of Kenfig Mill, a disabled pensioner is £17 a
  378
  week worse off. A man receiving a special hardship allowance is now £14 a week worse off. In the borough, the worst case is of a family that is £25 a week worse off because of the new system.
  If Conservative Members think that the simplification of the scheme is something to be lauded, they are mistaken, because over half the people in Ogwr borough council who were receiving housing benefit are now worse off as a result of the changes. The changes introduced today will mean that a few of them may be better off, but what is the promise for those who have been worst hit—those on disability pensions and benefits of one sort or another, and those who used to receive special hardship allowance but who have lost all that because of the loss of local authority discretion? We have been told that they will receive transitional help, but they will automatically be £2·50 worse off. They have lost that sum straight away.
  Year by year, the situation will be reviewed. How will Mr. Williams, the pensioner in Bridgend, feel when he loses only £2·50 now, but with the prospect that next year, or the year after, he will suddenly have to lose the extra £20? It is not worth carrying on with such a reprieve. It would be far better if the Secretary of State had announced that, although the £2·50 will be taken, the Government will not take any more. Unfortunately, he did not make that promise.
  What are we to say to people who are affected by the so-called tariff income rules? As far as I understood the announcement, nothing is to be done for them. They have savings of over £3,000 and they will be assessed on a fictitious rate of interest. Virtually no individual with savings of a few thousand pounds will be able to achieve that rate of interest, but benefit will still be based on it, and on a notional rate of income that is far above the real income that they will receive on the interest from their savings. Why could the Secretary of State not have announced that the real rate of interest will be used in assessing people for housing benefit? Why could he not announce that where people are saving to buy a car under the mobility allowance scheme, those savings will be excluded completely?
  While some small but welcome reliefs have been announced, the simplification of the system has resulted in gross injustice for many millions of people. Unless the Secretary of State is prepared to recognise that and, for example, to make the taper far less steep, he will get more complaints and letters about individuals who are suffering and we shall have more opportunities to bring this matter on to the Floor of the House.
  5.33 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was quite evident that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) had written his speech before the debate. He paid no attention to the substantial concessions and adjustments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) paid minimal attention to them, but not much more. It was high time that we sorted out the appallingly complicated system of benefits that had grown up haphazardly over decades. By and large, the Government have done an exceedingly good job. Inevitably, with such far-reaching changes in a system that has set rigid over many years, rough edges occurred. It is the duty and the privilege of the Government to listen to the views of Members of

  379
  Parliament who are closely in touch with their constituents and can discover what those rough edges are and pass on that information.
  I come from an area where wages have never been high, but my thrifty constituents have always saved a high proportion of their incomes for their old age and to preserve their independence. The £6,000 cut-off point for housing benefit was too low, and I am delighted that it is to be raised to £8,000, with the extra money that will be needed to meet this change coming from the contingency reserve, which exists for exactly such a purpose.
  I also feel strongly that if an elderly person or a couple find that they can no longer cope at home and have to move into a residential home, they should be given ample time to sell their home before having their benefits cut. Houses do not sell as rapidly in my part of the world as they do in the south-east. This is particularly important to us, and the change announced today will be very welcome; it is proof that the Government do not merely listen to what we have to say, but act on what they find in practice to be cases of hardship. I am grateful to them for so doing.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: When we hear speeches such as that made by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), in which hon. Members say that they are near to their constituents; when we hear, as we have heard this afternoon, millionaires talking about what they understand by poverty, we are getting near the bone. When one represents an area where many people—not a few—are so desperately affected that the money taken from them prevents them from being able to buy food or to heat their homes, we know what poverty is about.
  The problem with transitional help is that, by its very nature, it is transitional. It ebbs, and those who are now in a desperate plight and who will be helped by this afternoon's announcement will eventually face the same poverty and dilemmas at the end of the transitional period. We have been trying to relieve them of those problems through our debates and the pressure put on the Government over the past few weeks.
  As the whole intention of these changes was to save £640 million, to transfer it to some of those who have spoken this afternoon and who have benefited so much from the tax reliefs for which Conservative Members voted, in the end those whom we represent will be the losers. This affects not only those who are on transitional arrangements, but those who face poverty and who are now coming into the system, and who will have to face the problems that we and the media highlighted to bring pressure to bear on the Government.
  For these people, the problem will not go away. For example, in the city of Sheffield, one individual lost £24·70 a week. He will receive help now, but because it is transitional, it will run out and eventually he will lose the £24·70. There is also the example, of Lottie Green, a widow. Her husband deferred spending the money that they could have spent, to provide a little pension, and she will lose £11 a week. It will take longer for that loss to come into effect. The noose will be tightened gradually, but it will tighten, and that £11 will be lost.
  Mr. and Mrs. Grant, who live in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), will lose £14 a week. They will lose it more slowly.
  380
  People who are currently coming into the system will also lose. That is the reality of a situation that exists so that the Secretary of State for Social Services can eventually take hundreds of millions of pounds from the most needy in our community and pass it to the Treasury.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what mole or other informer he has in the Treasury or in the DHSS who informed him that what he prophesises will be the case? I know of no such expectation.
  Mr. Blunkett: The information was given in the House by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 19 November last year and appears in Hansard. Those were the figures. A week last Monday, the Secretary of State for the Environment admitted to the House that so-called concessions on the poll tax rebate would be taken from housing benefit. This afternoon we have to ask, who in the system will be the losers and will have to pay for the concession that has just been announced?
  Although we sympathise with those who have capital of more than £6,000, the capital sums are not the real issue. The real issue is that the difference in the tapering arrangements has hit so many widows and pensioners just above the income support level. Those people have scrimped and saved; they have done what the Government so often preach and then denounce when it is practised. Those people have scrimped and saved for their old age. They have put money aside and have taken part in the saving economy. Those people will lose. Those are the people on whose behalf we have spoken during the past few weeks and whom we shall continue to defend until the Government realise that at the next general election they will pay the price for their penny pinching.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: The debate brings to a head the issues that have overshadowed Parliament since the general election last year. They are the issues of how best to care for the least well off in our increasingly prosperous society, and which party has the best policies to ensure that that care is provided.
  The Government's record stands comparison with that of any previous Administration. We are spending more money in real terms on benefits for more people than ever before. The Government have had the courage and the capacity to take 40 years history of a welfare benefits system dominated by a bureaucracy which few people understood and which became increasingly discredited because of its inability to provide for those most in need, and to transform it into one which is fairer, more easily understood, more responsive and more likely to ensure lull entitlement. It has provided increased benefits for more than 5 million of our most needy families, especially those with young children, and the disabled. That is what the social security reforms have achieved.
  Far from being censured, the Government should be congratulated on their bold approach. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserves congratulations too on his announcement today, which is most welcome. Some may feel that it does not go far enough, but no one can doubt that it represents an urgent and sensitive response to the unforeseen difficulties which have been highlighted in different ways by hon. Members from both sides of the House.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Greenway: No. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a point, he should wait to be called.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on a particular point?
  Mr. Greenway: No. I am not giving way.
  Today's announcement also demonstrates that the clear undertaking given to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled on 13 April —just two weeks ago—to monitor carefully the impact of the reforms has been fully honoured.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way. It would be unfair on hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate.
  The real impact of recent events is clear. The Opposition have one policy—that is, to spend other people's money faster than the nation can ever hope to earn it. Day in, day out and week after week the House and the country are subjected to a nauseating catalogue of patronising promises which the Opposition and the nation know they will never be able to fulfil, in the increasingly unlikely event that they will ever get the chance to do so. I shudder to think what the cost to the country would be if all the promises that Opposition Members have made were honoured. Would they have been able to afford the modest increase announced today by my right hon. Friend? Their audacity in telling us how to spend the revenues and the wealth which their policies would destroy knows no bounds.
  That despicable deception contrasts with the Government's proud achievements. In the past few weeks, 750,000 people on the lowest incomes have been taken out of tax. We have the lowest income tax rate for more than half a century. There has been the biggest ever increase in NHS budgets and £2 billion more has been spent on social security. We now have the highest ever social security budget. We are spending more on education, social services and fighting crime. Above all, a 15 per cent. pay rise for nurses has been fully funded by the Government without any cuts in other programmes.
  Today's announcement that those at the margins who perhaps have lost out in a way which was not fully anticipated will be protected and is coupled with a further undertaking by the Secretary of State that the Government will continue to monitor the effects of these much needed reforms. No doubt that undertaking will be endorsed by the Minister of State.
  Within a week there has been the biggest ever pay increase for nurses, more money for doctors and dentists and further concessions on social security benefits. All that shows that the Government have the compassion and the capacity to respond to the needs of society. People in this country trust us to do the right thing, and they know that their trust is well placed.
  Perhaps the Government need to be nudged occasionally. I would say to Opposition Members that it is better to nudge the banker than to knock at the door of the bankrupt. I am not talking only about the money and the capacity to pay, but about the ideas and the radical approach of the Government and how that contrasts with the bankrupt ideas of the Opposition.
  382
  Those who doubt and have lingering concerns that the Government may have penalised too many, that more people than necessary may be losing benefit, should reflect that such concern and anxiety is clear evidence of the sea change in attitude towards Britain's prosperity in recent years. For too long people were willing to accept second best. How many times have we heard that it is all we can afford, that we have to tighten our belts? Even in the two or three years since the reforms were planned and announced, the growing evidence of increased prosperity has become more obvious. We must not shirk our responsibility to ensure that everyone in society shares in that prosperity. Despite my support for the Government tonight, I give my right hon. and hon. Friends notice that we must return to this matter in future because that is what the nation expects.
  We must not be deflected from our objective of ensuring that the least well off, the sick and the disabled of the years ahead will be adequately supported and that, despite our increased wealth, we cannot afford the profligacy or recklessness that the Opposition would recommend. This motion stems not from the failure of this Government but from their success.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: No.
  The House should recognise that fact and reject the motion overwhelmingly.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I welcome the opportunity to make a few observations about the housing benefit changes. I come from a region with the highest rate of unemployment in western Europe, with the highest level of dependency of any region under the authority of this Government, and with the greatest degree of social and environmental deprivation to be found anywhere in these islands.
  Against that background, I shall single out a few specific points. The first was referred to by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). It relates to the crucial differences between the way in which housing benefit is administered in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. I said earlier, somewhat facetiously, that one of the problems about the arrangements is that those who understand them cannot explain them, and that those who can explain them do not understand them. Those who work in the DHSS offices are under tremendous pressure. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the DHSS personnel. They have had a very short period within which to cope with the arrangements provided for in this enormously complex legislation, and this has caused enormous problems.
  Those of us who have tried to give advice and help to people know, first, how difficult it is to claim benefit; secondly, how difficult it is to process the claim; and, thirdly, how difficult it is properly to assess the claim. That is already having an effect, and it will continue to have a long-term effect on housing benefit.
  A new category of poor person has been created in recent years, and this is adding considerably to the problems. I am referring to those who are obviously in need or who have not made the effort that they should have made to provide for themselves and their families. They include those who, throughout their lives, have

  383
  worked hard, saved hard and looked after their families, their careers and their homes. They are being knocked by the housing benefit arrangements.
  I shall call them, because I believe it to be a proper and accurate term, the lace-curtain poor, those who, all of a sudden, find that, despite the efforts that they have made throughout their lives, they cannot cope—a position in which they never envisaged they would find themselves.
  Some of those who fall into the category of the lace-curtain poor are the elderly—people who put their pennies together and saved for the day when they might need that money, but who, when that day came, discovered that they were governed by a Government who said that their need was greater than that of the people from whom they were taking the money by reducing their housing benefit.
  I am not referring just to the elderly. Younger people want to take pride in themselves and their families. For that reason they have saved, but now they are paying for it. I give as an example those who have been awarded industrial injuries pensions because of damage done to their persons. They are now losing housing benefit. It is not right that those in receipt of a pension of that kind, because of injuries they have suffered, should lose their housing benefit.
  Another example is that of a lady who came to my surgery and told me that she was acting as a home help for three different people. She was playing an invaluable role in her local community, but because of her work she found that she was to lose £14·75. She said to me, "I have a choice. Either I can continue to act as a home help and lose that amount of money a week, which I simply cannot afford to lose, or I can decide no longer to act as a home help." Because of the decision that was forced upon her, three elderly people do not have the services of a very compassionate woman, of great humanity, who had served those old people so well. The social consequences affect not just those who lose housing benefit, but the rest of the community because of the domino effect.
  The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has an intimate knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs. For that reason, I shall refer to one particular problem. The Secretary of State for Social Services said that, as a concession, elderly people who have to be committed to care will have six months in which to sell their homes. The Minister knows, because of his long experience in Northern Ireland, that in many areas of Northern Ireland houses cannot be sold; they cannot even be given away. An enormous problem will be created for some of the worst hit areas of Northern Ireland unless the Secretary of State looks closely at that problem.
  In the broader sense, this is a tremendously harsh approach to adopt towards elderly people. The six months is a sentence—not a sentence of death, but a sentence of dependency. Elderly people will have six months, after which they will be unable to return to the little home that they have created over 40 or 50 years. They will have to depend on others for however long they live. The elderly deserve better than that.
  There is one issue that relates specifically to Northern Ireland. It concerns a person who owns a small area of land. I am not talking about huge spreads; I am talking about the six, eight, 10 or 12 acres of land, most of which is rough, that provides no income. Is that to be subject to capitalisation? It was subject to capitalisation for supplementary benefit purposes. Is that land to be
  384
  capitalised and regarded as a source of income? If it is to be so regarded, the effects of the legislation will he even worse than I imagined.
  I congratulate the Minister of State on thinking again about the threshold, and I commend him for responding, under pressure from his colleagues and others, to that point. I ask him, however, on the grounds of compassion and humanity, because of the deprivation that people will suffer, to think again and get rid of the iniquities and anomalies. The legislation will then be regarded as compassionate, not as something that cuts corners to the detriment of those who need the most help.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who speaks so movingly about his constituency. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, Vie ho I think missed the first few words of his speech, will read it carefully in Hansard.
  I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend for his response. During the last three difficult weeks, a number of us have found ourselves on several occasions in the Opposition Lobby. I found myself appealing to my right hon. Friend on sight tests arid dental charges. During the last fortnight I found myself appealing in vain to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. At least to some degree, I believe that this is third time lucky. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has responded promptly and properly not just to hon. Members, because we seek merely to articulate the concerns that people put to us, but to the deep need expressed and the real suffering that has been caused throughout the country.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh referred to a new category of poor. I remember what was said in his speech on the Loyal Address by Sir John Nott when he was the Member for St. Ives. He said words to this effect: "The real poor of the 20th century are those without hope." Over the past few weeks, many people have felt deprived of hope.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his announcement. I hope that he will not think me churlish when I say that I do not think that he has gone far enough. I hope that he will still keep carefully under review the working of the new system. He will probably come to think—he is a sensitive man—that the £8,000 limit is not enough and that it should be £10,000. My right hon. Friend has also performed a signal service in recognising that that limit was not the be-all and end-all of the complaints and the sole creator of the suffering. I am glad to see him nod so vigorously in assent. Monitoring must be meticulous and continuous.
  Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cormack: I shall not. I normally give way regularly, but I am under an injunction and have promised to speak briefly. There are hon. Friends who have sat throughout the debate, as my hon. Friend has not, who should have the chance to take part if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will monitor the new system carefully and continuously. I hope that he will recognise that, if there is a doubt, those

  385
  people who have been writing to us and who have been deeply grieved and troubled over the past couple of weeks deserve the benefit of the doubt.
  The complexities of the system which has been replaced have led to another complex system. We should be less than honest with ourselves if we did not acknowledge that not all of us realised the full impact of the changes.
  One fact is underlined: the Department over which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State presides is too big. I do not say that in a spirit of criticism of my right hon. Friend or his colleagues. The time has come, as the troubles of the past fortnight graphically illustrate, for the two Departments—as they were once—to be separated. We need one Department to look after the National Health Service; we need another to look after the system of social services and security.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister began her career in the old Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, when there was a Ministry of Health as well. There is sometimes virtue, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has often demonstrated, in seeking to turn the clock back. I hope that, because of our troubles, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be demoted. He certainly does not deserve that, but I hope that there will be a rethink of the machinery and system of government.
  I end as I began, by thanking my right hon. Friend for his prompt, ready and sensitive response. It is a good beginning, and I trust that he will continue in the same vein.
  6.3 pm
  Ms. Diane Abbott: No fewer than two weeks after the legislation was implemented, we have seen a climb-down. It will not do to talk of unforeseen circumstances. The consequences of the changes in housing benefit were foreseen many years ago. What was unforeseen was the political fallout from the pain and suffering caused by these changes. This illustrates the maxim that the Tory party never panics, except in a crisis.
  There has been much talk by Conservative Members about "rough edges", "anomalies" and "fine tuning". We must stress that structural problems remain with the whole social security review. It will not do to talk about anomalies. Until the structural problems are seriously addressed, the fears of my constituents in Hackney will not be quelled.
  I stress, although this point was made earlier, that the suffering caused by the housing benefit changes was not just a matter of capital and savings. There are 38,000 people in Hackney on housing benefit—most lost under the changes. Hardly any has capital. There is not a lot of capital accumulation in Hackney. Those people lost because of changes in how much they pay for their domestic rates, water rates and heating charges.
  Furthermore, the Government's changes were virtually confiscatory of occupational pensions. An extraordinary number of pensioners came to see me, having scrimped and saved throughout their lives—sometimes until their 70s—only to find that, through these housing benefit changes, they would lose their occupational pensions at one stroke. I do not understand how it fits in with the
  386
  alleged Tory philosophy of encouraging thrift and saving to introduce reforms which confiscate the occupational pensions of many thousands of pensioners.
  In the light of the announcement by the Secretary of State, I feel obliged to ask the questions that Hackney and, above all, the manager of the local DHSS office will ask. If pensioners are to get back the money that they have lost since 1 April, when will the scheme start? Can they go to their DHSS office tomorrow, or will they have to wait for the forms to be printed? These people have to live on £26 a week. Their need is immediate. They will want to know just how quickly the scheme will come into operation.
  Most of Hackney's local DHSS offices have terrible problems with staff shortages and delays in handling cases. They will want to know whether extra staff will be made available to handle this operation. If extra staff are not made available and people who try to get their money back just go behind the queue of those already waiting for responses to fresh and different claims, pensioners will not be helped in the foreseeable future.
  It is all very well to come before the House and pull opportunistic rabbits out of hats. We want to know how the transitional arrangements will work. Will resources be made available to DHSS offices? When can people go to local offices to get their money? Above all, for how long will the transitional arrangements last? It is one thing to talk about transitional arrangements, but the positon of pensioners—it is largely pensioners who come to see me—is absolute. If the transition ends in a year, they will still be faced with problems.
  A Mr. Fisher came to see me. He was originally on a pension of £41·37. Because of the housing benefit changes, he will have only £28 on which to live. If the transitional period lasts only a year, Mr. Fisher will still be reduced to having only £28 on which to live. In a year, this will be as relevant as it was when he asked me a week ago how the Minister suggests he should live on £28 a week.
  There has been political sleight of hand in response to political panic. Hundreds of people face serious financial cuts. The one thing that Conservative Members have forgotten to say when talking about the "relative" poor and "targeting" is that the incomes of these people are tiny. It will not do for Conservative Members to talk about relatively well-off pensioners when these pensioners are living on incomes of £40 or £50 a week.
  We have seen the Government' political conjuring; now they should tell us the facts. How will the transitional arrangements work? When will they come into operation? Is there any undertaking to review and extend them to preserve the living standards of some of the very poor people whom Labour Members represent?
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) for the first time. We understand why she is highly regarded as a constituency Member of Parliament.
  Many of my constituents, not least pensioners, have contacted me about the benefit changes. In north-west Norfolk there is a growing number of elderly retired people. The vast majority of them accept the broad thrust of the social security changes because they understand the need for a simpler and more efficient system that cuts out some of the abuses, eradicates the unemployment trap,

  387
  and, above all, targets benefits more fairly. However, a fair number of them were a little surprised and bewildered and, in some cases, dismayed by the £6,000 capital limit.
  Like many hon. Members, I have received representations which I have put to Ministers. I wholly welcome today's announcement. It is not fair to say, as some Opposition Members have said, that the Government have climbed down under the force of pressure, retreated and done a U-turn. The Government should be congratulated.
  Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend says that he wholly welcomes what the Government have done, but, if the Government make a blunder and change it into a mistake—if they get something 100 per cent. wrong and now have it only 15 per cent. wrong—how can my hon. Friend be wholly satisfied? Like him, I have received many representations from people. Where will those people obtain £2·50 that they never had before?
  Mr. Bellingham: I do not regard what the Government did as a blunder. It was a mistake, and they have now corrected it and, above all, rendered the system far more acceptable.
  The Government should not feel any shame about what they have done. They have shown that they are prepared to listen to representations, to consider individual cases and, above all, to come forward with remedies. I was particularly impressed by the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled on 13 April when he said that he would monitor the changes and consider every detail and the impact of the reforms over a prolonged period and be prepared to listen and be flexible. What the Government have done today is therefore extremely welcome.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bellingham: No, I shall not give way, as we are trying to make progress.
  What has been the response of Opposition Members so far? They have derided the Government. Their constant tirades are wholly illogical. They have made endless attacks. They have not mentioned the Government's putting £2 billion more into social security this year. They have not mentioned the fact that, in cash terms, nine out of 10 people will be better off, or no worse off. They have not mentioned the fact that £1 in £3 of Government expenditure now goes towards social security, whereas, under the Labour Government, it was £1 in £4. They give no credit to the Government for the fact that, in 1978, £1·24 billion was spent on housing benefit, whereas, in the tax year 1987–88, £5·2 billion was spent on housing benefit.
  Opposition Members must say what they would do, if their position is to be credible. Would they keep the old system, with all its abuses and anomalies? Do they believe that it is right that, as under the old system, a person with £30,000 capital should receive housing benefit? Do they believe that it is right for the abuses under the single payments scheme to continue? They do not tell us what they would do, particularly in respect of the ever-increasing cost of housing benefit.
  We hear a great deal about immoral, un-Christian, uncaring and even wicked measures, but what is caring or Christian about keeping a system that is creaking at the seams and growing like Topsy, as the Minister of State said? What is caring or right about keeping a system that
  388
  discriminates against low-paid people in work, discourages thousands of others from finding work and has a built-in unemployment trap? The system is discredited, yet the Opposition want to keep it going. There is no answer to those points because the Opposition's position is wholly illogical. Surely the caring, correct and sensible way forward is to try to target benefits at those who need them most.
  I had a conversation about housing benefit with some constituents over the weekend. They said that it would probably make sense if one house in five were to receive housing benefit, but not if one in three were to receive it. We must set the limit somewhere. We must ask ourselves whether it is right to ask low-paid people, through their taxes, to help those with substantial savings.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bellingham: No, I shall not give way. We must make progress.
  The figure decided upon by the Government, following representations, is right. As the Minister said recently, nothing is cast in stone. Those figures can change. The system is now far more effective and changes can and will be made in the future, as and when the need is shown to exist. The Government will act flexibly.
  There is nothing caring about building up excessive dependence on the state and creating a culture which encourages people to turn to the state in the first resort as a matter of course. The Opposition do not have answers. Opposition Members churn out individual cases by the dozen, but we have heard nothing about those pensioners with £3,000 of savings who will receive more housing benefit or about other cases where people will be considerably better off.
  The Minister will be interested to know that I had a telephone call over the weekend from a Labour councillor. I shall read out the message because it was not edited by me. It states that the councillor
  "would be most grateful if you could call him. He sounded very nice by the way. He stressed that politically you are not in agreement. Just wanted you to know that he has heard from the grass roots how well the new benefit system is working. He knows of one family who were getting 50p or 60p under FIS, who were really poor, who are now getting £20 a week. He knows of another person who is now getting £60 a week and not £20 as before."
  We hear only of those cases where people are much worse off. The Government have said that they will consider them with compassion and flexibility. The old system was seriously discredited. No Government could have stood back and done nothing, particularly a reforming Government elected on a mandate to encourage enterprise initiative and self-help.
  However, there is a need for a comprehensive safety net below which nobody can fall. We must bear in mind that any social security system or comprehensive safety net is based, above all else, on the productive wealth of a country. If there is no productive base and wealth creation is stifled by a system that is growing out of all proportion, the wealth-creating system will be jeopardised and the poorest people will suffer most. That is precisely what was happening. The increases were uncontrollable. The system is now far more effective. By the time we have sorted out the details, it will be fairer and, after what the Government

  389
  have done today, much more acceptable. I shall certainly support the Government's amendment tonight, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  6.9 pm
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: This afternoon, we have been treated to a wonderful spectacle on Conservative Benches.. One minute, in their prepared speeches from Central Office, Conservative Members told us that the last Labour Government threw cash around like it was going out of fashion and that they did not direct money in any way. The next minute, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) told us that the last Labour Government were too mean. Yet, in 1979 and since, the Conservative Government have based their policies against the Labour party and the electorate—those who are on benefit—on saying that those on benefit should not get more than those doing the lowest paid job in society. Everybody remembers—
  Mr. John Marshall rose—
  Ms. Primarolo: I shall not give way. I have 10 minutes in which to speak. Many hon. Members have contributed to the debate, and I wish to press on.
  We well remember the long posters stating: "Labour isn't working". The Conservative party forced up benefits to make sure that people voted at any price. I wonder whether the Government misled the electorate then, or do they seek to mislead the electorate today?
  Let us be clear about housing benefit. It does not stand in isolation. I was a member of the Standing Committees that examined the social security and housing legislation and considered the relationship between various benefits. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the Minister for Housing and Planning pointed out six times—he even chastised us—that there would be no reduction in housing benefit and that it would be the main tool for protecting tenants when the Housing Bill becomes law. Because of the changes that have been made, tenants now have no protection.
  Having taken away £670 million, the Government give back £100 million today, and expect us to say, "Don't worry, everything is hunky-dory." Having once claimed to simplify it, they make announcements that will make the system more complex, and then expect us to congratulate them. They made the changes because of Opposition Members' work on exposing their policies, and then they expect us to congratulate them. We shall not do that. It is not enough. The Government must do more. On Second Reading and in Committee, Conservative Members said that housing benefit would be the major form of protection for tenants in the private sector. It will not.
  I draw the attention of the House to a couple of cases, the principles of which are not dealt with by the amendments. The first involves a single parent who has one child. Following the ethics that the Government preach to her, she works part-time. As a result of the changes, she is £5·27 a week worse off. The reason is that, in the the family credit that she now receives, there is an adjustment of £2·50 to pay for the free school dinners that she has lost. Free school dinners cost £4 a week, and her compensation was only £2·50. We shall overlook that point for a moment. That £2·50 was counted as unearned
  390
  income, and she lost £5·27 housing benefit. That is not dealt with by the amendments, and that person is still losing.
  The second case involves a private tenant, a disabled woman who is separated from her husband. She works part-time and receives £38 per week. She also receives £12 from her ex-husband. Until the changes, she was paying £9·10 a fortnight for her rent and rates. She must now pay an additional sum of £18 a fortnight, as a direct result of the changes in housing benefit. One day she was entitled to benefit, and the next day she was £18 a week worse off. She is not helped by the changes. Indeed, when the Housing Bill comes into force, as a private tenant, her position will deteriorate. She has not had a holiday for five years. She asked me to tell the Health Ministers that she does not smoke or drink, but she doubts whether, as a result of the changes, she will be able to exist in future.
  The Minister should explain exactly what we should say to people about how they are to manage on the miserly sums that the Government are allowing them to live on. How can we explain to them that, after the Budget, some people are thousands of pounds a month better off, yet the Government are taking from them some basic amounts?
  Another woman wrote to me. She is an owner-occupier. She is an old-age pensioner, 66 years old—the model of Tory ideology in terms of saving money all her life. She receives a pension of £27·72 and a payment from her ex-husband, which give her an income of £42·21 a week. Because of rates, she loses under the 20 per cent. reduction. She described her lifestyle. She has worked all her life. Her generation's contribution has been mentioned. She has one coal fire in her house. She saves all the year round to buy coal. She lights that one fire one afternoon a week—on Sunday, when she has visitors. She has meat once a week. Every other day, she eats a baked potato, an apple and some cheese.
  It is disgusting that Conservative Members should subject people to that type of lifestyle and then preach on about what the Labour Government did in 1979. We are talking about now. That lady wraps herself in blankets with hot water bottles and goes to bed at 8 o'clock every night throughout the winter, and stays up only in the summer when it is warm enough to do so. Her only luxury is a cat.
  Those people are not helped by the amendments. It is clear that the changes in the social security system will lead to massive hardship. To Conservative Members and to many Opposition Members it may seem only a small amount of money compared with the salaries that we receive, but to people who are trying to live on £20, £30 and £40 a week, it means the difference between being able to eat and being able to keep warm.
  I have some questions for the Minister. The six months grace for selling a home will apply to housing benefit, but will it apply to income support? Obviously, in the cases that the Leader of the Opposition has highlighted, it has been a real problem. The transitional protections under the income support regulations will be cut every time a person's circumstances change. Will that happen to housing benefit too? How many people do the Government expect still to get protection in 12 months? About 5·5 million people suffered loss as a result of the changes in the regulations.
  Today, with the changes that the Government have announced, 400,000 people will not be quite so badly off. What about the other 5 million? When will the

  391
  Government do something instead of giving us platitudes and figures about what they are spending and realise that, for many complex reasons, the reality—what is going on in people's lives—is not reflected in the Government's figures. It is about time that the Government did something about it.
  6.29 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: This is, unquestionably, a watershed debate. [Interruption.] It is beginning to dawn on Conservative Members—clearly not those giggling below the Gangway—what their Government have been up to.
  Over the past three years—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can testify to this as you have frequently been in the Chair on these occasions—we have described over and over again exactly the same problems about which we have heard today. Conservative Members, with a few honourable exceptions, have behaved like the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) did a few moments ago; they have jeered, sneered or completely ignored our predictions. To be fair, I can understand that they could not believe what was about to happen, even though it was predicted not only by us but by every other independent group or commentator. It is true that we were not 100 per cent. accurate, and perhaps we should apologise for that, although we were more accurate than the Government. We erred on the side of generosity.
  Until two weeks ago, the Government dismissed all our figures as hypothetical, misleading and exaggerated. What we have heard over the past few days makes it clear that the losses in housing benefit, as the Government initially intended it to be imposed, were worse than those hypothetical figures.
  As Conservative Members are perhaps beginning to listen to the case being put by the Labour party, I shall make two points. First, we should look, in the context of this debate, at the basis of the Government's argument —which was parroted by Conservative Members—about why they should make savings in housing benefit—savings from which today we have forced them so spectacularly and abruptly to begin to retreat.
  Again today, the argument was advanced that housing benefit must need cutting because it goes to one household in three and because the budget has risen since 1979. I recommend that Conservative Members who parroted those arguments read not only the briefings that they get from the Whips Office or Central Office but the 1985 or 1988 report of the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee. In both those reports, they will find admirably set out the reason for increased expenditure on housing benefit—the increase in housing costs. Those costs are higher now than in 1979 or 1982, when the Government introduced the housing benefit scheme, which the Secretary of State comprehensively denounced this afternoon as unfair, complicated and dreadful.
  As some Conservative Members were not paying as much attention as they should have been when the Secretary of State referred scathingly to the Opposition having done nothing about the scheme, I shall repeat that it was this Government's scheme, which they introduced in 1982, that the Secretary of State was criticising. Although he criticised the Opposition for not dealing with the worst
  392
  aspects of the poverty trap in the preceding scheme, his criticisms of the poverty trap that preceded this scheme were criticisms of his Government, not ours.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry, but I am short of time. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman only if I have enough time.
  This is not the Government's first attempt to evade the consequences of the net effect of housing benefit changes. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) saved me time by listing a substantial number of the cuts that the Government have made and mentioning the millions of people whom they have excluded or who have lost help with housing benefit in recent years.
  Cumulative savings of £366 million were made between 1983 and 1987, before the £650 million-worth of savings that the Government had planned to make this year. During that same period, despite the cuts in spending on housing benefits, which rose to £5,000 million, the subsidy in housing costs, which helps to keep rents down, has been cut by a cumulative total of £5,000 million, in real terms at 1987–88 prices. That cut led to the 155 per cent. increase in average local authority rents, which has so contributed to the numbers of people who need and draw housing benefit. That is only the cut in average local authority rents: there have also been cuts in rate support grant, which have led to increases in rates, and again the need for housing benefit to be increased.
  Conservative Members do not realise that help with housing benefit is a smaller proportion of the rent and rates bill for every individual who receives that help than it was in 1979, 1982 or 1983. That help is not only a smaller proportion of housing costs but is lost at lower incomes—far below average earnings for those with average rent and rates. Before April 1983, a single pensioner would have lost entitlement to housing benefit at a weekly income of £94·35p. From April this year, such a person loses entitlement to housing benefit at a weekly income of £64·51. That is a cash cut of £30, never mind what it is in real terms. The argument that the housing benefit scheme is over-generous falls apart if one troubles to scrutinise the facts.
  We have been calling for the concessions that have been announced today in the capital limit and on the transitional arrangements. It is a pity—it would have saved many people much anguish and heartache—that the Government were unable to announce any concessions in transitional arrangements over the past three years, as they did in 1982. It is a pity that they had to make it so crystal clear that they were determined to make these cuts if they could possibly get away with it.
  It is a pity that, because only concessions in transitional protection have been offered, the losses that have been described still occur—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, they will be more gradual. It is a pity that the savage tapers and rule changes, which have caused losses to over 5 million people, will remain wholly untouched and will bite unamended on new claimants or those who give up benefit for a period but return at the new levels.
  It is a pity that the marginal rate of tax—85p in the pound for those who claim housing benefit—begins to apply at incomes just over £3,500 a year for a couple. Government Back Benchers have described the benefits

  393
  scheme as over-generous, yet a month ago in the Budget the Chancellor said that the highest rate of marginal tax applied to the most wealthy should be 40p in the pound.
  It is a pity that, despite the transitional protection that has been announced today, people will still face rent rises of up to £7 or £8 a week. Conservative Members have not noticed that, although the Secretary of State is saying that losses above £2·50 will be made good, he is also saying that that will be based on last year's rent and rates, not this year's. An initial calculation that I have received from Edinburgh shows that people will lose between £5·50 and £8 a week before any help will be given. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) at least has appreciated that point.
  It is a pity that two people in identical circumstances will receive rebates that differ by £10 a week or more, depending on whether they claim before or after 1 April, because new claimants do not get transitional protection.
  It is certainly a pity that not only is there an incredibly complex system for claiming that concession—which will certainly cause headaches for local authorities and will have to be operated by claimants—but it appears that the childless, the young, and childless widows who are not pensioners will be excluded even from the help that is being offered.
  That is the major case that I want to make about the concessions, the nature of the Government's scheme and what they are offering. My second point concerns the restricted nature of this debate. Now that Government Back Benchers have been forced to accept that the Labour party understands and accurately describes the effects of the changes that the Government are making, perhaps they will listen not only to us but to others who dispute the Government's claim about housing benefit and the rest of the changes that the Government are making.
  I shall quote from a letter dated 26 April sent by the Royal National Institute for the Blind to the Secretary of State. It states:
  "Over the past two years we have repeatedly put to you and your officials cases illustrating the levels of loss which disabled people would face … We have refuted the Government's claim that only 80,000 'Sick and disabled people' will be worse off."
  That refers not to the housing benefit changes, but to some small part of the other changes that the Government will pass.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way later, if I can.
  Today's debate barely deals with the tip of the iceberg of the Government's changes. It is not even the case that all the losses on housing benefit are yet apparent. My local authority is having problems with the computer software, although I understand from it and the company involved that mine is substantially ahead of many other local authorities. Many local authorities have not been able to inform their electorate of the scale of losses that the electorate is likely to face.
  Apart from not knowing all the losses even on housing benefit, there are the losses on other rule changes; the losses when people lose transitional protection on income support; the impact when those who have transitional protection get increased bills but no increased income to meet them; and the impact when the desperate are not only
  394
  turned away after applying for help with essential items from the social fund, but told that they cannot even re-apply for six months. More than all that, there is the devastating impact of the gap that new claimants will find between their needs and their income.
  On Monday my local social security office gave me the example of someone diagnosed as near to the date of their death. Sadly, that does occur. Under the old system, the office could have visited and given every kind of additional allowance and help it could lay its hands on. Now, such a patient cannot be offered anything except, if they are lucky, a crisis loan. If such a person lives long enough to qualify for an attendance allowance, that is six months, he may be able to get some help. If all the generous help from the Government to protect the severely disabled is heavily linked to benefits such as the attendance allowance, for which one must be seriously ill for six months to qualify, those families will suffer not only bereavement but a death debt with it. All that is still to come.
  Clearly, a few Conservative Members understand that. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) spoke in deep and almost impenetrable code, but I think he told his Ministers that this was not the last but only the first climbdown that they would have to make. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) showed remarkable perspicacity when he said to his Front Bench colleagues:
  "I do not believe that the Bill will stand the test of time." —[Official Report, 20 May 1986; Vol. 98, c. 269.]
  I doubt whether even the hon. Gentleman thought that the measure would not last three weeks.
  We know that some Conservative Members are considering how they will vote tonight. When they make that judgment, they should remember that that is just the start of the relevation of the damage which their Government are doing. I can understand that people find it difficult to believe in the nature and scale of the losses that we have consistently identified. A reason must be that they could not understand why even this Government should take such a political risk.
  Incidentally, on 12 April the Chief Secretary said that Ministers had no plans to bow to the rising tide of criticism by tinkering with the regulations, but we shall pass over that. He also said:
  "At the heart of the reform is the ending of the discrimination between low income people in work and those not in work on benefit."
  The Chief Secretary put his finger on the essential point: this is part of the Government's attack on trade union rights, part of the promotion of a low wage economy—benefits must be even lower than wages—and part of their attack on the principle of the welfare state.
  The Chief Secretary's words echoed those of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law in 1832:
  "the situation of the individual relieved should not be made really or apparently so eligible as the situation of the independent labourer of the lowest class."
  The Government are at one with the Poor Law Commission.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry, but I have only about one minute.
  This is part two of the attack on the principles of the welfare state: the principle of universality and the principle

  395
  of an emphasis on rights, not charity. Lest any hon. Members on Conservative Benches or on ours doubt the direction in which the Government are going, I refer them to an article by Professor Minford in The Daily Telegraph on 25 April:
  "It is the existence of income support at all for pensioners that is the disincentive to save."
  The view of those who advise this Government is that the changes do not go far enough; it is just a step along the road towards demolishing the welfare state.
  Clearly, it has come as an unpleasant shock to the Government that even Tory voters have been undermined by 50 years of promotion of Socialist ideas, as the Secretary of State for the Environment said the other day, to believe that they should have rights and dignities, and should not be ashamed of claiming benefits for which they have contributed. The fact that they believe that has forced the Government to back down today on this minor aspect of the changes. Tory Back Benchers threatened to vote with the Labour party. The only way in which the Government will back down from the overwhelming damage that they intend to pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed is if those who have the opportunity, particularly at the local elections on 5 May, show, by voting resoundingly for the Labour party, that they reject the Government's philosophy and principles which cost the elderly and disabled so dear.
  6.45 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I understand the need of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), in her peroration, to accuse the Government of every possible attack on the elderly, the sick and the poor that she can find in her catechism, but her criticisms sit ill with the Government's record on social security since we came to office in 1979. I cannot see how her criticisms, or the surprising attack on the Government from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), characterising the changes as an attack by the rich on the living standards of the poor, sit with the steady and consistent increase in both the scope and extent of social security under this Government.
  Today we are spending 40 per cent. more in real terms on benefit than the Labour Government. [Interruption.] We are spending nearly £ 1 billion a week on social security benefits. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady was heard in silence. It is only fair that the Minister should have a hearing.
  Mr. Scott: Every working taxpayer is contributing £40 a week towards social security. We are helping more than 6 million people with rent, rates, or both. The criticism that the Government's record on the disabled does not stand up to scrutiny is particularly offensive. Spending on the disabled has risen by no less than 80 per cent. in real terms under this Government—over £3 billion in real terms. Those criticisms do not stand up. I rebut them only because the hon. Lady made them. This debate covers narrower ground, because we are discussing an Opposition motion on housing benefit and the Government's amendment to it.
  I am glad to reply to this debate on the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put to the House this afternoon. His response showed clearly the Government's determination to fulfil the pledge that we
  396
  gave previously, that, as we implement these reforms, we shall listen carefully and be responsive to criticisms—[Interruption.] I cannot conceive how Opposition Members can characterise this as a climbdown or a U-turn. We are spending £5·2 billion on housing benefit and we are today making a modest adjustment of £100 million to respond to criticisms by my hon. Friends and some Labour Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) put it exactly right. It is the duty of the Government to listen, to be responsive to and to use good judgment about criticisms. The Government have done that without any of the arrogance that we too often saw from Labour Members when they were on these Benches.
  Mr. Robin Cook rose—
  Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked for a specific continuing commitment that we shall continue to monitor the impact of these changes as the years go by. I suggest that the fact that we have had this debate, and the announcement by my right hon. Friend earlier, will arouse considerable interest among the public. We will be making an early announcement about the steps that people should take to avail themselves of the transitional protection that we have announced today. We hope to make an announcement within the next few days on cases of exceptional hardship. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will draw these matters to the attention of anyone who may be able to benefit from the transitional protection.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) accused us of abandoning the simplicity of the existing system. That is not true. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, the structure is substantially the same as it was. We are being responsive to a pair of problems which have presented themselves where we believe early action is necessary.
  I also reinforce the point, which I think the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye made, that the transitional protection is nothing to do with our local offices. It will be administered centrally by a special unit, although we will need the support and co-operation of local authorities in filtering the applications as they come through.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked two or three questions, apart from his general attack on the Government, and I should like to respond to those. He asked whether all those on housing benefit supplement will be covered by the transitional protection. The answer to his question is that they will be covered if they fall within the categories outlined by my right hon. Friend in his opening remarks. Pensioners, sick and disabled people, and families with children will be covered if they suffer as a result of the ending of housing benefit supplement.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead also asked—this point has been raised by other hon. Members—why we chose the figure of £2·50. First, it is worth reminding ourselves that we are talking not about people on income support, but people who are above income support level. Further, we had to balance the cost of administering any new scheme of transitional protection against the benefits which would ensue. Again, it was a matter of judgment which led us to choose £2·50 as a reasonable way of protecting those with high losses over a transitional period.

  397
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), the hon. Member for Birkenhead and other hon. Members asked what will happen to transitional payments in the course of time: will they be treated in the same way as other transitional arrangements or finish after a single year? They will be treated in the same way as transitional arrangements in other circumstances. Increases in benefits will erode the provision necessary under transitional protection. After one year, fewer people will need that transitional protection; after two years even fewer people will need it; and eventually the need for it will disappear. I recognise that appropriate help may have to be given over an extended period to some of those people for whom we have announced that protection will be available.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) raised a number of points. First, he mentioned the deprivation in Northern Ireland, with which both he and I are familiar. We know who is largely responsible for deprivation in that part of the United Kingdom. The administration of the transitional protection in Northern Ireland has still to be decided—for example, whether it will be done by the central unit of the DHSS on this side of the water or the DHSS in Northern Ireland. It may be that the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland will be the more appropriate body for handling that matter. As we are handling it centrally for Great Britain, it may be sensible to cover Northern Ireland on the same basis. We shall make a final decision on that later.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also asked about small amounts of land which may be held in Northern Ireland. The situation there is that if the land is worked, the income generated from it will be taken into account. If it is not worked, the capital value will be taken into account. If it is virtually worthless, it will be totally ignored and treated as such. He also said that houses in Northern Ireland are difficult to sell because of the particular circumstances in the Province. In that event, the six-month rule is capable of being extended.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way.
  What I have shown today is that the changes that my right hon. Friend announced were intended to ease two important situations, where the shoe was pinching as a result of the introduction of the benefits.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) starkly contrasted the records of the Conservative and Labour Governments in these matters. Let us look at housing benefit and contrast the Labour record with that of the Conservative Government.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Robin Cook rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Scott: I know that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was not a member of that Labour Government, but it is about time that he listened to some of the facts. The total expenditure on housing support, which is rent and allowances, in 1974–75 was £701 million—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not shout each other down in this House.
  Mr. Scott: I know that Opposition Members do not like the facts, but they should try to listen to them.
  Hon. Members: Tell the truth.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Scott: In real terms, the Labour Government's £1·23 billion in 1978–79 represented not an increase, but a reduction of 2 per cent. in expenditure on housing support. The Conservative Government's record shows an increase of 107 per cent. in real terms over the period of—[Interruption.] Indeed, the Member for Derby, South suggested in her reply to the debate— she quoted the Social Security Advisory Committee in support of this—that it is not the RPI that should be taken into account, but the increase in housing costs. However, if we take rent levels as a measure, the Labour Government managed an increase of only 2 to 3 per cent. in real terms during their period of office.
  Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order and not a point of argument.
  Mr. Allen: Speaker, I understand that this is an Opposition Supply day. Therefore, is not the Minister under some obligation to respond to the debate?
  Mr. Speaker: I have been here since the Minister rose, and he has been doing just that.
  Mr. Scott: The 2 to 3 per cent. increase in real terms during the term of the Labour Government contrasts with the increase of over 50 per cent. in real terms under this Government. The fact is that the Labour party failed when it was in office, and it is failing again. We have provided the resources for housing support—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Robin Cook rose—
  Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Scott: The fact is—and the hon. Member for Livingston knows it—that the Labour Government failed to generate the wealth to provide for their social security spending. Does he remember the Labour Government's approach to social security spending? I shall remind him of what Joel Barnett said about the Labour Government. He stated:
  "It might be said that the first few months … were characterised by our spending money which in the event we did not have."
  Where did that lead? It led to the IMF, cuts in social security and the inability of the Labour Government to fulfil the high-flown promises that they presented to the electorate. They will fail again, given half the chance.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: No.

  399
  Of course I recognise, in the words of the late Iain Macleod, that money is the root of all progress. However, one has to generate that wealth in the first place. Only then can one spend it. This Government have done just that.
  Mr. Speaker: The original Question was the motion on the effects of the new housing benefit changes in the name of the Leader of the Opposition—
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is not 7 o'clock yet.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 324.

  Division No. 278]

  [7.pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dobson, Frank

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Doran, Frank

  Allen, Graham

  Douglas, Dick

  Alton, David

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Anderson, Donald

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eadie, Alexander

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Barron, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Battle, John

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

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fisher, Mark

  Beggs, Roy

  Flannery, Martin

  Beith, A. J.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foulkes, George

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

  Fraser, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Galloway, George

  Blair, Tony

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Blunkett, David

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Boateng, Paul

  George, Bruce

  Boyes, Roland

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bradley, Keith

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gould, Bryan

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buckley, George J.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caborn, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Henderson, Doug

  Cartwright, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Holland, Stuart

  Clay, Bob

  Home Robertson, John

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hume, John

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  John, Brynmor

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kilfedder, James

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dixon, Don

  Lambie, David

  400

  Lamond, James

  Prescott, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Leighton, Ron

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Randall, Stuart

  Lewis, Terry

  Redmond, Martin

  Litherland, Robert

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Livingstone, Ken

  Reid, Dr John

  Livsey, Richard

  Richardson, Jo

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Robertson, George

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rogers, Allan

  McAllion, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCusker, Harold

  Rowlands, Ted

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McGrady, Eddie

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKelvey, William

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McLeish, Henry

  Short, Clare

  McNamara, Kevin

  Skinner, Dennis

  McTaggart, Bob

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

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

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Mallon, Seamus

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Marek, Dr John

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Maxton, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meacher, Michael

  Stott, Roger

  Meale, Alan

  Strang, Gavin

  Michael, Alun

  Straw, Jack

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

  Turner, Dennis

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Vaz, Keith

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wall, Pat

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mullin, Chris

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Murphy, Paul

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Nellist, Dave

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Brien, William

  Winnick, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Worthington, Tony

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wray, Jimmy

  Parry, Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Frank Cook.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Benyon, W.

  Alexander, Richard

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Allason, Rupert

  Blackburn, Dr John G

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amos, Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Ashby, David

  Bowis, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Atkins, Robert

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Atkinson, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bright, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

  Bellingham, Henry

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Bendall, Vivian

  Burns, Simon

  401

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butcher, John

  Harris, David

  Butler, Chris

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayward, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Heddle, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

  Hill, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Holt, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cope, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Couchman, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, David (Boothterry)

  Irvine, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Tony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Eggar, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evennett, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Fallon, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Farr, Sir John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Favell, Tony

  Knowles, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knox, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Latham, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Forth, Eric

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Franks, Cecil

  Lightbown, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Lilley, Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fry, Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gale, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McCrindle, Robert

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Goodlad, Alastair

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maclean, David

  Gow, Ian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Madel, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gregory, Conal

  Matins, Humfrey

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mans, Keith

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Maples, John

  Grist, Ian

  Marlow, Tony

  Ground, Patrick

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mates, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hannam, John

  May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

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

  Mellor, David

  402

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Miller, Hal

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mills, Iain

  Speed, Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Speller, Tony

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Moate, Roger

  Squire, Robin

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stern, Michael

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Stevens, Lewis

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Needham, Richard

  Stokes, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Neubert, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Paice, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Thorne, Neil

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Portillo, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tredinnick, David

  Price, Sir David

  Trippier, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Trotter, Neville

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Redwood, John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Renton, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Riddick, Graham

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walden, George

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Waller, Gary

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Walters, Dennis

  Rost, Peter

  Ward, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Watts, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Wheeler, John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Whitney, Ray

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wilkinson, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wood, Timothy

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Shersby, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 220.

  Division No. 279]

  [7.12 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Arbuthnot, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashby, David

  Allason, Rupert

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Atkins, Robert

  Amess, David

  Atkinson, David

  Amos, Alan

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  403

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Franks, Cecil

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  French, Douglas

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fry, Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gale, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gardiner, George

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gill, Christopher

  Benyon, W.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gow, Ian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowis, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grist, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Ground, Patrick

  Bright, Graham

  Grylls, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hannam, John

  Budgen, Nicholas

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

  Burns, Simon

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butler, Chris

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Churchill, Mr

  Hill, James

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

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Holt, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Michael

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cope, John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Irvine, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Tony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Eggar, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evennett, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Fallon, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Farr, Sir John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Favell, Tony

  Knowles, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knox, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Latham, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Forth, Eric

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lightbown, David

  404

  Lilley, Peter

  Ryder, Richard

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lord, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Maclean, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Shersby, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sims, Roger

  Madel, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mans, Keith

  Speed, Keith

  Maples, John

  Speller, Tony

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Squire, Robin

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mates, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stern, Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Miller, Hal

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Mills, Iain

  Stokes, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Sumberg, David

  Moate, Roger

  Summerson, Hugo

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Thorne, Neil

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Needham, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neubert, Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trippier, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Trotter, Neville

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Page, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Paice, James

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Walden, George

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Ward, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Watts, John

  Price, Sir David

  Wheeler, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Whitney, Ray

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Redwood, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Renton, Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Riddick, Graham

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Woodcock, Mike

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Rowe, Andrew

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Allen, Graham

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Alton, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Anderson, Donald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  405

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Battle, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Foster, Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Foulkes, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fraser, John

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

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Galloway, George

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Blair, Tony

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Blunkett, David

  George. Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boyes, Roland

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bradley, Keith

  Gould, Bryan

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buckley, George J.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cartwright, John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Holland, Stuart

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clay, Bob

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clelland, David

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hume, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Cox, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Cryer, Bob

  Janner, Greville

  Cummings, John

  John, Brynmor

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kilfedder, James

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dixon, Don

  Lambie, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Doran, Frank

  Leighton, Ron

  Douglas, Dick

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eadie, Alexander

  Livsey, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Faulds, Andrew

  McAllion, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  406

  McCusker, Harold

  Richardson, Jo

  McFall, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Robertson, George

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Rogers, Allan

  McKelvey, William

  Rooker, Jeff

  McLeish, Henry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWilliam, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mallon, Seamus

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meale, Alan

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Michael, Alun

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Stott, Roger

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Straw, Jack

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Turner, Dennis

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Vaz, Keith

  Mullin, Chris

  Wall, Pat

  Murphy, Paul

  Wallace, James

  Nellist, Dave

  Walley, Joan

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Brien, William

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Parry, Robert

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Patchett, Terry

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Brian

  Pike, Peter L.

  Winnick, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Prescott, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wray, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Randall, Stuart

  Redmond, Martin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Reid, Dr John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, recognising that social security spending has risen by nearly 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979, and now totals almost £48½ billion, and that spending on housing benefit last year amounted to over £5 billion and went to over 7 million, or 1 in 3, households in this country, commends Her Majesty's Government for its determination to tackle the complexities and unfairnesses of the old system.

  British Railways (No. 2) Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [15 March].
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to continue the debate that was unfortunately curtailed on 15 March. On that occasion I made some side remarks about the former Great Northern railway that went up to Bradford.
  On this occasion I should like to concentrate upon the fact that a number of the new works listed in the Bill are interesting because, on several occasions, the track beds are former railways, which are now to be restored to use. That is welcome, but it would have been more helpful if the British Railways Board had been more cautious about closing those tracks in the first place. It would also have been helpful if the Government had not financially pressed the British Railways Board so that it had to look for other means of obtaining revenue, even if that meant closing the railways that it was supposed to run. The Bill illustrates that failing, because several of the private works will utilise existing track beds. Indeed, some of the compulsory purchase items relate to track that must be bought back from the owners to whom the British Railways Board sold the track beds.
  The preservation of railway rights of way by the British Railways Board and other public bodies, such as local authorities, is important because many of us, especially Opposition Members, have argued that use of the railways will increase—we have made that argument for the past 20 years. There has been an increase in passenger usage. In the past 25 years we have argued against many of the closures; we said that the majority were mistaken and foolish and were helping to erode the national network. In a minor way, the Bill reflects the truth of those statements.
  I wish to consider clause 18, which deals with a level crossing in the parish of Steeton with Eastburn. The Bill gives the British Railways Board powers to close that crossing once a road bridge has been constructed
  "by the Secretary of State in connection with the Kildwick to Beechcliffe section of the improvement of the Airedale Trunk Road."
  The closure of the level crossing at Steeton will save the board between £30,000 and £40,000 a year in terms of operational costs, repairs and maintenance. What will be done with that money? The board will not have to spend that money to provide any alternative level crossing facility because a road bridge will be constructed by the Department of Transport. Presumably no cost will be borne by the hoard, so the board will have a net saving of quite a considerable sum.
  I hope that the money will be used on the railway because Steeton—it formerly had a station—is on the line that runs from Leeds to Carlisle. I suggest to the promoters of the Bill that when the board can obtain savings, it should use every possible opportunity to put that money towards helping to maintain the Settle-Carlisle railway. The level crossing is on the route of that railway, which was constructed to give the Midland railway, running north from Leeds, access to Scotland. It is germane to the argument that the money saved on the level crossing should be invested in the Settle-Carlisle railway.
  408
  The £30,000 to £40,000 which will be saved on Steeton crossing would be over and above the £500,000 which the local authorities have offered to help restore Ribblehead viaduct. As the House will no doubt remember, the Minister for Public Transport is mulling over the local authorities' proposal. In reply to a written question today, the Minister said:
  "The local authorities have offered £500,000 towards the capital costs of restoring Ribblehead Viaduct subject to the following conditions:
  a. that British Rail continue to maintain and operate the line;
  b. that the line's future be guaranteed for a period of at least 20 years;
  c. that the contributions are a 'one-off' which should not be seen as setting any precedent and no further requests for financial support should be made."
  If, through the legislation, British Rail can make a saving, naturally the qualification about the one-off contribution from the local authorities would be more practicable. The answer continued:
  "d. that the revenue support contributions already agreed for the next two years will not be extended beyond that period."
  The Minister may make a statement shortly about the retention of the Settle-Carlisle line. That magnificent and beautiful railway runs from Settle junction and is connected to the main network on the very line with which the Bill deals. I hope that the Minister will announce shortly, if not tonight, that the Settle-Carlisle line is to be preserved and used for visitors and people who live in the Yorkshire dales. Thousands of people are waiting with bated breath for that announcement.
  The local authorities have been blackmailed into accepting the position, because the Minister wanted to put the odium of closure on the local authorities rather than take it on his own shoulders. The local authorities have come up with a significant amount of money. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to say that the line has been saved.
  Mr. Gary Waller: I support the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the Settle-Carlisle line. As the line cannot be justified in purely transport terms, as I think many would agree, although it is justified on the wider view, is it not right that the local authorities should make a contribution, bearing in mind that some of the benefits which would flow from the retention of the line are benefits which local authorities exist to promote?
  Mr. Cryer: I do not want to digress too much from the Bill, but this legislation is a possible source of revenue to help the Settle-Carlisle line. If the hon. Gentleman compares the cost of the Aire valley trunk road with the modest cost of maintaining this line, he will see that the road user is getting enormous investment compared with the railway user. I do not agree with him that the railway is not justified on transport and economic grounds. After all, it is a section of British Rail in which income equals expenditure. As the hon. Gentleman will know, when British Rail announced the closure of the Settle-Carlisle line, it was embarrassed by a breakdown on the west coast route which forced it to divert all traffic to the Settle-Carlisle line. It is an important diversionary route. The efforts of British Rail to divert freight traffic from the route, in a feeble and misjudged attempt to prove that it was not a part of the national network, came to naught.
  The line has potential and this legislation would provide additional revenue which British Rail, with the

  409
  approval of the Minister, could divert to it. The section of railway which we are talking about is supported to some extent by the local passenger transport authority.
  When Steeton level crossing is closed, there will be much redundant equipment. Some of it will be in good working order and it could be transferred to a line like the Settle-Carlisle line, which is not the crack inter-city route it used to be when it was part of the midland main line to Scotland. I hope that British Rail will consider using that equipment to keep the Settle-Carlisle line going rather than break it up and throw it to one side. The House often forgets that there are many ways of keeping railways running. One is using redundant materials from elsewhere. If the BRB had the will, it could do that to help this magnificent railway.
  Clause 19(3), which refers to a new level crossing, says:
  "The Board may, subject to such requirements as the Secretary of State may from time to time lay down, provide, maintain and operate at or near the new level crossing such harriers, lights, traffic signs and automatic or other devices and appliances as may be approved by the Secretary of State."
  No doubt the Minister supports the legislation, as we all do, because it means an improved railway network. Nonetheless, the safest level crossings are those with interlinking electronic or mechanical devices between the closing of a barrier or a gate and signals for the passage of trains.
  I draw this to the Minister's attention because the Department of Transport over the past quarter century has allowed the standard of operation at the level crossings to deteriorate. It has removed employees in the interests of "economy" and "efficiency", which means that there have been accidents. I have operated an interlinking system, which is insisted on by the Department of Transport on the Worth valley railway. It is perfectly proper. There are two level crossings on the line, which operate with interlocking signals. I urge the Minister to keep this under careful review to ensure high standards of safety.
  Mr. Greg Knight: When accidents happen, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is not due to the lack of employees but to the lack of gates? There seems to be a policy of removing level crossing gates and merely having crossings operated by flashing traffic signals, with the result that on occasions motorists attempt to jump the lights. That is when accidents happen.
  Mr. Cryer: I was being, as usual, a modest, cautious observer of the passing scene. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the removal of gates has caused difficulties. Foolish motorists can manoeuvre around the single pole barriers. Sometimes there are no barriers or just a pole, or a pole with a falling fence attached to it. It is a retrogate step. Over many years we have established a high standard of railway safety, which is zealously supported by railway employees.
  Financial constraints imposed by the Government have led to pressure on BRB to get rid of employees, which results in a lowering of safety standards. Many stations are no longer manned. With signal boxes covering ever longer route mileages, the signalman cannot keep as good an eye on security. Vandalism on British railways nationally costs about £20 million a year. It is foolish to have to repair faults arising from vandalism when, by employing more people, British Rail could obviate it. Indeed, it is worth
  410
  pointing out to the Minister that the BRB threatened to sack some members of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen who, two days before the fire at King's Cross, were distributing leaflets pointing out that there were dangers in the operation of King's Cross and other underground stations.
  The increasingly rigid attitude of British Rail management in that respect is counter-productive, and disheartening for members of ASLEF and the NUR, who do a good job and give excellent service. Those works cannot be carried out effectively if the management is not prepared to co-operate with the trade unions. It has been put to me by members who have spent 30, 40 or 50 years working on the railways that they have never known such an autocratic and rigid attitude.
  That attitude is induced and engendered by the Government. The best way of working is always by co-operation rather than confrontation. The rail trade unions have never sought otherwise, and management should not try to insist on confrontation, as they have so often done—most recently at King's Cross. I am told that there are difficulties also at Leeds, which is one of the biggest depots in the country.
  Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman's link between safety and manpower is not born out by the facts. At the time when the predecessors of British Rail employed three or four times the number of people it does today, railway accidents took the lives of several hundred people every year.
  Mr. Peter Snape: When was that?
  Mr. Waller: Rail is now one of the safest forms of transport, yet the relationship with the number of people using the railways is more aligned to the number of staff reductions. The link between manpower and safety cannot be drawn in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has got his statistics wholly wrong. I cannot recall one year in the operation of the railways when hundreds of people were killed. Today, the number of mortalities can be counted on the fingers of two hands, at most. Those killed are usually not passengers but railwaymen working on the line without adequate safety precautions.
  The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) said that, without barriers, new dangers are created at railway crossings, and there have been a number of horrific accidents. The installation of automatic crossings, with or without barriers, is due to the removal of level crossing keepers in order to cut operating costs. At the same time, reasonable levels of safety must be maintained. British Rail operates trains carrying staff who try to catch those who trespass or throw things on to the railway line.
  That is done, at considerable cost, because over many miles of track there are not enough railwaymen working —either as a matter of routine or because signal boxes have closed. Maintenance is now undertaken by machinery or by roving gangs instead. Many stations are left unmanned or have closed. For all those reasons, the railway tends to be more vulnerable.
  My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) worked on the railways

  411
  all his life before coming to the House and he is nodding his head in agreement. The new works set out in the British Railways (No. 2) Bill—
  Sir John Farr: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cryer: I will, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this sentence.
  Those proposed works will be improved if the management is prepared to take a positive attitude towards the trade unions. I have found over many years that railwaymen in particular are devoted to the system they serve and want to do a good job.
  Sir John Farr: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but is it not true that the work traditionally undertaken by gang men can now be undertaken by machines? Provided that innovation is adopted with safety, no human life will then be at risk. Ten years ago, say, such maintenance was the cause of unfortunate accidents.
  Mr. Cryer: As I remember it, the Hither Green disaster was caused by a cracked rail that was subject to mechanical inspection. Although we may denigrate ourselves as human beings from time to time, if we give some devotion to our work, we are all better off for it. The Hither Green disaster was an example of a lack of human inspection leading to a serious track failure. I believe that there can be both types of inspection.
  I do not object to the improvements set out in the Bill. The jobs need to be made easier, and perhaps that will result in the work being performed better. At the same time, we should not get rid of people purely from an accounting point of view. If we do so, we may live to regret it. Some would argue that the King's Cross disaster could he blamed on a diminution in the number of staff there and a lack of concern for safety as a result of management seeking to reduce the number of staff.
  Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend go further and say that, in the recently published report on the 1986 disaster at Colwich junction, when, tragically, one railwayman was killed—albeit no passengers were injured—the Department of Transport's own inspector pointed to the lack of footplate inspection staff as a reason why the driver of one of the trains involved made the mistake he did? That inspection starkly illustrated the dangers of withdrawing staff for the sake of saving money and the likely consequences of such an economy in terms of safety.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he has considerable knowledge of railway matters and follows these issues closely. He will recall, as I do, that, in the early 1980s, railway inspectorate reports pointed to a reduction in safety levels as a result of the pressure on maintenance expenditure. In criticising any lowering of level crossing standards, I place the onus not on the railway inspectorate, which aims at the highest possible standards, but on those who pursue a policy of putting profit and loss before service.
  The qualification introduced by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) about the electrification of the London midland line has my support, but the question of profit and loss rears its head again. The railway that really needs electrification is the midland line, which has more gradients and curves, and which needs the added traction that electrification would bring—more so than the GN
  412
  line, which is relatively straight, and on which a considerable amount of money has been spent ironing out the curves at Peterborough, Grantham and other places. However, because of the greater passenger utilisation of the former Great Northern railway, it is that which most easily satisfies the criteria set by the Government. In terms of operational improvement, the greatest benefit would be to the midland line out of King's Cross.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend means St. Pancras.
  Mr. Cryer: Of course I meant the midland line out of St. Pancras, and I hope that Hansard will correct my momentary error. How could anyone forget the greatness and majesty of St. Pancras in showing that the midland railway had arrived and that the head of all England was not in London, but was at the Derby locomotive works and management centre?
  In the context of the profit and loss into which we shall enter in respect of the private works and improvements proposed, it is worth pointing out that the electrification of the Great Northern railway is being penny-pinched for the sake of seven or eight miles, from Leeds to Bradford. I remind the Minister that Bradford was the first city to have Pullman trains, initiated by the midland railway. It is a major city, and it causes considerable resentment that the operating efficiency of British Rail—if that is what concerns the Minister—is to be sullied by the fact that when the electric trains reach Leeds, under the recent electrification, a diesel locomotive will be hooked on the end and the whole lot will be dragged to Bradford interchange.
  Electrification should create jobs and produce operating efficiencies. I cannot imagine that British Rail will for long justify a stud of locomotives at Leeds just to haul some trains over the remaining spur between Leeds and Bradford. In a very short time, we shall hear talk of economies and cuts, as we have so often before. I urge the Minister yet again to consider the additional electrification on the GN line, at the same time as taking into account the entreaties and representations of his hon. Friend the Member for Harborough.
  No doubt some of my hon. Friends will make out a good case for electrification of the midland main line out of St. Pancras. If the Minister wants some testimony to his career as a Transport Minister, nothing could be better than to do a good job on the GN line and get the overhead wires running all the way from King's Cross to Bradford. Let him not stint or penny-pinch. Then he will not be remembered in Bradford as the mean-minded Transport Minister. I want him to be remembered as the man who supported railways by electrifying a number of lines, and most of all by ensuring that the Settle-Carlisle railway is retained for future years. I hope that he will come to the House very soon to tell us that he will do that.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), is still the Member of the European Parliament for Sheffield and a part of Chesterfield. I also see, behind him, one of my colleagues from Sheffield, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who is a former Member of the European Parliament.

  413
  Since joining the House I have discovered the inadequacies of British Rail in many shapes and forms. Let me ensure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I stay on the right lines—at the risk of making a pun! The Bill touches Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster, which entitles me, as a former leader of the Opposition on South Yorkshire county council, to speak on the subject. As someone once reminded me, the finest thing that ever came out of Leeds station was the train to Sheffield.
  Having listened to what British Rail has to say about the improvements that it wishes to make in various areas of south Yorkshire, I have discovered that the majority of people who buy a ticket to travel by British Rail want to arrive safely, to sit in a clean carriage and to obtain a seat. They are not bothered about the type of food that is served, the livery that is worn or whether there is a telephone. They are concerned about the time at which a train leaves one city and arrives in another.
  I have also discovered that Sheffield and London are cut off from each other from 9.40 pm until 7.39 am the following morning. I have also discovered that it is impossible to leave for, say, Doncaster—as you probably know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—at any reasonable time.
  In a former incarnation I corresponded a fair amount with the Minister, explaining that the subsidy provided by the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority was excessive. While we had the cheapest fares of any metropolitan county, we also had the highest rates, and were paying very dearly for them. In various letters I explained to the Minister that Sheffield seemed to be off the beaten track. The Minister, quite rightly, stands at the Dispatch Box and tells hon. Members on both sides of the House that that is a matter for British Rail, but we do not seem to have an opportunity to speak to British Rail.
  My parliamentary colleagues from south Yorkshire will probably be pleased to hear what happened when I said that I was not very enthusiastic. I did British Rail the courtesy of saying what I thought of the way in which it treated its passengers: after all, I am one of them. I said that I could not get out of London after 9.40 pm, and could not leave until the next morning. Suddenly, British Rail was prepared to put on a train that left for Sheffield at 11 pm, from May 1989. I do not know whether the word "blackmail" can be used in this place, but I thought it very wrong that that should happen so suddenly.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) in his plea for the electrification of the St. Pancras-Sheffield link. The city of Sheffield needs to be revitalised. The world student games and the presence of the urban development corporation mean that Sheffield needs a further lift to put it back on the map of the United Kingdom. It needs a rail service of which it can be proud, and an urban link. Those things are not available.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Is not the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) deficient, in that it refers only to the city of Leicester? If there is a good case for electrifying the main line as far as Leicester, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an even stronger case for going further, through Derby and on to Sheffield?
  Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for his guidance. When I was a much newer Member, I committed a flagrant
  414
  sin. I caught one of those "change at Derby" trains, as I thought that I could get back to Sheffield more quickly. That, as I discovered, was another fallacy. I spent a happy hour sitting in the station hotel—which, believe it or not, adjoins the station—drinking Coca-Cola, until the train arrived. I agree that the line should go past Leicester and right up to Sheffield.
  Until 5 May, I am still a member of Sheffield city council. I do not know whether a fickle finger was pointed at me, but none the less I remain there. I have been a member of the council for 21 years—and I am only 26 now! During that time we have tried to improve the service that Sheffield obtains from British Rail.
  I have read the Bill, and I see that work is being done at Darton and Barnsley. Work is also being done at Rotherham, at Kilnhurst and—as the hon. Member for Bradford, South said—on a crossing at Doncaster. I accept that all that work is needed, but I think that we need other things. We need a service of which everyone can be proud. We need electrification. We also need to "push it back", as I put it, to ensure that instead of travelling from London to Sheffield by road, people are prepared to travel by British Rail. All entreaties, whether they are made to the chairman, the area manager or the regional manager, seem to produce no progress. There seems to be no forum between the House and British Rail. If anything comes out of this debate, I hope that it will be such a forum.
  I support the need for electrification and the need for passengers to travel between cities of importance such as Derby, Sheffield and Leicester. If one travels the 30 miles to Doncaster to catch a train there, one can be in London in the excellent time of one hour 38 minutes. Once electrification comes to Doncaster, the time will come down to an hour and a half, and some of my south Yorkshire colleagues may be able to confirm this.
  I rang Radio Sheffield to explain the changes that have been made today, but first I had to listen to the British Rail timetable announcements that the trains coming into Sheffield from London were 80 minutes late for various reasons, and that the trains to Wakefield would be late leaving for other reasons.
  Sheffield has a second-class rail service, which is not good enough, because we are a first-class city. The sooner something happens between British Rail and the Government to ensure that the first-class city of Sheffield has a first-class service from British Rail, the better it will be for the people of south Yorkshire, including the electorate of Hallam.
  8 pm
  Mr. Richard Caborn: It is not often that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and I are on the same lines, but on this occasion we are. Unfortunately, the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) stops at Leicester, but I am sure that, as well as being supported by the hon. Member for Hallam, others who would like the line to go a little further north—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. In case there is a misunderstanding, perhaps I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr).
  Mr. Caborn: That is unfortunate, because there is a need for discussion about the electrification of the midland main line in the context of the Bill.
  I shall add one or two points to those made by the hon. Member for Hallam. In 1991, the world student games are to be held in Sheffield, and it is estimated that they will attract 120 countries and over 6,000 participants. To put it in perspective, that is three times larger than the Commonwealth Games and the second largest sporting event outside the summer Olympics. It will take people between two hours and 40 minutes and two hours and 50 minutes to travel the 160 miles from St. Pancras to Sheffield. That is appalling by any standards. This will be the sports window of the world and to move people to it on such a bankrupt line will denigrate the railway system of the United Kingdom. I hope that British Rail will realise how many people will be supporting that sporting event.
  Even more important, in the early 1990s the Channel tunnel will be finished. It took my hon. Friends many hours of debate during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Act to convince the Government that they should start thinking about diversifying away from the Channel tunnel entrance. On the fifth occasion, when we asked them at least to persuade BR to look at the ways in which we could best utilise the tunnel for the regeneration of many of the industrial areas in the north of England, Scotland and Wales, the Minister conceded what is now section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act. There will now be consultations between BR and the Channel tunnel group as to how best the north can take advantage of the opportunities offered by the Channel tunnel. However, without electrification of the midland main line, one of the major industrial parts of the United Kingdom—south Yorkshire—may be left out yet again.
  The hon. Member for Hallam mentioned Doncaster. I will not tell any secrets out of school, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you and I are going to see exactly where the freight interchange will be. I have no doubt that the weight of evidence is on your side, because there will be electrification through to Doncaster. Therefore, I have no doubt that you will allow me the latitude to say that at least the midland main line should be electrified, because it would couple up with the major freight interchange established in the 1960s—the most advanced in Europe —at Tinsley. Unfortunately, because of the decline in industry, that has not been used, but the infrastructure is there, and it would be easy to make it one of the major freight terminals for the north if there were electrification there. That would give south Yorkshire a major asset for its regeneration.
  Earlier, we heard that an urban development corporation has been declared there, and that a number of initiatives are being introduced, including an airport and the development of a science park. However, we are short of the electrification that is needed. I was talking to an Australian business man who flew into Heathrow, went on the tube to St. Pancras and then spent nearly three hours trying to get to Sheffield. He said that it is deplorable that those trying to make major investments in south Yorkshire could not get a better transport system, because that was a major deterrent to business men in the north of England. It is important that the speed of the line should be increased considerably, because, if it is not, such business men will be deterred from visiting the area and making the investments that are so badly needed.
  Mr. Patnick: Is it not a fact that people travel to Doncaster, are met by company cars, and then driven to Sheffield?
  Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Some of my colleagues and I travelled on the Doncaster line the other night on a train on which every seat had been pre-booked, so a considerable number of people were standing. Many passengers were business men going to the Rotherham, Barnsley and Sheffield areas. They were being ferried by company cars from Doncaster to their destinations. That is ludicrous.
  The electrification of the midland main line could be a major boost for the steel industry, because a considerable amount of steel is used in the electrification structures. We should seriously consider how we can assist our steel industries with major structural developments such as this.
  I am about the third generation of Members of Parliament from the Sheffield area who have been arguing not just for electrification, but for the speeding up of the line. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears, but now all the way down the line people are saying that, unless we are given at least part of the investment that BR is putting into the rest of its rail infrastructure, we shall be at a major disadvantage in the regeneration of our economies and industries. I hope that the Minister will take on board the serious points that have been made both on the Floor of the House tonight and by people and councils of all political complexions. We are all at one on the importance, at least, of the development of the midland main line, for many reasons.
  In the next few years there will be two specific events which I hope will lay down bench marks and give the Government some spur to encourage British Rail. The first will take place in 1991—the world student games. We do not want to bring in the thousands of visitors to south Yorkshire on decrepit, broken-down railway lines with second-class facilities.
  The second event is the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993. We do not want to be put at a disadvantage yet again because of the difficulty of getting in and out of that area in comparison with other areas.
  It is important that the electrification should go beyond Leicester to south Yorkshire. We would be satisfied if the electrification ended in Sheffield and we assisted Barnsley and Rotherham later.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), I regret that Mr. Speaker was unable to select the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). It is inconceivable that the Bill should go ahead without the inclusion of a firm commitment from British Rail for the electrification of the midland main line. Such a move is logical and essential. We have already had the electrification of the west coast main line, and we read daily about the electrification of the east coast main ine. We now need a definitive and certain plan for the electrification of the midland main line beyond Leicester.
  The importance of the midland main line has often been misunderstood. It is the second most important transport corridor in Britain, paralleling the MI motorway. The midland line links many major centres in the midlands, including Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Alfreton, Loughborough, Market Harborough, Kettering and

  417
  Welwyn. Hon. Members representing constituencies in Yorkshire have already spoken about its importance in south Yorkshire, where it links Sheffield and Chesterfield, and in west Yorkshire, where it links Leeds and Wakefield. It is not some backwater line that has been left over from pre-nationalisation days. It is a vital artery which runs through the heart of Britain. We neglect the well-being of that vital artery at our peril.
  I have been told that it makes no economic sense to improve the midland main line. That is a fallacy, because it serves major centres of population, and without doubt it is on a par with the west coast and east coast main lines. It is certainly on a par with both the west and east coast main lines as the highest earner per route mile—£151,000 per route mile in 1984. British Rail has stressed that the costs on the route are too high and that it is uneconomic and difficult to run. On occasions, it has quoted running costs as £52,000 per route mile.
  It is well known that the diesel high-speed trains running on the route are expensive to service and are not really cost effective. There is an extremely good argument for electrification on economic grounds. What is sometimes referred to as the sparks effect shows that a 1 per cent. reduction in journey time generates a 1 per cent. increase in revenue. If we take that a stage further, electrification of the midland line would generate at least a 25 per cent. increase in revenue. That is a stunning figure.
  We need action now. It should not be left for the future. The lead time of such a capital project is not short. In fact, it will be about six years from the time of authorisation to the time that electrification can be completed. A little later in my speech I shall allude to further cogent reasons for pressing on right now because of the immense developments in travel that are about to overtake us. We require the go-ahead in 1988, which would ensure that the service was in place in 1994.
  Another argument against the midland line is that it is a difficult railway to run compared with the east coast main line.
  Sir John Farr: My hon. Friend envisages the midland line being electrified by 1994. Does he think that that would be early enough, bearing in mind that the Channel tunnel is due to come into operation in 1993? Would it not be advantageous if the two dates were to coincide?
  Mr. Tredinnick: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who has put so much time and effort into the midland electrification project. I shall refer to the Channel tunnel later in my speech. We cannot ignore it, and no doubt we should have electrification sooner rather than later.
  One of the arguments against the midland electrification is the so-called difficulty of the curved track. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is not in his place. He would know whether in the days of yore the east coast main line was the Great Northern line or the Great Eastern line. I cannot hope to put across the point with the same wisdom as the hon. Gentleman, but I am told on good authority that the so-called curve problem would be resolved by the introduction of new rolling stock. The new 140 mph Electra class 91 locomotives and the mark IV coach which can tilt on curves are just the solution for the midland line.
  418
  We now know that that train will be introduced on the east coast line in 1989. If it were introduced on the midland line, it would cut journey times by 25 per cent. The journey from Leicester to London would take just 58 minutes, and that from Sheffield to London just 110 minutes. I see the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) nodding in agreement. That would be a wonderful boost for the east midlands and for Yorkshire.
  What is the converse of all that? If electrification does not go ahead, what will it mean for the east midlands, for my constituency of Bosworth and for the hosiery and knitwear town of Hinckley and its burgeoning new industries? What will it mean for Hinckley and for the people who reside in Anstey, Ulverscroft, Groby and Ratby who commute into the city of Leicester? It will mean long-term economic disaster. If we ignore the midland main line and do not modernise it, the line will die. That will affect our constituents and lead to economic suicide.
  Mr. Humfrey Matins: An electric train that runs through my constituency from Gatwick to Victoria station has led to increased economic activity in the area. Does my hon. Friend agree that an excellent train such as that, with an excellent speed, generates industrial activity?
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a helpful point. Improved communications and infrastructure lead to increased industrial activity, which increases the revenue that goes to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport is taking note of that.
  Mr. Snape: I hesitate to intervene during the hon. Gentleman's most interesting speech. The whole world might agree that the electrification of the railways generates greater economic activity, but unfortunately the Government do not think so. They insist on strict economic criteria that exclude the provisions that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I hope that he will be able to convince the Minister as well as the rest of the House.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I must admit that, in a sense, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hesitated about raising that point, but my constituents are concerned about the constraints that have been imposed on British Rail. I am a great believer in efficiency and effectiveness. I should hate the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me for one second, but there is a feeling that British Rail is having to trim on the midland main line in order to support the west coast and east coast main lines.
  Mr. Patnick: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of British Rail owning the track and the signalling and other equipment, and private trains running on the line? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, really!"] Opposition Members say, "Oh, really," but that is no different from—
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman ought to put his money where his mouth is.
  Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman says that I should put my money where my mouth is. I recollect that Opposition Members used that argument when bus services were deregulated. They said that deregulation would result in no bus services. [HON. MEMBERS:

  419
  "Speech."] It is not a speech; it is an intervention. It is now possible to catch a bus from Sheffield to any other city in the north, but Opposition Members said that that could not be done. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) should consider the possibility of British Rail running the system, with private trains being used on the line.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I suspect that Opposition Members, who are smiling at my hon. Friend's helpful intervention, may have to think long and hard about what he has said. The electrification of the midland main line may have to be carried out with private funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has done a great deal of hard work on this issue. I shall leave him to make that point when he speaks later in the debate, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members may have to bite the bullet.
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I am following my hon. Friend's argument carefully. Is he suggesting that electrification is an end in itself, or that it is a means of securing a better service for his constituents? If it is a means of obtaining a better service for his constituents, he may wish to take into account the fact that the HST trains are capable of a far higher speed than they are using on the line. It is line limitation, not the form of traction that is used, that is causing the slower speeds about which he complains. It is not true to say that electrification will lead to faster services than can now be provided. The existing HSTs are limited to 100 mph, but they are capable of 125 mph.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I take my hon. Friend's point, but the research that I have seen shows conclusively that the new high-speed rolling stock that is able to tilt on curves would lead to faster services. I am led to believe that trains would be able to travel at 140 mph on the Leicester line.
  Mr. David Ashby: Is it not right that the existing HST trains will soon be 25 years old? They are quite ancient. The existing line has its limitations, but new rolling stock would be able to travel much faster on it.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The rolling stock often covers 1,000 miles a day and it will come to the end of its useful life in the not-too-distant future.
  Mr. Ashby: Some of it already has.
  Mr. Tredinnick: Yes. The present rolling stock is not as reliable as electric trains. If, because of a constituency crisis, hon. Members had to drive to their constituencies in cars with 120,000 miles on the clock, would they feel happy about driving out of New Palace Yard in such cars? I should not be happy about doing so. Ancient vehicles require more tender loving care, which can be translated into increased maintenance costs.
  Mr. Snape: Would the hon. Gentleman care to refute the Minister's argument by suggesting that the yuppies who have moved to Norwich and Ipswich have done so largely because of improved communications after electrification of the railway line? I hope that he will be able to convince the Minister that electrification has been achieved with 20-year-old electric locomotives cascaded —to use the lovely word that is used by Department of
  420
  Transport advisers—from other parts of the country? If that can be done with 20-year-old locomotives, what could be done in Sheffield, Bosworth and Doncaster with brand new electric locomotives and rolling stock?
  Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman's point is valid. I intend to refer to the effect of changing attitudes to travel—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not stray too far from the British Railways (No. 2) Bill.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the point will be relevant.
  The hon. Member referred to yuppies. I am surprised that he did not refer to a member of his party who features in the Evening Standard today as having bought a yuppified house.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to "cascading". My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, the hon. Member for Leicester, East and I would be happy to have a few more high-speed trains cascading down the Leicester line. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has fought long and hard to get such services reinstated, and has achieved much. A certain number of east coast main line trains will cascade over on to the midland line. However, we return to the point of how reliable they will be. That rolling stock will be wearing out, and surely it is better to bite the bullet early, bring in the new electric trains and thereby cut costs.
  I have referred to economic disaster in Leicestershire in the long term. There will not be economic disaster overnight, but in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, what will happen when there are main arteries running either side of a prosperous county such as Leicestershire? It will be economic suicide for the east midlands, and Leicester, Derby, Loughborough, Market Harborough, Kettering and Wellingborough will lose their inter city services and be demoted to secondary status. These towns and cities cannot be served acceptably from the east coast main line. The regional transport link provided by the midland line will be lost. If British Rail decides in its wisdom to divert the main line traffic off the midland main line and down the east coast main line, I see no future for the midland main line. The midlands will be in a terrible state.
  We have touched on why we should have electric trains. We want them because they are more reliable than diesels and cost much less to maintain. With electrification, we would say goodbye to cancellations. My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam faces this problem. He has a lot of trouble getting back to his constituents. We know what a dedicated constituency Member he is. He is always there at the platform, hoping to get home to hold another surgery.
  Electrification would solve the problem. There would be fewer delays and there need not be so many back-up locomotives. The amount of equipment necessary to back up the existing rolling stock is a problem. We have all been on train journeys all over the country where diesels are running and seen the cancellations and perhaps suffered when, unfortunately, it has not been possible to bring into service another half of a high-speed train unit. Such problems would end with electrification.
  By the year 2000 the InterCity 125s will be nearly 25 years old and will have been travelling 800 to 1,000 miles a day, but trains will have been replaced on the east coast main line after just 13 years of service. Plans need to be

  421
  made now for the modernisation and electrification of the midland main line. If it can be done on the east coast main line, it can certainly be done on the midland main line.
  The arguments put forward by British Rail to electrify the east coast main line have not been put forward for the midland main line, but the same arguments apply, as I hope hon. Members agree. My fear for Leicestershire is that it is in danger of becoming a rail transport backwater.
  Sir John Farr: A museum.
  Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend is right. The failure to electrify and to put new rolling stock into Leicestershire will mean that growth will be restricted and businesses hindered. Where will we be when the European market is opened up in 1992? There will be an incredible new market, offering tremendous opportunities, and suddenly we will be trying to compete and to export our goods to that exciting market. What will there be? In the midlands there will be antiquated rolling stock and old cast-offs from the east coast main line—thank you very much, east coast main line. The midland will be a sort of cast-off centre line, with the fast services going up either side of it.
  The fact—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam will support me—is that business will not locate where there are old-fashioned railway links. Business demands, and is entitled to, good communications. That is the way towards regeneration. I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam.
  Mr. Patnick: It is interesting that the journey time on the Leicester-St. Pancras section has increased, although British Rail promised to reduce it once resignalling was completed at the end of 1987. The journey time from Sheffield to London is two hours 35 minutes, which means 60 mph with, typically, six intermediate stops. It is a matter of time and speed. I listened to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport—I have heard that one should believe what Ministers say—but these trains do not run anywhere near 100 mph. It is said that they travel at 60 mph.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, yet again, for his wisdom in amplifying my points.
  Running on from that—no doubt you will be glad that I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the demand for rail services is another aspect of the issue. That demand is increasing. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East was good enough to draw my attention to the effect of people moving away from town. The trend is illustrated in the east midlands —in Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire—in house prices. Leicestershire is the sixth most prosperous county in Britain, and that is largely due to the policies of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That might not, of course, be everyone's idea, and I should hate in saying that to lose the all-party support that exists. There is a feeling of warmth in the Chamber.
  Sir John Farr: On reflection, does my hon. Friend think that some of the popularity must be due to the quality and calibre of local Members of Parliament?
  Mr. Tredinnick: As a new Member I hesitate to make that point, but I accept my hon. Friend's wisdom. I have
  422
  relied on his advice and help and, I hope, learnt quite a lot from him, not least from his approach to the Bill—which may not be lost on the Opposition.
  As I was saying before that helpful intervention, the impact of the changing travel pattern all over the country is illustrated by increased property prices. Property prices around Harborough have increased by about 50 per cent. in much less than a year. In Hinckley, the heart of my constituency, property prices have increased by one third in six months. I am told that at stations on the east coast main line, such as Grantham and even Melton Mowbray, commuters are queuing to get on the trains. Those commuters have an impact on property prices. Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Leicester, East, may not think that that is a good idea, but it is happening and we must face it.
  With that changing pattern, it is absurd to argue that there is insufficient demand to support a vastly improved service on the midland main line. My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam and the hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned the impossibility of finding a seat on a train without a reservation. With such a situation, it is impossible to argue that there would not be sufficient demand or revenue. It has been argued that if we increase the revenue by 1 per cent., we increase the speed and effectiveness of the trains by 1 per cent. Surely, if there is a 25 per cent. increase in revenue, there will be plenty of passengers to pay for that.
  I should like to draw to the attention of hon. Members an article in today's Daily Mail, which supports that point. It is entitled "City Exodus in the Quest for Good Life" and states:
  "The quest for a better life is leading more and more people away from the cities and suburbs, a survey reveals today."
  That is no quack survey. It is not one of those spurious polls that are thrust at hon. Members from time to time, stating that 75 per cent. of people are in favour of something and one then finds that the sample consists of six people. It is not one of those polls for which one pays 50p and then gets into a tangle with the taxman because one forgets to make out the sum to the constituency association, pays it in direct and is then accused of not declaring it. This is a survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
  This trend has been going on for a long time. I find it strange that British Rail has not cottoned on to that pattern of moving away from the cities. In 1931, there were 6·7 million people in inner London, whereas there are now only 3·9 million. They have gone out to the shires. They like it out there. The OPCS spokesman said:
  "The city is becoming more and more of a workplace rather than somewhere to live."
  One can argue that the same is true of the city of Leicester. Villages in my constituency are becoming more and more interested in computers—[Interruption.] I mean that they are important as commuter bases. I have obviously tickled the sense of humour of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. At one time I worked in the computer industry, and I sometimes get my computers and commuters muddled. One can get into frightful tangles if one is making a sales pitch to computers for commuters! It can be difficult.
  Mr. Snape: I shall let the hon. Gentleman sort out his computers from his commuters. He is making a creditable effort and I hope that the Government Whips will recognise that.
  Let us return to the Bill and the important point that the hon. Gentleman was trying to make before he got mixed up with his computers and commuters. The effects of electrification on lines in his constituency and on the midland main line would be beneficial, and the Minister should take that into consideration when British Rail submits proposals to electrify those lines.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for guiding me back to the points that I now hope to make.
  There are three lines in my constituency. There is the charming Market Bosworth light railway. I recommend hon. Members to visit my constituency in the summer so that they can chug along by steam. There is the important link from Hinkley to Nuneaton and beyond in one direction, and to Leicester in the other direction. That is a congested service and I frequently receive letters about it.
  If the main line to Leicester is electrified, we are in with a tremendous chance. We should branch it out and electrify that cross-route. The electrification of other lines to form a grid is most important, particularly for Yorkshire Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam might help me on this. As I understand it, it is possible to link into York a range of cross-routes. When the main line is in place we will obtain added value simply by branching out electrified lines. We should be able to channel commuters on to that line to make it viable.
  There are four key points that make the electrification of the midland line a more feasible proposition than it was before. The introduction this year of the 140 mph Electra class 91 locomotives could cut the midland journey times by 25 per cent.
  Mr. Patnick: Dick Turpin's trip to York set me thinking about this point. I inquired whether there was a link between Doncaster, on the route to York, and Sheffield. I discovered that that link was run, not by British Rail, but by South Yorkshire passenger transport executive. British Rail's press release—I apologise to the House for having lost the front sheet—states:
  "This together with a new approach to track maintenance under which the engineers are being given longer at each site to maximise the amount of work they can do during the time available, means that the impact of track maintenance work is much more predictable and suitable allowances and suitable allowances can be built into timetables before they are published."
  It appears that British Rail is aware that something is wrong with the track and is introducing new machinery to speed up the trains.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I have considered only the question whether fast trains can use that track, but my hon. Friend is right. The issue of the new trains and track is relevant. As a result of the development of the brilliant new trains, the amount of money needed to be spent on relaying the track will be reduced. The French had to lay a completely new track for the 160 mph train from Paris to Lyons, at vast expense. The genius of the British Rail train is that it can run on conventional curves.
  That is the first key difference between the situation that exists now and that which existed a couple of years ago. The second key difference is the subject of the Bill, and that is the redevelopment of the King's Cross-St. Pancras area
  424
  by the British Rail property board, to include the new cross-London mainline station for InterCity and Channel tunnel trains which, of course, will have direct links to the midland main line.
  We have already seen dramatic developments in British Rail's and London Transport's approach to rail travel in London. I thought that it was an absolute scandal that so many lines, such as the one that runs by Stamford bridge and Chelsea football ground, were not open to passenger services. I could never understand why certain railway lines around London were not used.
  Great things are happening. We now have the Snow Hill tunnel, albeit for light traffic, for Network SouthEast. The new King's Cross-St. Pancras development is a super-Snow Hill, with its 12 platforms at a cost of £100 million, being sunk way below the surface. We in this great capital city will suddenly find ourselves with a fantastic through station, an InterCity station of a quality that we would hardly have conceived possible until the plan was drawn up.
  We shall have not only easy passenger access, which will link the east coast main line, the Great Midland or midland railway lines, but a north London cross-link. Of course, those railways are short additions to the line. They have to run only about 100 yd of tunnel on the midland line and about 400 or 500 yd on the others. They are relatively cheap to do. The idea of bringing a network of trains from the east coast main line and the midland main line into a through station in London is wonderful. We have super high-speed trains which do 140 mph, and superb new facilities being built. When we link that to my next point, which relates to the Channel tunnel, we are talking about some sort of railway network.
  The Channel tunnel will be a reality in 1993. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough was quite right to say that I had been talking about 1994. When we talk about the midland main line electrification, we are really talking about 1993. That is the key year. If we do not get our act together for 1993, there will be all kinds of congestion and problems. There is the issue of where we go. We will have a funnel with the east coast and the west coast main lines, and, I hope, the midland line coming into the fantastic new station. How will they go out the other side? I cannot quite recall, but I do not think that they can go out through the Snow Hill tunnel, because it was built for lightweight traffic, but I may be wrong. I introduced my remark by saying that I was not sure.
  The point that I want to make—never mind the Snow Hill tunnel—relates to the situation that faces Channel tunnel traffic running between London and the south coast. A couple of years ago I was fortunate to be able to go to Japan and travel with a special train pass around the four Japanese islands. One can travel at a tremendous rate around Japan and see it very well. At Tokyo airport there is not only an ordinary Japanese rail network, but a private system, which was built through the suburbs to alleviate the tremendous traffic that flows to Tokyo airport.
  With the expected volume of traffic going through the Channel tunnel and the enonnous development on the French side—I am not saying that we do not have a development of tremendous credit, and more credit to my hon. Friend the Minister for pushing ahead with it—on the basis of my experience, there must be a case for building an entirely new railway line down to the south coast. I am thinking of a private line. If constituents are to have a

  425
  proper service to get their goods through the tunnel to Europe—to Berlin, down to Naples, Lisbon and other destinations—I wonder whether it will be feasible, however brilliant the signalling system is, to run heavy trains on that commuter system.
  Mr. Keith Speed: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend. Any sympathy that I may have had for his case is fast evaporating if he wants to drive a new railway line down through the suburbs of south-east London, through Surrey, Kent and my constituency. We have long debates about the tunnel. This is a debate about the British Railways (No. 2) Bill. I urge my hon. Friend to stick to the midland main line, which I am sure he knows well, and leave Network SouthEast to hon. Members who know it well.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for preventing me from straying. I was not advocating building a railway line across a green belt, but it is possible to run lines along existing lines. That is the way it is done in Japan. As we are tackling the problem in such a sophisticated way, with the tremendous mainline station in London and all the money that will be spent on it, it may be necessary to take some action.
  Sir John Farr: The point that my hon. Friend is trying to make, and making well, is that the chunnel—the Channel tunnel—is of no use to the east midlands unless the London-midland line is electrified. The Channel tunnel will be used only by electrified trains. Therefore, without the electrification of the London-midland line, the Channel tunnel offers no opportunities to the east midlands.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me on that point.
  We have a sophisticated new transport system. It must be sensible to make improvements to the track for the Channel tunnel—I shall leave it at that—but the midlands should be included in it.
  Hon. Members will recall that trains that do not run on the new electrified track will not be able to go to Europe. That is of tremendous concern. On the east coast and west coast main lines, high-speed trains will race through to goodness know where—right to the southern foot of Italy. The constituents of the hon. Member for Leicester, East will have to go to King's Cross or St. Pancras, and change there. That is not right. If the midland main line is electrified, two trains a day will run from Leicester to Europe. That will be wonderful.
  The towns and cities that are served by the midland main line will enjoy that superior service only if it is electrified. In contrast, the west coast route will receive at least four day services and two night services, while the east coast route, which serves a smaller population—this is a significant point—will have three day trains and one night service. Where is the justice in that?
  Mr. Patnick: About 12 trains a day run from the major cities of Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham to London and back, whereas smaller towns such as Kettering and Wellingborough have about 16 to 18 trains a day, even though InterCity provides a service to all those major towns and cities. Even without the electrification, which I
  426
  dearly want, I contend that areas such as those represented by my hon. Friend and myself are badly served by British Rail.
  Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend puts his case eloquently and speaks from the heart. I speak from the heart, and I assure hon. Members that if I did not feel so strongly about this issue I would not be advancing it in the way that I am.
  Mr. Snape: What about a fatigue allowance?
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am not sure that a fatigue allowance would be permitted.
  The Channel tunnel is soon to be completed, there is the new St. Pancras-King's Cross terminal, with its wonderful new underground platforms, there are the new high-speed trains and there will shortly be a new cross-London market of 12·5 million people. It will be feasible to run trains from Sheffield to Brighton, so the market for travel will increase enormously. British Rail has recently run more trains through the old West Kensington station—
  Mr. Snape: Kensington Olympia.
  Mr. Tredinnick: If trains ran through the old West Kensington station they might run into a District line train, and that could cause all kinds of complications.
  There will shortly be a vastly increased travel market. When a service is increased and routeing is improved, there is an increase in demand. That has been well illustrated by what has happened to long-haul air routes around the world. One can now buy a round-the-world ticket from firms in London for £800. Is it surprising that demand has rocketed? There is now a better global service, and its cheap price has increased demand.
  Mr. Patnick: To assist my hon. Friend, I shall give a quotation from a British Rail press release dated 1 March. It concerns an investment of £306 million in the east coast main line to London. It says:
  "The secret lies in new engineering techniques and the purchase of 11 track stabilising machines. These permit trains to run at full speed as soon as engineering work is finished."
  It continues, and this is where the savings will be made:
  "The result is a 16 per cent. savings in track laying costs"—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would care to make his own speech? He is making many interventions. An intervention is a pertinent comment or a question to the hon. Member who has the Floor. Will the hon. Gentleman make his pertinent comment and allow the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) to proceed with his speech?
  Mr. Patnick: I think that I was expecting too much assistance from Opposition Members. The press release says:
  "InterCity will save £1,000 per day in brake wear on the London-Edinburgh journey alone, and £213,000 a year in fuel savings from a smoother ride."
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall have words with him after the debate about attempting to lead the House astray.
  If you will forgive the pun, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to get into a loop, but I must return to the issue of curves. The implications of what has been said by

  427
  the opponents of the electrification of the midland main line is that the new high-speed tilting trains cannot run on that track. On 30 October 1975, an advanced passenger train E, a test train, ran from Leicester to London in 58 minutes. Let it never be said that that is impossible. It ran on the old unimproved track with its problems and curves, and since then the track has been developed, so there could be an even better service.
  Mr. Snape: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British Rail management was so impressed by the performance of the APTE that it ran the train straight into the scrap yard in 1980 and no one has seen it since?
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. There are times when efficiency involves cutting certain projects. I may be out of order when I say that the TSR2 was cut by I forget which Government. I think that it was the Labour Government who cut that brilliant technological project.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman was still at nursery school then.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I remember that happening when I was at school and it had a great effect on me and—I was about to say my honourable schoolmates—my not so honourable colleagues. Indeed, as far as I remember, most of them were thoroughly dishonourable and disreputable. We had fairly extensive opportunities to study railways there and my interest came about because I always had a Boy's Own interest in trains. There is a valid point in that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because if one studies train sets at an early age, one develops an affinity with them and that makes it much easier to understand these complexities.
  Having been slightly flippant, I must return to a serious and important point, and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East may care to note it. So far in this debate we have not heard a word about what will happen to the east coast main line electrification engineers who are building the line. What will happen to them when the line is completed? We have a brilliant, dedicated team of people. Are we to break up the team? I say no, and I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to give a commitment that that superb team of engineers who are powering the east coast main line electrification northwards should have their jobs guaranteed and should be switched to another project—
  Mr. Snape: For life.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I did not intend to score political points tonight, because I was looking for the hon. Gentleman's support.
  Mr. Patnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) does not have a job for life?
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, but in the spirit of the debate in which we seem to have all-party agreement on this midland main line electrification it would be churlish of me to try and score points off the hon. Gentleman, although I am tempted to do so.
  Electrification is not just an issue for Members of Parliament. The House should be aware that Leicestershire county council, Derbyshire county council, Nottingham county council and Sheffield city council are
  428
  sponsoring a study to reinforce the case for electrification. Hon. Members will recognise that as a clear illustration of the deep and heartfelt feeling that exists in and around the east midlands. My constituents will be aggrieved if they do not have the same sort of services as others when the Channel tunnel is built and amazing new rail links are built in London which will get them and their goods, such as their hosiery and knitwear exports, to Paris or wherever they want to go.
  There is tremendous economic growth in my constituency. New companies are moving into the area and it is a major distribution centre. We need such a link, and we need this kind of support. I draw the House's attention to the fact that these county councils—perhaps unusually because of their different complexions and attitudes—have joined together to control the situation.
  There was much that I hoped to say tonight—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Patnick: I wonder whether I can assist my hon. Friend with his case for electrification. The journey time from London to Edinburgh is 25 minutes shorter, at four hours and 23 minutes. The journey from Newcastle to London is 269 miles, which is completed in three hours or less, at 90 mph. The fastest journey is two hours and 50 minutes. The fastest time for the journey from Leeds to London is two hours and eight minutes. Time, as we all know, and as Opposition Members will appreciate, is money.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is dropping a tactful hint when he says that time is money, but I assure him that I am not being paid for this delivery tonight. I am hesitant whether to leave some points to be made by my hon. Friends. One of my hon. Friends is shaking his head.
  Mr. Graham Allen: The hon. Member mentioned the service to Leicester, and one of his hon. Friends tabled an amendment on the subject, which was not selected. He has also mentioned the cross-party support that there has been, not least from the Nottinghamshire county council, for further extension and electrification. Will the hon. Gentleman address some of his remarks to places slightly north of Leicester?
  Mr. Tredinnick: I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will have a chance to make that point. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I have not majored on Nottingham tonight, but, if I had, I might have had problems driving through my constituency tomorrow. The first thing is to get the line built to Leicester. That is what we are talking about. One of the arguments that is made about the electrification of the main line—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Patnick: I advise the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that Nottingham was discussed before he graced the House with his presence. Nottingham has been included in our great plan.
  Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We can have only one intervention at a time.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I was saying, before yet another helpful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam, that there is one other argurnent—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Ashby: There is one further point. My hon. Friend and I come from adjoining constituencies. Leicester is the central town for Leicestershire, but Nottingham is close to my constituency. A number of my constituents would be grateful for electrification through to Nottingham, which is their nearest centre. Large sectors of the county of Leicestershire would benefit also from electrification through to Nottingham. It is therefore in both our interests.
  Mr. Tredinnick: In just outlining my speech, which is all I have had time to do so far, it has not been possible for me to go into the matters that pertain to other lines. However, it is very helpful that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has brought up this matter.
  Mr. Allen: It is important that the hon. Gentleman clears up the contradiction. He has stated that he would not wish to return even to his own constituency if he added his voice to the issue of the wider scope for electrification. His hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) said that there was a wider strategy. What I am asking my colleague the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) to elucidate—I am sure that he can do so at some length—is the strategy for electrification. Surely it is not a matter for parochial constituency interests and the idea that "It must go to my constituency and no one else's," because if that is the hon. Gentleman's view, electrification will not go to any hon. Member's constituency.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He accuses me of having a constituency interest, but I cannot think that his interest in Nottingham is anything other than parochial. If he thinks a little more carefully about what I have said, he will realise that I have spent a lot of time on strategy and concentrated on Leicester because I am a Leicestershire Member and proud of it, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East, who has been good enough to listen to my words will know—
  Mr. Vaz: Not for long.
  Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman says, "Not for long."
  I do not want to appear parochial, but we must take first things first.
  I now want to turn to the success of the electrification of the St. Pancras-Bedford stretch. Before that line was electrified, we were told in a whole range of arguments why that could not be done; why it would be a great waste of money; why it could not possibly work; and that there was not the time, the people or the equipment to do it. All the old arguments were trotted out.
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's September 1987 report, "British Railways Board: Network SouthEast" Cm 204, contains a case study of the St. Pancras-Bedford line electrification. It shows that once the initial difficulties had been overcome that part of the line became relatively profitable after electrification, and has remained so.
  If hon. Members want further confirmation of that, they could go to the Library to ask for Mr. Michael Bonavia's 1986 hook, "Twilight of British Rail". Chapter 10, which is somewhat inaptly named "The electrifying
  430
  experience" because Bonavia is talking about closures, argues that the Bedford-Sheffield line is an obvious candidate for electrification. Bonavia states:
  "The Midland main line (Bedford to Sheffield) is an electrification scheme that would also be facilitated by the work already done".
  This is the work to which I have already referred—the 50 miles of main line which, as he puts it, is now "under wires".
  "This would also be a conveniently self-contained project so far as the principal passenger services are concerned"—
  —[Interruption.] Hon. Members should wait, because he then states:
  "more so in fact than the east coast main line."
  Here we have an expert—
  Mr. Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that Michael Bonavia's book was written before the onset of the 2·7 per cent. return which the Government now expect on InterCity services? Given that expenditure on InterCity services runs, as I understand it, to about £600 million and that the expected income would be £500 million, will the hon. Gentleman concede that the money to those that £100 million gap has to be found from somewhere and that it may well come through major closures on the very sections of lines that he is proposing should be electrified, and that that would be the responsibility of his own Government?
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for arguing the case for privatisation, or at least private investment. Typically for an Opposition Member, he thinks in terms of reductions, but we are talking about increasing the service. It may be important at times to have injections of private capital. Perhaps on another occasion, or even this evening, we will hear some profound and interesting proposals for alternative funding from my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough.
  Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman has introduced the political spice that may have been missing from the debate by mentioning privatisation. Would not building up and boosting the east coast main line electrification make it the prime target for privatisation, so that there would be a major diversion of further services from the very lines that he would like electrified?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a wide debate, but it does not spread as far as privatisation.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful for that intervention, because if the Government, in their wisdom, decided to privatise the east coast main line, the proceeds of that sale—
  Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman has said a great deal. I meant to say that we have had a warm feeling this evening because there has been—
  Mr. Snape: It is rapidly cooling off.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I would not want it to cool off. I was not hoping to make political points, and if I have been flippant, I had not intended to be—
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman has not been flippant; he has been long-winded. He has been speaking for 70 minutes, largely due, Madam Deputy Speaker, to your and your predecessors' tolerance, and he has said little about the British Railways (No. 2) Bill. It might be amusing for

  431
  juvenile—or even senior—Conservative Back Benchers to delay legislation such as this, but it means that important work which could be done from one end of the railways to the other is delayed. I tell these Conservative Members for nothing that this is likely to lead to exchanges through the usual channels tomorrow.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate can, to some extent, extend beyond the contents of the Bill, but it must relate to the Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman of that.
  Mr. Tredinnick: The points that I have been making about the electrification of the main line from St. Pancras to Leicester and beyond have not been made lightly. I say that in all sincerity. It is essential to the east midlands and to the long-term well-being of my constituency. This has not been a time-wasting exercise, because this subject must be dealt with. If I did not feel so strongly about it, I would not be in the Chamber tonight.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: We have heard an interesting, albeit drawn-out speech from the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), largely concerned with the need for the electrification of the former midland railway main line from St. Pancras, and I shall return to that subject in a moment.
  First, however, I want to refer to the Bill and the detail of the works therein. Speeches by the Minister and myself are in no way intended to truncate the debate and, provided that they succeed in catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, hon. Members on both sides are free to refer to the Bill at whatever length they like.
  An unfortunate aspect of our parliamentary procedures is that when the British Railways Board—I rarely defend it because, unlike Conservative Members, I have no great faith in its philosophy or some of its policies—wants to carry out the smallest or mildest alteration to the existing railway network, or to construct any new lines to add to it, a Bill is necessary, and that enables hon. Members on both sides to block the work by tabling appropriate blocking motions. Indeed, hon. Members can raise the need for better or electrified railway services to and from their constituencies.
  I wish that such procedures were available for our road network, but hon. Members will be aware that roads are built and maintained and the money spent without reference to the House. Without causing undue offence to the hon. Member for Bosworth, the fact that he spent so much time on the east coast main line illustrates that it is about time that our procedures regarding British Railways Bills should be reformed.
  Work No. 1 in the Bill relates to the development of a spur railway at Battersea in connection with the development of Battersea power station as a leisure centre. I hope the House will note that that proposal is made with the financial support of the developers. I hope that the Minister can tell us that that financial support was a condition of planning permission for the development. If not, that support is none the less welcome, and perhaps it may set a precedent. If the envisaged use of the new leisure centre matches the forecasts, it is perhaps as well that a new railway line has been proposed; otherwise the
  432
  prospect of hon. Members entering or leaving this place by road would be considerably diminished. I hope that I shall not be considered parochial for saying that.
  Work No. 4 relates to the construction of running loops east of Ashford for Channel tunnel traffic. The hon. Member for Bosworth touched upon that in his long-drawn-out contribution. Apparently his call for additional railway lines in Kent was resented by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). I regret that he is not in his place at present.
  The hon. Member for Bosworth made a valid point about the inadequacy of the existing railway line between London and the Channel tunnel mouth. That inadequacy might be overcome if the running loops east of Ashford were extended as far as necessary in both directions to create a four-track main line between the mouth of the Channel tunnel and the new Channel tunnel terminus at Waterloo. I do not expect the instant agreement of the Minister to that proposal, but I hope that he agrees that the existing railway network is inadequate for the envisaged additional traffic when the Channel tunnel is open.
  In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), I should also like to comment on Work No. 7, which relates to the installation of barrier machines at a level crossing in Lincoln. The existing gates are to be replaced with full lifting harriers. I always believe that it is inherently unfair that 50 per cent. of the cost of such works must be met within British Rail's budget. The purpose of such barriers is to protect motorists from the consequences of their own stupidity. The practice of driving around half barriers as they are lifting or ignoring the warning lights place motorists in considerable danger and occasionally—as we saw a couple of years ago at Lock ington—places train travellers in some danger. We believe that the cost of such works should be met entirely from the roads budget, which appears endless when other matters are considered.
  I return to the question of the midland main line and whether or not it should be electrified. Although it would be unfair to describe all hon. Members who are in the House at the moment as railway buffs, there is a consensus that the line should be considered for electrification. I think that proposal would be supported by hon. Members in the Chamber. With such proposals being judged as they are, and with the problems of proving the case financially, it is unlikely that the go-ahead for that will ever be given.
  In an exchange at Transport question time on 18 April, the Minister said that the proposed electrification of the railway line between Manchester and Blackpool would cost £12 million. He should remember that he could not buy much motorway for that sum. The Minister thought that it was more cost-effective and efficient to use Sprinter diesel multiple units between those two points.
  If one considers the Manchester-Blackpool line in isolation on a strictly cost return basis, that might be true, but we did not build the M55 motorway to Blackpool on such a basis. It would be stupid to consider the M55, which runs from a field north of Preston to a roundabout at Squires gate, solely as a road linking Preston and Blackpool. No one would build a motorway on that basis. Yet only 10 days ago the Minister said that it would cost £12 million to electrify the Manchester-Blackpool railway line. He was considering it in isolation; he did not take into account the fact that it would give British Rail an electrified diversionary line to Scotland. It would enable

  433
  trains from Euston to Scotland to go via Manchester, although that would take longer. The possibility of generating more traffic is ignored.
  A similar proposal for the midland main line is likely to be greeted in the same way. Of course, the midland main line from St. Pancras is electrified as far as Bedford. The Minister may need to consult his advisers, but perhaps he could tell the House—if not tonight, at some time in the future—whether such electrification proposals would be considered on the basis of the additional traffic which would be generated between London and Sheffield or London and Leicester, or whether they would be measured against the likely increase in traffic between Bradford and Leicester or Bedford and Sheffield.
  Given the track record of the Department of Transport in these matters, the Department is likely to say that, because the line is already electrified as far as Bedford, as part of Network SouthEast rather than the InterCity network, it can take into consideration only passengers travelling north from Bedford to Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. I do not say that that is how the proposal would be evaluated, but it would not surprise me if it were done in that way. I hope that the Minister will let us know exactly how proposals for the electrification of the whole of the former midland main line from St. Pancras would be evaluated.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) talked about bad late-night connections from Sheffield. If one looks at British Rail's timetable, it is non-political to point out that anyone who wishes to head north out of London faces the same problem. Those who wish to go south from London are better treated.
  Mr. Patnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Snape: I will give way after I have made this point.
  It is a fact that those for whom late-night services have been traditionally provided live south of London, so far as railway management is concerned. All-night services have long been provided from stations such as Waterloo and Victoria for those people privileged—if that is the right term—to live south of London, yet such services have never been provided for those of us who are, perhaps, wise enough to live in the frozen north.
  Mr. Patnick: There are three trains serving the London to Doncaster route. There is one at 22.55 hours, which arrives in Doncaster at 1.29; one at 23.20 hours, arriving at 1.20; and another at 23.59, which I do not commend to the House, arriving at 4.03 hours. Again, it is the east coast route that is provided with the rolling stock and a better timetable.
  Mr. Snape: I largely agree with the point that I believe the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. British Rail's costs are largely fixed because the equipment is in situ and the track exists. It is a short-sighted policy on its part not to run trains. I do not like to be fair to British Rail, but one must recognise that such a policy is forced upon it by the Government, because it is often more economical not to run trains. The ultimate—and I hope that I am not writing the Tory party's next manifesto for it—is to save £1 billion a year by not running any trains at all. I do not know how one would tackle the congestion, but such a philosophy might appeal to the hon. Member for Hallam and his right
  434
  hon. Friend the Minister, and to those in the Department of Transport who prefer to play at road building and road repairing than sending cheques to the British Railways Board to pay for a proper rail system. I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point and hope that it will receive a response from the Minister.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of British Rail's second-class service to Sheffield. I am sure he will join us in our next censure motion, or whatever, on the Department of Transport for the niggardly way in which it has approached the funding of British Rail services.
  Mr. Patnick: That is not what I said.
  Mr. Snape: I do not want to ruin the hon. Gentleman's promotion prospects, but I did not make that speech—he did. The logical conclusion to his speech is that there should be greater funding for the midland main line to Sheffield, and we certainly agree. The hon. Gentleman also joined my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) in emphasising the need for greater expenditure on the provision of Channel tunnel services, with which I am sure we also all agree.
  One reason why the Opposition were anxious to put clause 40 of the Channel Tunnel Bill onto the statute book, ensuring that British Rail will by the end of next year publish its countrywide plans for both passenger and freight traffic, was that we knew full well—as does the rest of the House, if it were honest—that British Rail puts forward no proposals for investment, electrification, or whatever, unless they meet the criteria laid down by the Department of Transport.
  The Minister says more often than some of his predecessors, "I have received no proposals from British Rail about electrification or about Channel tunnel developments for freight facilities, extra passenger facilities, new locomotives and rolling stock. But if I do receive any such proposals, I will consider them." All of us, if we are honest, will recognise that that is a con. Regular contact is maintained between the Minister's Department and the British Railways Board. The board is left in no doubt that if it makes proposals that do not meet the investment criteria previously laid down, retribution will be both swift and terrible. The result is that it does not put forward any proposals unless those proposals meet the strictly laid down financial criteria demanded by the Department.
  I fear—and I believe that the House fears—that if such procedures are continued into next year, British Rail will once again be found wanting in regard to provision for additional Channel tunnel traffic and certainly in regard to hon. Members representing south of England constituencies. Britain will drown under a tidal wave of heavy goods vehicles.
  Either the railway—including the midland main line —is properly equipped to take advantage of the additional traffic likely to be generated in 1993 when the Channel tunnel opens, or it is not. If it is not, I have no doubt that there will be additional pressure for duplicate motorways, for the widening of existing motorways and for even greater expenditure on the building and strengthening of bridges. That again might please the Minister and some of his colleagues, and it will probably delight many of his advisers in the Department of Transport, but I do not think for a moment that such proposals will make him popular with the electorate in the south of England.

  435
  Certainly such an approach would do nothing to gear up the north of England and the midland main line as far as Sheffield to enable it to take advantage of the additional traffic generated by the Channel tunnel.
  This has been a fascinating debate on a Bill whose total expenditure comes to £7·8 million. I think that the hon. Member for Bosworth spent more than that in five minutes of his 75-minute contribution. It just goes to show that, of course, Conservative Members are in favour of public expenditure restraints—hut not when they affect their own constituencies.
  9.41 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It may be helpful at this point if I give a brief indication of the Government's view on the Bill.
  The Government have considered the Bill's content, and we have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the board. The Department has only one point outstanding with the Bill's promoters, and I hope that it will be cleared up satisfactorily.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) raised a number of points, particularly on the services provided by British Rail for his constituents. He will appreciate that the London-Sheffield timetable and the scheduling of train services are a commercial matter for British Rail. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) chuckles. Surely he does not really suggest that we in the House should start to draw up the timetables for British Rail's operations. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman made some sensible comments about the use of the House's time for purely constituency suggestions relating to major investment.
  Mr. Snape: All that I suggest is that, as the Minister and his Department lay down the financial constraints under which British Rail must operate and tighten those constraints year by year—indeed, reduce the finance available for running British Rail services—he should not complain when I "chuckle", as he puts it, when he tells the House—misleadingly, in my view—that these are matters for British Rail management. He is the man with his fingers on the financial windpipe of British Rail, as we all know.
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what has been happening under the present Government. We have been reducing the revenue subsidy to British Rail and increasing investment substantially. The investment figures that have now been approved by Ministers would have made him green with envy had he been a Minister in the previous Government, with responsibility for railways. He knows only too well that, had he been in a position at any time to improve investment on anything remotely approaching the scale on which I have had the privilege to improve it, he would have considered himself a very good friend to British Rail, the railway network, the railway unions and the travelling public. With the new timetables, the last train to Sheffield, at 21.40, is being speeded up by over a quarter of an hour. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam will be delighted with that information.
  Mr. Patnick: As I said, the problem is timing. I cannot see how hon. Members can be in the House and vote and still catch a train that went as they passed through the Lobby.
  Mr. Mitchell: Next year there will be an additional service to Sheffield at around 11 o'clock in the evening, and that will enable my hon. Friend both to cast his vote and to get back to his constituency.
  Mr. Snape: Will the Minister claim credit for that, is it a matter for BR management or, most likely, does it have something to do with the usual channels?
  Mr. Mitchell: I assure the hon. Member that I do not claim credit for it. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that this is part of British Rail's plans for the future, and we are debating the British Railways (No. 2) Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) clearly shares my enthusiasm for trains, although I regret that he does not share my enthusiasm for British Rail. He referred to the midland main line as a vital artery, and I wholly agree with him on that. However, he seeks electrification of that line on a number of grounds, some of which are not as firm as he had assumed. For example, he asserted that the high-speed trains that now service that line are 25 years old and clapped out, but that is not the case. They were built in 1975, and while I agree that there are points concerning their reliability which I shall draw to the attention of British Rail, it is not necessarily true that the only way of solving the problem is by scrapping them.
  My hon. Friend also asserted that electrification of itself would increase speed. That is untrue. I can illustrate what I mean. The west coast is electrified and the maximum speeds on it are less than the speeds on the east coast main line with high-speed trains.
  Mr. Tredinnick: Was I not correct to say that, if the new Electra class 91 locomotives and the mark 4 coaches were introduced on the line from St. Pancras to Leicester and beyond, they would have a dramatic increase in speed? I was not trying to mislead the House.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am happy to clarify that point for my hon. Friend. As I have said, the west coast main line, which is electrified, is slightly slower than the east coast main line, which is not electrified. Therefore, it is not true that electrification of itself leads to higher speeds. In the case of the midland main line, the speed limitation is 100 mph and that is a restriction because of the track, the curves and junctions, and because of other such factors. Electrification does not change those limitations and electrifying it would not achieve the purpose that my hon. Friend suggests.
  Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: No, let me just finish this point.
  My hon. Friend claims that the Electra, which is a 140 mph locomotive, would be faster. There is no point in having a faster engine if it cannot go at its maximum speed. My hon. Friend also asked whether tilting coaches would enable a higher speed to be achieved. He may be right, but tilting coaches do not require electrification. Indeed, he told the House that in 1975 the APT ran from Leicester to London in 58 minutes. However, he did not tell the House that it was not electrified. In fact, it is an illustration of the point that I am making that higher speed does not require electrification. That APT run used a gas turbine engine with two coaches and two power units. All the other traffic

  437
  was cleared off the line to give it a free run. I hope that that demonstrates to my hon. Friend that electrification will not necessarily achieve the purposes he has in mind.
  Mr. Snape: I hope that the Minister—albeit inadvertently—was not seeking to mislead his hon. Friend. The APT, which alas is in the scrapyard, was electrified eventually and used on the west coast main line. Does the Minister concede that electrification means faster point-to-point timing because of the greater acceleration of electrified locomotives and rolling stock? If diesel trains are just as efficient as electric trains, why have the Government approved the electrification of the east coast main line?
  Mr. Mitchell: The decision between electric and diesel involves a careful technical assessment related to very heavy initial outlay on electrification and low operating costs, or low outlay on diesel and high operating costs. Which is the most economical way of providing the service depends upon the frequency of the service and a number of other factors.
  I shall return to whether there may be a case for the electrification of the midland main line, but any assessment will not be on the grounds of speed put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. As I have demonstrated, and as my hon. Friend was kind enough to advise the House, the APT did that run in 58 minutes. It had a gas turbine engine and was not electrified. I understand my hon. Friend's desire for faster, more punctual and more reliable trains. However, before he advocates electrification as a means of achieving that, he needs to assure himself that there are no other more economic means of achieving the same objectives.
  There is a somewhat vicarious relationship between the British Railways (No. 2) Bill and the intensity with which we have been discussing this aspect. I understand that my hon. Friend has definite views and ideas, which I hope he will discuss with British Rail. There are facts which, although my hon. Friend may not like them, he should discover, discuss and assess. I suggest that he talks with British Rail. If he is still not satisfied with what it is doing and how it proposes to go about it, my door is always open to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members who wish to discuss the midland line. When he has spoken to British Rail, I shall be happy to discuss with him any conclusions he might have reached about the midland main line.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East rightly drew us back to the British Railways (No. 2) Bill and asked me some questions. The first concerned the Battersea leisure centre and its rail connection. I understand that the developer formed his own view that rail would enhance the viability of the project. Since the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and I share an enthusiasm for rail, we can take some delight in that commercial view. The hon. Member also asked me about the four-track lines he would like to see running from Ashford to the Channel tunnel terminal and from Ashford to Waterloo. The lines are judged adequate for the Channel tunnel, but we need to look carefully at the future level of demand, capacity and speed. That is why British Rail is assessing these matters. It is to report to me in June this year.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the speed on that line and to the amount of investment in it. Comparisons are
  438
  always made with what happens in France, but in France the TGV Nord, that will run from Paris to Calais, is primarily a line that is designed to go from Paris to Brussels and from Brussels to Amsterdam and Cologne. The relatively small section of line that has been constructed between Paris and Calais means that expenditure on Channel tunnel-related matters is very much less than the total expenditure on the TGV Nord. When that is compared with British Rail's expenditure proposals, the difference is not so great as is generally assumed. The fast train services in northern France to the Channel tunnel ride on the back of the Paris-Brussels-Amsterdam-Cologne plans.
  The hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether British Rail had put forward proposals and whether they met the Government's criteria. The hon. Gentleman knows that, as from this year, InterCity is operating commercially, thus fulfilling the policies of his party when in government, that travel between major urban centres should not be subsidised. I do not imagine that he will renege on the views of his party when in government. A return of 2·7 per cent. is an exceedingly low requirement.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether Britain would be crushed under a load of road vehicles. The Channel tunnel will ensure that an immense amount of freight that would otherwise have gone by road will go by rail.
  There is now only one petitioner against the British Railways (No. 2) Bill. He will have an opportunity to present his objections to the Select Committee, which will be in a very much better position than the House to examine in detail the issues involved. It will have the added advantage of expert advice being at its disposal. I recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading and that it should be allowed to proceed in the usual way to the Select Committee for detailed consideration.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 50.

  Division No. 280]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Burns, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Butcher, John

  Allason, Rupert

  Butler, Chris

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chope, Christopher

  Beggs, Roy

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Couchman, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowis, John

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bright, Graham

  Dover, Den

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunn, Bob

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

  Durant, Tony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fallon, Michael

  439

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Forman, Nigel

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Forth, Eric

  Miller, Hal

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mills, Iain

  Franks, Cecil

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Freeman, Roger

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  French, Douglas

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Gale, Roger

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gill, Christopher

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Neubert, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Grist, Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hannam, John

  Page, Richard

  Harris, David

  Paice, James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Portillo, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Holt, Richard

  Redwood, John

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

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Janman, Tim

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Jessel, Toby

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kilfedder, James

  Shersby, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfieid)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Speed, Keith

  Knapman, Roger

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Squire, Robin

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lightbown, David

  Stern, Michael

  Livsey, Richard

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thurnham, Peter

  440

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wheeler, John

  Trippier, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilshire, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wood, Timothy

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson and Mr. Michael Colvin.

  Waller, Gary

  Watts, John

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Armstrong, Hilary

  McGrady, Eddie

  Ashby, David

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Madden, Max

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Buckley, George J.

  Meale, Alan

  Caborn, Richard

  Michael, Alun

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Morley, Elliott

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Nellist, Dave

  Cox, Tom

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cryer, Bob

  Ruddock, Joan

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Snape, Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Tredinnick, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Vaz, Keith

  Faulds, Andrew

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Foulkes, George

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Wilson, Brian

  Hoyle, Doug

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ingram, Adam

  Knowles, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Tim Boswell.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly and agreed to
  Bill read a Second time and committed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Licensing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Neubert]

Orders of the Day
  Licensing Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 1

  PERMITTED HOURS
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
  "( ) In section 60(1)(b) of the principal Act (permitted hours in licensed premises on Sundays etc.), for the words "five hours beginning at two" there shall be submitted the words "four hours beginning at three"."
  10.10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment extends Sunday opening by one hour. It is right that I should re-emphasise to the House that, on previous occasions, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I made it clear that it was not the Government's intention to extend licensing hours on Sunday. The reasons that we put forward were never reasons of principle. They were always conceded to be pragmatic reasons. We wanted to make it plain, and we made it plain to the House, that our objective in giving that assurance was to reconcile as many as possible to the passage of the Bill. That was a candidly stated reason. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members below the Bar of the House not participating in the debate kindly leave the Chamber or come and join us?
  Mr. Hogg: I was reminding the House about the Government's position on this amendment when the matter was last before the House. However, when the amendment was discussed in another place, the Government were unable to persuade their Lordships to take a similar view. Consequently, the amendment was carried in the other place. The question that we now must decide is whether the Government should seek to persuade the House to try to reverse that amendment.
  Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that some hon. Members are not particularly bothered one way or the other in relation to the extension of hours for Sundays? However, is the Minister aware that some of us are extremely concerned that the amendment appears to deal only with public houses? It does not appear to deal with the important matter of members' clubs. Will the Minister immediately clarify the position? Does the amendment relate only to pubs and ignore clubs?
  Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman has raised the question, I shall certainly deal with it, but I hope that he will forgive me if I deal with it at the conclusion of my remarks rather than straight away.
  I was saying that the question that now arises is whether the House should seek to reverse the amendment that was accepted in another place. The suggestion that I make to the House is that we should not. In all conscience, I cannot say that the amendment that was passed in the other place
  442
  was wrong in principle. I do not believe that it is wrong in principle. Moreover, it clearly meets a genuine demand. It is modest. Having regard to those three considerations, it seems to me to be nonsense to invite the House to disagree with the amendment. It is on that basis that I recommend that we agree with the amendment.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) raised a question about clubs. The amendment does not apply to clubs. I do not recommend that the House should enlarge clubs' opening hours to parallel what has been done to pub opening hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?] I was in the process of explaining the two reasons why not. First, while the licensing regime as a whole applies to public houses, it does not apply to clubs. There is therefore no powerful reason why a relaxation in the licensing regime for pubs should automatically apply to clubs, unless clubs were to accept that the full body of the licensing law should apply to them, which is not a concession that they are willing to make.
  Mr. Greg Knight: For a long time, pubs and clubs have enjoyed the same total number of opening hours, so why should we now be asked to differentiate?
  Mr. Hogg: I was reciting two reasons why we should differentiate. I shall repeat the first reason because it is important. The licensing regime that applies to pubs does not apply to clubs. Unless clubs are prepared to accept, as a principle, that the entire licensing regime that now applies to pubs should also apply to them, I can see no compelling reason for treating the two the same.
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No. I shall give way after I have finished my second point.
  With regard to Sunday opening hours, the other place thought that there was a justification for extending what was generally regarded as the lunch-time hour on Sundays. As the House will know, clubs already have the facility to extend their opening hours to 3 o'clock. Therefore, under present law, clubs can do precisely what the other place decided pubs should be able to do.
  Mr. Cunliffe: The Minister is attempting to quantify and qualify a principle. Will he now tell the House that clubs are permitted to open only for five and a half hours on a Sunday, compared with pubs, which are allowed to open for six and a half hours? There is a clear anomaly of one hour which discriminates against clubs. Will the Minister give the House a straight answer?
  Mr. Hogg: Whatever else I can be criticised for, it is not for not giving a straight answer. The hon. Gentleman may not like the answer, but nobody could say that it was incomprehensible or other than straight. He may not like it, but the reasons are as I have stated them to be.
  I shall repeat the first reason, because the hon. Gentleman obviously failed to understand it. The licensing laws that apply to public houses do not apply to clubs. It is curious that clubs say that on the one hand they should be treated more favourably than public houses, but on the other that they should be given exactly the same hours. Either they agree to the licensing regime being applied to them in its totality or they accept that, from time to time, there may be differences.

  443
  While it is perfectly true that under the proposal, if we accept it, there will be a difference between the total opening hours available to pubs and clubs, the narrow question considered in the other place was whether on Sundays pubs should be able to remain open until 3 o'clock. Under existing law, clubs are already able to do that.
  Mr. David Clelland: The Minister will be aware that the differences between the licensing procedures of clubs and pubs have existed for many years and that pubs and clubs have been allowed the same number of hours. Will he explain why there should now be a difference in the total number of hours they are allowed?
  Mr. Hogg: We come back to our starting point. The licensing laws in the more significant respects have always made a distinction between clubs and pubs. That is a distinction which clubs which to see perpetuated. Sometimes it works in their favour, and sometimes it does not. The narrow point that we are considering is whether we should relax the licensing hours for Sunday lunchtime by one hour. Clubs already have the capacity to do that, but pubs have not. The other place decided that an extension of one hour should be made for a Sunday, which is something that clubs can already do.
  For the reasons that I have outlined, I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister has given us an amazing account of the reasons why he has now changed his mind completely and is saying that we should accept the amendment. His speech was an attempt to justify the unjustifiable and to stand on its head all that the Government have previously said about this matter. His logic was an attempt to reconcile irreconcilable differences. His exchange with my hon. Friends proves that Labour Members, and, I suspect, some Conservative Members, know far more about the realities of licensing law for clubs and pubs than he does.
  There are several reasons why this amendment creates difficulties. It goes back on all the previous promises that the Government have given on licensing laws. When the Bill was published, when we debated the issue on Second Reading, and when we discussed it in detail in Committee and on Report, the Minister and, indeed, the Home Secretary made it clear that there would be no change in the rules for Sundays. They said clearly that that was a matter for Sunday trading legislation, and it would have been better if the Government had left it at that.
  The Government have behaved badly. I hope that the House is aware of exactly what went on in another place when the amendment was discussed. In another place the Minister, Earl Ferrers, said that amendments of this kind to extend drinking on Sunday should not be accepted, and he acknowledged that one of the reasons was that there would be difficulty in this House. When the amendment was moved in the other place the Government did not vote against it. The amendment went through on the nod, despite all previous assurances.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the hon. Lady concede that she and her hon. Friends are worried that the Government are doing something that will be immensely popular? Yet again, the Opposition are out of step with public opinion and she is now trying to cover that up.
  Mrs. Taylor: I should have thought that Conservative Members would be worried that the Government were going back on assurances given to the House and the Committee on numerous occasions. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether it was an act of deliberate Government policy to insert this measure into the Bill or whether the measure went through by accident because their Lordships were not paying attention.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: It was not an act of deliberate Government policy—[Interruption.] I heard the sedentary intervention. It was inadvertence. There are two explanations. One is conspiracy, and the other is cock-up. [Interruption.] It was cock-up.
  Mrs. Taylor: Having served in the Whips' Office, I am quite willing to believe in a cock-up by the Government rather than the conspiracy theory.
  Now that this amendment has gone through the other place and we are faced with it this evening, we have to consider the problems that it creates. It should create problems in terms of honour on the part of the Government, who have given us these assurances. However, if we put those on one side, it does create other difficulties as well. First, it creates difficulties for those people who work in public houses. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who tabled an amendment, will wish to go into this in some detail, but the licensed house managers, USDAW, and other unions that represent people employed in this industry are extremely worried.
  Mr. Tony Favell: The hon. Member is arguing that public houses, by opening for an extra hoar on Sundays, could cause problems for employees. Will she tell us whether the Opposition's policy is to shut all public houses for all of Sunday?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) knows better than that. Having looked at the Bill in detail, I should have thought that he would have some concern for those people—especially husband and wife teams—who run many of our public houses and will be under considerable pressure from extended opening hours. Some people will be facing far longer working hours. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, the brewers will be pressing managers to open all permitted hours. Proper agreements will not be reached between the brewers and the managers, and there will be extreme pressure on those people who work in the industry.
  This morning I received a letter from someone in Cardiff, saying that no one has thought of the landlord. Sunday is the only time when the landlord and his family can go out or put their feet up for a well earned rest. Many families run pubs together, and we should be thinking of them. I am sure that my hon. Friends will wish to pursue that point.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the hon. Lady not understand that the best time for any publican is Sunday lunchtime? It is family time and it is a very social time for visitors. Each publican wishes his cost centre—his pub—to be profitable. Therefore, it is an essential time for a publican. I think that the hon. Lady may be wrong when she is singing the case of the publican not wanting to work Sundays. Most publicans to whom I have spoken would welcome that extra hour, because of their profit centre.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am glad to say that most publicans serve beer rather than tea, but that is another matter. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) gives an example of what Conservative Members think the Bill is all about. He mentioned profitability. That is all that the brewers are worried about. That is why we have the Bill. We should consider those who work in the industry. The husband and wife team is worthy of some consideration. I shall refer to the point about families later. That is another problem that the Bill will create.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady says about employees in public houses. However, I do not think that we on this side can expect the Labour party to go overboard for this amendment because of its links with the trade union movement. Employees in public houses are in a collective negotiating position with the brewers. They will not accept extra work on Sundays without having agreed with the brewers their terms of employment for the extra hour that they will be asked to work. As it has been conservatively estimated that about 50,000 additional jobs could be generated by the Bill to which we are about to give our blessing, could the hon. Lady be a little more bullish about supporting what, in essence, is a good job-creation measure?
  10.30 pm
  Mrs. Taylor: I did not realise that the Bill was being put forward as a job-creation measure. I thought that it was the pay-off to the brewers for their contributions during the last election. Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman is forgetting the many difficulties that arise at present with the arbitration procedure between licensed house managers and the brewers. The managers have very little on their side. We have seen examples during the past 12 months of pub managers being badly treated by the brewers, but having little that they can do about it. Many managers have had a bad time at the hands of the arbitration system and that has created many difficulties. That is one problem that is created by the amendment.
  Another problem is the anomaly that is now being created between clubs and pubs. Several of my hon. Friends will wish to speak about that. It is strange that the Minister should say that it will be perfectly all right to stay in a pub for an extra hour, but not in a working men's club. In Committee we discussed at some length the provisions of working men's clubs and the ways in which they organise their affairs. At that stage the Minister was sympathetic to the view that many working men's clubs exercise far more control over drinking than do many pubs. The committee members of many clubs play an active role in ensuring that the atmosphere in their clubs is proper and that drinking to excess does not occur. I am glad that some Conservative Members agree with me.
  I hope that the Minister will reconsider that point and tell us that he intends to do something about the anomaly that is being created. The present safeguards for the clubs do not create equality. The flexibility that is now being given to pubs will not apply to clubs. Therefore, the Minister is accepting a strange anomaly. I am surprised that, having once accepted the extension for public houses in another place, the Government should put the Whips in against clubs in this way.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Is the hon. Lady saying that, if we agree with the Lords in the amendment, at a later stage she would agree with a measure to bring the clubs into line?
  Mrs. Taylor: We have not yet agreed to this measure, but, if it were to go through, I see no reason why clubs should not be treated in exactly the same way as pubs. However, we should think about certain considerations before we get to that stage. We should consider the whole principle of extending drinking hours on Sunday.
  The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth seems to have turned his attention from other matters and is now talking about the advantages to the family of having Sunday drinking. I know that some families like to go out for a meal at Sunday lunchtime—occasionally I do that myself—but we do not need to extend Sunday drinking time to do that. The restaurants, or restaurants attached to public houses, to which families go will have a restaurant licence. If they are serving food, they do not need this extension.
  Mr. James Couchman: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill which Viscount Montgomery initiated in another place and which became an Act last year has given restaurants and pubs with restaurants a distinct advantage over those pubs which serve bar meals, often at competitive prices, and that that discriminates against pubs which could be part of the Sunday lunchtime family thing?
  Mrs. Taylor: There may be some special pleading in that.
  I return to the principle involved here. Is this the best use of families' Sunday lunchtime? I know that there are people who think that extra hours at Sunday lunchtime will create more problems than they will solve. Families who want to go out with children to have a meal on Sundays have enough time now. We do not need to extend drinking time in order to help them.
  This measure is the thin end of the wedge. The Minister and the Government have allowed a back-door extension of Sunday opening and taken a serious step in that direction. They are tricking the House into extending Sunday opening times without thinking of the problems and difficulties that will be created. The problem is not as simple as the Minister thinks. Perhaps it was the Government's incompetence that led to this measure, but it is a dangerous step to take. The Government are foolish to accept the Lords amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Sir Bernard Braine.
  Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Father of the House to abuse his position to be called early in this sort of debate to put forward his narrow-minded prejudices on this subject?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Sir Bernard Braine.
  Sir Bernard Braine: For the benefit of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I should say that I spent about nine years as chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism. This is a subject upon which I have spoken fairly frequently in the House, and about which I feel passionately. In a moment the hon. Gentleman will understand why, if he has the capacity to listen.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Bernard Braine: I rise to express my dismay and regret that the Government have agreed to accept an amendment that will permit an extra drinking hour on Sundays. I recognise that the Government have been subjected to intense pressure about this by the vested interests concerned. None the less, this is a concession that should not be made, and I hope to give the House the reason why.
  First, there is no evidence of majority public support for extending drinking hours on Sundays. The evidence from opinion polls suggests, on the contrary, that the majority of the public would prefer Sunday opening hours to remain as they are. By accepting the amendment the Government are bowing, not to public demand, but to the demand of vested interests. The game was given away—
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is sitting about 2 yd from him? The licensing laws in Scotland have changed and are now much more civilised throughout the week—not only on Sundays. Experience in Scotland has been that there is much less drunkenness and aggravation, and much more civilised drinking. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not learn from the experience of Scotland and from his hon. Friend, and use that knowledge in England for once?
  Sir Bernard Braine: This debate is not about Scotland. If it were, I would show how alcohol harm had increased there. If the hon. Gentleman chooses to intervene, he should make sure of his facts. He is only making me more than ever determined to place the facts before the House.
  The Government promised not to tinker with Sundays, and they intended to stick to that, but there was an error in another place. The right formula was not uttered at the right time. The result is that a "cock-up"—that is the term that my hon. Friend used—is now being made into a virtue.
  Mr. David Steel: As the Father of the House. does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has listened to many Ministers commending amendments from another place, but he has never heard a Minister argue in favour of an amendment on the grounds that it was unprincipled, inadvertent and a cock-up? Surely they are good reasons for rejecting it.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I must confess that I have never heard such an argument before.
  Mr. Cunliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This evening I approached Mr. Speaker and I asked him whether I could use the phrase "cock-up" in this debate. Mr. Speaker is a member of the all-party non-profit making clubs association that I represent. He replied, "No, I do not think that it would be in order." The Minister has used those words, as has the Father of the House and the Liberal leader. I accept the Queensberry Rules, but if it is permissible for certain distinguished Members of the House to use that phrase, I claim the same privilege for the contribution that I shall make.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If those words were used too often, I believe that our debates would become somewhat inelegant.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I entirely agree and I promise faithfully not to use that phrase again. I cannot promise not to refer to the inadvertence that led to the amendment being accepted in the other place, contrary to the Government's intentions.
  I praise my hon. Friend for his honesty and the integrity that I know he possesses. I acquit him of any share of the blame for what happened in the other place. He may go there one day, but for the time being he is here and he has no responsibility for what happened. I am only sorry that he has to defend the indefensible.
  My hon. Friend has claimed that the concession that has been made is so limited in scope—just one hour—as to be entirely innocuous. That claim lacks all credibility. Indeed, it is no more than the Government's version of the housemaid's proverbial excuse for her baby, namely, that illegitimacy does not matter because the baby is such a little one. The amendment matters a great deal.
  Let us consider the likely effect of one hour's extra drinking time on local residents on a Sunday. If the amendment is carried, they will have to tolerate additional disturbance during what, for many, is the only afternoon during which they can enjoy peace and quiet with their families. Let us consider the likely effects on the existing problems of drinking and driving, and public disorder linked with alcoholic consumption. I believe—we have it on the authority of my hon. Friend—that, because of the relatively more restricted licensing regime, extended drinking hours are likely to result in more alcohol consumption on a Sunday than on other days of the week.
  Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.
  Sir Bernard Braine: If it is rubbish, it was said by my hon. Friend in Committee.
  If consumption increases, it is clear that alcohol-related problems, such as public disorder and the mayhem that flows from drinking and driving will also increase. Sonic football fixtures are held on. Sundays, in preference to Saturdays, to reduce the likelihood of alcohol-fuelled disturbances. If the present more tranquil and peaceful atmosphere of Sunday afternoons is impaired by the amendment, it will turn out to be a mixed blessing.
  I am amused at how the advocates of the drink trade pour scorn on the idea that such a little extension of drinking on a Sunday will do harm. They believe that it will add to the enjoyment of living. No doubt this will be so in remote villages and in the genteel suburbs, but the reality for much of the country is different.
  10.45 pm
  I shall limit myself to just one recent report in The Times of 25 April. It is a chilling report, because it shows that what is happening in inner cities is now invading the shires. [Interruption.] If it takes place on a Saturday, it will take place on Sunday as well. Let me quote from the report:
  "Police warnings that outbreaks of violent disorder normally associated with deprived inner-city areas were increasingly being seen in small towns were borne out at the weekend … 300 youths fought with police in Carlisle, Cumbria. Five officers, including a woman police constable, needed hospital treatment.
  The violence was repeated on a smaller scale in towns in Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Hampshire … 'The common denominator—
  said the spokesman for the Police Federation—
  "'seems to be people drinking far too much and then turning on the police with a viciousness which is particularly nasty

  449
  when policewomen are involved. The pattern is for people to take part in mob rioting with no feeling that there will be any retribution'."
  This was just over one weekend.
  "Ten youths were arrested in Reading, Berkshire, after fighting broke out at a private party in a public house … In Alton, Hampshire, a woman was attacked with a broken glass during a brawl involving about 25 men in a public house."
  So it goes on. Those of use who are in close touch with our constituencies know that this sort of thing is on the increase. Before the little inadvertence in the other place, the Government knew that it was wrong to extend licensing by this amount of time on a Sunday.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is fully aware of all this. He is not here tonight, but I will still say this. Having seen the Bill leave the House to go to the other place, I was amazed to read his comments on the occasion of the Robert Peel anniversary in the midlands on 5 February, when he said openly:
  "In dozens of our cities and market towns up and down the shires, we have seen disturbances caused largely by youth who were white, employed, affluent and drunk."
  Those are the words of the Home Secretary, not my words; I have not thought them out. How can my right hon. Friend say that and then, because of the failure of a Whip in the other place to maintain the Government's position on Sunday opening, condone that failure and break the Government's pledge to many of us in this House not to interfere with Sundays? Does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State not feel that granting extra time on Sunday afternoon will add to the problems outlined in the Tamworth speech of the Home Secretary?
  We are told that extra drinking hours are needed for the convenience of those who want to enjoy a pub lunch on Sunday. It is a delightful idea, but how do they get to and from the pub if not by car? [HON. MEMBERS: "Walk."] I am talking, not about the pleasant Chiltern village, but about the towns and places where disorder already takes place. How do they get to the pub if not by car? There is very little public transport available on Sunday afternoon. In the other place the point was conceded by the Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who said:
  "I know that in the part of the country … where I … live. Sunday is a day when people go to the pub in a family group more than they do during the week … our neighbours, as well as ourselves, as a family get into the motor car and travel into the country to have a drink in a country pub".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 1040]
  Thousands will get into cars to do so. The amendment is designed to encourage that practice. There is nothing wrong with it, provided only that the driver himself does not drink. However, the reality is that the amendment will encourage the very pattern of behaviour that the Department of Transport wishes to discourage. How do the Government propose to avert that danger?
  The sentiments of the amendment are directly contrary to the assurance given by the Government about the scope of the Bill. Sunday drinking hours were excluded from the Government's consultative document. Time and again Ministers have explicitly stated that they did not regard the Bill as a means of altering Sunday trading laws. They may claim now that they were careful to leave themselves a let-out by stating that their objections to extended drinking hours were of a pragmatic nature. Those were words used by my hon. Friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box today. However carefully Ministers may have worded
  450
  their statements, and however carefully my hon. Friend worded his announcement this evening, the fact remains that they were taken to mean that Sundays would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. It was only on that basis that some people gave it their support.
  The House should not run away with the idea that licensees are enthusiastic about the proposal in question. I totally disagree with my hon. Friend, and I am sorry to say so, because I am very fond of him.
  Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend concede that we live in a different world today and that on a Saturday youngsters can obtain a case of beer, throw it into the boot of their car, and drink it wherever they like on Sunday? Is that not more likely to lead to drunkenness and disorder on a Sunday than an extension of pub licensing hours?
  Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend is most helpful, because he may know that the Government's OPCS survey on the drinking habits of young people from the age of 13 onwards revealed that the majority of them had their first drinks in public houses. We have a scourge of under-age drinking in this country, which alarms publicans. They hate it; they cannot control it. It is a growing problem. If my hon. Friend will consult the police, they will tell him that there is a link between under-age drinking and fracas outside public houses and in city centres.
  The House ought not to shut its eyes to reality. Last month I received a letter from Mr. John Madden, the general secretary of the National Association of Licensed House Managers, which represents public house managers throughout the country. He wrote:
  "I have been made aware that the House of Lords have accepted an amendment which if agreed would allow pubs to stay open till 3 p.m. on Sundays. Although this Association did not press for changes in the Licensing Act 1964 we gave the Home Secretary's proposal to amend the Act qualified support. The support was forthcoming because of the Government's intention not to change the Sunday trading hours. Although the proposed change in Sunday trading may appear to be a modest one the Association is of the view that it would only be a matter of time before the afternoon break would disappear, so changing the special character of Sunday. When the Bill returns to the House of Commons I would be grateful if you would bear in mind the Association's opposition to any change in Sunday trading hours."
  It is my duty to convey to the House the view of a large number of those who manage public houses in this country.
  I should like to know whether the amendment is being accepted by the Government in the hope that by doing so they will forestall any further attempts to relax Sunday trading laws more extensively. Or is it the case, as the association fears, that the amendment is the thin end of the wedge? One is entitled to ask that question. In view of the fact that to accept the amendment will be to renege on assurances previously given, the Government are under a considerable duty to make absolutely clear their intentions. Many of us in the House, and in the country, will be satisfied with nothing less than an unequivocal guarantee that the amendment will be the end of the matter in regard to Sunday opening.
  Finally, the amendment throws into even sharper relief the need for effective counter-measures against drinking and driving. The Government now have the recommendations of the Road Traffic Law Review Committee, chaired by Dr. Peter North, including the recommendation:
  "The licensing authorities should be able to take into account, when considering whether to renew a licence, any

  451
  evidence that the licensee had regularly or persistently served alcohol to customers who went on to commit drink drive offences."
  I suggest that a provision to that effect could and should have been included in the Bill, certainly now that extra drinking time is to be provided on Sundays as well as weekdays. As the House will know, the afternoon break has been abolished. Recently the New Zealand authorities pointed to that break as one reason why there was more sobriety in Britain than on the continent and decided to introduce it in New Zealand—at the very moment when the Government decided to abolish it here.
  Mr. Favell: How does my right hon. Friend bear out what he has just said—that the English are a sober race, or considered to be on the continent—when we hear of nothing but drunkenness in holiday resorts abroad?
  Sir Bernard Braine: That is a good question. Indeed, one of my greatest fears has always been that if we are not careful we shall have the same degree of alcohol harm here as there is on the continent. Twice as many people are killed on the roads in alcohol-related incidents in France as in this country, but the figure here is still very damaging. Whereas in France 40 per cent. of acute beds are occupied by people suffering from alcohol-related disease, the figure in this country is now only about 20 per cent. I do not say that the extra hour's drinking will change that, but in the abolition of the afternoon break—this latest move, this breaking of the word—we can see a reckless drive down the road that has brought so much misery to our continental neighbours.
  Now that extra drinking time is to be provided on Sundays as well as on weekdays, the need to take strong measures is even more urgent than before. Paradoxically—and here I compliment the Government—the success of their economic policies in increasing affluence means, inevitably, that consumption will increase. That is what the trade wants: it wants to sell more liquor. Profits will increase, and that is all in order. Economic growth is involved, and so on, but we know for a fact that with every increase in consumption there is an increase in harm. That pattern can be seen not only in Britain but in the Soviet Union and the United States. No wonder the World Health Organisation has called on all member states to reduce their consumption of alcohol by at least 25 per cent. by 1995. This puny little measure is the only answer that the Government give to that challenge.
  All that I say is that the nation has been warned by the royal colleges. It has been warned by the medical profession. It has been warned, repeatedly, that the harm from alcohol consumption rises with consumption itself. If the Government do not learn that lesson, God help us.
  Mr. Cunliffe: First, let me declare not a pecuniary interest, but an interest, in that I share with the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) the joint chairmanship of the all-party association of non-profit-making clubs, which, I am proud to say, represents 181 Members of Parliament and nine Members of the other place.
  At the beginning of the debate, we saw a classic illustration of a Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and telling the House that he could qualify the principle established in the Bill—or in the part that I shall consider specifically tonight—and then trying in one sentence to blow the bugles of advance and to cover the retreat of the
  452
  other place and the Government of the day. At a later stage, he confesses to the House—to use unparliamentary words—that there was a blunder of the first magnitude, to describe it discreetly, by those in the other place and by those in charge of the Administration. I say that as someone who has spent seven years in the Whips' Office.
  11 pm
  Clause 1 now has a blatant anomaly, which discriminates in a way that is indefensibly unfair. It says that one can have a public exclusive right, based on citizenship, to enjoy, within the public house domain, the privilege of an extra hour's drinking time on Sunday. That is clear, regardless of what Ministers have said in this House and in the other place. This privilege is denied to clubs because, although they can open from 12 to 3 o'clock, in the evening they can open only from 7 o'clock to 9.30
  The Minister may ask why the clubs should have that privilege. It is because, on a £100 million turnover, they pay £15 million in VAT. They are registered patrons and make a contribution to the Exchequer and to society as a whole. From the village, bowling and horticultural clubs to the Conservative and Liberal clubs, a whole galaxy—
  Mr. Alan Meale: What about Labour clubs?
  Mr. Cunliffe: I am coming to that. My hon. Friend is a notable Labour club leader and will speak for himself on that. We do not publicly cross domains.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: If this amendment is so discrimatory as against clubs, why is it that nobody, on behalf of the clubs—for example, the hon. Gentleman— has tabled an amendment to include clubs?
  Mr. Cunliffe: At the end of my speech, I shall be posing to the Minister a question that will be relevant to that point.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Would it not have been far better if, instead of asking my hon. Friend to table an amendment, the Government had resisted the Lords amendment, thereby maintaining the status quo?
  Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Cunliffe: I shall not. That would be the third intervention from the hon. Gentleman this evening, and the Government are responsible for their legislation. He should wait to make his own speech.
  I can illustrate the cant and hypocrisy of the Minister in the other place, who clearly stated:
  "I am bound to say that I have a sneaking sympathy because the whole philosophy behind this Bill is that it should not interfere with Sundays."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 April 1988; Vol. 495, c. 1183.]
  My argument is against the anomaly that the Government are creating. The amendment not only discriminates but segregates, penalises and takes away privileges from the private registered clubs. The Prime Minister recently sent to the annual conference of the Club and Institute Union a message of congratulation on its 125th anniversary, pinpointing the exceptional work that it had done in the past century and a quarter. It embellishes the record of the behavioural pattern of clubs. To a large degree, clubs do not deal with disorderly factions; the track record of the vast majority of clubs

  453
  bears no comparison with the incidents that have taken place in public houses. Under the clause, patrons of registered clubs inevitably will become second-class citizens in terms of rights and privileges.
  Mr. Colvin: As the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Cunliffe) has gone back in history to the start of the working men's club movement, will he acknowledge that in the CIU's initial constitution, which was written in 1926, the object of the clubs was to provide places where working men could meet, "free from intoxicating drinks"? The clubs have come a long way since then, but that is not necessarily an argument for having the licensing hours for clubs exactly the same as for pubs.
  Mr. Cunliffe: That is the essence of the working classes of the day. The great Earl of Rosebery was a patron. Starting with the clerics, it was meant to bridle, inhibit and restrain working-class people from enjoying some of the fruits of their production. Eventually, the coin was reversed. That is what we call democratic evolution, and it has worked extremely well.
  The association, of which I am proud to be joint chairman, has 10 million members and 33,000 registered clubs, and it turns over to the Exchequer hundreds of millions of pounds a year because of the service that it renders.
  The argument is not whether alcohol is good or bad for people. I take the view that, no matter what the Minister may say this evening, there is no doubt that the Ministers, both here and in the other place, in trying to solve what they considered to be old problems, have inevitably created new ones. The administration of this Government have gone from blunder to blunder. They are inept. They cannot maintain the discipline that is expected by a policy that is sane and fair.
  We are not asking for extra hours for clubs. We want only the basic equity that we now have. We shall say that again, and we may very well vote on it this evening.
  I shall ask the Minister one final question. He has now admitted that there is an injustice and an anomaly within the clause. In view of the formidable representations that will be made by millions of people, will he consider with a degree of fairness a one-clause Bill to be initiated in another place? What would be his response to an attempt to correct a serious anomaly which is—I shall not use the Minister's words—a blunder of the first magnitude?
  Mr. Couchman: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes at this time of night. First, I declare once again, as I have at all points during the progress of the Bill through the House, my vested interest as a multiple licensee and as the majority shareholder in a company which runs five public houses in London.
  On Second Reading and on Report, I suggested to the Government that if they had been prepared to take on board the suggestion of extending Sunday lunchtime for a little while, they would be acknowledging a practice which is already prevalent in London and which, in any case, would add to the enjoyment of Sunday lunchtime by many families.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said, Sunday lunchtime is one of the sessions that licensees enjoy. I ran a big public house in London for four years, and I certainly enjoyed it. But a
  454
  session between 12 o'clock and 2 o'clock is very brief. Many will welcome the sensible extension from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock that their Lordships have written into the Bill. It will help to restore the balance between restaurants and pubs that have restaurants attached to them that serve Sunday lunch. More families now go out to Sunday lunch —
  Mr. Hoyle: It is about profits.
  Mr. Couchman: Of course it is about profits, and that is nothing to be ashamed of; pub hours could be extended at times when public houses would serve nothing and when it would not be worth their while to open.
  What harm would it do if families with children over 14 were allowed into public houses to enjoy a bar meal, representing good value for money, and if they were able to linger over their Sunday lunch until 3 o'clock? The apocalyptic vision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will not come to pass.
  I should have preferred Sunday lunchtime to be extended from 11 o'clock to 3 o'clock, but if it is to be extended from midday until 3 o'clock I do not believe that the question of licensing hours will return to the House for quite a long time. It will satisfy those who want a drink with their Sunday lunch. It will also satisfy the trade and the wicked brewers. I am a tenant of the wicked brewer landlords. It will not cause immense damage or harm to the fabric of society and it will remove the licensing issue from this House for probably a decade. If the extension had been from 11 o'clock to 3 o'clock, I suspect that it would probably have removed it for all time.
  I ask the House to give the amendment a fair trial and to vote for it tonight. I sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe). It will create a difference between pubs and clubs that is probably undesirable. However, the clubs fought publicans. They wanted to install jackpot fruit machines and to enjoy that privilege over public houses.
  Mr. John Evans: The proceeds of a fruit machine in a public house go to the tenant or to the brewer. The proceeds of a fruit machine in a club are returned to the members.
  Mr. Couchman: It is the profits of fruit machines in clubs that allow their members to drink so cheaply. That is a very large raison d'être for clubs. But that is by the by, and I was perhaps unwise to mention fruit machines.
  I should have looked favourably on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leigh that would have put clubs on all fours with pubs in that respect. It is a very poor reason to oppose the amendment because clubs, in the hon. Gentleman's eyes, are discriminated against by their Lordships' amendment.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point suggests to people who may oppose other measures in which he is interested that, by giving those measures a fair wind, they may be taken off the agenda. My right hon. Friend knows of the legislation to which I refer. I hope that he will give this Bill a fair wind, as I hope he gets a fair wind for those measures for which he has an aspiration. I encourage hon. Members to agree with their Lordships.
  1.15 pm
  Mr. Hoyle: I, too shall declare an interest, but not a profitable one. I speak, I hope, for the National

  455
  Association of Licensed House Managers, which has an interest in the debate. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), read out a letter from the association's general secretary. Account should be taken of that association's views.
  NALHM regards Sunday as a special occasion. Its members work hard all week. The break on Sunday is precious to them and their staff. It enables them to enjoy Sunday with their families. They oppose any measure to take one hour off them. The Minister knows full well that the NALHM agreed, with some reluctance, to changes in the licensing hours, on the understanding that there would be no change for Sunday or bank holidays.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Castle Point that this is the thin end of the wedge. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said that he would have preferred the opening hours to be from 11 o'clock. It would go from 11, to 10 to 9 o'clock, until the break began to disappear. People will not be satisfied with what has happened.
  Mr. Couchman: That is not right.
  Mr. Hoyle: If the hon. Gentleman disagrees, I shall give him every opportunity to rise.
  Mr. Couchman: I suggested on Second Reading that a more suitable amendment would provide for opening between 11 and 3 o'clock because many licensees in London and elsewhere already take a liberty with licensing hours. I do not in any way, shape or form condone their actions. They open because there is demand. There is a demand from people who do not necessarily want to go to church and who would like to he able to have a drink on a Sunday morning from 11 o'clock rather than from midday. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to my speech on Second Reading. I do not wish to see Sunday as an ordinary day of the week. I remember when Sunday afternoon was a welcome break.
  Mr. Hoyle: I know that I made a mistake in giving way. We have just heard a speech. I hope that the pubs in which the hon. Gentleman has an interest are not breaking the law.
  Mr. Meale: All five of them.
  Mr. Hoyle: Yes. I shall allow the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) to see whether his pubs are breaking the law this coming Sunday. That does not excuse what is happening to the staff. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed my worst belief, that my fear is justified. Having achieved this little extra hour, some licensees will come back for more. It is the old theme of profit for the brewers.
  Mr. Chris Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoyle: Yes, but only because the hon. Gentleman is a near neighbour, and for no other reason. The hour is late, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Butler: I suggest that profit is important to both our constituencies. We both have breweries in our constituencies. The hon. Gentleman has Tetley Walker and I have Greenall Whitley. Should they not be allowed to make a profit?
  Mr. Hoyle: If the hon. Gentleman knew a little more about our constituencies, he would know that I have Burtonwood too. I have been under no pressure from either to say that the licensing hours should be increased. I am speaking for the staff who work in those pubs controlled by Greenall Whitley, Tetley, Burtonwood and others, because they deserve to be spoken for. If we do not speak for them here, no one else will speak for them. Many Conservative Members will speak for the brewers and we shall no doubt hear from them later.
  The Minister has behaved like Mr. Chad by getting down in his seat so that we can only see his nose peeping over the Dispatch Box. The Government have ratted on a promise made in good faith. The Minister is very uncomfortable and I am not sure whether he went along with that. It is the second U-turn by the Government today because of the pressure put upon them.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a fundamental difference between the U-turn carried out by the Government this afternoon and tonight's U-turn because the latter is in accord with what the Government wanted all along? Home Office Ministers made it clear from the start that they favoured complete liberalisation on a Sunday and only what they called pragmatic reasons prevented them from accepting it and induced them to give that promise which, for whatever reasons, is not now being honoured. The Government are therefore yielding to something that they wanted all the time.
  Mr. Hoyle: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not a matter of principle; it is a pragmatic arrangement. Many people who went along with the rule now feel badly let down. It is a disgraceful episode.
  I have never seen the Minister look more uncomfortable than when he was trying to explain why the Government were not opposing the measure. He used a phrase which, because of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to use, although it aptly describes the situation.
  The Father of the House was right when he said that many of us have gone along with the proposal on the understanding that Sundays and bank holidays would not be interfered with, although the Minister does not go along with that. We now fear the worst because what has been done can happen again. It is important that we speak for the staff, many of whom are badly paid and poorly represented. The house managers have a difficult time in their negotiations with the brewers on such matters, as I have explained to the Minister. Pressure will be on those people all the time and it is a shame that we are eating into Sunday, which the country regards as a special day. Those people work long hours, are dedicated to their jobs and try to run their houses in the best way.
  My hon. Friends are right to feel aggrieved when they speak for the pubs. One of the points that has not been made but which should be taken into account is that, because of the anomalies, people may go from clubs to pubs and may drive a motor vehicle to obtain that extra drink. That is where the danger lies.
  The Minister suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) that he should table an amendment as a remedy, but the Government should have tabled an amendment to remove the provision made by the House of Lords to return to the status quo, that both clubs

  457
  and pubs should open for the same length of time. That makes a great deal of sense, but the alternative will lead to chaos, anomalies, accidents and a loss of life. When there were "dry" and "wet" counties in Wales, people would cross the border to obtain an extra drink. That will happen on a Sunday lunchtime. We are being asked to take a retrograde step. It is a step in the wrong direction and one that is not welcomed by the managements and staffs of public houses.
  Mr. Greg Knight: I disagree with most of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), but I find that my support for the amendment is lukewarm because it does not go far enough. I have no difficulty in accepting that pubs should be allowed to open for an extra hour on Sundays. Licensees must be adjudged by the courts to be fit and proper persons, and I believe that they should be allowed to open their pubs as and when they choose. I accept, however, that that is not the issue before us. We are asked to approve an amendment that seeks to give one extra hour of opening to pubs on a Sunday.
  My support for the amendment is lukewarm because I believe that it will create an anomaly between pubs and clubs. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State rightly said that there are important differences between pubs and clubs, and he went on to ask whether those who run clubs want the differences to remain. I do not think that that is the issue. Hitherto, clubs have been allowed the same number of hours as pubs. If we accept the amendment, we shall be creating an anomaly. Pubs will be able to open for six and a half hours on a Sunday and clubs will be restricted to five and a half hours. I find that difficult to accept, especially as the Minister of State in another place said that the Bill had been introduced to tidy up some anomalies. In my opinion, the amendment is creating an anomaly.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State asked the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) why he had not tabled an amendment to the amendment if he felt so strongly about the issues raised by it. The views that have been expressed by Opposition Members are not peculiar to the Labour party. Some of my hon. Friends are worried about the effect that the amendment will have on clubs. A few days ago, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), who is treasurer of the Association of Conservative Clubs, I went to the Public Bill Office to seek to table an amendment to the amendment. We were told that because the House is able to consider only amendments that come within the narrow base of the Lords amendment, our proposal would be ruled out of order. That is why there is no amendment on that relating to clubs. The absence of such an amendment is not due to a lack of will on the part of Labour or Conservative Members. The rules of order prevent the tabling and selection of such an amendment.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his candid opening remarks. He acknowledged that the debate is taking place as a result of a cock-up. I take it that the consequences of the amendment were not envisaged by the Government. I am prepared to accept this amendment on the basis that the Government and the House are prepared to keep an open mind. If a measure is brought before the
  458
  House to remove the anomaly to which I have referred, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give it his support.
  Mr. Anderson: The anomaly to which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) has drawn our attention reflects the foolishness of the Government in adopting a piecemeal approach and accepting in part that which their Lordships stumbled into at a certain hour of the night, for no good reason. It seems that they were not competent enough at the correct time to do what they should have done.
  I found it interesting when the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) argued that the amendment will stop for a decade any further liberalisation of licensing laws. He asserted that if there had been yet further liberalisation within the Bill, the reform of the licensing laws would have been removed from the agenda altogether. Were that the case, I would say aye to him, but I think that almost certainly he is speaking for himself, although clearly he is very experienced in the trade.
  I admire the constancy of the stance of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I fear that, as he said, Cassandra like, alcohol consumption is increasing, outlets are increasing and its availability is increasing. That will inevitably lead, as night follows day, to alcohol-related harm and all the adverse effects that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned so consistently in the House.
  11.30 pm
  The Minister is a skilled advocate. I am sure that he could put forward an equally plausible and well-argued case for any of the various options that he might have adopted. He suggested that the House should accept the amendment for three reasons. First, he suggested that it was modest—rather like the housemaid's baby. It was further suggested that, as in planning law, it would be a creeping commitment. There is a dynamic in the process of adding an hour here or there, until one finds that the whole structure has changed. In this amendment we see salami tactics being used by the trade.
  We are seeking from the Government a willingness to stand up for the public interest against those vested interests that seek profit at all costs. When profit was mentioned, we heard a lone voice from the Conservative Benches say, "If it were not for profits, you would not have your National Health Service." It was interesting to hear such a comment during a debate on alcohol.
  The second proposition advanced by the Minister in support of the amendment was that there was public demand for this measure. If the Government had been responsive to public demand and public opinion in relation to the poll tax or the social security changes, I might be rather more ready to listen to the argument about public demand. It comes ill from a Government who, over a series of issues, have not shown themselves to be ready to listen to the voice of public demand.
  The Minister's third proposition was that the amendment is not wrong in principle.
  Sir Bernard Braine: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Minister, I should remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary:

  459
  "If such a misguided amendment were brought forward to try to include Sundays in the Bill may we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he would not back such a move?"
  She received the following answer:
  have already stated why I believe that it would be a mistake to overload the Bill by including such a provision." —[Official Report. 9 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 41.]
  The House was given a clear understanding at that time that, in the Government's view, it would be a mistake to include Sundays. We still have not heard why, because of the failure of a Government Whip in the other place to do his duty, this is being foisted on the House tonight.
  Mr. Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual prescience, has anticipated the point that I was proposing to make. The Minister was raising a point of principle, but which is the more important principle—to say that the amendment should be considered on its merits or not on its merits, however modest the amendment may be, or in the light of the undertakings that the Government have consistently given to the House, which no doubt influenced the attitudes of certain hon. Members to the Bill?
  The Government, who were bloody-nosed after their battering on the Shops Bill, were concerned not with principles, but with pragmatism, because they wanted to get the Bill through. They assured us that Sundays would not be affected in any way because of the Bill. The Bill was presented to us as a package, with Sunday excluded. I wholly accept the explanation that the Minister, a man of integrity, has given, that it was not a conspiracy; that it was not a wicked Government who wanted an extra hour on Sunday all along and encouraged their Lordships to look the other way; that it was a genuine mistake, and not something for which the Government should be held responsible.
  However, the problem still remains as to how the Government should react. What I would like from the Minister is something similar to what the hon. Member for Gillingham said. Accepting that this has been an unintended measure of liberalisation—inadvertent and something that the Government had not intended—they can respond by saying, "Let it be; we shall let it go as it is", or they can seek to remove the amendment. The alternative, which I would commend to the Government, as the hon. Member for Gillingham has properly said, is that this is a measure of liberalisation which has gone so far and should go no further. The Government should commit themselves not to allow any further measure of liberalisation during the lifetime of this Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham, who has consistently declared his own experience and interest in this matter, said that this would be accepted for decades, and would push the matter away from public debate. If the Minister were to say that, because of this mistake in the Lords, for pragmatic reasons, principled or otherwise, the Government were prepared to commit themselves to oppose any further measure to liberalise the licensing laws, I would say amen and leave it at that. No doubt that would have a degree of consensus in the House. However, if the Government leave it at that and encourage further measures of liberalisation, I would say that they are acting dishonourably.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Due to the procedural irregularity in another place, we have the opportunity well after half-past 11 on a Wednesday night
  460
  to discuss what I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister is a very modest amendment, to permit an additional hour's drinking in public houses on a Sunday. I believe that it is a measure which will be welcomed by the public, the licensed victuallers, the hoteliers and visitors to Britain.
  My only reservation is the one expressed by my hon. Friend for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) about clubs. I declare an interest as president of the Uxbridge Conservative club. However, we are not considering clubs tonight. We are considering this amendment as it comes from another place. It is not open to us to consider clubs, so we must address ourselves to the amendment.
  Many public houses on Sundays now serve food, ranging from hot bar snacks, to brunch, to traditional Sunday roast. In pubs and restaurants with separate restaurant areas, customers are able to take advantage of the reform which allows alcoholic drinks to be served with a meal all day. As hon. Members know, that reform was passed by this House in 1987. However, even more pubs would offer food if the 2 pm peak were to be spread out.
  I believe that Sunday lunch is an important family occasion. It is an important part of the traditional British Sunday. It contributes to the special nature of the day.
  Many families wish to enjoy an occasional Sunday lunch at a pub, but the occasion is spoilt by the abrupt closure at 2 pm. All of us in this House are used to closures, but I dare say that many hon. Members present tonight would agree that an abrupt closure at 2 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon spoils what should be a leisurely family occasion. Not only does it seem strange and inconvenient to many people, but it causes them to wonder how such restrictive laws could still operate in 1988.
  Sunday is a day on which most families have time for activities quite different from the busy rush of the working week. Many of them want to retain the traditional character of the British Sunday, and I am one. However, I do not believe that this change, which has come about inadvertently in another place, would in any way change the character of that special clay. On the contrary, it would make the day just a little less frantic for all those people who want to go into a pub for lunch on Sunday.
  I also want to draw the House's attention to the fact that the traditional pub, for which Britain is justly famous, is at an economic disadvantage compared with licensed restaurants. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman ). Such restaurants can open all afternoon. Other food operations are allowed by law to trade all day. That means that many pubs cannot provide food for a reasonable period on Sunday and thus compete fairly with those other establishments. That is a powerful case for change.
  I advise the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who spoke earlier about the position of staff in pubs throughout the country, that the view that I am expressing tonight is strongly supported by my local branch of the National Licensed Victuallers Association.
  Mr. Hoyle: I did not refer to the National Licensed Victuallers Association; I referred to licensed house managers. My hon. Friends will be speaking about the staff who work in them. We are talking about the people who are employed, not about those who claim to be self-employed.
  Mr. Shersby: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understood that point well from his remarks. However,

  461
  my point is that my remarks are strongly supported by the Uxbridge and District branch of the NLVA, which has made it clear to me that the association feels that it is in the public interest that public houses should be allowed to open later on Sundays if their customers require it.
  I end by referring to visitors to Britain. All of us know that visitors to Britain face the closure of pubs of Sundays in a state of utter bewilderment. Many have come many thousands of miles to visit our country and find it strange that they cannot have a drink or something to eat in one of the famous British pubs after 2 o'clock on a Sunday —
  Mr. Foulkes: In English pubs.
  Mr. Shersby: I take the hon. Gentleman's point—they cannot do so in English pubs.
  I understand that 47 per cent. of the complaints received by the English tourist board relate to the premature closure of pubs on Sundays. All of us want visitors to come to Britain and to come again.
  For all those reasons, I believe that by accident—certainly not by design —their Lordships were right to ask the House to think again on this matter. I have done so, and I shall support this change this evening.
  Mr. John Evans: At the outset I declare a non-paid interest in this subject in that I am the political secretary of the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs and vice-president of the committee of the Registered Clubs Association.
  I believe that there is little demand for any additional hours of opening on a Sunday. Despite my well-known interest in the subject, I have not received one letter from anyone urging me to extend Sunday opening hours. The National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs has never expressed a demand for additional hours on Sundays. If the Government had acted fairly in this respect and had ensured that there was conformity between clubs and pubs, I suspect that there would have been little interest in this debate and that many of us could have gone home much sooner.
  11.45 pm
  We were told that the purpose of the Bill was to modernise and relax licensing hours in England and Wales, and to remove anomalies. That proposition had all-party support in the House. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading. The Government Minister in another place said on 15 March:
  "The question of Sunday hours is always a vexed one. I wish to make the Goverment's view clear. The Bill is intended to be a modest, non-controversial measure. The amendments are controversial."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 1988; Vol 494, c. 1051.]
  That is right. There is little doubt that when the Bill left the House it had a great deal of support in all parts of the House. But that unanimity was destroyed when the Government allowed the amendment through the House of Lords.
  How did the Government get into this mess in the first place? The Minister described this as a cock-up. That may or may not be so, but he has not explained how he got into this position or why the Goverment made no effort during the remaining stages of the Bill in another place to put the mess right. Nor has the Minister offered any explanation of why the Government did not move an amendment to
  462
  put right an anomaly that they had created. And I assure the Minister that he has created a real problem. Clubs close, and will continue to close, at 2 pm on Sundays. They would have difficulty if they tried to vary their hours of opening —from 1 pm to 3 pm would be highly unpopular; they could try from 12 pm to 3 pm and then again from 8 pm to 10.30 pm, or from 7 pm to 9.30 pm on Sundays. None of those times would be popular. There is little doubt that clubs will be pressurised to maintain their present hours.
  It will be an unedifying spectacle to watch people troop out of a club at 2 pm on Sundays sand stay in the pub next door until 3 pm. That will create problems for the managers of licensed houses. Clubs can, to a large degree, control the people who enter them—they must be members or affiliates. But managers of licensed houses have no control over who enters their premises. The opposition that the National Association of Licensed House Managers has offered to this, through the medium of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington. North (Mr. Hoyle) and the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), is well thought out and well intentioned.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) accused the Labour party of being out of touch, saying that this was a popular measure. It might be popular with the brewers, but it will be somewhat unpopular with the millions of members of political and non-political clubs in this country, who will want to know of their Members of Parliament, Labour and Tory alike, why this ridiculous piece of discrimination has been introduced at such a late stage into what was was described as a non-controversial Bill.
  The all-party clubs committee, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) pointed out, is by far the biggest parliamentary group, has made it clear that there should be no such discrimination between clubs and pubs. We are all united about one thing, irrespective of the massive political differences between us in every other area: we all want clubs to prosper and grow. We want them to continue to offer their services to the communities; that applies to Tory, Labour and Liberal clubs and non-political clubs. I remind the House that there are far more non-political clubs than political ones.
  I seek an assurance from the Minister that goes further than that sought by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). I do not think that we should ask the Minister to keep an open mind regarding the future. The Minister should give a clear undertaking that he will, at the first opportunity, introduce a simple one-clause Bill that will correct the anomaly for which the Government are responsible.
  I am aware that some of my hon. Friends wish to discuss the terms of employment and conditions of those who work in public houses, and I shall not dwell on that subject.
  Unless the Minister gives us the clear undertaking for which we have asked, it is my intention to divide the House to ensure that the unnecessary anomaly that has been created by the Government will be voted upon.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: In common with other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, it is necessary for me to declare an interest. As a practising advocate I have represented a number of companies that might be expected to profit were the amendment to be accepted by the House.

  463
  That necessary declaration of interest is perhaps less significant on this occasion in view of my attitude to the amendment. I regret that the amendment does not find favour with me. I say that with regret because, as a member of the Clayson committee on the licensing law reform, whose report formed the basis of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, I supported the opening of public houses on Sundays, which, before 1976, was not permitted by Scottish law.
  I favour a much more relaxed licensing regime on Sundays, but I recognise that that view is not necessarily universally held inside or outside the House. It is notable that, after the passage of the 1976 Act, the opening provisions were among the most controversial and those that provoked the greatest public opposition when applications were made to licensing boards in Scotland. It is also notable that, as the Act made its way through Parliament, the Sunday opening provisions were most controversial.
  When the current Licensing Bill received its Second Reading, Ministers described it as a modest extension that dealt with weekday opening only. It has already been pointed out, in a telling intervention from the Father of the House, that when questions were asked of Ministers it was made perfectly clear that they had no intention of making any alteration to licensing provision on Sundays. As a result of that assurance, a number of my hon. Friends, together with a number of other hon. Members, were persuaded to vote for the Bill on Second Reading who might otherwise not have been constrained to do so.
  On Report a clause was tabled in relation to Sunday opening, but that clause was not pressed in spite of lengthy debate in which many of the issues that have been canvassed this evening were discussed.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Sunday opening provisions in Scotland were controversial and he implied that they were not proving a success. He will be aware that my constituency is principally a tourist centre and Sunday opening is extremely popular not just with tourists, but with the local residents. What has been the reaction in Scotland to Sunday opening? My experience is that it has been almost universally successful, and that seems to be the case throughout Scotland. Does he deny that?
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman should attend the three-day meetings of Glasgow district licensing board and listen to the applications which are made for Sunday opening and to the objections which are made to the applications. He should follow some of the cases through to the sheriff court, where Sunday opening is frequently the subject of considerable dispute and contest.
  Of course it has been successful. As someone who supported it in the report of the Clayson committee, I would hardly be likely to suggest otherwise. But there is a distinction to be drawn between its success and the public attitude to it. That is a very important distinction in the context of what we are discussing, having regard to the rather bloody nose that the Government got when they attempted to change the law on Sunday trading in England and Wales.
  No acute constitutional issue arises from the fact that the amendment originated in the other place. However, good faith arises in the light of the Government's attitude previously and robustly expressed. The Bill is not a proper
  464
  vehicle for an alteration to Sunday opening provisions. To innovate upon the existing provision is essentially a matter of principle. Although it has been explained by the Minister in some infelicitous language as inadvertence, that if anything makes the matter even more indefensible.
  If there is to be an alteration in Sunday licensing provisions, it should come about only as part of an overall review not only of licensing on Sundays but of other activities as well. This is an accidental, piecemeal change which the Government are prepared to accept. That is hardly the basis for good legislation.
  Mr. Favell: I too declare an interest, in that I am treasurer of the Association of Conservative Clubs Ltd. If anybody had an interest in an extra hour for drinking in clubs on a Sunday it is I. I support the amendment, but I join the hon. Members for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) in pressing the Government to introduce a short Bill during the next Session, hopefully, to put the matter right for clubs.
  As for the extra hour for drinking on a Sunday, it may well have slipped through in another place, but it would not slip through in this House if there were not overwhelming public support for it; of that I have no doubt. Indeed, the Labour party would not be on a one-line Whip unless it too thought that it was a popular proposal.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, on every occasion on which licensing has been discussed in the House, the Labour party has had a free vote and will continue to do so? It is only Conservative Members who are subject to the interests of the brewers and who have to have a Whip on that basis.
  Mr. Favell: I am glad to hear that members of the Labour party are on a one-line Whip, and always will be, on such matters.
  No matter what is said in the House, the British public house is a British institution which is the envy of many foreign visitors and which is cherished by the people who live here. Our public houses do very little harm and a great deal of good. The people who run and man them are to be congratulated on what they do for society. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment. It will be highly popular and the House should accept it.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: We have heard a great deal about public demand and the popularity of the amendment. Hon. Members who make such statements are speaking for only half of the population, the male half; indeed, it is not half, but the smaller part of the population. I have yet to hear any evidence that women are queuing up to urge hon. Members to ask for longer opening hours for public houses.
  12 midnight
  Conservative Members seem to imagine that the country is populated by some peculiar families. All the references have been to families who are prosperous, who are childless, and who spend all their Sundays in pubs. There are a good many other things that families can do on Sundays. Families in which there are young children, and where the wife has spent time cooking good food. will be left waiting until the husband arrives home, and they are not asking —[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
  Mrs. Wise: We know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if any Member talks about the interests of women, it immediately becomes a matter for hilarity among Conservative Members. They should be ashamed of themselves. I noticed earlier that when an hon. Gentleman spoke about attacks on the police and on a policewoman his remarks were the source of great hilarity on the Conservative Benches, which was very inappropriate. We become accustomed to the way in which women and women's interests are regarded by some male Members of the House.
  I do not know of one right hon. or hon. Member who has been besieged by women from his constituency asking for public houses to be open for longer on Sundays.
  Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Wise: No. The hon. Gentleman has had many bites at the cherry during this debate, and I shall not give way to him.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe rose—
  Mrs. Wise: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), because I am a feminist, and proud of it.
  Miss Widdecombe: I thank the hon. Lady. I put it to her that, although I am not a great advocate of longer Sunday opening hours, perhaps there is a group of women who would welcome them. I speak of housewives who cook all week and who want to be taken out for lunch on Sunday.
  Mrs. Wise: There is an opportunity to go out for Sunday lunch. No one is suggesting that people who do not want to be tied to their house should be, but it is not necessary to extend drinking hours so that people can find the time to go out for Sunday lunch.
  Mr. Hoyle: Does not all this show just how far Conservative Members are out of touch? Is it not true that the male-dominated household that we are trying to replace—[Interruption.] We expect the yahoos among Conservative Members to laugh their heads off— especially those who have a vested interest, such as the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). It is in their interests, is it not?
  The point is that when the husband goes drinking on Sunday the family's midday meal is ruined. We shall find that there are more disturbed families because of this provision. If the man of the house does not go to the pub but stays at home, a meal will be cooked—and that is how it should be.
  Mrs. Wise: I take my hon. Friend's point. As I said before, the women of this country are not queueing up for longer drinking hours on Sundays. Many families will be disturbed by this change. I do not believe that Conservative Members have been asking their women constituents for their views on this matter. The interests of the family will not be served by the amendment.
  I suggest also that at this particular time the emphasis placed by Conservative Members on extra drinking is particularly inappropriate. Many families do not have enough money to go out for their meals or even to provide a meal in their own homes. Some people are growing
  466
  steadily poorer, and the emphasis placed by Conservative Members on the opportunity to spend more money on drink on a Sunday is inappropriate.
  I turn briefly to the interests of those who work in the licensed trade. Hon. Members have said that they can be protected. Working people can always be protected, and trade unions are always powerful and efficient when Conservative Members want to remove protection from them but at the moment, throughout the service trades, workers' conditions are deteriorating. They are being presented with contracts of employment which are disgraceful, which extend their hours and worsen their conditions—and they are told that if they do not like those contracts there are plenty of people queueing up for their jobs.
  It is folly to suggest that those workers face their employers on equal terms, especially such employers as the brewers. Indeed, many workers in the service trades are not lucky enough to have contracts of employment at all, and fear for their jobs from week to week. That is the sort of society into which we have been led. The public demand detected by Conservative Members does not include the majority of women, and it does not include the workers involved in this trade. Certainly members of my trade union have a strong objection to any interference with Sunday trading of any description.
  The Minister has told us that the amendment is with us because of the incompetence of his colleagues in another place. We are told that because of that incompetence we should accept it. There is no reasoned case for the measure—it was not advocated when the Bill came to this House—but because there has been incompetence and a mistake has been made, that mistake is now turned into a virtue and we are told that we should support it. I think that if one has made a mistake it is common sense to try to correct it as early as possible, and that is what should be done tonight.
  I must part company from some of my hon. Friends. The correction that we seek is not that of the anomaly between the pubs and the clubs. We should not extend to the clubs what is being wrongly extended to the pubs; the status quo is what is required. This is not supposed to be a Sunday trading matter, and it should not become so because an amendment is sneaked in in the other place, and then presented to us to be made a permanent error.
  I hope that hon. Members will join us in voting against the perpetuation of the amendment.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall be extremely brief, as the hour is late.
  Do the Minister and his hon. Friends consider Sunday to be special? The House did a while ago, as was made clear in the vote on the Shops Bill 1986. If they consider Sunday to be special, do they really feel that five and a half hours' drinking time is sufficient on a Sunday?
  If we continue along this road, Sunday will be just like any other day. I believe that the vast majority in this country want Sunday to continue in its traditional way. In my opinion, the vast majority of households still enjoy Sunday lunches at home—usually, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has said, prepared by the lady of the house.
  Traditions differ from area to area. In the mining community in which I had the privilege to be brought up, it has always been traditional for the male to have his drink at Sunday lunchtime. Sunday lunch was prepared for a

  467
  certain time, so that the family could enjoy it together and the children could go to Sunday school. Unfortunately, that way of life is no longer the norm in many parts of the country.
  I see the dangers in keeping pubs open for another hour on Sunday. God forbid that it ever happens. There will be the temptation for males to stay that extra hour in pubs and clubs.
  Mr. David Lightbown: Never.
  Mr. Lofthouse: If the answer is "never", why is the extra hour needed? This could lead to matrimonial upset. We have heard that many divorces are caused by drink-related problems. The longer the opening hours, the more people will stay away from their families, drinking. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, I do not want the clubs to get the extra hour. I want the change to be the other way. Five and a half hours drinking on the Sabbath is quite enough. When that is no longer so, the Sabbath will mean very little. Conservative Members may laugh, but that is a dangerous road to go down.
  The extension of club opening hours would place a financial strain on some of those who use the clubs, which provide the only recreation in areas similar to that which I represent and have lived in all my life—the mining communities. Because the clubs are non-profit making, members enjoy lower prices for drinks than those charged by the pubs. If the pubs have an advantage of an extra hour on Sunday, the club members could be attracted to them for the whole of their opening time, or even just for the extra hour. That could destroy some of the clubs. We all know about the large unemployment rates in the mining communities. The new law could threaten those clubs.
  I know of no person in my constituency who desires an extra hour of drinking at Sunday lunchtime. There may be pockets of demand, but overall there is no general desire for it in the country.
  I do not want to shove my beliefs down anybody's throat, but I hope that the House will always protect the Sabbath and keep Sunday as a special day. To extend the opening hours of pubs, or those of shops, would destroy the traditional Sunday, which I hope we shall always strive to maintain. If we should lose our Christian traditions, in which we have always brought up our children, and instead get into the habit of taking them to the pub, God protect us.
  12.15 am
  My final point shows that Sunday drinking could become very dangerous. Great anxiety has been expressed recently about under-age drinking. A great deal of that drink is bought in supermarkets. In my area supermarkets are closed on Sundays, so young people are attracted to the pubs and clubs. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who owns pubs, will appreciate that it is difficult to ascertain the ages of those youngsters. Because the supermarkets are closed, youngsters will go to pubs and stay there for the extra hour that has been proposed.
  I hope that if there is a Division the House will throw out the amendment.
  Mr. Cryer: I am not a drinker of alcohol, but I have a degree of tolerance for those who drink that has not been exhibited by drinkers towards people like me.
  I have received representations about the legislation from the parishioners of Great Horton parish church, who sent me a petition signed by 400 people who were opposed to the legislation. I raised the matter when the House discussed the issue. The Minister came to the Dispatch Box and said that he would advise Conservative Members to vote against the proposal to add an extra hour on Sundays. The Bill went to the other place, and the same Minister came back to the House and, with breathtaking arrogance, said that the Government had made a complete mess of their organisation in the other place. Their Lordships were intoxicated either with their own majority or with alcohol and could not manage to vote on a decision that had already been made in the House of Commons.
  The Minister then told us that, having made that serious error, the Government did not consider it, but are throwing it in front of us—
  Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) put into the Minister's mouth words that he certainly did not use. I have been present throughout the debate, and the Minister did not use that language about the other place. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to introduce such language.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is capable of putting words into the Minister's mouth, but the hon. Gentleman should restrain his language.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not inappropriate for the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to accuse their Lordships of being intoxicated? That is certainly unparliamentary.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a more direct point of order and certainly a genuine one. It would be quite approprate for the hon. Member to withdraw the remarks that he has just made.
  Mr. Cryer: I did not say that their Lordships were intoxicated. Hansard will show that I did not say that. I said that that was a possible explanation for what the Minister told us. The Minister said that they had made a cock-up. That is the sort of language that we are told should not be used, but it is what the Minister said.
  What does a cock-up mean? It means that they made a mess of it. Why did they make a mess of it? The Minister has not told us. I suggested two alternatives. I did not say that they were intoxicated. I asked whether that was a possible explanation. The Minister told us that there was a cock-up, but he did not define exactly what that means.
  The Minister comes to the House and says that after that mess up in the other place the Government, with a massive number of civil servants, and with massive facilities at their disposal, have thrown the mess that was made in the other place in front of us and decided to recommend acceptance of the Lords amendment. That does not make much sense. I do not believe that even this Government can be so casual.
  An amendment was made in the other place. Perhaps the Whips missed a few strokes, but the Government are shrugging their shoulders and have decided to brazen it

  469
  out. The Minister is quite good at brazening it out. He, as a brazen Minister, is acting according to his usual instincts. He said that when he recommended his hon. Friends to vote against the amendment it was a throw-away line, that no reasoned argument was put to hon. Members at that time, just as no reasoned argument has been put before hon. Members tonight.
  The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) made a telling speech. It is very good that there are some hon. Members who are prepared to adopt a minority line against the trend, which is to let the brewers have free play and to acquiesce to the mythical notion that some tourists are confused about the licensing hours in this country, though they take about five minutes to explain to anybody of average intelligence.
  The right hon. Gentleman is right. Alcohol ravages our society. Hon. Members know that, because we see it here. We are not supposed to say that any hon. Member gets drunk, but we know that we could stop some of the drunkenness by closing or limiting the opening times of some of the bars in this place. If we shut our eyes—. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is muttering about this providing more copy for The Sun. I thought that the article in The Sun was extremely offensive. I was among those who were characterised as being certified alcoholics. That is absolutely and completely untrue. I am a teetotaller. But that matter is being taken up. The agenda for me is not laid down by The Sun, The Daily Express or any other organs of the gutter press. If I choose, for the purpose of my speech, to point to faults in this place, that is a matter for me, whatever the hacks who cook up the stories for The Sun care to think about it.
  You were not here at the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is very interesting to note that when this debate began there were a number of anxious faces looking down from the Press Gallery. They are very interested in this subject because some of them are very experienced in it. They are part of the havoc that alcohol wreaks in our society.
  The right hon. Member for Castle Point referred to the fact that one fifth of all acute beds in the National Health Service are filled by those with alcohol-related problems. Because of the crisis in the National Health Service, would we not give our right arms to make those beds available to others? Ten years ago the Blennerhassett committee pointed to the link between driving and drinking and the resultant accident rate. The danger is that the extension of opening hours will result in a greater degree of alcoholism.
  Many people enjoy drinking in pubs and clubs, but some people want to enjoy quiet Sundays. Many people have a strong religious faith. We must cater for those who want to enjoy a quiet alcoholic or non-alcoholic drink in a pub or a club, and for those who do not. Alcohol can be an intrusion, and we have to make a judgment about it. The Minister has not shown that he has made a judgment based on a serious examination of the problem. He said that a mistake had been made in the other place and that this House should approve it. That will not help to create a society that will accommodate both points of view— those who want to relax in pubs and clubs, and those who want a reasonably quiet and special sort of Sunday.
  Mr. Foulkes: I think that we have had that argument.
  Mr. Cryer: If my hon. Friend keeps interfering and inerrupting, I shall be happy to go over every point repeatedly until he feels that I have made it clear to him beyond peradventure.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend has done it.
  Mr. Cryer: I know that other hon. Members have been listening with much more tolerance, and I do not want to detain the House for long, but there is an alternative open to the Government. They can take the legislation away and bring it back on another day. It was their decision, not ours, to bring the Bill on late at night.
  The Government should withdraw the motion. On their own admission, it is a bad amendment. There have been many comfortable smiles on the faces of Tory Members who have financial interests in this matter. I hope that all those who have a direct pecuniary interest will not vote, so that the accusation cannot be made that they will gain a direct financial benefit from the extra hour during which pubs will be open because it will help to line their pockets. That would clearly be against the interests of the reputation of those hon. Members and of the House.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: There are three matters on which it might be helpful if I responded. The first is what happened in the other place. The omission to press a Division in the other place was due to an act of inadvertence. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who was responsible for the legislation in the other place, cried "Not content" the first time, but, in order to press a Division, it was necessary that somebody—either my right hon. Friend or the Whip —should cry, "Not content" a second time. That either did not happen or it was not heard. Probably it did not happen. We are dealing with recollection, so I am trying to be strictly accurate. The amendment was made without a Division. That was not in any way part of the Government's design. The Government's design was to resist the amendment and to press it to a Division. That did not happen, for the reason that I have given.
  It is fair to say to the House that it was the judgment of everyone present in the other place that the mood of their Lordships was very much in favour of the amendment. Those who had to assess the mood in the other place were quite plain that the amendment would have been carried. That was not the reason for the failure to cry "Not content" a second time, but it is the context in which we must set our decision now.
  Mr. John Evans: What a fairy story.
  Mr. Hogg: I heard that sedentary intervention. I am not deceiving the House. I am stating the facts clearly and precisely, and I believe the information to be true.
  Mr. Evans: If it is not a fairy story, will the Minister tell us why, in line with his pledges on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and in view of the Home Secretary's statements, he has not asked the House of Commons to reject the Lords amendment?
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is eliding two questions. The first is whether I am deceiving the House. The answer is no. The second is why we are asking the House to agree to the Lords amendment. That is a separate question. Those who were present in the other place were quite plain that the mood was in favour of the amendment. Therefore, the question is whether it makes sense for us to try to reverse that decision. If we are being

  471
  candid with ourselves and with one another, we should recognise that we should do that only if we really have good cause to argue.
  That takes me to the second point—
  Mrs. Ann Taylor rose—
  Mr. Hogg: Perhaps I may finish this point, and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady. It raises the question whether the amendment before the House is wrong in principle or in practice. I recognise that it is a matter of individual judgment, but my judgment is plain: we are asking the House —
  Mr. Hoyle rose—
  Mr. Hogg: When I finish this point, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
  We are asking the House to extend Sunday opening by one hour from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock to enable people to have lunch with their families and to meet a genuine need or desire. Can that extension of one hour be categorised as wrong in practice or in principle? In my considered judgment, it is unsustainable to say that it is wrong either in practice or in principle.
  12.30 am
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that the amendment was moved in Committee in the other place and that there was, therefore, an opportunity on Report and, as I understand the procedure, also on Third Reading to change it? Will he also confirm that the payroll vote operates in the other place, as it will operate tonight in the House when the Government try to railroad the measure through? Does he accept that a good cause for rejecting the amendment is the assurances that he and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have given on repeated occasions?
  Mr. Hogg: Let me deal with the hon. Lady's first question. It would have been possible in the other place to try to reverse the decision made in Committee, but, in deciding whether to do that, one must have regard to the quality of the argument and to the probability of success. I have made it plain to the House that, in the judgment of those who have to assess the mood of their Lordships, it was clear that there was a majority in favour of the amendment.
  Secondly, it is impossible to say that the amendment offends either principle or logic. I have never believed that it is wrong either in principle or practice. When the matter has been before the House on previous occasions, Ministers, including myself and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, have made it plain that we opposed the extension, but we also made it plain that we did so not for reasons of principle which we do not believe apply, but for practical reasons, because we thought that it would sink the Bill. However, it has not sunk the Bill and it is leading to a small extension which, in all conscience, we cannot say contravenes logic or principle.
  Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that if we relied upon the quality of the argument, the Government would have been defeated many times in this House and in the other place? Is he not going back on all the assurances that he has given? Does he accept that he has deceived the
  472
  House, although that may be a strong word to use? Should not the Government have stood firm on the assurances given to so many people?
  Mr. Hogg: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have on this, or on any other matter, deceived the House. We stated that we would resist the amendment and try to persuade our colleagues to do likewise because the position has now changed. The other place has passed an amendment, and we must decide whether this is an issue on which to go to war with the other place. It is a matter of some substance. The other place has expressed a clear view. The question is whether, where we do not believe that an issue of principle is involved, it is right or sensible to lock ourselves in an argument with the other place.
  Mr. Steel: The Minister is advancing an interesting, novel and, in some ways, encouraging constitutional theory. He is saying that if the other place has a certain mood and produces a certain quality of argument, the Government should turn turtle. Will this apply to the poll tax?
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, while I may have had a hand in drafting the Licensing Bill, I did not have a direct hand in drafting the Local Government Finance Bill.
  Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend will recall that on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that he did not wish to overload the Bill. That was in response to a question from my hon. Friend in which she sought an assurance that there would be no tampering with Sunday opening hours. My hon. Friend the Minister is telling the elected House of Commons that, owing to inadvertence in the House of Lords, it was decided not to reverse that which was before their Lordships because the mood of the upper House was conveyed to the Government in some way. The mood of either House of Parliament can be conveyed only by a vote.
  Mr. Hogg: I have a feeling that there is a mood now that we should proceed with the business. Therefore, I shall move rapidly to the third point that I want to make, which relates to pubs and clubs.
  There is a major disparity already in the treatment by the law of pubs and clubs. That is the position in England and Wales in any event. For example, the law on under-age drinking applies to pubs and not to clubs; and the police have an unfettered right of access to pubs but not to clubs.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No. I shall bring my remarks to a close. I shall not give way again during this debate.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right that the Minister should say that clubs allow under-age drinking?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister has the right to deploy his argument as he thinks fit.
  Mr. Hogg: It is true that the internal rules of many clubs prohibit the supply of drink to the under-aged. It is true also that the law on under-age drinking applies to pubs and not to clubs. That is the distinction that I was emphasising. The police have an unfettered right of access to pubs but not to clubs.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor rose—
  Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not give way
  Mrs. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Hogg: No.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it absolutely clear that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Hogg: The point is—
  Mrs. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear to the Chair that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Hogg: There is a case for making the law in its totality the same as between pubs and clubs, but I find it difficult to understand why clubs should be especially affronted by the distinction of six and a half hours for pubs on Sundays and five and half hours for clubs.
  The problem with which the other place was concerned was whether —
  Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I have a ruling? The Minister is saying something that is patently wrong and he will not give way to enable us to correct him. We are seeking to explain to him that he is wrong and he will not give way. What can we do, Madam Deputy Speaker?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a point of argument, not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Hogg: The other place considered whether it was right to extend the Sunday opening of pubs by one hour to 3 o'clock to enable the public to have a more leisurely drink at lunchtime. Clubs can already do that by law.
  I suggest that the House will wish to agree with the Lords amendment.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 26.

  Division No. 281]

  [12.40 am

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Amos, Alan

  Butler, Chris

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Atkinson, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chope, Christopher

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Colvin, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cran, James

  Bowis, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Brazier, Julian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bright, Graham

  Day, Stephen

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

  Devlin, Tim

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Burns, Simon

  Dover, Den

  474

  Durant, Tony

  Neubert, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Favell, Tony

  Paice, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Forman, Nigel

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Forth, Eric

  Redwood, John

  Foulkes, George

  Ryder, Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Freeman, Roger

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Gale, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Shersby, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Snape, Peter

  Harris, David

  Speed, Keith

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Stern, Michael

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Holt, Richard

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

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

  Summerson, Hugo

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Janman, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Knowles, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Lord, Michael

  Watts, John

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Wheeler, John

  Maclean, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wilshire, David

  Mans, Keith

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Wood, Timothy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Miller, Hal

  Mills, Iain

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  NOSE

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Beggs, Roy

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Meale, Alan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Coleman, Donald

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Dixon, Don

  Wallace, James

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hoyle, Doug

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Livsey, Richard

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Mr. John Evans.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1

  MODIFICATION OF PERMITTED HOURS
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
  "( ) In subsection (6) of that section (premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises), the words 'half past' shall be omitted."
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 17.
  Mr. Hogg: The amendment will allow off-licences to open at 8 am. Again, I invite the House to accept the amendment.
  At the moment, off-licences can open at 8·30 am. The amendment therefore advances the hour by 30 minutes. That coincides with many opening hours and helps the early shopper. I cannot say that it is wrong in principle, and, on that basis, I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

  RESTRICTION ORDERS
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—

  "(b) any person living in the neighbourhood, or any body representing persons who do;

  (c) any person carrying on a business in the neighbourhood or managing or otherwise in charge of it in the neighbourhood; or

  (d) the head teacher or other person in charge of any educational establishment in the neighbourhood."

  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 8 to 11.
  Mr. Hogg: I commend the amendment to the House. It is the fulfilment of a commitment that I gave on Report to make it plain that head teachers are among the group of persons who have a right to apply for a restriction order. There are various other changes, but that is the substantial one.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: We welcome the amendment, as it is one that we asked for in Committee. Strangely enough, this is another example of the Government's incompetence. In the debate on Lords amendment No. 1, we heard that the Government's incompetence in another place had led them inadvertently to accept an amendment on Sunday opening. In Committee we were given an assurance that the Government would bring forward on Report an amendment to include head teachers among those who could apply for an exemption order, but somehow, due to the Government's incompetence, that amendment was left out of the Government's amendments on Report. The Bill seems to be dogged with difficulties. However, we are pleased that the Government have decided to put this point right, although it is a minor step considering the extent of the changes that we were requesting.
  The Minister knows that we are extremely concerned about the level of alcohol consumption by young people and about the problems that exist for young people. As the Minister also knows, we considered carefully in Committee and on Report the recommendations of the Masham committee, which showed that ten times as many deaths were caused by alcohol abuse as by drug abuse. The Masham committee told us that a vast number of young people drink alcohol under age on a regular basis. Indeed, 52 per cent. of 15-year-old boys drink alcohol once a week. The Masham committee also showed that the law relating to the consumption of alcohol by those under 18 was
  "complicated, anomalous and widely flouted."
  We had hoped that the Minister would use the other place to introduce more amendments to deal with the problem of under-age drinking. We are in a strange
  476
  position —the Government are pressing ahead with their Bill while paying lip service to the problem of under-age drinking and the recommendations of the Masham committee.
  Although we welcome this limited amendment, which we requested, we are extremely disappointed that the Government are not taking seriously the problem of under-age drinking and I hope that the Government will do something about it in the future. We cannot continue to store up problems for the future by allowing too many people high levels of alcohol consumption. The problem should concern the Government as much as Opposition Members, and I am sorry that the Government have not taken this opportunity to do something about this serious problem.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.

New clause

  POWER TO VARY PERMITTED HOURS IN ON-LICENSED VINEYARD PREMISES
  Lords amendment: No. 5, after clause 7, insert new clause—
  " . The following section shall be inserted after section 87 of the principal Act—

  Power to vary permitted hours in on-licensed vineyard premises.
  87A.—(1) Licensing justices, on an application by the holder of a justices' on-licence for any premises which form part of a vineyard, may make an order varying the permitted hours in those premises if, after hearing evidence, they are satisfied—

  (a) that the sale of intoxicating liquor on the premises is ancillary to the carrying on of a business of producing wine from grapes grown in the vineyard; and

  (b) that it is desirable to make an order under this section for the accommodation of persons visiting the vineyard.

  (2) An order under this section may vary the permitted hours either generally or for such days or part or parts of the year as the licensing justices think fit.
  (3) In making an order under this section with respect to permitted hours on weekdays, other than Christmas Day or Good Friday, licensing justices may not so vary the hours as to make them exceed in total more than twelve hours on any day.
  (4) In making an order under this section with respect to permitted hours on Sundays, Christmas Day or Good Friday, licensing justices may not so vary the hours as to make them—

  (a) begin before twelve noon; or

  (b) exceed in total more than five and a half hours on any day.

  (5) A person intending to apply for an order under this section shall give notice in writing of his intention to the clerk to the licensing justices and the chief officer of police at least 21 days before the commencement of the licensing sessions at which the application is to be made.
  (6) Licensing justices shall not hear an application for an order under this section unless notice under subsection (5) of this section has been duly given.
  (7) Licensing justices may revoke or vary an order under this section; but, unless it is proved that the holder of the justices' on-licence had notice of the revocation or variation, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 59 of this Act in doing anything that would have been lawful had the revocation or variation not been made."
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
  Mr. Hogg: This amendment is designed to assist the proprietors of English vineyards. It gives the justices a power to vary permitted hours on licensed vineyard premises, although kk ithin the existing total limits. I can expand on that if necessary.
  Question put and agreed to.

New clause
  PROVISIONAL GRANT OF NEW LICENCE OR REMOVAL
  Lords amendment: No. 6, before clause 8, insert the following new clause—

  Provisional grant of new licence or removal
  " In section 6 of the principal Act (provisional grant of a new justices' licence or removal in the case of premises about to be or in course of construction etc.) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
  "(4A) The holder of a provisional licence may also apply to have a provisional grant declared final before the premises have been completed if it is likely that they will be completed as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section before the date appointed for the next licensing sessions; and the licensing justices, if they are satisfied that the premises are likely to be so completed and are further satisfied of the matters mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, may direct that the declaration may be made before the next licensing sessions by a single licensing justice.
  (4B) In a case where a direction has been given under subsection (4A) of this section, a single licensing justice, after such notice has been given as he may require, shall declare the provisional grant final if he is satisfied that the premises have been completed as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section.
  (4C) Until a provisional grant has been declared final under subsection (4) of (4B) of this section it shall not be valid."
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 15.
  Mr. Hogg: This amendment is largely technical. It is a response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I can expand on it if desired; if not, I commend it.
  Question put and agreed to.

New clause

  DISQUALIFIED PREMISES—GARAGES
  Lords amendment: No. 7, before clause 8, insert new clause—
  " . After section 9(4) of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following subsections—
  "(4A) Premises shall be disqualified for receiving a justices' licence if they are primarily used as a garage or form part of premises which are primarily so used.
  (4B) In subsection (4A) of this section, the reference to use as a garage is a reference to use for any one or more of the following purposes, namely, the retailing of petrol or dery or the sale or maintenance of motor vehicles.""
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a) and amendments Nos. 12 and 16.
  Mr. Hogg: Subject to the House accepting amendment (a), I commend the substantive amendment to the House. I cannot commend the motion to disagree standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller).
  This is a matter of somewhat greater moment than the other amendments that we have just dealt with. The effect of the substantive amendment is to disqualify premises that are primarily used as garages from holding off or on-licences. The amendment was carried in the other place, contrary to the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
  There are about 180 garages with licences. There is no evidence that would stand up to detailed analysis that the possession by those suppliers of a licence has led to any drunken driving. Because almost all these premises are in rural areas, they provide services for those who live in them. Perhaps a typical example would be a corner shop that supplied the ordinary facilities of a corner shop but also sold petrol. The question is what to do about the amendment, and what our attitude should he.
  This is an opportunity to send a message dissociating alcohol from driving. If we were to try to reverse the amendment, it would send the wrong signal. Whatever the evidence might prove, we are probably dealing with perceptions. Therefore, I advise my hon. Friends and the House to send a message that dissociates alcohol from driving. For that reason I advise the House to accept the amendment.
  1 am
  There is a problem with the present 180 licence holders. They have adjusted their businesses on the assumption that they would be enabled to possess a licence. No doubt that is an important factor in their business considerations. The House must consider whether it would be right to alter the assumptions —in effect retrospectively—upon which they have constructed their businesses. I do not believe that it would. Although I commend the amendment to the House, I do so subject to the proviso, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), which safeguards the status of the present licence holders. The exemption would run with the land and attaches to the land. I am prepared to concede that that is an anomaly and is not wholly pure as a legalistic principle, but I hope that the House will be pragmatic.
  I hope that the House will consider where justice lies. Having regard to those considerations, I advise the House to accept the amendment, subject to the proviso.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I am extremely pleased that the Government have finally decided to accept the new clause that disqualifies garages and petrol stations from receiving a justices' licence. It is a relatively minor reform, but it is long overdue and I know that it has the support of the majority of the public.
  There is no evidence to suggest that people buy alcohol from petrol stations and directly proceed to drink and drive. The Government and the public recognise, however, that drink-driving is the single main cause of death and injury on our roads. For that reason it is absurdly inappropriate—as my hon. Friend has made clear —to allow, still less to take special steps to enable, premises to sell alcohol, the primary purpose of which is to serve the motorist. Such action would cast serious doubt on the Government's readiness to take a firm stance on

  479
  drink-driving. The rejection of the new clause and the acceptance of the one proposed by some of my hon. Friends would undoubtedly be seen by the country as wholly inconsistent with, and indeed a deliberate attempt to undermine, the Government's road safety campaign. That campaign is concerned, above all, to sever the lethal association between alcohol and driving.
  Alcohol and driving are a mismatch. The new clause is entirely in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the road traffic law review. That review should be debated by the House as a matter of urgency.
  Although I am pleased that the Government have moved this far, albeit belatedly, I am concerned about the proposal to permit garages and petrol stations already in possession of justices' licences to retain them. Whatever the Government's reasons for supporting such a proposal, I am still concerned. Will the proposal not cause some uncertainty for the courts? What will happen when a licensed petrol station is sold to a new owner and the question arises of the transfer of the justices' licence?
  What will happen when, in three years' time, licences come up for renewal? Will the licensing justices have the right to refuse an application for the transfer of the licence to a new owner or to refuse to renew a licence if they choose to do so, in line with their general licensing policy —which, of course, will be influenced by the passage of the new clause? Parliament should be told.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend asks a fair question. I apologise to him and to the House if I did not make it wholly plain. The ordinary powers of the justices to refuse to renew apply in respect of these licences. The difference that the proviso makes is that the disqualification does not bite on the existing licences. But all the other provisions in licensing legislation continue to apply to those licences.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that statement. I am anxious to find out why the Government are bending over backwards to protect garages with existing licences. What is the justification? [Interruption.] My questions are being put in good faith, and the House is entitled to answers. We are told that there are only 180 such petrol stations. Many are in rural areas and are protected in any case by the terms of the new clause, as are hypermarkets. Surely there would be little or no inconvenience to the general public from the removal of the remaining licences. Nor do I believe that this would cause significant financial hardship to the proprietors. To allow the licences to stand when no more are to be granted is a manifestation of weakness and irresolution. The House is entitled to an answer to that charge.
  If the Government are set upon this course, so be it. What matters above all is that the Government demonstrate in some way their conviction and determination that any association of alcohol with driving is a relic of a bygone age. We are told that the justification for the Bill is the need to reform licensing law in line with modern circumstances. One would have thought that the most pressing of modern needs was to rid the country as speedily as possible of the scourge of drinking and driving. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport is here and he can confirm what I am saying. The House needs to be reminded that every year there are 5,000 deaths on the roads of which 2,000 are alcohol-related. I beg my hon.
  480
  Friend to realise that the Government must catch up with public opinion and stop being dragged along by vested interests.
  Mr. Waller: The new clause which has been brought from the Lords was obviously passed with the intention of stopping drinking and driving. Superficially it seems to be helpful, but if one examines it more carefully, it is apparent that it will not have any real effect on drinking and driving but will have other undesirable effects.
  The clause will not affect major supermarket retailers, even though many supermarkets are linked to petrol sales. Without the amendment, it would affect existing small stores, mainly in rural areas. Those stores are combined with petrol stations for economic reasons. Without the petrol side, I suspect that in many cases the small stores could not exist, to the detriment of local amenity and employment.
  If the prohibition would be wrong for existing stores cum petrol stations, as the Government accept, it must also be wrong for those who in the future wish to establish businesses on similar lines. The new clause is illogical because it ignores the fact that those who buy alcohol in stores do not do so to drink it immediately before getting into their cars. No one would suggest that public houses should not be permitted to have car parks. However, perhaps there would be more logic in such a ban than in a prohibition on people buying alcohol at stores that have petrol stations or garages attached, to take home with them.
  The precise meaning of the new clause, in its final form, is not entirely clear. It appears that it could apply to a store that shares its site with a petrol station run completely separately. There is scope for lawyers to argue about those matters in the future. I am against that, because it will provide more money for lawyers but will not do anyone else much good.
  I accept my hon. Friend's assurance that the clause will be improved by the Government's amendments, because I do not believe that existing premises should be hit, as they would be if the Government's amendment to the Lords amendment is not passed. Even so, it will ossify existing situations, whether or not they make sense in the future. If, for example, there is a population shift in any area or if a bypass is built, the owner of a store-cum-garage may reach the conclusion that he cannot move because, whereas he can retain the alcohol licence on his existing premises, he will not be able to obtain one for a new site, however strong his arguments.
  It is unfortunate that the Government are not reversing the decision made in another place. My hon. Friend said that to do so could be to send the wrong signals. Although that is a significant consideration, I hope that he will put first the important matter of getting the legislation right. I hope that the arguments that he and others may deploy in the other place and elsewhere will be sufficiently convincing to ensure not only that the new clause can be reversed but also that the wrong signals are not sent.
  The Government could have explained why the new clause passed in the Lords will do nothing to help, and why it may do some harm. The amendment mitigates that harm but the clause is a step back, to set against the considerable number of steps forward that the Bill incorporates.
  Mr. Forth: I appreciate the positive response by my hon. Friend the Minister to the amendment in my name.

  481
  It demonstrates the balanced view that must necessarily be taken of this matter in trying to understand the concern that has been expressed, in particular by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), about garages selling alcohol. However, we must equally recognise that no firm evidence has been produced of a direct connection between such sales and drink-driving offences.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that alcohol can be sold by garages adjoining main roads, but not by similar garages adjoining motorways?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I am most grateful to him. We must also recognise, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the important role that garages play in rural communities. This consideration is of importance to many right hon. and hon. Members and is behind the thrust of the amendment. I welcome what has been said by my hon. Friend the Minister and hope that the House will accept the amendment in his name and mine, in order to recognise the problem identified in another place and the important role played by garages in rural communities, which role we can sustain by carrying the amendment.
  Miss Widdecombe: Although I support the amendment to the Lords amendment, I regard it as a very poor third best. As far as I can see, it does not direct itself to the essential problem, which is not whether alcohol is sold together with petrol, but the nature and control of alcohol sales. I suggest that they are best controlled at local level, by magistrates.
  I made it clear on Second Reading that I am extremely worried about drink driving and any possible encouragement to drivers to drink. That is why I think it right that garages adjoining motorways should not be able to sell alcohol. Drivers stop at such garages and would have the opportunity to consume alcohol.
  1.15 am
  My constituency, which serves an entirely rural area, contains a major development. The owner set up initially as a garage, and then set up a store specialising exclusively in wines. I know that modern cars have many gadgets, and that modern dashboards have many amenities, but I do not recall a corkscrew being among them. I need a lot of convincing that someone who goes into that shop and buys a bottle of wine will solemnly uncork it at the next set of traffic lights and take a drink from it.
  I believe that if beer is being sold in single cans, possibly on ice, there may well be a temptation to buy a single can, open it and down it. Similarly, I can just about believe that a driver might be tempted to take a nip of spirits, but not to uncork a wine bottle. That is why I say that the nature of sales is important and that the best people to judge that are local magistrates.
  I am, of course, very pleased that my constituents have been protected. Within 24 hours of the Lords amendment being known I had received a petition containing about 200 names from people in the locality. The proprietor of the business receives only a 4·per cent. profit on his petrol sales, which is cut to under 2 per cent. by the use of credit cards. He makes his main income from his wine business.
  482
  If he were obliged to close down, people from miles around in that rural area would not have garage amenities and would not be able to buy petrol.
  While I am delighted that that garage proprietor is protected, which is why I willingly accept the amendment, I am not so delighted that any future similar enterprises —conscientious, responsible and not encouraging drinkdriving—will not be allowed to flourish. There is no proven link between the purchase of alcohol at a petrol station and drink-driving. If the House really wants to get rid of drink-driving, let us close down all the country pubs tomorrow. I am sure that that would not commend itself to many hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), but that is the logic. The proposal hits at the periphery, not at the centre, of drink-driving.
  The Lords amendment talks about "primary purpose". I assume that to be used in planning terms. If the garage preceded the wine business the primary purpose is the garage, but, as in many such enterprises, the associated stores and business are actually the primary source of profit. There is confusion here.
  This is a poor Lords amendment. The tidying-up of it is third best, but at least it protects existing licensees, and for that reason I am glad to support it.
  Mr. David Harris: I am happy to endorse everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). She has set out the position with great clarity, and done the House a service in so doing.
  I am sorry to have to quarrel with my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), with whom I see eye to eye on many subjects—
  Sir Bernard Braine: We do not quarrel.
  Mr. Harris: Then I shall use the word "disagree".
  My right hon. Friend asked what was the justification for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). Obviously, as has already been said, the amendment is of particular significance to rural areas. I do not know how much my right hon. Friend knows about such areas. They are very different from his constituency. When the matter was debated in another place, Lord Ferrers said that he thought there were about 150 licensed garages, not 180. That may not matter too much. He then went on to say:
  "When the department sought details of the number of licences granted to garages in 1986"—
  perhaps that explains the discrepancy—
  "it emerged that over half were to be found in the four counties of Devon, Cornwall, Norfolk and Dyfed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 March 1988; Vol. 495, c. 892.]
  Those four counties are largely rural, and those licensed garages are, I suspect, in the rural areas. I can speak only for Cornwall, and, to a certain extent, Devon, but that certainly is the case there. As has been said, many of them are petrol stations with an adjoining village shop, or, increasingly, a minimarket.
  The proprietor of just such a business wrote to me a couple of days ago and set out his position. The business is run by the family—the man, his wife and daughter—and employs four shop assistants. It is typical of the small businesses that are essential to the well-being of the rural areas. This one is on a main road, and is roughly about half way between two towns. There are adjoining caravan

  483
  sites, as it is a tourist area, and I have stopped at the garage and used the minimarket—not to buy alcohol, although I know that many people do. The irony is that 20 yards away is a pub. As the proprietor points out, it would be nonsense if the other place had its way. Someone would drive into his forecourt, park his car, go into the minimarket for groceries, and then, because he wanted some alcohol before going back to the camp site or the cottage up the road, go into the pub to buy alcohol from the off-sales.
  I make no secret of the fact that I would prefer the House to reject the Lords amendment, but I accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Minister. Therefore, with some reluctance, I agree that the practical course is to accept the amendment to the amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire. We owe it to established businesses to let them continue in the way that they have continued for several years and to serve their local communities. I hope that, on reflection, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point will see the justice in that. I would like to go much further and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has said, leave it to magistrates. If we are not going to do that, in equity, we must protect the established businesses. Therefore, I support the amendment to the amendment.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am in the strange position of being one of the few hon. Members here to support the Minister. His hon. Friends have been overreacting in setting out some of the difficulties that they think will be created by this modest amendment. This is one of the few amendments that could be so described, although the word "modest" has been used on other occasions. However, it is a sensible move. It will not hit the supermarket or the hypermarket that sells petrol as well as groceries and drink. It will not hinder those existing stores that sell a wide range of goods in rural areas. It will help to stop the tendency of roadside cafes, which hitherto have served sandwiches and cups of tea, from selling drinks as well. Cafes or small restaurants attached to garages are becoming an increasing feature of our road network, and that is beginning to create a problem. Small chains of roadside cafes are now selling alcoholic as well as non-alcoholic drinks, but selling alcohol in premises designed for the motorist will create problems.
  The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) accepted that garages adjoining motorways should not sell alcoholic drinks. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for roads and traffic, who is here tonight, would be quick to remind us that the majority of accidents involving casualties and fatalities do not take place on motorways. By allowing or encouraging motorists going on holiday or on short trips to stop at licensed roadside cafes attached to garages we might create more problems in future.
  I agree with the Minister that if we accept the Lords amendment we will be able to send out a signal about the dangers of associating driving with drinking. We should always be aware of the problems. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) pointed out the very
  484
  serious and real problems of drinking and driving. About 1,500 people a year are killed, and each month about 8,000 people are found guilty of driving while over the limit. Those are extremely frightening figures. We should not allow that figure to increase, and this modest amendment is a step in that direction. That figure does not include those people who do not get caught but who are potential causes of accidents and potential killers because they drive while over the limit.
  The sooner that random breath tests are introduced the better. It is not possible to amend this legislation to include measures of that kind, but I welcome the amendment and the Government's change of heart. It will be a small contribution, but we should accept it.
  Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), at end insert—
  '(2) Where, apart from this subsection, a justices' licence (within the meaning of the principal Act) would become void on the coming into force of subsection (I) above, the premises to which the licence is attached shall be treated as premises which are not disqualified for receiving such a licence by section 9 (4A) of that Act for so long as they continue to be premises for which such a licence is in force.'.—[Mr. Forth.]
  Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 17 agreed to.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c).

  MINORS' CONTRACTS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Minors' Contracts (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 16 March, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Neath General Hospital
  1.27 pm
  Mr. Donald Coleman: I beg leave to present a petition. The petition, in the name of Harold D. Thomas of 17 Leonard street, Neath, mayor of the borough' of Neath, supported by 28,975 persons whose names appear on the electoral register of the borough of Neath, reads:
  To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the inhabitants and residents of the Borough of Neath in the County of West Glamorgan Sheweth
  That the West Glamorgan Health Authority wishes to close the existing General Hospital in Neath and to construct a replacement hospital at Baglan Moors, Port Talbot.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House call upon the Secretary of State for Wales to either

  (a) hold a public inquiry to consider the merit of situating the new hospital at Baglan Moors.

  or

  (b) require the West Glamorgan Area Health Authority
  to construct the hospital at Cadoxton in Neath.

  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Occult Societies
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  1.28 am
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The purpose of securing this debate is threefold. First, I wish to warn parents to be vigilant and to impress upon their children the dangers of dabbling in black magic and other obscure occults. Secondly, I wish to call on all Christians to unite in prayer, word and deed to condemn Satanism and to provide kind and special support for those possessed by the devil who turn to the Church for help. Thirdly, it is necessary to ensure that the Home Office is aware of and alert to the rapid growth in the United Kingdom of black witchcraft and Satanism.
  The fear of the devil is being put into children's minds, and that is evil. This black magic influence is so strong and dangerous that the power and command over adults and children is total. Disgusting ceremonies are held, in which children are sexually abused by Satanists. Paedophiles are joining such groups because they have found yet another way to get their hands on children whom they know will be too terrified to talk. It is within my knowledge that children who have escaped are under treatment and are still receiving psychiatric care and help from their local priests.
  There have been other disturbing reports recently of the desecration of 100-year-old tombs. Bodies have been removed, heads cut off and fingers sliced away. Coffins have appeared at dawn on cemetery roads. In another location, 250 miles away, graves have been dug up. People have been charged under the Burial Act and the truth may never be established, but many local people are convinced that it was the black magic occult.
  How can we be sure that our facts are accurate? Having spoken to parents who have alleged that their children have been assaulted, and knowing that police charges have been brought against several accused recently, we must await the court hearings, because of the sub judice rules. Other cases involving over 20 children alone have been brought to my notice and are under investigation. A child's diary confirmed the parents' fears, and interviews with children have been tape recorded.
  Librarians have written to advise me that books on black magic and the occult are in great demand. Magazines on witchcraft and black magic are being used for contact advertisements. Videos on black magic are being made in abundance and hire shops report constant requests for such material. Shops selling witchcraft regalia or paraphernalia are springing up. Vicars, priests and preachers have contacted me, expressing support and deep concern. Hundreds of letters arrive each day supporting my efforts, and some provide new information. It is nearly impossible for me to reply to so many, but I intend to try.
  In the city of Leeds alone there is to be found the Flashmail order centre of The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Just up the hill there is a large store called Astonishing Books, under the same control. This business is founded on books on witchcraft, black magic, Satanic rituals and other occult practices. On sale are false altar images, such as a Phoenician goddess statuette, a Satan skull ring and many others things.
  The growth of this business and other such shops reinforces my warning that we could soon follow the path
  486
  of the United States of America. Some felt that I had exaggerated the scale of the problem and were very amused when I suggested that witchcraft was nationwide. Since then witches have written from every corner of the United Kingdom to advise and warn me. Only today a rural dean has written to tell me of the distress inflicted on his family and to reinforce my campaign with first-hand experience. Children were sexually and mentally assaulted in that case. In a telephone conversation with his wife today, the harrowing chapter of events was revealed. Those involved have not fully recovered to this day. This week I have received the testimony on tape of a former witch who has turned to Christianity for love and support. Another lady became steeped in clairvoyancy from the age of 10 and has found peace of mind only through turning to Christianity.
  The Witchcraft Act 1735 was repealed and replaced by the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951. I shall be interested to learn how many convictions have been brought and have succeeded under that Act over 37 years. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will write to me, because I cannot expect him to provide such information now. The provisions of the 1951 Act would be unlikely to check the spread of witchcraft, Satanism and other worrying occults. The defence would say that reward was not involved. Strictly speaking, it seems to me that the Act is tailored to control spiritualists, clairvoyants and those practising telepathy.
  Never again can it be claimed that our Law Officers are unaware of the growing menace. I have now warned Parliament, and that warning is duly recorded in the Official Report of our proceedings. It is my intention in a few weeks' time to hand a dossier to the Home Office, compiled by Childwatch and me. We must then discuss how best to proceed to safeguard children. There will not be an easy answer, but we may learn from discussions with certain American states. It is certain that black witchcraft and Satanism will not go away unless we unite to drive it away.
  1.36 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) on securing this Adjournment debate. I share, as I am sure does the whole House, a deep concern for the welfare of children. If my hon. Friend has evidence that certain organisations and individuals are indulging in practices that are harmful to children, it is only right that he should bring up the matter. I understand from what he has said that in a few weeks he will forward to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a dossier compiled by him and by the organisation which is assisting him.
  It is a basic tenet of an open society such as ours that a person must be free to hold the beliefs that he or she wishes, as I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, but that principle is certainly modified by a clear requirement that any acts arising from such beliefs must be within the bounds of the criminal law, and I know that I have my hon. Friend's agreement on that point.
  If an organisation indulges in practices that are demonstrably harmful to others or incites anyone to do so, that is a serious matter and the Government would treat it seriously. For all of us, freedom means freedom from oppression and brutality and, above all, from physical or

  487
  mental abuse. In those circumstances, the law can intervene. The law provides protection for individuals, especially for those least able to protect themselves—children. A wide range of offences already exists to deal with every form of ill-treatment and physical and sexual abuse of children. Serious and severe punishments are laid down for those who abuse children in this way.
  Tackling the problem of child abuse goes beyond the Home Department's responsibilities. Indeed, it goes beyond the responsibilities of any official body. The law cannot expect to provide protection in a void. We must look to others as well. Parents, schools and all those who have a responsibility for children's welfare must play their part. But we must provide where those responsibilities are not met.
  Children at risk can be taken into care or into a place of safety. We are always conscious of the need to do everything that we can to ensure that any cases of child abuse do not slip through the net, including the cases to which my hon. Friend alluded. One of the steps that we are taking is to encourage the police to work with the social services in the investigation of such cases.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that parents and schools should introduce children at an early age to the rich tradition of religious experience and also warn them clearly and explicitly against the perversion of religious and personal beliefs by witchcraft and other cults.
  No aspect of criminal law is set and immovable. It must be monitored regularly, and we must ensure that it does what it sets out to do. In the case of these offences, such reviews are particularly important. We must be alert to the need to amend and strengthen the law, if necessary, and we have been doing just that. The Criminal Law Revision Committee was asked to consider the law on assaults and sexual offences. It concluded that there were significant gaps in the protection afforded to children by the criminal law. I share that general view, but that is not to say that important changes cannot and should not be made.
  For example, the Sexual Offences Act 1985 increased the maximum penalty for indecent assault on a young girl from five years' to 10 years' imprisonment. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 makes a husband or wife a compellable witness where the spouse is accused of a sexual or violent offence against a child under 16. The Criminal Justice Bill, a most important measure currently before the House, proposes a number of important reforms. As my hon. Friend knows—I have his support on this—a particularly significant reform is that it will be an offence to possess photographs, films or videos of an
  488
  indecent nature involving children.
  The law comes down hard on those people who abuse children where convictions can he secured. We are constantly monitoring and strengthening the criminal law. Abuse undoubtedly occurs in the course of certain practices. When such practices and abuse are reported to the police and convictions are secured, there are severe penalties for those who have been found guilty.
  Any evidence of the practices described by my hon. Friend must, first and foremost, he taken up with the police and any dossier, such as that promised by my hon. Friend, should be presented to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  I should like to deal briefly with two other matters. The first relates to my hon. Friend's request for the number of people convicted under the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951. He is right in his supposition that I am not able to provide those figures tonight. I do not have quite the fingertip control of the statistics that I should have, but I shall look into the issue and, if possible, provide the information that he wants.
  The second matter concerns my hon. Friend's point about the disgusting and appalling desecration of graves and coffins. I shall consider the issue of improper rituals on sacred ground. The desecration of graves and such activities are distasteful to everyone, particularly the relatives of those whose coffins have been interfered with. The law exists to deal with such acts. Grave robbing is an offence against the common law. There are various enactments which cover riotous or violent behaviour in places of worship, churchyards and burial grounds. The 1977 order that applies to local authority cemeteries prohibits any disturbance or nuisance in a cemetery or interference with graves, vaults or tombstones. Even quite minor damage to a tombstone can be caught under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Those who commit such acts can be properly punished if they are caught, and I share my hon. Friend's desire that that should be the position.
  I hope that I have made it clear that the Government are keenly aware of the need to consider amendments to the law, if it appears necessary to do so, to give children full and effective protection beyond that which already exists. If my hon. Friend has material that he believes shows that such amendment is necessary, we shall consider it extremely carefully.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Botswana
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what approaches he has made to, or received from, the Botswana Government in respect of the raid by South African security forces into Botswana on 28 March.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following the raid, the Botswana high commissioner in London called on me.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African Government following the raid by South African security forces into Botswana on 28 March.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We issued a statement on 28 March condemning the raid. I asked the South African ambassador to call on 29 March and delivered our very strong protest. On 31 March the German ambassador in Cape Town gave a similar message to the South African Government on behalf of the 12 member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom policy on the maintenance of stability in southern Africa of South Africa's policy towards Botswana.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have condemned South Africa's use of force in its relations with Botswana and its other neighbours. We shall continue to urge the South Africans to exercise restraint and to co-operate peacefully with their neighbours.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any representations to, or received representations from, the African National Congress with regard to the African National Congress's use of Botswana as a route into South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No. But we have made clear on many occasions our opposition to cross-border incursions from whatever quarter.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the African National Congress use of Botswana as a route into South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have repeatedly condemned cross-border incursions in either direction. Our opposition to the use of violence by the African National Congress is well known to it, as well as to others.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made 156
  of the implications for United Kingdom policy towards the maintenance of stability in southern Africa of the African National Congress's use of Botswana as a route into South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Cross-border incursions from whatever quarter threaten stability in the region.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he proposes to take to strengthen the United Kingdom's relationship with Botswana.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom already enjoys a close and cordial relationship with Botswana. We consult regularly about the situation in the region.

  Disarmament
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the recent meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministers and Heads of State, on 2 to 3 March, any consideration was given to the issues planned for discussion at the United Nations special session on disarmament, to be held in New York from 31 May to 25 June in terms of their relevance to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's collective security strategy and agreed disarmament goals.

  Mr. Mellor
  The UNSSD was not specifically discussed at the meeting of NATO Heads of Government in March, but the Alliance keeps its security and arms control objectives under constant consideration, and allies have discussed their approach to UNSSD at official level within NATO.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report, a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 25 April.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Foreign Affairs Council met in Luxembourg on 25 and 26 April. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was present on 25 April. I attended on 26 April.

  The Council further reviewed the implementation of the conclusions of the European Council in Brussels in February.

  Possible dates for the 1989 European Parliament elections were discussed, and the question was remitted for further consideration at the May Foreign Affairs Council.

  The Council discussed progress in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, and examined prospects for the negotiations during 1988. The Council also reviewed, and reached conclusions on, relations between the Community and Japan; a copy of the conclusions is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Commission proposals on guidelines for the EC's programme of aid to Asia and Latin America were discussed, and the presidency declared them adopted. The Council also met a European Parliament delegation to discuss the extension of the food aid framework regulation, which expires at the end of June: the presidency will pursue the matter further with the Parliament, and will report back to a future Council.

  Though over dinner there was a discussion of political issues with Turkish Ministers, the planned Association

  157
  Council with Turkey did not, to Her Majesty's Government's great regret, take place. We attach importance to building up the Community's relationship with Turkey on the basis of the association agreement: and hope that this temporary set back will soon be overcome.

  In the framework of European political co-operation, my right hon. and learned Friend raised the Kuwaiti Airlines hijacking and its aftermath, and put forward proposals for action to tighten international protection against hijacking. It was agreed that an expert group should meet soon to consider these proposals and other aspects of the hijacking.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Care
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether, in the arrangements for disclosure of information about those seeking to work with children, any restriction will be placed on the type of information that the police will be allowed to pass on to employers about those seeking to work with children other than past convictions, cautions and bindovers; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether, in relation to the arrangements for the disclosure of information about those seeking to work with children, it will be permissible for the police to pass on to employers information concerning unproved allegations about those seeking to work with children which they consider relevant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the arrangements for the disclosure of information from police records to local authorities and other bodies, the police may disclose any relevant information which might give cause for concern about a candidate's suitability to work with children. Where this information does not agree with that disclosed by the candidate, the employing organisation must take the matter up with the individual before reaching a decision on whether to appoint the person to the post in question.

  Gaming
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received as to the rules and money limits for amusement with prizes in public houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  None recently. The maximum amounts of the prizes which may be paid out for winning on amusement-with-prizes machines, in public houses as elsewhere, were increased on 1 January 1987. We have no current plan for any further change in the maxima, or for any amendment of the provision of the Gaming Act 1968 that premises licensed for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises in which such machines are installed require a permit from the licensing Justices.

  Remand Centres and Open Prisons
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether applications are to be invited 158
  for the contracting of management of private urban remand centres and open prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) on 15 April at column 258 about the fourth report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on contract provision of prisons.

  New Prison (March)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates the new prison at March, Cambridgeshire, will be completed; what will be its final cost; what will be the number and type of inmates it will take; what will be the number of full-time prison warder staff, and the number of ancillary staff required; what will be the estimated total wage bill for the prison for all employees; and what is the starting date for recruitment of staff.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The new category B prison at March — to be known as Her Majesty's prison, Whitemoor — is expected to open in mid-1991 at a forecast capital cost of £34·9 million at current prices. The prison is designed for 522 inmates. It is estimated that 225 prison officer class and 70 locally recruited ancillary staff will be required to man the establishment at a total estimated annual salary cost of about £5 million at projected 1991 prices. The prison will be manned by serving and newly appointed officers, who will start to be posted in about the six-months period before the arrival of the first inmates; account has already been taken in forward plans of the need for the additional staff.

  Firearms
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many cases of criminal or other misuse of semi-automatic rifles have been reported since the Hungerford tragedy in August 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not available centrally. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 30 November 1987 at column 392. It is planned to publish in June 1988 the summary statistics for 1987 of offences recorded by the police in which firearms were used.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking the introduction of a scheme to compensate owners of buy-in weapons that would become unsaleable by virtue of the Criminal Justice Bill[Lords].

  Mr. John Patten
  A few representations have raised the question of compensation. Decisions have not yet been reached on which weapons it will become an offence to manufacture, sell and import; simple possession will not become an offence.

  Petrol Stations (Alcohol Sales)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those petrol
  159
  stations which are also licensed for the retail sale of alcoholic drinks are located in (a) urban areas and (b) rural areas.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department has not had cause recently to seek detailed information about the location of licensed garages. Such information as is available relates to the number of garages — petrol stations with off-licences as at 30 June 1986 by petty sessional division. This is given in the table:

  Petty Sessional Divisions

  Number of garages and petrol stations licensed

  ENGLAND

  Berkshire

  West Berkshire

  1

  Maidenhead

  1

  Windsor

  1

  Total

  3

  Cheshire

  Crewe and Nantwich

  1

  Total

  1

  Cornwall

  Bodmin

  8

  East Pennith

  1

  Liskerrett

  1

  Penryn

  1

  Penwith

  3

  Pydar

  7

  South Powder

  1

  Truro and West Powder

  1

  Total

  23

  Cumbria

  Kendal

  1

  Maryport

  2

  Total

  3

  Derbyshire

  Chesterfield

  5

  Derby and South Derbyshire

  1

  Ilkeston

  1

  Total

  7

  Devon

  Barnstaple

  8

  Bideford and Great Torrington

  7

  Honiton

  1

  Kingsbridge

  2

  South Molton

  4

  Total

  22

  Dorset

  Shaftesbury

  1

  Total

  1

  Durham

  Darlington

  1

  Total

  1

  East Sussex

  Hastings

  3

  Battle and Rye

  1

  160

  Petty Sessional Divisions

  Number of garages and petrol stations licensed

  Bexhill

  1

  Crowborough

  1

  Hailsham

  1

  Total

  7

  Essex

  Colchester

  3

  Total

  3

  Gloucestershire

  Gloucester

  2

  Cheltenham

  1

  North Cotswold

  1

  Total

  4

  Hampshire

  Southampton

  1

  Basingstoke

  1

  Total

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  Pershore

  1

  Ross

  1

  Total

  2

  Hertfordshire

  Dacorum

  5

  Total

  5

  Humberside

  Epworth and Goole

  1

  Holme Beacon

  1

  Total

  2

  Kent

  Ashford and Tenterden

  1

  Maidstone

  2

  Total

  3

  Lancashire

  Burnley

  1

  Chorley

  I

  Wyre

  1

  Total

  3

  Leicestershire

  Market Harborough

  1

  Rutland

  1

  Total

  2

  Lincolnshire

  East Elloe

  1

  Spilsby and Skegness

  2

  West Elloe

  1

  Total

  4

  Merseyside

  South Sefton

  1

  Total

  1

  Norfolk

  Cromer

  2

  161

  Petty Sessional Divisions

  Number of garages and petrol stations licensed

  Downham Market

  1

  Fakenham

  2

  Great Yarmouth

  2

  Hunstanton

  2

  Kings Lynn

  3

  Total

  12

  Northumberland

  Hexham

  1

  Wansbeck

  1

  Total

  2

  North Yorkshire

  Claro

  3

  Ryedale

  1

  Staincliffe

  2

  Total

  6

  Oxfordshire

  Oxford City

  2

  Moreton and Wallingford

  1

  North Oxfordshire and Chipping Norton

  1

  Total

  4

  Shropshire

  Ludlow

  2

  Oswestry

  1

  Shrewsbury

  2

  Total

  5

  Somerset

  Ilminster

  1

  Sedgemoor

  1

  Total

  2

  South Yorkshire

  Rotherham

  1

  Total

  1

  Suffolk

  Bury St. Edmunds

  1

  Total

  1

  Surrey

  Farnham

  2

  Staines and Sunbury

  2

  Total

  4

  Tyne and Wear

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  2

  Total

  2

  Warwickshire

  Kineton

  1

  Warwick

  1

  Total

  2

  West Midlands

  Stourbridge

  1

  Total

  1

  162

  Petty Sessional Divisions

  Number of garages and petrol stations licensed

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  2

  Wakefield

  2

  Total

  4

  Wiltshire

  Bradford on Avon

  1

  Trowbridge

  1

  Whorwellsdown

  1

  Total

  3

  Total England

  148

  WALES

  Clwyd

  Colwyn

  3

  Dyffryn Clwyd

  1

  Total

  4

  Dyfed

  Amman Valley

  3

  Carmarthen

  1

  Cemaes

  1

  Dewsland and Haverford West

  5

  Fishguard

  2

  Gogledd Ceredigon

  3

  Llanelli

  2

  Milford Haven

  1

  Narbeth

  3

  Newcastle Emlyn

  1

  Pembroke

  4

  Pencader

  1

  Tenby

  3

  Whitland

  2

  Total

  32

  Gwent

  Bedwelty

  1

  Newport

  1

  Total

  2

  Total Wales

  38

  Total England and Wales

  186

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has concerning the percentage of total profit generated on average by the retail sales of alcoholic drinks by those petrol stations which are also licensed for such sales;

  (2) whether he has any information concerning the percentage of customers using the shops at those petrol stations licensed for the retail sale of alcohol who also buy petrol.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no such information.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the provision in the Licensing Bill which would remove the licence for the retail sale of alcohol from petrol stations in rural areas which hold such licences.
  163
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the clause relating to garages was added to the Licensing Bill, seven letters have been received of which all but one have opposed the amendment.

  Weapons
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give the number and location of publicly owned collections of edged, pointed, concussive and other weapons;

  (2) what studies his Department has conducted into the effect of provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords] regarding edged, pointed, concussive and other weapons on auction houses auctioning weapons which are antique or collectors' items;

  (3) if his Department had made any estimate of the number of registered traders dealing in edged, pointed, concussive and other weapons which are either antique or regarded as works of artistic or technical merit.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our consultations with outside interests on a first draft list of weapons which it will become an offence under the Criminal Justice Bill to manufacture, sell and import have prompted helpful responses from museums, auctioneers, dealers and others on the possible consequences of the proposals for them. These will assist us in reaching decisions on the final composition of the list.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report and recommendations of the advisory committee considering whether anabolic steroids should be made controlled drugs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will consider this question when it meets on 12 May. We expect to receive its recommendations shortly thereafter.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sterling
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to seek to improve co-ordination between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other interested Ministers in relation to Government policy on the level of sterling; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  There are no plans for change.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the allocation of ministerial responsibility for the management of the sterling exchange rate.

  The Prime Minister
  Economic policy is that of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the lead Minister.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  County Courts
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list in the Official Report the general public statutes and law reports made available to county court judges.
  164
  The Attorney-General
  On appointment, all circuit judges are invited to select one of the following to be provided for their personal use: "All England Law Reports", "Weekly Law Reports", "Criminal Appeal Reports", "Family Law Reports". Copies of public general Acts are supplied to judges on request.

  "Halsbury's Laws of England" and "Halsbury's Statutes" are available to principal county courts, together with the "All England Law Reports", the "Weekly Law Reports" and the "Law Reports". Either the "All England Law Reports" or the "Weekly Law Reports" are available to smaller county courts provided that sittings are sufficiently frequent.

ENVIRONMENT

  Canary Wharf
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many buildings Canary wharf will consist of; and how many square feet of space each will have:

  (2) what are the heights proposed for the major buildings envisaged at Canary wharf.

  Mr. Trippier
  There will be about 26 buildings of varying sizes totalling 12·2 million sq ft. The main tower will be about 800 ft high and the approved height of the other two towers is up to 690 ft.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what percentage of the new jobs in docklands has gone to residents in the three docklands boroughs since 1981;

  (2) what percentage of employment in docklands is in firms which were in existence before 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of employment in docklands is female.

  Mr. Trippier
  About 32 per cent.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many jobs there are in the offices of the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  About 281 — including permanent officers, fixed-term contract staff and consultancy and agency appointees.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the houses built on land taken by the London Docklands development corporation from borough councils or the Greater London council is public housing for rent.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  St. Katharine's Dock
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many jobs there are at St. Katharine's Dock.

  Mr. Trippier
  About 2,600.

  Water Byelaws
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the date for the implementation of the proposals first published in March 1983, under the title "Report of the Standing Technical Committee on Water Regulations on its proposals for a New Model Water Byelaws", subsequently confirmed as the model in June 1986.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I shall make an announcement as soon as I have given full consideration to representations received following public advertisement last year of the new byelaws made by water undertakers.

  Thorpe Hall, Peterborough
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total cost to date of building the dry stone wall around Thorpe hall in Peterborough; and what is his estimate of the final total cost of the project.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The building of the dry stone wall around Thorpe hall, Peterborough is funded by the city council as part of its community programme, with the Manpower Services Commission. No grant aid for the wall has been given by English Heritage or by the Department. Inquiries on the cost of the project should therefore be made to Peterborough city council.

  Wychwood Forest
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received the order made by Oxfordshire county council to create a public footpath through Wychwood forest; when he expects a public inquiry to be held to consider the objections; and when he expects the decision on the order to be issued.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Secretary of State for the Environment received the order on 2 June 1987. Subject to confirmation by Oxfordshire county council the inquiry will be held on 19 July. A decision will then be issued as soon as possible.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals his Department has for advertising in connection with the introduction of the community charge; and what will be the estimated cost of such advertising.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend has as yet made no decisions on the public's need for information in relation to new rights and duties when the Local Government Finance Bill receives Royal Assent.

  Supply Estimates (Hostels)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will define the term hostel as used in class IX, vote 1, A2.1(b) of the Supply Estimates.

  Mrs. Roe
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: The term "Hostels" as used in connection with expenditure under class IX, vote 1, A2.1(b) is defined in section 106(i) of the Housing Associations Act 1985. Grant is paid under section 55 of that Act to hostels managed by housing associations registered with the Housing Corporation.

  Homeless Housing Units
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many councils are the subject of special investigation into possible overspending by homeless housing units; and what proposals he has for preventing overspending by those providing bed and breakfast accommodation for local authorities.

  Mrs. Roe
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: Such investigations are the responsibility of local auditors and the Audit Commission.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Botswana
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has taken, or proposes to take, to assist the Botswana Government to strengthen their national economy and decrease their dependence on the South African economy.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  All our bilateral aid to Botswana aims to strengthen the national economy. In addition we support the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, of which Botswana is a member.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Kingdom contributions to Botswana through national, Commonwealth and European Community action in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  United Kingdom bilateral aid and the estimated British share of Commonwealth and European Community aid to Botswana since 1983 have been as follows:

  £'000s

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  United Kingdom bilateral aid (1)

  13,289

  15,975

  8,775

  12,805

  Estimated United Kingdom share of European Community aid

  330

  1,180

  500

  1,120

  Estimated United Kingdom share of Commonwealth aid (2)

  108

  83

  113

  147

  Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  (1) These figures include expenditure by the Commonwealth Development Corporation of:

  3,332

  6,570

  2,700

  6,027

  (2) Figures cover the period July-June.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list current development projects in Botswana for which United Kingdom national, Commonwealth or European assistance is given; what is the value of that assistance; and if he will specify the means or agencies through which assistance is given.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The British bilateral aid programme to Botswana is currently funding with grants a range of technical co-operation activities including the provision of expert personnel, training for Botswana in the United
  167
  Kingdom and consultancies. We expect to spend about £5·5 million in 1988–89. This is a Government-to-Government programme.

  The Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation is currently funding with grants estimated at £490,000 a number of projects in Botswana involving the provision of experts.

  Projects in Botswana currently being financed by the European Community from the fifth and sixth European development funds as part of the Lome conventions are as follows:

  Total cost of project (£ million)

  Grant Funding

  Sheep and goat development (phase 2)

  1·12

  Services to livestock owners (phase 2)

  1·80

  Francistown rural training centre

  0·87

  Wildlife, tourism and environment

  1·47

  Airborne geophysical survey

  1·38

  Trade promotion

  0·77

  Conservation Kalahari ecosystem

  1·40

  Manpower development programme

  3·08

  Kasane airport

  4·19

  Special loan funding

  National development bank

  0·56

  Services to livestock owners

  1·07

  Pacapye water supply

  1·31

  European Investment Bank Risk Capital

  Risk capital

  Francistown abattoir

  1·40

  Botswana Development Corporation

  2·10

  The United Kingdom share of the EDF grants, special loans and risk capital projects totalling £22·52 million is £3·7 million.

  International Children's Emergency Fund
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table showing per capita contributions to United Nations international children's emergency fund, for the latest year for which figures are available, for each member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in ranked order.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Preliminary 1987 contributions per capita (including both general fund and special appeals) are as follows:

  Rank

  Donor

  $/head

  1

  Sweden

  9·41

  2

  Norway

  9·39

  3

  Finland

  4·64

  4

  Switzerland

  2·63

  5

  Denmark

  2·26

  6

  Canada

  1·31

  7

  Netherlands

  1·15

  8

  Italy

  1·12

  9

  New Zealand

  0·39

  10

  United Kingdom

  0·34

  11

  Australia

  0·26

  12

  United States of America

  0·25

  13

  Germany

  0·20

  14

  Austria

  0·17

  15

  Belgium

  0·17

  16

  Japan

  0·16

  17

  Luxembourg

  0·14

  18

  Ireland

  0·13

  19

  France

  0·11

  20

  Iceland

  0·09

  168

  Rank

  Donor

  $/head

  21

  Spain

  0·02

  22

  Greece

  0·02

  23

  Portugal

  Negligible

  24

  Turkey

  Negligible

  Note: Population figures for 1986 have been used as 1987 figures are not yet available.

  International Organisations (Government Contributions)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing in constant 1987 pounds sterling contributions by Her Majesty's Government for each year since 1974 to the United Nations international children's emergency fund the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the World Health Organisation.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  UNICEF £ million1

  UNESCO £ million1

  WHO £ million1

  1974

  5·0

  na

  29·6

  1975

  10·7

  26·0

  29·1

  1976

  6·0

  26·6

  212·6

  1977

  7·6

  26·7

  212·2

  1978

  13·5

  5·1

  213·7

  1979

  313·3

  5·4

  11·0

  1980

  7·5

  4·3

  12·4

  1981

  10·0

  5·9

  7·9

  1982

  7·5

  6·3

  8·8

  1983

  7·3

  6·9

  10·2

  1984

  6·9

  0·4

  11·4

  1985

  9·1

  6·8

  12·5

  1986

  8·7

  —

  12·0

  19874

  13·6

  —

  10·9

  1 Constant (1987) prices.

  2 Partly estimated.

  3 Special increase to mark international Year of the Child.

  4 Figures for 1987 are provisional.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government expect to achieve the United Nations' target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product for overseas aid.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Like previous Administrations, the Government have not set a date for achieving the 0·7 per cent. target. Progress towards the target depends on developments in the economy and other claims on resources. We have a substantial aid programme and one that is now growing in real terms.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the percentage increase in teachers' pay for each year since 1974.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The pay increases received by teachers in England and Wales from 1 April 1974 to 1 April 1986 are listed in chapter 3 of the Government's consultative document, "Teachers' Pay and Conditions" Cmnd. 238, copies of which are in the Library. In 1987 teachers in
  169
  England and Wales received a pay increase of 16·4 per cent. in two equal instalments from 1 January and 1 October 1987.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Furs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will state the principal countries of origin of the lynx furs offered for sale annually in the United Kingdom as finished garments; and if he will estimate for each country the number of garments involved;

  (2) if he will state the principal countries of origin of the red fox furs offered for sale annually in the United Kingdom as finished garments; and if he will estimate for each country the number of garments involved.

  Mr. Atkins
  The items referred to are not identified separately in the Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Prosecutions initiated

  Number not proceeded with1

  Number heard at court

  Convictions

  Convictions as a percentage of numbers heard at court

  Accounts

  Annual returns

  Accounts

  Annual returns

  Accounts

  Annual returns

  Accounts

  Annual returns

  Accounts

  Annual returns

  1978

  818

  2,245

  187

  475

  392

  1,254

  392

  1,251

  100·0

  99·8

  1979

  3,103

  1,933

  951

  610

  1,381

  826

  1,375

  820

  99·6

  99·3

  1980

  2,290

  1,430

  506

  378

  1,742

  1,036

  1,720

  1,028

  98·7

  99·2

  1981

  1,952

  1,270

  381

  247

  1,470

  957

  1,433

  948

  97·5

  99·1

  1982

  1,886

  1,442

  424

  321

  1,478

  1,126

  1,472

  1,123

  99·6

  99·7

  1983

  1,920

  1,494

  528

  460

  1,203

  861

  1,188

  848

  98·8

  98·5

  1984

  2,928

  2,190

  1,006

  827

  1,536

  1,091

  1,530

  1,087

  99·6

  99·6

  1985

  4,409

  3,109

  1,549

  1,049

  2,462

  1,736

  2,449

  1,732

  99·5

  99·8

  1986

  5,160

  3,359

  2,074

  1,540

  2,672

  1,728

  2,654

  1,715

  99·3

  99·2

  1986–87

  5,454

  3,503

  2,141

  1,518

  2,749

  1,672

  2,728

  1,661

  99·2

  99·3

  1987–88

  5,339

  2,868

  2,017

  1,233

  2,932

  1,462

  2,908

  1,448

  99·2

  99·0

  1 Includes cases where summonses could not be served or were withdrawn but excludes those adjourned "sine die" which are not shown in the table.

  Safety of Goods
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultative procedures are followed when taking action under section 11(5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987; and if he will publish any guidelines on how businesses likely to be affected by proposed regulations are consulted.

  Mr. Butcher
  About 80 organisations are consulted on safety regulations covering consumer products. These include chambers of commerce, the associations representing wholesalers, retailers, importers, manufacturers, independent businesses and mail order houses as well as local authorities, enforcement bodies, consumer groups, the British Standards Institution and the Health and Safety Commission. Copies of draft regulations are deposited in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries. To this general list are added trade associations and other organisations representing those directly concerned with the particular regulations. I am confident that all reasonable steps are taken to consult all those with an interest and I do not consider it necessary to issue any further guidelines.

  Hairdressing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what other European Community members have statutory controls on the hairdressing industry; and what are the natures of such controls in each country.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member when the information is available.

  Accounts (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of prosecutions for failure to file(a) accounts and (b) annual returns have been successful in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Maude
  Following is the information.

  Voluntary Restraint Agreements
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are taken by his Department to monitor the burden on business of voluntary agreements.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Voluntary restraint arrangements do not impose any special administrative or legal burdens on United Kingdom business but have an economic impact. In looking at the net effect of such arrangements on the United Kingdom economy as a whole, my Department examines the effect on the industry concerned as well as that on industrial and other users.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Darlington on 30 March,Official Report, column 478, he will list the nature of each voluntary restraint agreement to which he refers.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As indicated in my written answer of 30 March, at column 478–79, the majority of the voluntary restraint agreements are negotiated between the United Kingdom industry and its counterpart overseas. The agreements negotiated by the European Commission on steel and textiles (and those with Japan which were brought to an end in 1985) were entered into on behalf of

  171
  the Community as a whole. The Commission does negotiate restraints on footwear with certain eastern European countries on behalf of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent the United Kingdom has been party to discussions on inter-industry voluntary restraint agreements within the framework of the general agreement on tariffs and trade round negotiations; and what conclusions have been reached.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Community was party to the agreement reached by Ministers of the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) in September 1986 that all trade restrictive or distorting measures inconsistent with GATT should be phased out or brought into conformity with GATT by the date of the formal completion of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations. There have been no substantive discussions to date on the relationship to GATT of industry-to-industry voluntary restraint agreements.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list those restraint agreements on steel applicable to the United Kingdom, giving the date of commencement and extent of each such agreement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As part of the Community's external regime on steel, the European Commission negotiates restraint arrangements on behalf of all member states of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). There are currently agreements with the following major suppliers.

  Country

  Year commenced

  Austria

  1978

  Finland

  1978

  Norway

  1978

  Sweden

  1978

  Bulgaria

  1979

  Czechoslovakia

  1978

  Hungary

  1978

  Poland

  1978

  Romania

  1978

  Brazil

  11979

  21985

  Republic of Korea

  1978

  Venezuela

  1987

  1 pig iron only

  2 other steel product

  These agreements apply to EEC products only. They are negotiated annually, commencing 1 January.

  In addition, there is an inter-industry agreement on special steels from Spain, which we understand is negotiated on an annual basis during the period of Spanish transition to full Community obligations.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to restrain imports of flexible manufacturing systems from Japan and Taiwan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. There is an inter-industry restraint arrangements on machining centres and numerically controlled lathes from Japan.

  BSC (Advertising)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what information he has on the sums paid by the British Steel Corporation to advertising agencies since 11 June 1987;

  (2) what information he has on the expenditure incurred by the British Steel Corporation on television advertising in the period from 11 June 1987 until the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. All recent advertising by the British Steel Corporation has been at BSC's own initiative and expense.

  Intellectual Property
  Mr. Jim Lester
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he intends to consult the World Intellectual Property Organisation about the general compatibility of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill[Lords] with the requirements of the Berne convention; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations there have been between his Department and the World Intellectual Property Organisation about the compatibility of clauses 115 to 119 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords] as regards the jurisdiction of the proposed Copyright Tribunal over licences to perform a literary, dramatic or musical, work in public, with the provisions of article II, as limited by the United Kingdom's 1948 Brussels declaration, and article II ter of the Berne convention (Paris Act): and if he will make a statment;

  (3) what consultations there have been between his Department and the World Intellectual Property Organisation, about the compatibility of clause 65(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords] with paragraph 3 of article II bis of the Berne convention (Paris Act) as regards the exemption for ephemeral recordings made by a broadcasting organisation by means of it own facilities and used for its own broadcasts; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what consultations there have been between his Department and the World Intellectual Property Organisation about the compatibility of clause 69(1) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Bill (Lords) under which the inclusion of certain works in a cable programme service would not be an infringement of the copyright in those works, with the provisions of article II bis of the Berne convention (Paris Act); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department has not formally consulted the World Intellectual Property Organisation on the general provisions of the Bill, or on any particular clause, since the functions of the organisation do not include judging the compatibility of national legislation with the requirements of the Berne convention. We have, however, kept the organisation fully informed of the progress and contents of the Bill.

  Mr. Ivan Boesky
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any information about takeovers, other than the Guinness takeover of Distillers, in which Mr. Ivan Boesky has been involved in a professional or personal capacity; and if he will make a statement.
  173
  Mr. Maude
  It is not our practice to reveal such information.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many alleged insider dealing cases are presently under investigation by his Department.

  Mr. Maude
  Fifteen cases of possible contraventions of the insider dealing legislation are presently being investigated, all of them by inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State.

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what additional expenditure is expected in 1988–89 in connection with the sale of shares in Rolls-Royce.

  Mr. Atkins
  Residual expenditure is expected in 1988–89, mainly due to a delay in the payment of stamp duty to the Inland Revenue. Parliamentary approval for this expenditure will be sought in a Supply Estimate of class V, vote 9. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £2,500,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Public Purchasing
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much purchasing by Government and other public bodies is accounted for in the United Kingdom's gross domestic product; what estimates he has of the amount of public purchasing contracts by Government and other public sector bodies awarded to United Kingdom firms; and what estimates he has of comparable figures for other European Community countries.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: Based on national accounts data, United Kingdom public sector final expenditure on goods and services (but excluding wages and salaries) and fixed assets in 1987 accounted for about one eighth of gross domestic product at market prices. Comparative information for European Community countries, which is on a slightly different basis and limited to general Government (that is, central and local government), is set out in the table.

  United Kingdom firms account for about 98 per cent. of the value of United Kingdom Government contract advertised and awarded under European Community/ GATT rules, with about 94 per cent. of goods and services supplied being of United Kingdom origin. Comparable figures are not readily available for other public bodies in the United Kingdom or public sectors in other European Community countries.

  General Government final expenditure as percentage of gross domestic product

  per cent.

  Year

  United Kingdom

  10·2

  1984

  Belgium

  6·6

  1984

  Denmark

  9·5

  1984

  France

  7·3

  1984

  Germany

  11·6

  1984

  Greece

  n/a

  174

  per cent.

  Year

  Ireland

  11·3

  1983

  Italy

  9·4

  1984

  Luxembourg

  15·4

  1982

  Netherlands

  7·8

  1984

  Portugal

  7·5

  1981

  Spain

  5·4

  1982

  Notes:

  1. Gross domestic product is at market prices.

  2. With the exception of Germany, for which OECD data have been used, figures are derived from the latest EUROSTAT publication, with the year to which they relate indicated.

  3. Figures for certain current receipts and sales of fixed assets are netted off in the published expenditure figures.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Polyester Fabrics
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why polyester fabrics enclosing flame-retardant polyester are still approved for use by his Department.

  Mrs. Currie
  Only the flame retardant (FR) forms of polyester fabric or treated cotton are recommended for use as primary and secondary covers enclosing FR polyester in-fill for continental quilts used in the NHS. All supplies under national contract comply with these requirements.

  Leaflets FB22
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 89, what steps he has taken to ensure the availability of leaflet FB22 in all those local offices where claimants from the ethnic minorities affected use the services of the local office; and if he has any plans to produce the leaflet in addition in Greek and Turkish.

  Mr. Portillo
  Social security series FB22 is a group of six minority language leaflets giving the same general overview of benefits as the English-language leaflet FB2 "Which benefit?" There are plans to produce a new set of translations later this year in seven languages: Urdu, Hindi, Gujerati, Bengali, Punjabi, Chinese and Turkish. Translations into other languages, including Greek, are being considered.

  All the FB22 series leaflets will be available from social security offices and copies will be sent out to local and national ethnic minority organisations, and to welfare and advice organisations. Posters advertising the leaflets will also be produced in minority languages. They will be displayed in social security offices and will be available to organisations that request them.

  Nursing in London Study
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will publish the "Nursing in London" study.

  Mr. Newton
  Copies have been sent to the Health Service and placed in the Library today.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received seeking amendment of section 77 of the Social Security Act
  175
  1986 to enable local authorities to receive directly the £2·20 included in the family credit to compensate for the loss of free school meals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Representations have been received from one local authority. Paying the £2·55 directly to local authorities would be inconsistent with the Government's policy of providing benefits to working families wherever possible in the form of cash rather than kind. There would in any case be significant practical difficulties.

  Maternity Payments
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report figures showing the number of maternity payments made in 1987–88 to women in receipt of (a) supplementary benefit and (b) family income supplement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of social fund maternity payments made during the period 6 April 1987 to 8 April 1988 was as follows:

  Number

  To people receiving supplementary benefit

  178,509

  To people receiving family income supplement

  9,896

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the additional cost in the first year of operation of raising the proposed cut-off for housing benefit from £6,000 of capital to £10,000.

  Mr. Portillo
  Of the order of £60 million on the assumptions contained in the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 18 April 1988 at columns 341–42.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what provisions exist for payment of benefit to a young person, living away from home, awaiting a place on a YTS course; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I assume that the hon. Member refers to under 18-year-olds who, from September, will not be entitled to income support except in prescribed circumstances. The Government intend that young people under 18 who have applied for a youth training scheme and have good reason for being away from home, or have no parental home, will be entitled to income support, subject to the normal rules, during the child benefit extension period. This is the additional period (16 weeks for summer school leavers, and 12 weeks for others) during which their parents would be entitled to claim child benefit for them if they were at home. Regulations have not yet been laid, but our intention is that those with good reason for living away from home will include young people who have recently been in local authority care, those at risk of physical or sexual abuse if they remain at home, those under the guidance of the prison or probation service or a social services department who have been advised to live away from home and those whose parent or guardian is unable to support them because, for example, he or she is in prison.
  176
  The Government have guaranteed that every young person who wants a youth training scheme place will be offered one before the end of the extension period.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, whether acceptance of a place on a YTS course leads to eligibility for income support for a young unemployed person living away from home; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government intend that someone under 18 who is receiving a youth training scheme training allowance will be able to receive income support to supplement his training allowance if it is insufficient, by income support standards, to meet his living expenses, for example because he is in accommodation on a "board and lodging" basis. We plan to lay regulations later this summer to prescribe the circumstances in which someone under 18 will have title to income support.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the retirement ages of men and women in each of the countries of the EEC.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the Department's publication, "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities (Position at 1 January 1987)", a copy of which is in the Library. Section IV contains information concerning retirement ages for men and women in each of the EC member states.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients were waiting for in-patient treatment on 31 September 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  The figures for the end of September 1987 show that, on a comparable basis with previous waiting list statistics, the in-patient waiting list was 662,000. This is 4 per cent. less than the March 1987 figure of 687,000, and 3 per cent. less than the September 1986 figure of 681,900.

  As a result of changes resulting from the introduction of the new Korner NHS information system from April 1987, additional information is also available, for example on the number of patients with a booked date of admission, the number of patients who have put off the date of their operation, the number of patients admitted to hospital from the list, and the number of patients awaiting treatment as day cases.

  A statistical bulletin describing this information more fully has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. L. Scotson
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will urgently review the benefit entitlement of Mrs. L. Scotson of 2, Marshgreen cottages, Hartfield, East Sussex.

  Mr. Scott
  I wrote to the hon. Member about this case on 19 April.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many requests for funding have been
  177
  received from organisations supporting those addicted to tranquillisers; how many have been given assistance; and how many have been refused and for what reason.

  Mrs. Currie
  Six organisations offering support specifically to those dependent on tranquillisers have applied for central Government funding since 1984. Four of these have received grants. The two remaining applications are still under consideration.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to provide any funding for the Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction in Merseyside.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have already provided funding for several organisations on Merseyside experienced in the field of tranquilliser addiction including the following:

  Name

  Total funding £

  Mainstream (Warrington)

  81,534

  Merseyside Drugs Council (St. Helens)

  70,893

  Merseyside Drugs Council (Wirral)

  61,563

  These are all supported by the local statutory authorities. Mersey region has been allocated a total of £2,177,756 under the central drugs initiative. No request for funding has been received by the Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction, which I understand is a locally based pressure group.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of his Department's offices where partitions have been strengthened in sections where the public have access over the past six months.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 18 April at column 344.

  HIV Testing
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in the light of research undertaken on surgical glove punctures at Leicester general hospital, he will introduce routine pre-operative HIV testing for patients and regular screening for surgeons.

  Mr. Newton
  The health care workers sub-group of the expert advisory group on AIDS intends to review its "Guidance for Surgeons, Anaesthetists, Dentists and their Teams for Dealing with Patients Infected with HTLV III", issued in 1986, and will take into account any relevant evidence. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend is aware, the expert advisory group's report "AIDS: HIV Infected Health Care Workers", published last month, concluded that the risk of the virus being transmitted in a health care setting is extremely low, and stressed that no case of a patient being infected by a health care worker has been reported anywhere in the world.

  National Childbirth Trust
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on what date in 1987 an application was received from the National Childbirth Trust for a three-year grant commencing on 1 October 1987; for what 178
  amount the application was made; what previous grants have been made to this group; and when he expects a final decision on the current application to be made.

  Mrs. Currie
  An initial application from the National Childbirth Trust for section 64 funding for a further three years was received early in April 1987. The relevant financial information was not received until September 1987.

  The request was for:

  £58,000 for 1987–88

  £62,000 for 1988–89

  £65,000 for 1989–90

  or alternatively a sum of £62,000 for each of the three years 1987–88 to 1989–90 inclusive.

  Previous grants to the Trust were:—

  £2,500 for 1977–78

  £10,000 for 1978–79

  £10,000 for 1979–80

  £11,250 for 1980–81

  £15,000 for 1981–82

  £15,000 for 1982–83

  £15,000 for 1983–84

  £55,000 for 1984–85

  £58,000 for 1985–86

  £42,000 for 1986–87

  £31,000 for 1987–88

  We expect to respond shortly.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to make regulations extending the powers of the occupational pensions board to modify the rules of occupational pension schemes to enable them to reduce surplus funds in accordance with schedule 22 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend has intended making regulations under section 64(1 A) of the Social Security Act 1973 to enable the Occupational Pensions Board to authorise modification of the rules of occupational pension schemes to enable them to reduce any surplus in scheme funds in any of the ways specified in schedule 22 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The board, to which draft regulations giving effect to this proposal were referred, has received legal advice that regulations made under section 64(1A) could not work in the way intended. I have decided, therefore, to withdraw the draft regulations and to await the report of the board on the matters which I have referred to it today, before proceeding further.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will invite the occupational pensions board to consider whether further measures are needed to safeguard the interests of members of occupational pension schemes, the role of trustees of such schemes and associated issues.

  Mr. Scott
  I have today asked the occupational pensions board to consider and report to my right hon. Friend on the following issues:

  (i) the balance to be struck between employers' legitimate interests and those of members of occupational pension schemes;

  (ii) the involvement of pension schemes in company mergers and takeovers;

  (iii) the extent to which decisions of the trustees of occupational pensions schemes should be unanimous and the circumstances in which one or more trustees may act on their own;

  (iv) the need for independent trustees of pension

  179
  schemes;

  (v) whether restrictions should be placed on investments by pension funds in companies to which they relate; and

  (vi) any other measures to safeguard the rights of members.

  My right hon. Friend has asked to receive the board's report before the end of the year.

  Benefits
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest available figures for the proportion of families with children dependent on supplementary benefit who received one or more single payments, broken down into two and one-parent families.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 20 April 1988]: The latest available figures are as follows:

  Percentage receiving single payments

  Per cent.

  One-parent families

  12·7

  Two-parent families

  23·7

  Total: all families with children

  36·4

  The information relates to single payments made in the twelve months preceding the February 1986 annual statistical inquiry to claimants in receipt of benefit at the time of the inquiry. As a result, it does not record all the single payments made in the year.

  Ambulances (Emergency Calls)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the Avon ambulance authority met the ORCON standard for emergency calls in 1986.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 22 April 1988]: In 1986–87 the Avon ambulance authority exceeded the ORCON standards for emergency calls. This information is contained in the latest package of Health Service indicators which is in the Library.

  Private Ambulances
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to involve health authorities in the standards achieved by private ambulances along the lines of the regulations applied to private nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: Private ambulance companies are free to operate subject to the provision of common law and traffic legislation. We have no current plans to introduce further legislation, but the Department is keeping the matter under review. Health authorities continue to be responsible for the standards of service for patients which they may buy in.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions during 1987 a higher private tender submitted under the competitive tendering process in the National Health Service has been accepted in preference to a lower in-house tender; in which district health authorities this occurred and with which contracts; and what were the reason given for this course of action.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: This information is not available centrally since under the terms
  180
  of departmental guidance evaluation of tenders is a matter for the health authority concerned. Where a district health authority decides that there are compelling reasons for not accepting the lowest tender it is expected to notify its decision to the appropriate regional health authority.

  The 1987 National Audit Office reports on competitive tendering for support services in the NHS provides the best available information on practice in rejecting the lowest tender bids. Of the 29 cases which NAO examined nine involved a decision to reject the lowest tender. In two of these cases commercial contractors were rejected in favour of in-house tenders and in the other seven cases one commercial contractor was rejected in favour of another. Eight of the contracts were for domestic services and one for laundry services. The main reasons to reject the lowest tender were as follows:

  Number

  a. Inadequate hours tendered for job required

  4

  b. Inadequate proposed staffing levels

  1

  c. Inadequate or incomplete tender submission

  2

  d. Doubts on feasibility not dispelled on interview

  1

  e. Small cost difference linked to wider operational, personnel and financial considerations

  1

  9

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bulbs (Imports)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has of the proportion of bulbs imported from the Netherlands and examined by plant health inspectors to ensure that they are soil-free;

  (2) whether he will list the seaports and airports where Dutch bulbs have been imported in 1987; and whether sufficient plant health inspectors have been available to examine each consignment.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In the last import season, which ended in February, our plant health and seed inspectors examined just under 10 per cent. of all consignments of bulbs imported from the Netherlands. They checked for plant pests and excess soil. The inspectors work to a planned pattern of import checks on representative samples of a wide range of plants, bulbs, vegetables and so on, and covered this satisfactorily; it is not considered necessary to check each consignment of imported bulbs.

  The main ports of arrival for Dutch bulbs last year were Felixstowe, Dover, Harwich and Hull although small quantities may have been imported through other points of entry. Most inspections of imported bulbs are carried out at the importer's premises or nurseries.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has received any representations from individual customers of companies in the Netherlands about the state of bulbs they have imported from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to propose any change before 1992 in the system of inspecting bulbs imported from other EEC countries
  181
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no basic changes in mind at present, but our overall system of import inspections is flexible and can be adapted to meet particular needs.

  Bulbs (Inspection)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will institute a system of total field inspection for bulbs, to be paid for by growers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No. I see no reason to introduce total inspections of all bulb fields. So far as exports are concerned, growing season inspections are already necessary for bulbs intended for European Community member states and certain other countries. Under our domestic legislation charges are made for these inspections.

  Bulbs (Exports)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list the countries other than the Netherlands to which the United Kingdom has exported bulbs in the last two years; and whether any country has complained that the imported bulbs were not soil-free.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Leaving aside exports to the Netherlands, the United Kingdom has exported bulbs in the last two years to the United States, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria. Small quantities have been sent to several other countries. None of these importing countries has complained that the bulbs were not soil-free.

  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the new system of registration and control of medicated animal feedingstuff.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Two statutory instruments will shortly be laid before Parliament to implement the first part of new controls on medicated animal feedingstuffs. A central feature is a requirement that all manufacturers of medicated feedingstuffs must register with the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain or the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and agree to abide by a code of practice. Registration will take place in two stages: 1 July 1988 is the operative date for those with more sophisticated facilities, and 1 July 1989 for the remainder. Fees will be charged to cover the costs of administering and enforcing the register. Further controls on licensing and sale and supply of medicinal feed additives are being prepared. It is intended that these should also come into force on 1 July 1989.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Servants (Transfer)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants have been transferred since 1979 in the relocation of Government Departments and agencies from London and the south-east to the regions.
  182
  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 31 March 1988, at columns 610–11, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold).

  Government Agencies (Relocation)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cost savings have been made by the relocation of Government agencies to the regions since 1979.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, since no records are kept centrally of cost savings from relocations by central Government agencies. However, a recent report has been submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland evaluating the dispersal of part of the Overseas Development Administration from central London to East Kilbride in 1981. This offers evidence of the significant financial and other advantages which can be obtained through relocation. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend intends to publish this report in the near future.

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Television Interview)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place a copy of the transcript of his interview on the "This Week/Next Week" programme on 24 April in the Library.

  Mr. Lawson
  No; but I understand that a transcript is available from the BBC.

  Finance Bill (Notes on Clauses)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the notes on those clauses of the Finance Bill to be taken in Committee of the whole House will be made available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Major
  Yes. The appropriate notes on clauses were placed in the Vote Office earlier today.

WALES

  Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the conditions of employment of chairmen of health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  There are no conditions of employment as such for chairmen of health authorities, but I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of a note of guidance which is given to them on appointment.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes to introduce to the cost-floor sale in relation to the sale of council-owned houses; and in what way he proposes to ensure that such changes do not cause an unacceptable reduction in the public sector rented housing stock in rural areas of outstanding natural beauty.
  183
  Mr. Grist
  An amendment to the Housing Bill has been tabled which provides that only costs which have been incurred within eight years before the sale will be taken into account in calculating the cost floor.

  This modification will enable more tenants to buy their own homes. In areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks and designated rural areas the opportunity will remain for landlords to repurchase a property if it is resold within 10 years.

  Chernobyl (Compensation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications for review he has received from farmers in Wales claiming to have suffered losses as a result of the Chernobyl disaster but who had not been compensated under the Government's scheme; if he will give the date range when these applications were made; if each such application was considered individually; on what date a decision was taken on them; how many of these applications he has rejected; and if he will make a statement on the general pattern of the defects in the applications which led to their rejection.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  On 11 January 1988 the National Farmers Union in Wales presented to my Department 56 cases that it considered to have been inadequately compensated by the direct losses scheme under the Chernobyl compensation arrangements. The evidence submitted by the union did not reveal any special problems or anomalies not already covered by the existing compensation arrangements. The union also confirmed that no new principles of compensation had been identified. I wrote to the chairman of the NFU in Wales on 23 March 1988 rejecting the 56 cases.

  A detailed examination of those individual cases showed that they fell into four broad categories:

  (i) 10 cases where the producers concerned received compensation under the direct losses scheme in amounts varying from £191 to £3,672, but where the producers concerned alleged that they had incurred greater costs than the compensation they had received;

  (ii) 25 cases where the producers received compensation under the scheme in amounts from £275 to £3,312 but where they were claiming more because they sold only a proportion of their animals in the three week qualifying period and as a result considered that not all their costs had been compensated;

  (iii) 17 cases where the producers concerned received no compensation under the direct losses scheme since they sold their animals outside the qualifying period;

  (iv) Four cases which fell outside the terms of the scheme.

  A primary objective of the compensation arrangements was to get money to the affected producers as quickly as possible and it was agreed by the farming unions that this made it impossible to deal with all cases on an individual basis. It was similarly agreed that the inevitable consequence of this approach was that the compensation could not be matched precisely to the amount that might have been lost in every individual case. This agreement pointed firmly to the conclusion that the 10 cases in category (i) should be rejected.

  The 42 cases in categories (ii) and (iii), were based upon sales outside the three-week rule of the agreed scheme and had to be rejected. The NFU accepted this principle at a meeting with me on 28 September 1987.

  Finally, the remaining cases in category (iv) fell entirely outside the terms of the agreed scheme. In one case, the producer chose to keep extra animals on his holding; the
  184
  second claim related to the monitoring and marking scheme and the remaining two claims were for alleged price blight on animals sold clean after derestriction. There was no basis for those claims to be considered within this review.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers in Wales have received compensation arising from losses following the Chernobyl disaster; and what has been the total amount of money paid in Wales by way of such compensation.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  As at 15 April 1988, a total of £3,323,948·61 has been authorised for payment covering 6,808 claims from farmers in Wales.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many bus services have been discontinued in (i) Gwynedd, (ii) Clwyd and (iii) Powys since 26 January 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The number of bus routes discontinued since 26 January 1987 are:

  Number

  Gwynedd

  8

  Clwyd

  14

  Powys

  Nil

  In the same period the numbers of new routes introduced are:

  Number

  Gwynedd

  20

  Clwyd

  15

  Powys

  2

  These figures indicate a net increase in bus routes.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the trade unions concerning the privatisation of the steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The privatisation of the British Steel Corporation and the implications for its employees are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, I believe that BSC plants in Wales are well placed to take advantage of the new opportunities presented by privatisation and I am always willing to meet the unions involved in the Welsh steel industry.

  Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered (i) mentally ill and (ii) mentally handicapped patients there were in the Clwyd area health authority in 1987 and 1979; how many staff were employed with groups (i) and (ii) in 1979 and 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The following figures relate to resident patients and staff numbers in mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units in Clwyd:
  185

  Resident patients1

  1987

  1979

  Mental illness hospitals and units

  528

  656

  Mental handicap hospitals and units

  72

  79

  1 As at 5 April.

  Consultants, nursing and other professional staff1

  1986

  1979

  Mental illness hospitals and units

  511·0

  460·8

  Mental handicap hospitals and units

  100·0

  79·2

  1 Whole-time equivalents, as at 30 September.

  Year ended 31 March

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Area of land approved for planting or restocking (hectares)

  2,002

  2,175

  1,811

  2,466

  4,580

  3,470

  Area of new planting or restocking grant-aided by the Forestry Commission (hectares)

  1,067

  1,177

  1,040

  1,177

  988

  2,204

SCOTLAND

  Local Authorities (Social Security Changes)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet Scottish local authority associations to discuss the implications for local authority manpower and expenditure in Scotland of the changes in the social security system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the manpower and financial implications for local authorities as a result of the changes in housing benefit regulations.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regularly to discuss local government finance. Our next meeting will be on 29 April.

  Local Government (Employment Trends)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about trends in employment in local government.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numer of full-time equivalent staff employed by Scottish local authorities fell by 3·9 per cent. between December 1979 and December 1987. Apart from one minor fluctuation, the trend has been steadily downwards until last year when numbers showed a 1·5 per cent. increase.

  Dundee
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last made an official visit to Dundee.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I last visited Dundee on 30 March when I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Hygicare Ltd., Wrexham
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how long Hygicare Ltd., located in Wrexham, had to wait for outside financial appraisal for a regional development grant application from his Department.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department does not conduct outside financial appraisals for regional development grant purposes.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the area of land approved for forestry grant aid in each of the six years to 31 March in Wales; and if he will state the area of land afforested or restocked in each of those years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 22 April 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the impact of the community charge on people on low incomes in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from Members of Parliament, other individuals and various organisations. Those on lower incomes will be protected by the rebate scheme, which will take account of ability to pay.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the cost of introducing the community charge to the Borders region.

  Mr. Lang
  There have been no recent representations about the cost of introducing the community charge in the Borders.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about progress in compiling registers for the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  Compilation of the community charges registers is a matter for community charges registration officers, who from 1 April were empowered to undertake inquiries for this purpose of responsible persons at each address, and who are required to prepare the community charges register by 1 October.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the numbers seeking exemption from the payment of the poll tax as a result of the revision of forms currently being issued by the local registrars.

  Mr. Lang
  Exemption from liability to pay the personal community charge in Scotland arises from the provisions
  187
  of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and not from any revisions that might be made to forms issued by community charges registration officers.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the cost of introducing the community charge in the Highland region.

  Mr. Lang
  The total additional capital allocation which I have given Highland regional council in respect of the implementation of the community charge in 1987–88 and 1988–89 is adequate to meet the council's requirements. I am considering a letter from the council about the way in which the allocations are split between these years.

  Court of Session
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are any proposals for speeding up the conduct of business in the Court of Session; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Delays in the conduct of business in the Court of Session were reduced during 1987. Recommendations aimed at securing the speedy disposal of business were made in the report of the review body on the use of judicial time in the superior courts in Scotland, chaired by Lord Maxwell and published on 18 July 1986. Most of these recommendations, which fall within the responsibility of the Lord president of the Court of Session, have been implemented. In addition the Court of Session has been engaged in reviewing many aspects of its work in order to progress it effectively.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the aggregate value of inward investment to Scotland since 1979; and how many jobs have resulted therefrom.

  Mr. Lang
  The estimated aggregate value of inward investment to Scotland from 1979 to date is £2·9 billion with the prospect of the creation or safeguarding of 64,980 jobs.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of employees in employment and the total number of employees in manufacturing industry, standard industrial classification 2–4, in Scotland in June 1979 and June 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  The total number of employees in employment is estimated to have been 2,102,000 in June 1979 and 1,886,000 in June 1987. For manufacturing the figures are 604,000 for June 1979 and 395,000 for June 1987.

  Breast Cancer Screening Unit (Ayrshire)
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet made arrangements for setting up a breast cancer screening unit in Ayrshire; and if he will outline arrangements made for Ayrshire women in the interim.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The introduction of a national breast cancer screening service in Scotland for all women aged between 50 and 64 will be a phased programme. The 188
  first four centres, in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee, will come into operation during the course of this year and we aim to have the remaining centres in operation by 1991. We shall consult individual health boards about the location and commissioning of the remaining centres required to provide a national screening service. The current diagnostic facilities for breast examination will continue to be available in the normal way for women in Ayrshire and elsewhere.

  CBI Scotland
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry (Scotland) concerning the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend keeps in frequent touch with the Confederation of British Industry (Scotland) on matters concerning the Scottish economy. When addressing CBI members in Glasgow on 19 February he called attention to the significant advances made in the Scottish economy in recent years and to the favourable conditions for further growth which has been created by the Government's policies to stimulate enterprise and improve competitiveness.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about the effects of the new changes in housing benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have received several letters about the changes to housing benefit. Housing benefit policy is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Glasgow district council regarding the effects of the changes in housing benefit on the management of its housing stock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  SHARPEN Report
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish his findings on the SHARPEN report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report on the Scottish Health Authorities Review of Priorities for the Eighties and Nineties — the SHARPEN report — is a working document that is under consideration by the Scottish Health Service Planning Council. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to receive the planning council's advice about the report and its recommendations shortly.

  Hospital Building
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish National Health Service hospitals were built in the last year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of all hospital developments are not held centrally as minor capital projects are delegated to health boards. Four major projects were completed and opened in 1987.

  Scottish Bus Group
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will make a statement on his detailed timetable proposals for the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend does not yet have detailed timetable proposals for the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, although he proposes to seek powers at an early opportunity. We are still considering the best arrangements for privatisation.

  Oil Fabrication Industry
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he is taking to ensure the future of the oil fabrication industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The best tonic for the oil fabrication industry is an economic climate which encourages investment and development in the North sea: and that is what this Government are providing, notably through the oil taxation changes announced in the Budget.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when officials of his Department will next meet Nirex to discuss plans for nuclear waste disposal in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Office officials have no plans to meet Nirex for this purpose, but meet it from time to time with representatives of other Government Departments to discuss radioactive waste management in a United Kingdom context.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for increasing the provision of nursery education in Scotland; and what percentage of three and four-year-olds he expects to have the opportunity to receive nursery education in 1990, 1995 and 2000.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The level of provision for nursery education is for education authorities to determine in the light of their assessment of relative priorities. I cannot predict the aggregate effect of their decisions in future years.

  Community Care
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to announce what policy changes he intends to make following his consideration of the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and what subjects were discussed.
  190
  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman and other representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities formally on 4 December 1987 when he discussed the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89 and related matters.

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his decision on the level of grant to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) on Tuesday, 12 April,Official Report, column 46.

  In 1988–89 grant to local councils of social service will be increased by £120,000 and grant to SCVO will be reduced to £90,000. Local councils may purchase services from SCVO. Notwithstanding the reduction in grant, SCVO will receive substantial support from central Government funds in 1988–89 and I am confident that it can continue to make a useful contribution to the promotion of voluntary sector interests.

  Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amounts of money paid out by regional and islands councils under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 in each of the last two financial years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Payments by local authorities under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968

  Regional or Islands Council

  1985–86 £

  1986–87 £

  Borders

  3,691

  3,995

  Central

  11,135

  11,760

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,496

  4,586

  Fife

  37,467

  37,511

  Grampian

  18,882

  25,597

  Highland

  5,572

  12,189

  Lothian

  42,425

  56,645

  Strathclyde

  386,659

  447,457

  Tayside

  13,603

  13,633

  Orkney

  516

  520

  Shetland

  7,620

  2,989

  Western Isles

  3,723

  6,183

  Scotland

  534,789

  623,065

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals for action to combat the decline in the numbers on the electoral register in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The preparation of electoral registers is the statutory duty of the electoral registration officers. My right hon. and learned Friend is confident that their aim is to produce as comprehensive and accurate a register as possible, and proposes to support them as before with appropriate publicity campaigns.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not done so, though officials of his Department met representatives of the association last month.

  Tree-Planting Policy
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Forestry Commission to discuss planting policy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of the Forestry Commission from time to time to discuss various matters.

  National Farmers Union
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next discuss the future of the agriculture industry with the National Farmers Union of Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My noble Friend the Minister of State and I regularly meet the union. We both attended the 75th anniversary dinner in Glasgow on 10 March and my noble Friend addressed the annual general meeting the following day. My noble Friend last met the union's president on 8 April for a discussion on a range of current issues and plans to continue to meet him and his colleagues at regular intervals.

  Police Strength
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of police forces in Scotland which are below their establishment levels.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at 31 March 1988, five Scottish forces were operating below their authorised establishments. The details are as follows:

  Force

  Authorised establishment

  Actual strength

  Difference

  Dumfries and Galloway

  344

  343

  -1

  Lothian and Borders

  *2,435

  2,419

  -16

  Northern

  620

  600

  -20

  Strathclyde

  6,954

  6,775

  -179

  Tayside

  1,001

  991

  -10

  * This figure includes an increase in establishment of 50 constables approved in March 1988. These posts are due to be filled during the course of 1988–89.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide additional finance for housing authorities to accelerate repair, maintenance and rehabilitation schemes in the public sector housing stock in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 28 March, I announced details of the final housing capital allocations for 1988–89 for all district and islands councils. Allocations 192
  in respect of the housing revenue account block, which covers capital expenditure by local authorities on their own stock, totalled £445·2 million, an increase of £58 million on the provisional allocations issued in December 1987. These allocations are not hypothecated fior specific purposes and it is for each authority to determine its own priorities and to programme expenditure accordingly within the resources available to it.

  Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet each of the Scottish health boards so as to discuss funding arrangements for long-stay mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients going into community care.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend, I regularly meet health board chairmen to discuss a range of matters. Local arrangements for the funding of community care of former long-stay, mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients are matters for health boards and local authorities to determine from within the considerable resources which we make available to them and which have been increased substantially since 1979.

  Private Companies (Departmental Relationships)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the procedures governing relationships between his Department and private companies.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No. I see no need to review the present procedures, which are well understood and effective.

  Aerosols
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to ban the use of aerosols in the buildings of the Scottish Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department has carried out on the effectiveness of the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 in preventing the purchase of tobacco products by children under the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Amniocentesis Tests
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), 22 February,Official Report, column 104, he has now given instructions for the information about women who have been amniocentesis tests to be centrally held and periodically published in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  A 1
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in plans to upgrade
  193
  the A1 on the northern side of the border; and whether the proposals will extend the redevelopment as far as Lamberton in Berwickshire.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Over the last seven years five major improvement schemes, plus several minor improvements, have been completed on the Al. There are proposals for a bypass of Cockburnspath, currently the subject of a public local inquiry, and for junction improvements on the Haddington bypass. Planned improvements do not extend to Lamberton.

  Monofilament Net Ban
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions, and for what reasons, the Crown has sought postponements in proceedings in the Appeal Court relating to the monofilament net ban.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamiliton
  The case has not yet been called in the Appeal Court, having been twice withdrawn, by common consent, from the roll of cases. The reason for the delay is the need to obtain official English translations of two analogous European cases, which recently came before the European Court of Justice. These are considered to be essential to a proper consideration of the instant case by the Appeal Court. The case will be re-enrolled as soon as possible.

  Dounreay
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make his announcement over the planning application and reporter's report for the European demonstration reprocessing plant, applied for by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels Limited, at the nuclear power development establishment at Dounreay.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The full report of the public local inquiry into the proposed siting of the European demonstration reprocessing plant at Dounreay was submitted by the reporter on 30 March to my right hon. and learned Friend, who now has it under careful consideration. It is not possible to say when he will be in a position to announce his decision.

  Sheriffs
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the general public statutes and law reports made available to sheriffs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sheriff court libraries are supplied with all Acts of Parliament and statutory instruments relating to Scotland. Subject to the requirements of the judiciary the following law reports are supplied: "Scots Law Times", "Session Cases", "Scottish Criminal Case Reports", "Scottish Civil Law Reports", "Greens Weekly Digest" and "Road Traffic Reports". In 194
  addition the larger courts receive copies of "All England Law Reports", "Common Market Law Reports" and the "Common Market Law Review".

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what precise role he will have in determining the research, development and utilisation of nuclear power in Scotland if his proposals for the privatisation of the electricity generating and supply industry are implemented.

  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind
  After privatisation the electricity supply industry will continue to be responsible for decisions about its own research and development and the operation of its nuclear power stations. The Government's role in energy research and development will remain the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of his review into cardiac surgery provision in Scotland will be available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The National Specialist Services Advisory Committee has undertaken a review of cardiac surgery provision and is now preparing a full report which I expect to receive in the summer.

  The committee is recommending that the volume of cardiac surgery undertaken in Scotland be increased over the next five years, and that facilities be provided for an additional 400 operations per year. I have decided that as part of our determined attack on waiting lists, the cardiac surgery unit at Aberdeen royal infirmary will be centrally funded to carry out 150 heart operations per year in the near future and 300 operations per year within 5 years. Funding of the centre at Edinburgh royal infirmary will be increased to allow an additional 140 operations to take place there. Last year 2,125 operations were undertaken in Scotland.

  We shall be considering the committee's other recommendations when their full report is available.

  District Authorities (Statistics)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table in the Official Report for each district authority in Scotland for the latest year for which figures are available, showing (a) the electorate and estimated population, (6) expenditure per elector on environmental health services, housing maintenance, leisure and recreation, (c) the level of district rate and rate support grant, (d) the number of council houses and the average rent and (e) the number of new council houses completed.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: The information for the year 1987–88 is set out in the table.
  195

  District Councils

  Number on Electorate Roll at 15 February 1987

  Total estimated population 30 June 1987

  Expenditure per elector on environmental health services 1987–88 £

  Expenditure per elector on housing maintenance 1987–88 £

  Expenditure per elector on leisure and recreation 1987–88 £

  District Rate Poundage 1987–88 P

  Rate Support Grant 1987–88 £

  Berwickshire

  15,020

  18,833

  1·53

  23·50

  26·70

  9·5

  404,530

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  26,424

  33,441

  6·66

  38·03

  23·99

  10·3

  737,475

  Roxburgh

  28,665

  35,133

  6·45

  48·42

  31·61

  12

  1,531,257

  Tweeddale

  11,854

  14,734

  4·22

  39·82

  19·91

  9

  292,931

  Clackmannan

  36,946

  47,412

  9·66

  53·65

  31·07

  17·2

  500,520

  Falkirk

  110,951

  143,229

  7·38

  66·21

  32·06

  14·5

  1,621,467

  Stirling

  64,047

  81,436

  9·56

  42·91

  38·13

  22

  0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  28,475

  36,162

  5·58

  25·60

  22·86

  11

  767,602

  Nithsdale

  43,755

  57,293

  6·60

  45·96

  17·39

  11

  926,339

  Stewartry

  18,544

  23,292

  3·18

  24·70

  16·18

  9

  407,757

  Wigtown

  23,196

  30,289

  4·31

  51·56

  17·03

  8·5

  689,769

  Dunfermline

  97,250

  129,049

  5·92

  51·69

  35·43

  11·25

  1,469,223

  Kirkcaldy

  116,580

  147,963

  6·51

  73·53

  29·16

  14·75

  2,194,642

  North East Fife

  52,755

  67,578

  9·36

  40·00

  24·09

  13·8

  1,036,365

  Aberdeen City

  175,434

  213,228

  6·37

  48·76

  37·26

  14·5

  1,864,770

  Banff and Buchan

  62,864

  83,753

  4·01

  35·44

  24·80

  10·5

  961,876

  Gordon

  53,321

  71,986

  4·80

  18·21

  12·77

  11

  1,967,503

  Kincardine and Deeside

  36,588

  48,402

  4·67

  9·65

  23·94

  7·2

  774,752

  Moray

  62,908

  85,494

  4·47

  36·50

  29·63

  9·5

  1,230,803

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  8,378

  10,765

  4·42

  11·34

  15·40

  9

  118,125

  Caithness

  20,765

  27,025

  6·02

  36·46

  19·60

  12·5

  1,116,503

  Inverness

  45,409

  61,077

  5·90

  37·88

  32·04

  9

  666,472

  Lochaber

  14,744

  19,117

  4·61

  54·60

  15·60

  14·5

  366,832

  Nairn

  7,976

  10,310

  2·76

  22·82

  26·20

  9·5

  276,410

  Ross and Cromarty

  34,776

  47,897

  8·86

  26·08

  28·64

  12·5

  1,390,285

  Skye and Lochalsh

  8,842

  11,332

  5·99

  20·70

  9·73

  11

  519,236

  Sutherland

  10,751

  13,085

  8·19

  24·37

  17·39

  9

  686,590

  East Lothian

  65,559

  81,855

  5·28

  33·92

  34·56

  17

  1,476,155

  Edinburgh City

  367,582

  438,721

  6·50

  31·33

  31·17

  16·2

  10,957,830

  Midlothian

  61,128

  81,440

  4·06

  41·73

  42·83

  17

  3,092,490

  West Lothian

  104,767

  141,684

  8·08

  36·75

  30·77

  14·5

  3,767,375

  Argyll and Bute

  49,274

  65,737

  6·94

  40·95

  40·79

  18

  3,692,253

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  31,853

  40,365

  3·70

  9·48

  28·35

  14

  614,090

  Clydebank

  38,189

  48,573

  7·15

  76·02

  33·60

  20

  4,333,984

  Clydesdale

  44,310

  58,436

  5·91

  75·72

  35·61

  16·75

  3,046,767

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  46,136

  62,547

  4·29

  26·29

  43·70

  16·5

  1,406,860

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  34,107

  43,302

  7·21

  77·46

  34·39

  17

  2,472,252

  Cunninghame

  106,060

  137,265

  7·21

  57·55

  38·15

  20·5

  2,746,711

  Dumbarton

  59,490

  79,704

  9·21

  69·73

  38·66

  19

  554,486

  East Kilbride

  63,993

  81,718

  7·25

  5·23

  41·63

  13·75

  1,315,033

  Eastwood

  44,203

  57,185

  2·96

  8·48

  25·45

  11

  947,628

  Glasgow City

  573,009

  715,621

  9·31

  75·83

  47·22

  27·5

  44,035,585

  Hamilton

  81,268

  107,018

  7·17

  77·99

  36·26

  19

  3,903,319

  Inverclyde

  75,605

  96,382

  6·84

  68·39

  41·48

  16

  3,439,404

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  63,437

  81,186

  4·30

  76·11

  35·15

  18·5

  2,592,436

  Kyle and Carrick

  90,290

  112,999

  8·26

  42·56

  37·96

  17

  1,440,430

  Monklands

  80,280

  106,187

  7·15

  106·49

  43·96

  18

  5,467,392

  Motherwell

  111,377

  147,542

  5·40

  83·37

  37·14

  16·5

  4,903,780

  Renfrew

  160,171

  201,295

  6·99

  62·23

  41·77

  21

  7,282,146

  Strathkelvin

  66,080

  89,475

  6·48

  31·52

  40·81

  18

  3,587,719

  Angus

  71,661

  94,407

  5·85

  45·63

  28·73

  12

  2,496,545

  Dundee City

  137,921

  175,748

  8·04

  53·98

  34·86

  12

  7,242,704

  Perth and Kinross

  94,226

  123,607

  8·08

  39·78

  31·23

  13·5

  2,372,225

  Orkney Island

  14,975

  19,338

  6·74

  25·44

  19·23

  53

  9,418,557

  Shetland Island

  16,357

  22,429

  11·68

  155·35

  42·12

  59

  11,061,435

  Western Isles

  23,685

  31,048

  3·80

  19·67

  11·82

  74

  29,750,471

  SCOTLAND

  3,994,211

  5,112,129

  6·96

  52·48

  35·98

  74·75

  1,777,322,740

  Number of council houses 30 September 1987

  Average rent 1987–88 £

  Local authority dwellings completed in 1987–88

  District councils

  Berwickshire

  2,516

  797·86

  17

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  4,146

  721·89

  0

  Roxburgh

  5,574

  877·00

  0

  Tweeddale

  1,445

  683·03

  12

  Clackmannan

  8,844

  745·46

  0

  Falkirk

  30,341

  722·36

  74

  196

  197

  Number of council houses 30 September 1987

  Average rent 1987·88 £

  Local authority dwellings completed in 1987–88

  Stirling

  12,180

  783·45

  0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  4,957

  857·40

  35

  Nithsdale

  7,625

  720·55

  66

  Stewartry

  2,352

  855·50

  40

  Wigtown

  4,377

  868·56

  20

  Dunfermline

  19,705

  764·52

  178

  Kirkcaldy

  23,504

  796·79

  131

  North East Fife

  6,805

  887·88

  65

  Aberdeen City

  37,206

  763·96

  93

  Banff and Buchan

  11,672

  811·66

  67

  Gordon

  5,387

  785·88

  171

  Kincardine and Deeside

  3,484

  745·52

  41

  Moray

  10,205

  814·54

  34

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1,075

  796·79

  13

  Caithness

  3,894

  771·66

  29

  Inverness

  6,684

  830·09

  32

  Lochaber

  3,010

  833·56

  0

  Nairn

  1,068

  821·02

  22

  Ross and Cromarty

  6,130

  824·45

  46

  Skye and Lochalsh

  771

  778·53

  11

  Sutherland

  1,716

  750·15

  33

  East Lothian

  14,524

  764·76

  71

  Edinburgh City

  50,610

  791·71

  63

  Midlothian

  11,318

  713·00

  14

  West Lothian

  20,475

  703·53

  8

  Argyll and Bute

  7,932

  821·53

  12

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1,765

  861·99

  35

  Clydebank

  11,361

  887·23

  0

  Clydesdale

  9,406

  719·94

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  4,142

  853·90

  6

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  9,751

  707·61

  6

  Cunninghame

  22,100

  676·71

  0

  Dumbarton

  12,428

  759·43

  18

  East Kilbride

  1,363

  859·57

  0

  Eastwood

  1,782

  647·22

  14

  Glasgow City

  165,749

  760·63

  0

  Hamilton

  22,133

  772·48

  8

  Inverclyde

  18,361

  692·92

  64

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  16,561

  720·27

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  16,742

  747·95

  47

  Monklands

  27,786

  806·13

  0

  Motherwell

  38,259

  733·42

  0

  Renfrew

  37,051

  675·65

  82

  Strathkelvin

  9,933

  795·92

  7

  Angus

  12,951

  757·99

  40

  Dundee City

  38,504

  707·62

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  14,663

  721·70

  0

  Orkney Island

  1,432

  831·49

  12

  Shetland Island

  2,634

  828·14

  20

  Western Isles

  2,541

  911·22

  33

  Scotland

  830,930

  758·03

  1,790

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on environmental health services and leisure and recreation is based on provisional outturns.

  2. Housing maintenance expenditure is the budgeted expenditure reported in "Rating review" published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (C.I.P.F.A.).

  3. Rate poundage after selective action.

  4. R.S.G. is after abatement. The figures are R.S.G. entitlements based on provisional expenditure outturns. An Order to give effect to them will be laid shortly.

  5. The electoral roll figures exclude attainers which numbered about 62,000 in 1987–88.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People (Training)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration is being given to the needs of disabled people to ensure that an accurate assessment and an appropriate personal action plan is drawn up for them in the new adult training programme.
  198
  Mr. Nicholls
  The initial assessment of trainees in employment training, leading to the production of individual action plans, will be carried out by a network of training agents. For trainees with disabilities who require specialised or extended assessment which a training agent is unable to deliver, the specialist help of the employment rehabilitation centres and ASSET teams run by the employment rehabilitation service will be available. MSC will expect training agents and training managers to have premises and facilities which are suitable for people
  199
  with disabilities as part of their required equal opportunities policy. Help will be available to providers, where necessary, in the form of grants towards the costs of necessary adaptations to premises and equipment, to meet the needs of particular individuals.

  Tourism
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage regional tourism.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department is actively working with the English Tourist Board, the British Tourist Authority and the 12 regional tourist boards to encourage the widest possible spread of tourism throughout England.

  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am, of course, aware of the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and of the 1987 TUC resolution on health and safety. However, I am not aware of any formal representations regarding amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the ratios of increased jobs in the first three months of 1988 are between(a) part-time and full-time, and (b) temporary and permanent.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available figures are for December 1987. Between December 1986 and December 1987 there was a net increase of 507,000 in the size of the civilian employed labour force in Great Britain. Of this increase 49 per cent. was attributable to growth in part-time employment and 51 per cent. to growth in full-time employment. The civilian employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment and the self-employed.

  The regularly published employment estimates do not separately identify those in temporary or permanent employment. The labour force survey provides such information on a different basis, and the latest available figures are for spring 1987. Estimates based on the labour force survey indicate that between spring 1986 and spring 1987 there was a net increase of 334,000 in the number of employees and self-employed in Great Britain. Of this increase, the percentages attributable to growths in temporary and permanent employment were 18 per cent. and 82 per cent., respectively.

  Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total number of people unemployed in the constituency of Basildon, and for the same period in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Basildon in March of each year since 1984. Unemployment statistics for 200
  parliamentary constituencies are derived from the ward. based system and are available only from June 1983. The comparison is affected by the change in the compilation of the unemployment statistics in March 1986.

  Number

  March 1984

  6,686

  March 1985

  7,120

  March 1986

  6,643

  March 1987

  5,950

  March 1988

  4,362

TRANSPORT

  Panama Canal
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what are the estimated numbers of ships plying to and from the United Kingdom via the Panama canal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The information requested is not available. We continue to keep the situation concerning the canal under review in close consultation with British interests.

  British Rail
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will urgently review his policies for subsidies to British Rail with a view to improving the quality of its services.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Government's policy on subsidising public transport was set out in the response to the Transport Select Committee's report on the financing of rail services (HC 420). Current and planned investment levels in the railways are already higher in real terms than at any time since the 1960s and are designed to bring a significant improvement in the quality of service for the customer.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to make a statement on the implications for transport policy of the report of the National Economic Research Associates on the quality of services of British Rail, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend has already told the National Union of Railwaymen, which commissioned the National Economic Research Associates report, that he would like to discuss it with it.

  Settle-Carlisle Line
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the criteria laid down by the group of local authorities offering financial support to the Settle-Carlisle railway, stating his response in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The local authorities have offered £500,000 towards the capital costs of restoring Ribblehead viaduct, subject to the following conditions:

  a. that British Rail continues to maintain and operate the line;

  b. that the line's future be guaranteed for a period of at least 20 years;

  c. that the contributions are a "one-off' which should not be seen as setting any precedent and no further requests for financial support should be made;

  201

  d. that the revenue support contributions already agreed for the next two years will not be extended beyond that period.

  My right hon. Friend is still considering this offer and the particular conditions attached to it.

  Pulford-Gresford Bypass
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the road bridge over the railway carrying the new Pulford to Gresford bypass will be such that it could accommodate double rail track if necessary.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The crossings of the Wrexham-Chester railway line were each designed to accommodate the single track which British Rail indicated would meet its existing and future operational requirements.

  The two bridges carrying the road over the railway line (one in England and one in Wales) might possibly accommodate a second track if the present track was realigned. The feasibility would need to be examined in detail with British Rail. The major bridge in Wales which carries the railway over the bypass could only be single track.

DEFENCE

  NATO
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's northern naval defences of the Danish parliamentary decision on 14 April to inform visiting naval captains that Denmark does not accept nuclear weapons on its territories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 19 April at column 670.

  Tornado Aircraft (Goose Bay)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado aircraft are currently deployed at Goose bay, Canada.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are currently nine Royal Air Force Tornados deployed at Goose Bay, Canada.

  Pay
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the percentage increase in armed forces pay in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  Pay review in

  Equivalent Percentage Increase for full year

  1974

  13

  1975

  29·5

  1976

  1£6 per week

  1977

  5

  1978

  13

  1979

  32·5

  1980

  16·8

  1981

  10·3

  202

  Pay review in

  Equivalent Percentage Increase for full year

  1982

  6·1

  1983

  7·2

  1984

  24·9

  1985

  7·1

  1986

  35·6

  1987

  4·9

  1988

  6·4

  Notes:

  1 £6 per week was equivalent to between 18·3 per cent. for a private and 3·8 per cent. for a colonel on appointment.

  2 A staged increase, the full amount awarded was 7·6 per cent.

  3 A 7·5 increase deferred to 1 July 1986.

  Radar Projects
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Blue Yeoman radar project has replaced Cold Witness.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force Tornado F.2 aircraft are currently in storage at RAF St. Athan; what is the reason for their withdrawal from service; what plans exist for their future disposal or use; and what is the estimated cost of implementing these plans.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In the course of the initial production run of the Tornado F2 a number of design changes were made to this aircraft type which resulted in a significant improvement in capabilities. The improved aircraft, was designated the Tornado F3. Current plans are for all 18 original F2s to be updated in the early 1990s to a standard similar to that of the F3s. Whilst awaiting this upgrading, 14 of these aircraft are in storage at RAF St. Athan. No contract for the work to upgrade these aircraft has yet been negotiated.

  Radar
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to issue tenders for the development and production of a surface-wave over-the-horizon radar for the United Kingdom air defence ground environment.

  (2) what discussions are taking place with the United States Navy concerning the establishment of a site in the United Kingdom for a United States Navy relocatable over-the-horizon radar;

  (3) what collaboration is taking place between his Department and the United States Air Force systems command on the development and deployment of a north-looking over-the-horizon radar;

  (4) what research has been conducted by the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment into the propagation of high frequency radar signals in Arctic regions;

  (5) in what year the air defence ground environment senior engineering officers conference first received a briefing on over-the-horizon radar.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom and the United States are collaborating in a joint programme of studies aimed at testing the feasibility of siting, and assessing the
  203
  potential value of, an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom. These studies, in which RSRE Malvern is involved, are still continuing and there are no firm plans for the issue of tenders for further stages. The air defence ground environment senior engineering officer's conference was first briefed on over-the-horizon radar in 1987.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the function and progress of the Blue Yeoman radar project.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The name Blue Yeoman covered the development of a long-range air defence radar which entered RAF service some 20 years ago and it is now being phased out. One such radar was retained at RSRE. This radar has undergone a major improvement programme and is being used to carry out research into a number of topics relating to advanced radar techniques and systems applicable to future long-range air defence.

  North Atlantic Defence System
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department is making to the United States Air Force Command, control and communications project known as the North Atlantic defence system.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The North Atlantic defence system is a NATO programme sponsored by both SACEUR and SACLANT, part of which will comprise communications and command control and information systems. It is eligible for funding through the NATO infrastructure budget, to which the United Kingdom in common with most other NATO nations contributes. Once the systems are in place the United Kingdom would expect operational benefit from NADS and also to make a substantial operational contribution to the effectiveness of the system through links with the United Kingdom air defence ground environment and the E3A AEW aircraft.

  RAF Phantom (Crash)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the crash in the North sea of a Royal Air Force Phantom aircraft on Wednesday 20 April.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 20 April a Royal Air Force Phantom FGI of 43 Squadron, RAF Leuchars crashed into the North sea during the course of the air defence exercise Elder Forest. Tragically, both crew were killed in the incident.

  The Royal Air Force has convened a board of inquiry into this accident, which will examine fully all the circumstances with a view to establishing its cause, and preventing a recurrence. A summary of the board's findings will be published in due course in the usual way.

  Menwith Hill, Harrogate
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the agreements authorising the use of Menwith Hill communications base, Harrogate, by the United States National Security Agency.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The use of Menwith Hill by the United States Department of Defence is subject to confidential arrangements between the United Kingdom and United States Government.
  204
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) United Kingdom personnel and (b) United States personnel are currently employed at Menwith Hill communications base; and what expansion has recently taken place or is planned.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Currently some 850 United States personnel and 340 United Kingdom personnel are employed at Menwith Hill. No significant change in numbers has taken place recently nor is any foreseen.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expenditure in each year on(a) capital equipment and buildings and (b) revenue for each of the past 10 years at Menwith Hill communications base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Full financial information of the kind requested is not held by the British Government and could only be obtained from the United States authorities at: disproportionate cost.

  Submarines (Welding Errors)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) welding errors in relation to Trafalgar Class submarines at Vickers and (b) the loss of Trident parts off Walney Island in the Mull of Galloway.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I wrote to the hon. Member on these matters on 25 April.

  Federal Radionavigation Plan
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask I he Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has made to the United States of America about the federal radionavigation plan published in November 1987.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: None.

  Ammunition Transport
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the last occasion on which a lorry loaded with ammunition caught fire on a motorway; if he will name the motorway; if he will describe the incident; what improvements have been made in the arrangements for the safety of ammunition transport since then; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]:The last occasion on which a lorry loaded with ammunition caught fire on a motorway was on 30 January 1988 at approximately 06.30 hours about½ mile beyond junction 27 of the M4 westbound. The fire was caused by a piece of sound insulation material falling from the engine cover on to the hot turbo-charger which ignited. The vehicle was brought safely to a stop and the fire extinguished using onboard equipment. The civil fire brigade and police attended. The vehicle was stationary on the hard shoulder for approximately 30 minutes and after repair continued on its journey without further incident. No changes to existing safety arrangements were thought necessary following this incident.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when was the last substantive review of the arrangements for the security of ammunition transported by road.
  205
  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: The security of ammunition transported by road is governed by Statutory Instrument 1977 No. 888 — The Conveyance by Road of Military Explosives Regulations 1977 and detailed guidance and instructions are contained in service regulations. A new health and safety regulation — The Road Traffic (Carriage of Explosives) Regulations is due to replace the present legislation in late 1988 and Ministry of Defence arrangements are being reviewed to ensure they comply with the new requirements.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what checks are undertaken to ensure that drivers of ammunition lorries are not under the influence of alcohol during their journeys.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: Statutory Instrument 1977 No. 888—The Conveyance by Road of Military Explosives Regulations 1977 — and unit standing orders specify that no personnel under the influence of alcohol are to be allowed to handle or convey ammunition. Responsibility for enforcing this regulation rests with the authorised representative at the despatching and receiving points.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the interests of security, he will review the present system for the identification of explosive and projectile ammunition carried by lorries.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: The requirements for labelling explosives, and for externally labelling vehicles carrying explosives, are contained in SI 1983 No. 1140 — Classification and Labelling of Explosives Regulations 1983. The classification of explosives is based upon the United Nations international system of classification, which is kept under periodical review. The hazard classification is displayed in the
  206
  interests of public safety and a separate review of this particular practice in the interests of security is not considered necessary.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is considering any new security measures for the transport by road of projectile ammunition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: Security standards for the transport by road of ammunition are laid down in service regulations. These are continually reviewed.

  Rimnet
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Rimnet's role in relation to the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Rimnet system has no role in relation to the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the wartime role of Rimnet.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no specific wartime role for Rimnet.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Local Government Elections
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made since the answer on 2 November 1987,Official Report, column 618, in enabling 'I' voters to exercise their mandate at local government elections in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Stanley
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers to my answer of 4 November, at column 618. The position remains as previously stated.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
Lord Kadoorie Lord Kadoorie—Took the Oath.

Electricity Supply Industry Privatisation
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the response from consumers' organisations to the Government's proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the electricity consumer organisations have generally welcomed the Government's proposals.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend consider very carefully the setting up of a regulatory authority, which needs to have teeth, and a consumers' authority, which must make itself available to hear complaints from millions of clients? Have the Government made up their minds whether this should be one body? Can they be sure that when people are deprived of a high quality electricity service they will be compensated for any losses and inconvenience that they may have suffered?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no detailed decisions about future arrangements have yet been taken. We shall be consulting with existing consumer councils to take advantage of their experience and advice before any decision is made. Privatisation will put real power into the hands of the consumer. Prices and standards of service will be regulated. There will be guarantees of standards, penalties for poor performance by the new companies, and compensation for the consumer.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, how can the noble Viscount reconcile the first Answer he gave to his noble friend with the fact that yesterday afternoon 15 organisations met upstairs at an all-party gathering to express their anxieties about the privatisation of electricity, and this included a representative of the National Consumer Council? Is his information up to date or have things moved on since he first obtained it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my information is not quite as up to date as that of the noble Baroness as I was not aware of that meeting upstairs. If there are any worries or concerns, now is the time to put them to my right honourable friend. I would remind the House that the Bill is still in its early stages of preparation.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply is most surprising? Is he further aware that it in no way conforms with what
204
I have heard from the consumer organisations about the proposed privatisation of electricity? Can he tell the House which organisations have approved of privatisation and which have not; or has he not heard from any of them?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the chairman of the Electricity Consumers' Council, John Hatch, has praised our White Paper proposals as "imaginative", and said that it looks as if customers are being put first.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has it yet been decided what powers the Secretary of State for Energy will have after privatisation?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords, not yet.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that vast areas of this country would not have received electrification when they did had it not been for nationalisation? This is especially true of the rural areas. Is he aware that in these rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales there is currently profound worry about the possible consequences of privatisation? Will he confirm that if at the end of the day public opinion appears clearly to be against privatisation, the Government will withdraw their proposals?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is beyond me to comment on that. It would be a matter for my right honourable friend. With respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, he is moving a little far from the Question on the Order Paper. I should tell the House that a debate on the White Paper has been arranged through the usual channels for Friday 20th May, when we may discuss this matter much more fully.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, has it come to the Government's attention that electricity consumers in the south-west of England are concerned about impending price increases which they think, rightly or wrongly, are being made in preparation for the construction of the Hinkley Point nuclear reactor, which they do not want at all?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in keeping exactly to the Question on the Order Paper I can only assume that the Minister did not hear my question. I know what John Hatch said, but I asked the Minister whether he could give the House the names of those organisations which had written to him either in favour of the proposition or against it.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I do not want a letter. Is the Minister aware that it is a long way round to have to wait for letters? I have asked him a simple question. The Question on the Order Paper from the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, asks him about the response. I am elaborating on that.

205
May I ask him which organisations have written to him in favour and which have written to him against, or has he heard from none?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not have the answer in my brief. I shall not write to the noble Baroness; I shall ring her up.

Dalai Lama's Visit to UK
2.42 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as a condition of the entry of the Dalai Lama into the United Kingdom, restrictions were imposed by the Foreign Office on what he would be allowed to say publicly during his recent visit; and if so what those restrictions were and what was the reason for them.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, as a distinguished spiritual leader committed to the cause of non-violence, the Dalai Lama is welcome to visit this country. When his recent visit was proposed, assurances were from the outset offered on his behalf that his visit would be pastoral in character and that he would not make political statements while he was here. In these circumstances, no consideration was given as to whether such assurances should be insisted on as a condition of this visit.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reassuring reply. Did Her Majesty's Government take any steps to counter what one could only call rumours in the press and the media that what I say in my original Question was the case: that Her Majesty's Government had imposed such restrictions on the Dalai Lama? People, including myself, believed that; and I thought that the Dalai Lama believed it also. It created a bad impression.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it was for the Dalai Lama's representatives to do that. They gave the undertakings, and it was for them to interpret them. I hope that my noble friend will note that the Dalai Lama himself stated at one of his press conferences that press reports of that alleged gagging had been exaggerated. I hope my noble friend is also aware that the Dalai Lama gave a large number of interviews, including those on television, without any hindrance.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Dalai Lama was greatly welcomed in this country, and that his visit was an outstanding success? Were the events in Lhasa last March and during last year the subject of discussions between the Dalai Lama and the right honourable and learned gentleman the Foreign Secretary? What were the results of those discussions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there was no discussion between my right honourable and learned friend and the Dalai Lama.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, both the Minister's answers are, to a certain extent, to be welcomed in that no restrictions were either asked for, or, as I understand it, imposed, on the Dalai Lama; and discussions, as I understand it, took place with the right honourable and learned gentleman the Foreign Secretary. Apart from those discussions, have the Government made any representations about what has been done in Tibet, and, if so, with what result?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in case the noble Lord misheard me, I should perhaps repeat that no discussions took place between my right honourable and learned friend and the Dalai Lama. With regard to representations, Her Majesty's Government are concerned and regret the loss of life and injuries which have taken place. Both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made clear to the Chinese Foreign Minister, Mr. Wu, during his visit, the strength of feeling about the matter that existed in this country.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the Dalai Lama was allowed a visa by Her Majesty's Government only on condition that he made no political statement whatsoever? Is that the position?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, no, it is not the position. The position is as I described it in my original Answer. Assurances were from the outset offered on the Dalai Lama's behalf that his visit would be pastoral in character, and that he would not make political statements while he was here. In those circumstances, no consideration was given as to whether such assurances should be insisted on as a condition of his visit.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government have asked for those assurances if they had not been voluntarily given?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that it is for me to answer hypothetical questions.

Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in setting up neighbourhood watch schemes throughout the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there are now over 50,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in the United Kingdom. The total has almost doubled over the past 12 months. It is four times greater than that of two years ago.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that satisfactory reply. Does he feel that the time has now come for a more systematic and

207
comprehensive approach to be made—perhaps at national level—to ensure that those schemes are even more successful than they are at present?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is up to each police force to encourage that protection as much as they can. The result has been successful. We are greatly encouraged by the increasing willingness and commitment which that demonstrates on the part of the general public to become involved in the prevention of crime. That is something for which we must continue to press.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister say whether there is any evidence that neighbourhood watch schemes have been truly effective? It appears that in some parts of Greater London the mere exhibiting of a little sticker in one's window offers no deterrent, and break-ins have continued at the same level for the past 18 months even in areas which have neighbourhood watch schemes. Are they being effective?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, wished to take part in any neighbourhood watch scheme, I know that it would be appreciated if he would do more than put up a sticker in his window. The noble Lord has asked an important question. I shall give him a few examples. For instance, in the West Midlands in October there were 500 schemes. In October 1987 there were 3,130, and residential burglary went down by 14·1 per cent.; in West Mercia in October 1986 there were 142 schemes; 12 months later there were 1,416 schemes, and residential burglary went down by 11·4 per cent.; in Greater Manchester there were 800 schemes. After 12 months that figure went up to 5,000, and residential burglary went down by 10·6 per cent.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is always somewhat different in Greater London? I have helped the police in my area tremendously.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I have helped the police to instigate things. Is the Minister further aware that I have been burgled four times because of my activity in neighbourhood watch schemes? The last time I had my house ransacked, which was only last Thursday, the police were of the opinion that I may have been displaying too many stickers showing that I belonged to the neighbourhood watch scheme.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I offer my commiserations to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on his very unsatisfactory history of unwarranted intruders. I would suggest to him that he should not be put off his neighbourhood watch scheme. Perhaps he could invite others of his friends to display stickers and to be more co-operative over his efforts.
The noble Lord asked specifically about London. According to Metropolitan Police figures, the number of schemes went up from 5,600 to 7,500 over 12 months; burglaries went down by 4·9 per cent. It is unfortunate that the noble Lord's experience did not help him in his figures.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there is any limit to the duties of those in neighbourhood watch schemes? For instance, will these neighbourhood watch officials be able or be required to report the visit of a gentleman to a lady's house or a lady's visit to a gentleman's house?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that there is any limit on what people may report to each other. Gossip usually has a good part to play in that. But I do not think that there are any restrictions on the amount of effort that is required by the public to help the police in combating crime.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the farm watch scheme is going? Are the schemes increasing and have they had any effect in the countryside on rural thieving?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the answer to that. If he wishes to put down a special Question about the farm watch scheme I shall be happy to answer it.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, has the Home Office any advice as to whether stickers in the window saying, "Beware of the dog" have as great an effect as "Beware of the neighbourhood watch scheme"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are many statistics in the Home Office, but I do not know whether that information would be among them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on behalf of his department will the Minister accept our congratulations on the very effective prevention of crime notices and the brief programmes which have appeared on television? In addition to the neighbourhood watch schemes helping the prevention of crime, is his department ensuring that local authorities get the means to carry out effective programmes, with proper caretakers on council estates, proper burglar alarms and proper locks being installed and proper lighting in the streets?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a rather wider question which has all sorts of ramifications. There are some authorities where the police go around and help people to protect their houses. There are certain schemes where that is done which have proved to be of great assistance. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind comments about my department, which will be received with delight.

Community Charge, Scotland
2.52 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to amend the proposed Scottish community charge arrangements to take account of the amendments agreed to during the passage through Parliament of the Local Government Finance Bill.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, we have always made clear that, if refinements were made to the community charge proposals for England and Wales, we should consider whether any parallel changes need to be made to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. A number of Scottish amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill were agreed to at Report stage of the Bill in the other place on Monday 25th April. These match provisions which are already in the Bill for England and Wales, or are otherwise of a minor or technical nature.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assurance with regard to the changes in the community charge. Perhaps I may press him on the impact of the amendments, which have been agreed in the other place, on the business community in Scotland. He will be aware that his right honourable friend has decided that the uniform business rate will now be phased over five years. The present business rate places Scottish business at a great disadvantage. The Minister will be aware that close to his home is the Exxon Corporation which pays £9 million per annum in rates. If that plant were situated in England it would pay around £1·5 million per annum in rates. The uniform business rate—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister look at an earlier implementation of the uniform business rate within the terms of this Bill?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Of course I am aware of the problems to which he alludes and, as the noble Lord himself will know, we intend to bring forward the harmonisation of business rates between England, Wales and Scotland after 1990. I point out to the noble Lord that as from April 1989 the effect of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act is to give non-domestic ratepayers in Scotland the benefit of indexation of their rates. This benefit, which comes a year before the changes in England, will give the non-domestic ratepayers a degree of protection which they have previously lacked and a degree of certainty as to the likely level of their obligations.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what powers there are? We know that the Secretary of State for Scotland has said—and the Minister has repeated it here—that if there are changes in the Bill for England they will be considered for Scotland. Are there any powers that will enable the Secretary of State to do this? Will a separate Bill be needed? I sincerely hope that the Government will not include amendments to Scottish legislation on the poll tax in an English poll tax Bill.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I appreciate the point which the noble Lord makes. The Scottish amendments will be commenced by order, thereby enabling the timing of their introduction to be a subject for consultation and to allow flexibility in the work which goes on in that regard on the ground.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, if I heard the Minister aright, he said that it was the intention to
210
introduce the uniform business rate by 1990, thereby avoiding the anomalies to which I have referred. Is it the case that the Minister's right honourable friend has now said that the uniform business rate will not be applied in 1990–91 but will be phased in over a further five-year period? Will that mean that these serious disadvantages in the case of Scottish industry will be maintained for another seven years?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, no. It is to be hoped that the differences between north and south of the Border will come to an end much sooner than that. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State obviously cannot give an assurance at present as to exactly when we shall have precise harmonisation north and south of the Border.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister referred to the Local Government Finance Bill as the flagship of the Government's programme? Can he recall the last time the flagship sailed with only two-thirds of the crew on board?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, that may be so, but I think that all our flagship Bills this Session have very powerful sails and perhaps one or two have outboard engines!

Business
2.57 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like, as usual, to say a word about the two Short Debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. It is customary in Short Debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes, and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debates. In the case of the Short Debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 14 minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to 7 minutes. By the time that the figures 14 and 7 respectively appear on the clock, the time is already up. If any noble Lord were to continue speaking, he would do so at the even greater expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Scottish Development Agency (Oban South Pier) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Education Reform Bill
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hooper, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Education Reform Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 7,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 8 to 36,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 37 to 61,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 62 to 104,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 105 to 107,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 108 to 140,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 141 to 169,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 170 to 173,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 174 to 190,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 191 to 197,

Schedules 10 and 11,

Clause 198.

—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Health in England
2.59 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington rose to call attention to the government publication Public Health in England (Cmnd. 289); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I cannot find a better introduction to this debate than to quote from the foreword of the report:
"Although it is over a hundred years since the last major review of the public health function and in the interim there have been major changes in the spectrum of prevalent illness, the proposition … is as relevant today as it was in 1871. Today as then, a great burden of premature disability and death occurs which is preventable and for which the consequent suffering and expense are unnecessary. Today as then, all sectors of society, the individual and a number of professions as well as the state have their roles to play."
It is true that the resources which can be devoted to health care are limited. It is also true that because of new methods and new technology and public awareness the demands on the treatment side of medicine will continue unabated and will probably become more and more expensive. The problem is: how can resources be found for the new public health in the face of these insistent demands?
Thinking of the old public health dominated as it was by the medical officer of health and concerned with food, housing, nutrition and inoculations, and comparing this with the developments of recent years, we find that a whole host of things have happened that will become a permanent feature of the new public health.
As the report says, it is ironic that the year 1948 which is usually viewed as being the date on which a new era dawned for the health of the nation was the year which in fact separated much of the public
212
health function from the rest of the National Health Service thus sowing the seeds of a confusion of roles between local authorities and health authorities. Between 1948 and 1974 the more farsighted medical officers of health performed valuable and creative work, striving for functional unity of the administratively tripartite National Health Service. They developed a substantial range of community health services.
A further and unforeseen consequence with the National Health Service which was deleterious was the neglect of preventive services which seemed to be administratively separate functionally and in terms of policy from the hospital service. This has been increased by the more recent separation of general practice services from the hospital activities and the placing of family practitioner committees directly under the Department of Health and the Secretary of State.
Perhaps one could give a few examples of the deteriorating situation and of the present confusions. In the United States of America children are required by law to be inoculated against measles before they attend school. In the United Kingdom measles epidemics continue causing permanent damage to some children. We have only achieved a 70 per cent. inoculation rate and it requires a 90 per cent. rate to stop epidemics of this highly infectious disease. Should we legislate?
The uptake of cervical cytology screening in one Manchester practice has been 14 per cent. That is very low, in spite of the family practitioner committee introducing a call and recall system. Investigation of this system showed that more than half of the cases of non-attendance were directly attributable to administrative errors which resulted in appointments being sent to the wrong addresses or to inappropriate people. This is not an isolated situation. Confidential inquiries in districts with high mortality rates from cancer of the cervix in women showed that the possible reasons varied. In one district none of the women who died had ever been screened. In another district with a high mortality rate all the women who died of cancer of the cervix had previously been screened at varying intervals. Although more than half of those women had shown some abnormalities on the original screening, they had had no re-examination six months later. That was possibly because of a failure of communication between the laboratory, the general practitioner and the woman concerned. The mortality rates for specific conditions such as cancer of the cervix can serve as indicators of matters to be rectified in the delivery of preventive health services.
Under the old public health system, X-ray of the chest was accepted without question to eliminate tuberculosis. Should all patients entering hospital now have an AIDS test? The desirability or otherwise of this and other possible legal requirements needs the application of the skills and knowledge of the law and politics. This necessity becomes more acute as the epidemic spreads and becomes heterosexual in transmission.
The public must have a view about the new public health system. What are the responsibilities of society against the background of the rapidly escalating costs

213
of running the treatment side of the NHS about which we have heard so much recently? What part should be played by individual decisions? Should smokers who develop carcinoma of the lungs be required to meet part of the cost of the treatment according to their means?
In recent years there have been remarkable changes in the contributions made to the public health by other government departments than the National Health Service or the Department of Health and Social Security. The Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are very substantially involved as is the Home Office in relation to narcotics. The Department of Education and Science is concerned with health education, and the Treasury is also involved in relation to taxes on tobacco and alcohol. I quote the words of the report:
"we wish to draw attention to the fact that at present the policies of almost every Government Department can have implications for health and that consequently there is a need for effective co-ordination of such policies if health is to be improved".
This view is also the opinion of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in its examination of priorities in medical research. Saving money on health and for health could be a government-wide exercise.
Much publicity recently has been directed at disturbing difficulties which have arisen over the deficiency of medical treatment, almost entirely in specialised hospital units. The hospital service as we know still remains central in the thoughts of the people of this country. But with regard to the hospital service and specialised treatments one is forced to ask how many of the procedures have been the subject of study by careful analysis of need, and by close collaboration between administrators and clinicians. How many have been the subject of controlled clinical trials and in how many situations such as the Birmingham Children's Hospital have the additional costs been assessed and properly budgeted for?
When we debated the National Health Service last month under the skilled guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the focus was mainly on the hospital service but there was mention in that debate of the tripartite nature of the NHS and of the public health and also of the contribution of the voluntary services in assisting in a skilled and positive way people with disabilities, helping them to be as independent as possible.
Much is, and will continue to be, the responsibility of local government as Sir Roy Griffiths has said in his recent report, Community Care: Agenda for Action. Sir Roy Griffiths also pointed out in the report with reference to the National Health Service:
"There is little measurement of health output: clinical evaluation of particular practices is by no means common and economic evaluation of these practices extremely rare. Nor can the NHS display a ready assessment of the effectiveness with which it is meeting the needs and expectations of the people it serves".
It was clear from the evidence given to the Acheson Committee that there was a lack of co-ordinated information on which to base policy decisions about the health of the population at national and local levels and particularly at local levels between health authorities, local authorities and general practitioner committees. That was a function carried out in the
214
1960s by medical officers of health. The present situation has led to widespread confusion about the role and responsibilities of public health doctors. Very importantly, there has been confusion about the responsibility for communicable diseases, as was recently evident in the epidemic of salmonella poisoning which occurred in Birmingham. In that case, collaboration did not occur. The Sir Donald Acheson inquiry showed a wide support for a well-trained and medically qualified public health specialist as a key figure. If such a figure had been present and active during the Birmingham outbreak, the consequences might have been very different.
The report suggests that there should be a new director of public health within the health authorities concerned. Moreover, it suggests that there should be established within the DHSS a central unit to facilitate and improve the monitoring of the nation's health. Although the phrasing is different, that seems to refer to the need for R&D as a basis for determining policy, which was a central recommendation by the Select Committee of this House which looked at priorities in medical research with particular reference to the needs of the NHS.
A recent debate in your Lordships' House on Investing in the Future: Child Health 10 years after the Court Report illustrated the growing importance of community paediatricians who could be valuable in building bridges between general practices and the schools. If such doctors are members of a large practice, they can keep the whole question of children and their welfare constantly in view. Another important aspect of the changing scene is mentioned in the Government's White Paper, Promoting Better Health. It proposed considering amendments to doctors' terms of service to clarify their role in health promotion and the prevention of ill-health. Perhaps the Minister will feel able to tell us more about that.
As an illustration of one of the most urgent questions facing public health and primary care, one cannot do better than to consider how the general practitioner is tackling the whole question of AIDS infection. The evidence so far seems to suggest that the GP does not consider that talking to his patients about that problem is very important. If advice about the infection was given to every patient, it might substantially reduce the spread of the disease. However, raising the subject during routine consultations about other matters is difficult.
Another difficulty in testing for AIDS has received little attention. However, it is exceedingly important. Although all tests for antibodies are sensitive and specific, false positive results occur. The ratio of false positive to true positive results is always high when the prevalence of an infection is low in the population, as it is in this case. In the case of AIDS, false positive results are at least five times more prevalent than true positive results. That is yet another difficulty in this desperate problem. That is an illustration of an infection which is closely linked to personal behaviour, for which there is a diagnostic method which may be delayed for many months before it becomes positive and for which there is presently no treatment available which will cure the condition. It adds a new dimension to the importance of personal public health measures; it can only be controlled by personal behaviour.
A different illustration of the importance of public health measures concerns the condition hepatitis B, for which there is a diagnostic test. The condition is spreading in this country. There is a treatment and all that is required is the provision of sufficient resources to eliminate or substanially control it within a matter of years.
Ministers have to make decisions between the demands for resources for those health measures and demands for the resources for development of new cardiology transplant units, modern high technology in radiology departments, intensive care units and the purchase of medicines. The task is difficult and time-consuming. When one considers what has happened in recent months with the crisis in the NHS over funding in hospitals and the further crisis in social security, one begins to realise the almost impossible task facing the Secretary of State. The Health Department should be able to argue its case for the NHS directly with those responsible for an overview of public expenditure. The social services should be able to do the same. Surely there should be a Minister of Health in the Cabinet.
I believe that this important matter should be looked at by the top review body which is considering the future of the National Health Service. As the Acheson Report makes clear, many governmental departments are concerned with public health. I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, we are told that the National Health Service is undergoing a review at the present time. However, I have not seen any rumours reported in the media or elsewhere of the place of public health in that review. Therefore, it is very pertinent that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, should raise the subject for debate. I am sure that we are all grateful to him.
I hope that the fact that we have not heard much about public health in the review does not mean that the reviewers have forgotten it. Amid all the hints dropped in the press and the media about more competition in primary care, more competition in hospitals, the involvement and competition from the private sector and even the American-style hospital maintenance organisations or the DRG systems in hospitals, we should remember that the domain of public health is not suited to that sort of approach.
The great advances in the health in this and indeed all nations were accomplished by public health measures until relatively recently, when the discovery of drugs such as insulin, penicillin and a host of other agents began a treatment revolution. It was people like Snow who took the handle off the pump as a means of controlling the waterborne infection, cholera; Jenner who used cowpox to vaccinate for smallpox; and Chadwick who was not a doctor but who was an administrator concerned with sewers and drains in London in the middle of the last century who saved more lives and gave a better quality of life to the people of this country than all the pedlars of modern therapies, myself included. I suspect from what the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has just said that he would include himself with me in that category.
216
That trend is being continued and it should not be forgotten. We have seen in our own time the development of the Salk and the Sabin vaccine for polio and its massive significance for the eradication of that disease. Incidentally, Fleming, who discovered penicillin, was not working on anything related to it at the time, as it was unknown. He was working on the natural protection of the body to infection from lyzozymes, a secretion of the tear ducts of the eye. He accidentally discovered penicillin. Nonetheless, he started a massive revolution which has led to all the subsequent antibiotic therapies and developments in treatment and therapy for sick patients. However, it is in the prevention of those diseases that the significant advances in health have been made.
We tend to take the advantages of a proper public health service largely for granted. It is only when we visit less fortunate lands that we see the grave consequences of its deficiency. I well remember my horror on receiving at my unit two charming gentlemen who were doctors from another country. The purpose of their visit was to purchase on behalf of their government the most suitable kidney dialysis machines for theircountry. I was horrified because the last things they needed were kidney machines and high technology.
What they really needed was a basic practice of medicine, work on the health programme and work on the prevention of polio, which was and still is endemic in that country. They needed to work on sewers, drains and the water supply and they needed to work on an immunisation programme. I was shocked to think that any government—and that was only 15 years ago—could waste money in that way when so much more was needed of that which is basic to the continuing health of a nation.
We have had a number of reports on public health over the years, including the very famous Royal Sanitary Commission, all the way through to the Todd Report of 1968 and the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, of 1972. We have had a number—probably too many—of NHS reorganisations, and a large number of statutes with which your Lordships are only too familiar. Now we have another report. One might well ask why. Why in 1988? What is special?
I think there is a simple answer. It is because a once unitary system is in danger of confusion, fragmentation and ultimately collapse. When the NHS started 40 years ago the old medical officer of health remained with the local authority. His duties continued to cover much the same ground although he was supposed to be limited to non-interference, so to speak, with those GP and hospital medical services. That separation created some problems. The solution in 1974—which was to restore the tripartite basis of all medical activity—may have looked good in theory but in practice did not work out. It left only environmental health with the local authorities. Of course they were allowed to look to the medical officer of environmental health who was employed by the late but not lamented area health authority.
Just before that we heard of and had developed the new specialty of so-called community medicine. In 1972 the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, recommended

217
that once again those roles should be combined, including the medical staff in the academic departments of public health. Had that happened I think that it would have gone some way to solving some of the problems. It did not, partly because community physicians were treated and appointed quite differently from other physicians and partly because their involvement in planning, manpower, medical personnel and consensus management teams led them in many other directions. It was also partly because there was no longer the respected career progression and training in some basic public health disciplines such as epidemiology, communicable diseases, control of infection and, above all, the research into disease patterns and preventive health, which in a way is part of epidemiology. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referrred to this in his speech, and I could not agree with him more.
One of the most important deficiencies in all that we hear about the health service is the question of outcome statistics. I do not mean by that output statistics. It is no good saying that a million patients went through the hospital or that 750,000 people were seen by their general practitioner on an average working weekday. What matters is to know whether it was all worth while, what happened to those patients and what was the result.
I once saw a doctor (who fortunately did not practise in this country, nor was he trained here) who had been carrying out a large number of oesophageal operations—gullet operations. He had been removing gullets at a great rate of knots for carcinoma of the gullet—without I might add many facilities where he was operating. I asked him, "What are your results?" "Well", he said, "some live a week". I said to him, "Why don't you stop?" I did not get a very satisfactory answer. He was appointed as a gullet surgeon and so he continued to operate on the gullet.
That is the sort of thing that we need to know. Fortunately there are not such exaggerated examples in this country. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has just said, we need to know the true outcome of, say, coronary bypass operations. Are we really talking about a 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. marginal difference in effect compared with medical and surgical therapy? Are we talking about survival? Are we talking about relief of symptoms? All this makes a fundamental difference to the decision or the allocation of resources. If it does not work, shut it down; if it works, give it support.
Unfortunately, as a practising clinician I have to agree with considerable reluctance with the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, that we frequently carry out practices the results of which, the true outcome of which, we do not actually know. He used the example—and I think it is a splendid one—of preventive health as regards carcinoma of the cervix in women. We know from the results that have been published over 25 years in Vancouver in Canada that, although one cannot eliminate the consequences of that disease one can minimise them, not by operations, not by radiotherapy and not by heroic measures but simply by screening at the right time and place. To do that one needs to obtain a sufficient proportion of the population.
218
One of the great problems that has always bedevilled screening programmes is that when one sets up a screening programme everybody who is already fairly intelligent and initiated into such matters rushes along to be screened. They are the last people who need to be screened because they would be the first to notice anything or complain and get action. The people one wants to get at are the people who do not come, the groups one cannot easily reach. That is one of the difficulties of the methodology.
Another problem is that one gets five doctors burning with enthusiasm to rush into some particular piece of preventive medicine. I remember very well one study on the contraceptive pill conducted at the University of Aberdeen 14 years ago. The results were splendid. The number of participants was about 96 per cent., which is something one never gets from the general population in ordinary circumstances. When the results were extrapolated to other districts and other places, the number of people who attended and who were reached dropped steadily until when it became routine it was something of the order of 53 per cent. or 55 per cent.
A really significant, well directed effort is needed to achieve results. A really well directed effort is needed to assess and evaluate the consequences of what we do and then to decide whether more effort or less should be put behind those services.
For some time now we have seen tragically a failure of communication between those who work for the local authorities and those who work for the district health authorities in this field. That has also led sometimes to a lack of interest and certainly to a failure of training of some of the current community physicians and those concerned, for example, with infection and communicable disease. I shall not go over the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. I am in total agreement with him and the example of the salmonella outbreak to which he referred; there is also Legionnaires' disease.
Perhaps I may now turn to the report. I found it difficult to read, verbose, repetitive and definitely lacking in clarity. Having been so rude about it, I must also say that I agree with its central points that public health needs revitalisation, that its role needs definition and that a new career structure with proper training, continuing education and association with academic faculties of public health certainly needs development.
I note that some recommendations seem to suggest the recreation of the old medical officer of health. Back comes the annual report, and it is to be discussed in public. Back comes also the role in the field of communicable disease; and back comes the wider role of advising on health care development. Indeed, the role suggested by paragraph 5.3 of the report is very wide-ranging indeed. There are some amusing points. For example, I could not understand quite why the subject of communicable diseases was sandwiched between training and shortage of manpower. Nonetheless all points were taken.
In all of this the two most important statements to which I have already drawn attention were nearly lost: first, that the evaluation of disease patterns, the measurement of outcome and the resultant planning resources are critical; secondly, research in these fields

219
could and should properly be a duty of the medical officer of health. I should therefore welcome the establishment of a proper public health science and service. I welcome also the idea of building on the current role of the London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene to provide pivotal leadership in this field. I hope that the medical officer will cease to be the repository of unwanted medical chores.
I have one final plea. Why can we not bring back the Diploma of Public Health, which everybody understood, once more call these people medical officers of health and let them walk tall in an old but honoured role?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for initiating this debate. I owe him an apology for not being present at the beginning of his speech, but I shall catch up with it in Hansard.
I agree with him about having an independent Minister of Health who has a seat in the Cabinet. I have no doubt that the health service suffers from the fact that the Minister who represents it in the Cabinet has other serious financial considerations to lay before his colleagues at the same time. He probably has to decide within the department beforehand how resources should be allocated between social services and health. What is required is that the health service should have its own Minister to argue its case in Cabinet. I am only too pleased to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, said.
I was very interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and I am very glad to be able to follow it. I, too, found the report difficult to read, but I thought that it had some very good recommendations which I should like to endorse. However, I was a little disturbed when I read the chapter on the shortcomings in the availability of future public health physicians, as community physicians will now be called. If they are to play the important role that the report suggests, we shall need to do a great deal of recruiting and training fairly quickly.
However, I want to talk about the role of general practice in public health. I read the report and then looked at the government White Paper, in which the Government suggest additional roles for GPs in the field of preventive medicine, which I strongly support. I could not see that suggestion reflected at all in this report. I know that there will be discussions on this matter. I do not know whether they have taken place yet. When the Minister replies, I should like him to tell me whether his mind is running along the same lines as mine. The general practitioner is the only person who sees the individual from birth to death, and often before birth. I often see men and women in the Caribbean and also in this country whom I knew before they were born because I provided antenatal treatment for their mothers. Sometimes I delivered them myself but, even when they were delivered in hospital, I provided most of the antenatal care.
220
Although we have community paediatricians, it is the GP and the health visitor who look after the pre-school child. It is a very important role. Although we have a school medical service, again it is the GP who will be consulted by the parents when anything happens to the child. Therefore, the GP's role in preventive medicine is as important—perhaps even more important—as his role in curative medicine. For example, the GP carries out the immunisations, and it is only he and the health visitor who can monitor them. The GP's role in preventing these children from later developing serious illnesses is of the utmost importance.
It is the GP who has the opportunity of influencing the life-style of his patients. Today that is most important when health education enables people to understand which rules are safe and which are unsafe—the GP should not necessarily make the decision for them as to which rules they follow but he should make quite sure that they understand them.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, refer to the GP's part in dealing with the problem of AIDS which now confronts us. I agree with him that GPs should discuss with their patients the whole question of the dangers of HIV infection and explain to them in as much detail as necessary what is involved, how they can become infected and how they can avoid being infected.
Although neither the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, nor the report touched on the serious problem of drug addiction, which I have raised in this House several times, I have always felt, and still feel, that here the GP has an extremely important role to play. Now that there is AIDS, which is a concomitant, because addicts pass the infection from one to another through their needles, it is even more important as a preventive measure that GPs should play their part.
I agree very strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, said about hepatitis. It seems incredible, since we know how to control hepatitis, that we have not devoted the resources to it. I do not believe that the resources required are so alarmingly high that they cannot be provided. It is surprising that we have not devoted the necessary resources to dealing with hepatitis, as we should have done.
I hope that my contribution will bring into focus the importance of the general practitioner in public health and that the Minister will take that fact back to his discussions. Whatever decisions may be made about the implementation of the report and about the importance of the GP's role in preventive medicine in the new arrangements proposed by the Government, I hope that there will be a coalescing of those two factors.
If the report is implemented, I do not understand who will monitor the GP's activities in this field. As in every other activity in the field of public health, the contribution of the general practitioner needs to be monitored. Therefore, in planning the structure—because obviously some structure is being planned—I hope that the Government will recognise the importance of the general practitioner in this field and will make sure that his role is properly monitored.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, not for the first time I find myself in some difficulty in one of your Lordships' debates. I was delighted when I learned that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, was to introduce this debate. It is indeed a subject of immense importance. It is one in which I have a very deep interest and in which I have had some professional involvement throughout my professional life. Indeed, there are those who may remember that over 12 years ago I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House on a related subject: it was on water supplies, hygiene and sanitation. At that time I said, and I repeat now, that plumbers and sanitary engineers together have done more for the public health than all the doctors put together. I adhere to that statement. It will therefore be clear that I attach very great importance indeed to the work of those in the field of public health.
I looked forward therefore to speaking in the debate, but it is apparent that in order to speak I had to read the report. Frankly, I have not found that the most enjoyable of experiences. I had to read it twice before I could begin to understand it. That is no criticism of the chairman of the committee of inquiry, Sir Donald Acheson, and certainly not of his command of the English language. I recently wrote an article in one of the medical journals paying tribute to Sir Donald's work and to his English in two admirable publications for doctors and patients. One was about AIDS and the other was to patients and parents about meningitis in the area of Stroud. I complimented him on his extremely lucid and totally clear English. When my wife read the article she said, "You seem to want something from Sir Donald Acheson". If I had been going to receive it perhaps I shall now forfeit it! However this report does not add to the nation's wealth of literature. Some reports have done so. For example, we have had the Annan Report, with beautiful prose. I can name many reports.
Although it is no criticism, it is interesting to note this fact. Some noble Lords will remember the truly delightful speech of my noble friend Lord McNair on the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill in which he made a plea for further instruction in Latin as an important means of improving the use of the English language. Perhaps it is not altogether without relevance that Latin is no longer required by medical students for entry into medical schools. The fact that the use of English by doctors has declined since that time may not be unrelated to the point that my noble friend Lord McNair was trying to make.
Perhaps I may put in another plea. One of the difficulties I found in reading the report is that it is littered with acronyms or with alphabetical abbreviations. I open the report at the recommendations. That is the point at which everyone always opens a report. They are what we read first before we decide whether we wish to read the rest. I turn to one recommendation purely at random. It is Recommendation 30:
"We recommend that DHSS, the GMC, the NHSTA, RHAs, the medical schools, the UKCC and other training bodies/institutes should review their education"—
and so on. If I go across the page I see that it recommends that it should be the responsibility:
222
"of each RHA to ensure the provision of specialist support services in consultation with DHAs, LAs, PHLS and the relevant academic departments"—
and so on. By the time one has read the report about four times one begins to understand, what those initials mean. I make a plea to those compiling reports of this kind who find it necessary to use acronyms or alphabetical abbreviations. Will they please put a glossary of those terms at the end of the report so that, if one has forgotten what they mean, one can find out without having to thumb back through 30 pages of the report to find when the body was last referred to. I found it a little difficult.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the report, perhaps I may ask a rather important question. He seemed to suggest that one can have a bad report and a good chairman. I should have thought that that was a contradiction in terms. I should have thought that the chairman was responsible for every single word of the report and that if it is not good it is his fault.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am quite sure that the chairman of this committee of inquiry will accept that any criticisms of his report are criticisms for which he must take some responsibility. However, the chairman of this committee of inquiry must accept some of the credit for the very wise advice that is also given in the report. I am sure that Sir Donald will not quarrel with what we have said about the use of English in this report. Perhaps it is the nature of the subject which, from the point of view of language, tends to make it less interesting than other reports.
Among other things, in the main the report seeks to clarify the administrative structure whereby public health is delivered to the nation as a whole. That is an immensely important task. I agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said in his speech about the importance of the public health function. Indeed, had we had any doubts, we should look again at that excellent report of Sir Douglas Black on inequalities in health which showed utterly clearly the importance of housing, sanitation and all such matters with regard to the health of the individuals in our society. Those functions were, in part, under the control of the old medical officer of health, and are now under the control of people who work in the public health field.
There has been difficulty with the emergence of people with new names, such as the environmental health officer, the community physician, and so on. We now have community paediatricians. I should like to make a plea that the existence of the community paediatrician should be more widely known and understood. The community paediatrician, in those areas that have one, can do a great deal to integrate services for children between the general practitioner and the school medical service, and so on. That is an important function but it is right that the general structure should be integrated and simplified. I also think that the line of command should be more clearly defined. It is defined in this report, as noble Lords will find if they take the trouble to study it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, mentioned this point in his opening speech. We also have before us

223
a report from Sir Roy Griffiths on the question of community care. Community care has a very important impact on the public health function. In many ways the two reports have to be considered in conjunction. I note that Sir Roy recommends that some of the functions of community care should now be transferred back to the social services departments of local authorities. In a sense, that is putting the clock back because that is where they once were. That might be wise, although I hasten to say that I am not in favour of returning to the old tripartite structure of the health service whereby the public health service, the hospital service and the domiciliary service were three totally separate services. I am not in favour of returning to that position, but if we are to transfer some control over community care to local authority social services departments, there would clearly be a need to restore the role of the medical officer of health. He was a very senior officer in the local authority. As a senior local authority officer he was listened to not only by the general public and patients but by doctors as well. I found the role of the MOH invaluable. I sought his advice on many occasions about infectious diseases and matters of that kind. That advice was always forthcoming.
In the later days when I was still in general practice we had no medical officer of health. I found it difficult to know to whom to turn. I know that there were people; this report spells it out. I did not always know how to find them. I agree that it is necessary that these services become better harmonised and better integrated. There has to be a much clearer line of command.
I come to another point which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. It is: who is in command at the top? Morale in the National Health Service at the moment is low for many reasons. I take the view—I have said this in your Lordships' House before—that it will not be fully restored until such time as we have a single Minister responsible for health and nothing else; a Minister of Cabinet rank. That was so in days gone by.
Noble Lords will remember that when Mr. Enoch Powell was Minister of Health he used to send out a personal message to all National Health Service employees every year. I venture to suggest that if the present Secretary of State sent out a personal message to every National Health Service employee, he might receive some fairly rude answers. But I also suggest that some of those would arise not so much from his functions in relation to the health service but from his involvement in social security matters. They are very different.
It seems to me that if, in the fullness of time, we were to move to some kind of unity of taxation and social security, with a negative income tax scheme, it would be essential that matters such as national insurance, pensions and social security come much more under a Ministry such as the Treasury and not under the Ministry of Health. I hope that sooner or later we shall have a single Minister of Cabinet rank responsible for health and for nothing else. That will improve morale, and will be good for the health service and for the whole British public.
224
The situation has been difficult and has gone on for many years. My recollection is that it was Richard Crossman who originated this huge conglomerate and subsequent Secretaries of State quite liked it, even though they may have voiced some suspicions of it. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was not all that happy about this mass multiple ministry until he himself became Secretary of State—
Lord Ennals: No, my Lords.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I rather think he stopped asking for it to be broken up, but I should be delighted to hear that he is now asking for it to be broken up because I think that would—
Lord Ennals: Wrong on both points, my Lords.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I do not know which points I am wrong on. The noble Lord will be speaking later and I hope that he may say that he would regard it as an advantage for this Ministry to be broken up and for the functions of social security, pensions and national insurance to be taken away into a separate department, as they used to be.
I have gone on long enough. I know that I have not taken up all my time, but it is not yet compulsory for speakers to fill all the time allotted by the rules. I take the view that, when people talk about having time-limited speeches, it is not how long a speech actually is but how long it seems to be. Sometimes it seems to be too long if people have gone on after they have finished saying whatever it is they have to say. I have said what I have to say on this report and I shall now sit down.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hunter of Newington for selecting this very important subject for debate. He is a great expert in medicine and is mentioned in the report. I was brought up to understand the importance of public health, for at one time one of my grandfathers was a doctor working in public health in Glasgow. We have advanced a long way since those days, but the dangers and difficulties of many infectious diseases are still with us. With the speed and ease of travel nowadays the world seems smaller, and with the resistance of some diseases to antibiotic treatment the need for vigilance is paramount.
Only this Sunday I heard about the case of a student at one of the Northern universities who had reported at his health centre that he had a serious headache. Fellow students later had to break down his door. He was found dead from meningitis. I should be interested to know how many cases of meningitis there have been in the past year, as this seems to be an increasingly serious problem. Acute meningitis is a notifiable disease.
I welcome the report. It states:
"we have made recommendations which simplify the current system and will introduce clear and unambiguous lines of accountability for surveillance, prevention and control and above all improve the capacity to react quickly".
I hope that these recommendations will be speedily implemented.

225
The Committee of Inquiry into the Future Development of the Public Health Function was set up in response to two major outbreaks of communicable disease: salmonella food poisoning at Stanley Royd Hospital in Wakefield in August 1984 and Legionnaires' disease at Stafford in April 1985. As a member of the Yorkshire regional health authority at the time, I asked at the RHA meeting what was being done at regional level about the outbreak. I was smartly told that the Wakefield district was dealing with it. Now with a different chairman and team of officers the response would be different.
I welcome paragraph 4.32 on page 21 of the report, which states that regional health authorities should monitor strategic and operational planning and performance of district health authorities. It recommends that the Secretary of State should consider issuing guidance clarifying and emphasising the public health responsibilities of health authorities and that there should be reports.
I particularly welcome paragraph 4.27.5, which states that district health authorities should,
"give advice to and seek co-operation with other agencies and organisations in their locality to promote health".
When I chaired the Committee on Alcohol and Young People, that was also one of our recommendations. When dealing with the health of the nation, whatever the category may be, people should not work in isolation.
Paragraph 3.2 of the report states:
"We strongly support the emphasis given by World Health Organisation to the role of individuals in preserving their own health".
To do this the general public needs education. I recommend your Lordships to read what the report says in paragraph 4.21.3 about schools. It suggests,
"supporting curriculum development of health education projects suitable for use by children of different age groups".
I hope that all noble Lords taking part in the debate will support the proposed amendment in my name to the Education Reform Bill that life skills, including health education, be part of the core subject of science in the national curriculum.
The Government know better than anyone what bad health costs the nation and the advantages of good health. It is vital to project good health wherever possible. It is widely recognised that smoking, wrong diet, lack of exercise, alcohol abuse, dangerous drugs, unwise sexual relationships and too much stress are all dangerous. Young people should grow up recognising that a healthy well-balanced lifestyle will help to promote good health. This advice should be given to them as early as possible before they are sucked into bad habits.
I was very interested to see the excellent educational material on exhibition last week by the Open University. It included advice on looking after oneself, drug abuse and many other subjects. This year we had as a Winston Churchill Memorial Fellowship category infectious diseases, treatment and care. I was one of the selection panellists. The applicants were of very high calibre and the dedication and enthusiasm in the fields of microbiology and infectious disease control, both medical and nursing, were most encouraging. One
226
university graduate was given a fellowship to study the setting up of health education programmes. He told us that the United States of America and Japan are far more advanced than Britain in computer programs of this kind. He was keen to bring back this expertise and help to provide better systems here.
Many of the candidates told the panel that they had to work in isolation and many were working at patient level. A young Scottish dental nurse who worked with patients who had AIDS and hepatitis B said that she did not have a chance of gaining the much-needed expertise she felt she needed. After interviewing so many excellent people I was interested to read on page 12 of the report that the committee advocated the development of a school or schools of public health where stress would be placed on the multi-disciplinary nature of the subject.
The report also stresses that there is often confusion as regards what public health embraces, confusion between community medicine and environmental health and confusion about the many different government departments involved. There is also often confusion among the many different names and abbreviations being used, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
The report emphasises that health policy involves the whole of government. I hope that if the Government accept the recommendation for the establishment of a small unit within the DHSS, bringing together relevant disciplines and skills to monitor the health of the public, it will include the problems of road traffic accidents and all other accidents which can have long term effects of brain injury and spinal damage.
I believe that the general public often think of health in terms of either the public or private sectors of hospitals or going to the general practitioner. The immense work carried out in providing the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through organised efforts is not wholly recognised. For example, I am told that Birmingham City Council Environmental Services Division has 1,800 employees and a budget of £100 million per year. Some of the people with whom I work on the regional health promotion group would have liked to see the report's terms of reference set wider than they were.
A leaflet published by the Danish Government on their health service states that health care has been based on good housing, wholesome food, good working conditions, pollution control and an adequate social network. I should like to quote to your Lordships the public health alliance charter:
"Public health means more than being free from illness and disease. It means having the resources to keep ourselves fit, secure and happy in a society which provides an environment free from unnecessary stresses, hazards and risks. Despite all the social and medical progress this century we are still faced with as many avoidable hazards to health as ever before".
With the growing problem of the AIDS virus in our midst it is stated in this week's Sunday Times that there are 20 new patients a week in Britain. There are 1,429 cases of fully fledged AIDS and 8,500 people have been identified as carrying the virus. It is thought that as many as 100,000 people may be infected. We cannot be complacent. We are fortunate to have as our Chief Medical Officer of Health Sir

227
Donald Acheson, who has an interest in infectious diseases. Even though the report has been criticised for the way in which it is written, I hope that it will project the need for better public health in Britain.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for introducing the debate. I have read the report and I confess at once that I understood only a part of it. I do not feel too distressed about that because it has been the admission of most noble Lords in the medical profession who have spoken before me. However, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, because we can raise any subject connected with public health.
I am particularly interested in the situation which exists between the family doctor and the patient. The point has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who unfortunately has now left the House. His great interest was that the work of the GP requires monitoring by some organisation. From my understanding of the situation, doing precisely that are the family practitioner committees. They are known as FPCs. They must solve many difficulties and problems, not least those which to many individuals are major problems but which, overall, can be settled easily. I believe that in addition to solving problems and difficulties there are other areas in which the FPCs could assess and assist the working of the National Health Service. The FPCs are an autonomous body composed of both lay members and professional people from the field of medicine. I believe that they perform their duties extremely well.
One should realise that the general practitioners see approximately 500,000 people on every day of every week. It would be somewhat surprising if complaints did not arise from one side or the other when such numbers are involved. The FPCs have a system whereby diagnostic complaints, or complaints of treatment, are dealt with by specialist sections known as services committees. If a complaint is made about the service being given by a doctor, or his actual treatment of an illness, the services committees of the FPCs deal with that. There are also other complaints such as the manner of GP; his apparent lack of interest; his reception of the patient; or of care. All those complaints fall within the purview of the FPCs.
I should like to give your Lordships an example. I have heard of a case of a lady patient who arrived at a doctor's surgery feeling very frightened and unwell. She was probably fearful of the unknown. Without any physical examination she was met joyfully by the GP who told her that she had the 'flu virus, and that there was a great deal of it about. He reached for his prescription pad at the same time and I suppose that she was prescribed the usual dose of antibiotics. That is not a hypothetical case. The GP must see a certain number of patients within the hour. However, he does not have to decide to see 12 or 10 patients within the hour; he must spend the amount of time required for each one. In the case that I have quoted, where the GP saw a lady who perhaps felt that she was unwell, he should have given more attention. In some cases
228
only a few minutes spent with each patient may be all right; but in other cases it is not.
On the other side of the coin, we must accept that some patients are particularly difficult; and on occasions the doctor finds it awkward to deal with them. There may be patients suffering from hypochondria or who have a psychosomatic illness. The doctor—he or she—is at his wits end to know precisely what to do. It may be necessary for the FPC to be called in to deal with the problem. Here again, not hypothetically, I understand they do just that, and make arrangements whereby the FPCs think they satisfy the patient by transferring that patient to another GP, and they certainly satisfy the GP in that case.
I am sure that complaints of this kind, either from patients or GPs, are few and far between. Undoubtedly the work and activities of the family practitioner committees in this country vary considerably. If one looks at the overall picture—and I cannot pretend to have reviewed it completely—they seem to vary in an area both in quantity and in quality. They are related, or should be related, to the population of the area, but that is not always the case. I would certainly urge that if there is a national body—and I do not know whether one exists—serving the family practitioner committees themselves, it should endeavour to have some sort of standardisation in the work of the FPCs.
At this stage I think one could ask the question quite fairly, "What else could they do"? First, they would need an increase in funding which would probably mean more full-time members, which would enable them to carry out regular inspections of doctors' surgeries. Those of us who visit surgeries know that many are excellent; but in depressed and deprived areas they are anything but that. In South London I have seen what were obviously derelict shops with the windows painted over being used as doctors' surgeries. Heaven only knows what they are like inside! They may be all right; one does not know. However, one is put off by that sort of thing. We really must ask ourselves why these are necessary. Are the FPCs doing their job and visiting doctors' surgeries frequently?
It may not only be in deprived areas where surgeries are below standard. In some picturesque country villages it is only necessary for a doctor to visit the village two or three times a week. He has to use temporary accommodation which is the best he can find for the purpose; that could be a converted garage of some description. Surgeries are not always what they should be. I know of one example—and again this is not hypothetical—where there is no regular supply of hot water in that particular surgery, which is used only temporarily.
Another area in which the FPCs could take an interest is the post of doctors' receptionist. Are we satisfied that doctors have the number of receptionists which they require? Are there too many or too few? Is this not a matter that the FPCs can look at? Maybe they do. Can they not engage in some sort of training for doctors' receptionists? Receptionists vary as do all of us in whichever sphere we work. Some receptionists are kindness itself and are absolutely involved in the work they do to the extent that the patients regard them as someone to

229
talk to as well as the doctor. On the other hand, there are receptionists who scare the living daylights out of the patient who is waiting to see the doctor.
We are told that some FPCs have modern computer details not only of doctors but of patients. That would be extremely helpful if generally used for the call and recall of patients for their periodic examinations and tests.
We can think of a number of other things which the FPCs could be doing. In some parts of the country doctors particularly will be aware of what are known as Well Women Clinics whereby once each year the lady patient—although feeling quite well—goes to such a clinic attended by a doctor and nurses to reassure herself that all is well in the area where one is usually concerned about what are known as women's complaints. This is a function which the FPC could take under their wing and insist that more are formed. There are a number of clinics and they do very well.
These are just a few thoughts of how the NHS and the Government can be used by the FPCs, and I hope that they will take on board these few suggestions.
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for providing this opportunity to bring before your Lordships' House the report Public Health in England. The term "public health" is defined in the report as,
"the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through organised efforts of society".
To this end on page 11, the report states:
"The discharge of the public health function in England today involves not only the activities of many different Government and non-Government agencies but a large number of different professional disciplines".
Bearing in mind the definitions and aspirations contained in the report, perhaps I may deal first with the recommended structure for the future of public health. That has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Trafford and by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
I have to confess that I look back with nostalgia to the days when, as a chief officer—a director of social services—I worked in the city of Oxford which was a unitary authority; that is, all services were within the orbit of the local authority. The chief officers under the chairmanship of the chief executive, met regularly. They included an absolutely outstanding medical officer of health who also worked in one of the hospitals and was therefore in close personal touch not only with the doctors, nurses and health visitors in the city but also with the education department, the housing department, the planning department and the social services department. Indeed, the medical officer of health planned the seven health centres in the city which has a population of 110,000. I can assure the noble Lord who has just spoken that the health centres, beautifully built—five of them purpose built—provide general practitioners with good conditions in which to work. The medical officer of health sent me the health centre plans for my comments.
230
By law the medical officer of health produced an annual report each year which was submitted to the local authority councillors and to the Department of Health. All departments of the local authority received a copy; they were outstanding reports. I often think that each department of the local authority should produce such a report. The medical officer's reports gave an awareness of the work and the public health needs of the city. It would be interesting to see the annual reports of a social services department alongside those of public health, particularly now that we have the Griffiths report.
With the reorganisation of local government and the health service, the role of the medical officer of health has disappeared. And, as often happens with reorganisations, there is left a gap. Every time I travel on the Underground and I hear a fearful voice saying, "Mind the gap", I think of the gap in various areas of our changed legislation.
No longer is there a co-ordinator, a promoter of education, in our public health service. The report offers as a remedy the appointment of a unit at central government level bringing together the relevant disciplines to monitor public health and suggests at local level the appointment of a regional director of public health whose duties are laid out on page 34. This would go some way towards alleviating the gap left by the abolition of the medical officer of health. But an appointment at regional level will not provide the close personal touch that existed with the medical officer of health.
As president of the National Children's Bureau and believing that children are the seed corn of the nation, I can point out some serious areas of concern in public health. There is serious lack of co-operation both at Ministry and at local authority levels affecting the health, lives and development of children. I shall quote various examples of social policies which are adversely affecting the lives of children. The points I propose to make have been brought before your Lordships' House on more than one occasion. Reports have been made and research work has been done: but still the problems continue. It is for that reason that I bring them forward yet again to your Lordships' House hoping that perhaps the recommendation in this report might go some way to alleviating them.
First, I would mention the appalling situation with regard to bed and breakfast housing accommodation. A scandalous state of affairs exists which is very expensive of public money. Not only is it not cost-effective; it is positively dangerous. In your Lordships' House there was a most notable doctor, the late Lord Stone. His son is a doctor working with families in bed and breakfast accommodation in Bayswater. As a doctor he is doing his best to alleviate the appalling conditions there. He has brought to the notice of local authorities and government departments the conditions in bed and breakfast accommodation—I cannot go over them as there is insufficient time—and has written a splendid booklet on the matter.
Also, there has been research done and a report made to the governors of the Thomas Coram Foundation for Children called A Survey of Families in Bed and Breakfast Hotels. That report lists the same complaints that are made by Dr. Stone. Health

231
visitors and doctors say—it is a terrible thing but they have to say it—that, in effect, visiting those families from a medical point of view is a waste of time because it is not the health of the children which is at fault but the conditions under which those children live.
I make an appeal to the Government that someone should at last do something. I hope my noble friend the Minister will forgive me. I hope he does not say that it is not the department's business but the local authority's business. If that is so, the local authority must be helped. That is one social policy which the doctors and the nurses are up against.
Secondly, the education Bill is going through Parliament. I echo the point made by my noble friend Lady Masham that the curriculum for teaching home economics should include child development and health in the community. I learnt today that she intends to move an amendment; I have put down almost the same amendment. People should be responsible for their own health in their own communities in their own families. But if they have not been instructed and trained, they will not do so. That is a terrible gap in our services.
Thirdly, I would ask the Minister if any research has been done into the nutritional state of children following the abolition of school meals for a number of children. I wish that some of your Lordships could see children at lunchtime eating from bags of chips or peanuts. They are, I believe, getting good nutritional value, but it does not seem to be enough. Those children are not sitting down having a social life around a table. Surely that must have affected the health of many of our children.
I am the governor of two schools for maladjusted, emotionally disturbed children, and I have to say from personal experience that the disturbance of those children is increasing. It is more serious now than ever before. Why is that? Surely, there should be an investigation and some research made into that situation. It is very worrying that a number of social workers in child guidance clinics are being withdrawn. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to comment.
There is a very serious situation with regard to school children working. It is the duty of the local education department to register any child who works and to ensure that the child has a medical examination. That is not happening. Many children in London schools are working long hours; they are unable to attend to their classes in schools; they are overtired.
An extremely good review has been undertaken in one school by Mrs. Elizabeth Clark, a trained nurse at the school who has a health education certificate from Croydon College. I am unable to go into the details of the report but I suggest that, from the public health point of view, there should be a study as to how many children are suffering as a result of working long hours in unsatisfactory conditions and for poor pay. The poor pay situation has been investigated by the Low Pay Unit.
It will be remembered that on 28th October there was a debate in your Lordships' House on Investing in the Future: Child Health 10 years after the Court
232
Report, a report by the National Children's Bureau. There is no time for me to quote from that report but the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, said there was good evidence that children's needs had been given a lower priority over the last 10 years than previously. I do not think that that is something of which we can be proud. There were also some very interesting speeches about how children were losing out in the public health area.
Finally, I come to the Acheson Report. I have to say that where children are concerned it is most disappointing that very little mention is made of community care of children by paediatricians. That is not new. In December 1986, the Minister in another place, Mr. Newton, reported that the Committee on Public Health in England was being looked into by Sir Donald Acheson. In January 1987 the Social Services Committee in the House of Commons called on the Government to re-examine their proposals for child surveillance. Then, in 1987, the White Paper Promoting Better Health made Recommendations for keeping under surveillance children who have special needs and the relationships between doctors, health visitors, school nurses, education departments and the social services. Sadly, however, at page 68 of the recommendations in the Acheson Report, there is no mention of surveillance of children. It recommends making,
"arrangements for the surveillance, prevention, treatment and control of communicable disease",
but says nothing about children. If we do not look after our children, we cannot expect a healthy nation.
My final point—I have taken just 14 minutes—concerns the chapter on the education and training of the proposed directors of public health. In Oxford, in a social services department, we reckoned to have doctors working there for at least a week so that they knew what went on in social services departments. If the Griffiths Report is to be successful and if we are to have good surveillance in the community of our children I suggest that these new people, whoever they may be—directors of public health at government or local authority level—must be trained in the social services and the social policies of the country. They must have a wider view than just that of medicine, important though that may be.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I join in the tributes that have already been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, who, by no means for the first time, has enabled your Lordships to debate an extremely important matter. Reports on the National Health Service as such—there have been many—are much less complicated, at least to my brain, than this report from a committee which was chaired by Sir Donald Acheson. Nevertheless, I think we should all pay tribute to him for enabling the first report on public health for many years to be available. According to my researches there is certainly no shortage of evidence; indeed, there are 10 pages devoted to distinguished bodies and individuals who have given evidence to the committee. Some 39 recommendations were made, which no doubt the Government will consider seriously.
Public health is basic. I wonder whether we in this country pay sufficient attention to the basic needs of

233
hygiene. I believe every doctor's surgery should display a prominent notice about hygiene; for example, washing one's hands where necessary, and such matters. The most disturbing events at the Stanley Royd Hospital in Wakefield were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Masham: the report read like a horror story. One wonders whether enough attention is yet paid to hygiene in kitchens, not only in hospitals and other institutions but also in restaurants and hotels as a whole. Surely that is a basic priority. If there is a large outbreak of salmonella poisoning or a similar disease, the public health authority and its director of public health services have an enormous burden on their shoulders.
Moreover, I ask whether enough publicity is given to the need for innoculations (after all, they do not have to be given subcutaneously) to children and others against the dreaded diseases—they still are dreaded—of measles and whooping cough? One hears, or has heard, of the occasional tragedy due to the after-effects of those innoculations, but measles and whooping cough are still far too prevalent. I believe that if more children had those vaccinations there would be fewer conditions which lead to hearing and, indeed, sight defects.
The report itself is a complicated one. Conversely, it is well set out and has an attractive cover, which is more than some reports do; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, about the number of hieroglyphics. Perhaps they are necessary but they do make the report difficult to follow. As I have already mentioned, public health is a much more complicated issue than the ordinary broad basics of the National Health Service.
Perhaps Members of your Lordships' House and, indeed, Members of the other place need a seminar or some sort of conference with visual aids to convince us of the great importance of public health and of this report. I believe that seminars, especially with visual aids, teach one far more than just an ordinary document. This is an aspect which my noble friend the Minister might perhaps bear in mind and pass on to the relevant department. Of course, one of the troubles with the present amount of parliamentary business is to find the time for such a seminar. However, I seriously believe that it would be valuable.
I make only one other point, because there are the winding-up speeches still to come. I refer to the value of international exchange. Recently there was a most valuable international seminar on the subject of AIDS. I know that some Members of your Lordships' House and also Members of the other place, met some of the delegates—health Ministers from 120 countries. It may well be that public health authorities should send their head of public health, or whatever title they may have, to a similar seminar. There is much to learn on the issue of public health, especially with the amount of international travel these days, from an exchange of views with various countries. That aspect is perhaps not completely germane, but such a report does lead people to put forward suggestions which may not be in the report itself.
We all have the year 1992 in mind, which will see the advent of complete absorption into the EC, and medicine and health services will play their part. That
234
thought should perhaps be borne in mind in view of the amount of travel which takes place today. It is to be hoped that the Government will study the report carefully and that at least some of the 39 recommendations will come into force in the not too distant future.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first, I owe the House a small apology in that I missed part of the speeches of two noble Lords. However, that was only because of a small private illness rather than public health. Therefore, having made that small apology, I move on to the subject of public health.
We are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for choosing public health and the Acheson Report for what I believe will turn out to have been an important debate—indeed, it has already turned out to be important. The noble Lord always speaks with great authority and we expect of him the reasoned careful presentation that we had today. I agree with many of the points made about the report. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, on the importance of public health and the danger of a degree of fragmentation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that the report is not the most exciting read. If I were to give it a book review, it would not be a very good one.
As to the contents, if one sets aside the irritations of constant repetition of initials, the fact that it lacks humanity and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, that it does not deal in any way with community care, and considers rather the recommendations, they are of great importance.
I want to start with the statement that, although there may have been many great advances in the treatment of particular diseases and in surgery, which have wrought miracles for patients in the National Health Service, in fact we are socially a very sick society. The noble Baroness hinted at some of the sicknesses, and I want to look at a few others.
The Government—I shall be somewhat critical of them in this, but perhaps that would be expected of me—not only have refused properly to fund the National Health Service but have ignored growing evidence of health inequalities and have failed to attack the causes of ill-health. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that when the Black Report was published shortly after I ceased to be Secretary of State, having established the committee that made the report, it was rubbished by my successor, now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and it was thought that it could be put into the wastepaper basket because there were only 162 copies to put away. At a later stage, it was realised that this was an historic document. It has been part of the agenda for social and political debate in the 10 years since it was published.
A report published in June by the Royal College of Physicians says that Britain now has one of the worst health records among developed countries after having been a leader a generation ago. It says that Britain has the highest death rate from heart disease in the world. Expectation of life at age 45 is one of the worst in any developed country, with Scotland markedly worse. A man in Scotland aged 45 can

235
expect to live 26·5 years compared with 28 years in England, 29 in France and 32 in Greece. A woman aged 42 can expect to live 32 more years in Scotland, 34 in England and 35 in France and Greece. There is no good reason for these statistics to prevail.
Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that infant mortality has fallen less in the United Kingdom than it has in most other European countries. Measles, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, congenital rubella and whooping cough have been virtually wiped out elsewhere but not in Britain. The noble Lord is right to ask whether consideration should be given to legislation in this respect. The cervical cancer death rate has hardly changed in 15 years but has halved elsewhere in Europe.
Women get a particularly poor deal. Breast cancer claims 13,000 lives each year and 2,000 die from cervical cancer, yet 3,000 and 1,000 respectively could be saved by effective screening and treatment. Only 13 out of the 201 England and Wales health authorities operate computerised call and recall cervical schemes. That is simply not satisfactory. These facts have been researched and are known by the Secretary of State, yet little has been done about it.
Reference was made to diet. The United Kingdom leads the world table in coronary heart disease deaths with 180,000 deaths a year. Many of course are related to a poor diet. The diet of poor families in particular lacks adequate nutrients and fibre and has too much sugar, salt and saturated fats. Cuts in free school meals and the ending of nutritional standards are undermining children's nutrition. The Social Security Bill will take a further 500,000 free meals away from children. I find that deeply disturbing for the future health of the coming generation.
Bad housing means bad health, both physically and mentally. Badly insulated housing means fuel poverty and ill health in Britain. One and quarter million homes are unfit for human habitation. As to safety at work, some 750 workers die and 300,000 sustain serious injury as a result of occupational accidents. The cost to Britain's economy of accidents and occupational ill-health runs to £2,000 million a year.
I deal next with smoking. Tobacco kills almost 100,000 a year. Although adult smoking is on the decline, it is running at a high level among the young. I find that deeply disturbing. Eleven to 16-year-olds purchase over £70 million worth of cigarettes every year. We know that the people who are most likely to be regular smokers in adulthood are those who start as children. We know that those who start as children are more likely to come from families where parents smoke. Thirty per cent. of fifth-formers smoke regularly, on average 50 cigarettes a week. I arrived in Beijing about three weeks ago on the first world international non-smoking day. Knowing how heavily the Chinese smoke, I was fascinated to note that the place was virtually plastered with posters and neon signs urging people to stop smoking. I very much hope that our Government, who are so much against smoking, will encourage the World Health Organisation to proceed with a regular year-by-year international non-smoking day.
236
I turn to alcohol. We spend £35 million a day on alcohol; most is spent on moderate social drinking, but alcohol abuse is growing. Over 1,000 people a year are killed as a result of drunken driving. One can go on giving statistics about the dangers of alcohol. Professor Alwyn Smith, president of the faculty of community medicine at the Royal College of Physicians said recently:
"Britain was the leader in public health a generation ago. It has now lost that pre-eminence and the result is that we are falling behind our neighbours in … child health and immunisation, health promotion and prevention".
I think that that is a wise and correct statement.
There is a responsibility upon the state. The Secretary of State, in Section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977, is charged with a duty:
"to continue the promotion in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—

(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of those countries, and

(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness".

Section 3(1), delegates to regional health authorities and, through them, district health authorities, and imposes a duty:
"to provide throughout England and Wales, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements … such facilities for the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness and the after-care of persons who have suffered from illness as he considers are appropriate as part of the health service".
Although the Act does not use the term "public health", it is explicitly stated that the duty imposed upon the Secretary of State in Sections 1 and 3 of the Act includes responsibility for, among other things, the improvement of the physical and mental health of people by the prevention of illness. This carries the implication that the state of health of the population should be assessed and progressively monitored. There is therefore a major responsibility upon the Secretary of State. He is not just responsible for the National Health Service. He is directly responsible for the whole of public health.
I may be unpopular with some for saying this but there is at the present time a serious lack of leadership from the centre on precisely the issues we are talking about today. It may be that, in responding to the many recommendations made by Sir Donald Acheson, the Minister will move us forward into a more positive sense of leadership on the issues that have been raised here. Time will tell. However, I fear that on many issues we are awaiting some formal leadership from Her Majesty's Government.
Perhaps we should look at some of the reports that have been received. On the Wagner Report there has been no response from the Government. On the Firth Report there has been no response from the Government. There is also the Griffiths Report. I do not know how long we shall have to wait for a response to that, but there will be a debate in your Lordships' House on mental health on 18th May. Perhaps that will give the Government an opportunity to give a considered response. It is unsatisfactory that recommendations should be made while the Government sit silently and watch so many things getting worse. We are a sick society. Once we move down the track of sickness it is difficult to start building up again.

237
There was an interesting article in the Health Service Journal last week which dealt precisely with the problem of inadequate leadership. It stated:
"Although it is generally acknowledged that not everything can be done with available resources, ministers and civil servants have not taken it on themselves to offer clear and consistent guidance to health authorities on priorities for service development … Since Priorities for health and personal social services in England was published in I 976"—
I pause to say that I was Secretary of State in 1976; I devoted an enormous amount of my time to the preparation of Priorities for health and personal social services in England, a document that attempted to give some leadership to health authorities and other bodies—
"there has been a progressive move away from identifying specific and achievable objectives for the NHS. This has resulted in health authorities being expected to pursue a wide range of policies regardless of whether they have the financial or managerial resources to do so. The clear impression has been created that there is no coherent vision or plan for the NHS at a national level".
I would say for the health of the nation and not just for the NHS. Often from these Benches we have asked the Minister about this, that or the other, and the answer almost always has been, "Priorities are a matter for district or regional health authorities", as if the Secretary of State himself did not have a direct responsibility. He was just shuffling it off on to health authorities. That is not good enough. We are entitled to ask for some leadership.
The fundamental of this failure of leadership has been the Government's refusal to accept the principal conclusions of the Black Report—not just its recommendations but the principal philosophy on which it is based—that health is closely linked with poverty and with all those social conditions to which I referred at the beginning of my speech.
The review team chaired by Sir Donald Acheson considered that the public health responsibilities of district health authorities are so important that they require the identification of a single person to be responsible and accountable for the function on behalf of the DHA and the district general manager. I believe that this recommendation—that there should be appointed a director of public health—is an extremely important one. We would expect him to receive advice from the Secretary of State and, taking account of that advice, to be able to co-ordinate the policies that are carried out not only, as the report later says, by health authorities but by local authorities as well. It is important to bring together the roles in public health of health authorities and social services departments. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in responding to that point.
In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, on introducing the debate and at the same time congratulate the chief medical officer on this important series of recommendations. Thirty-nine recommendations were made of which many have already been underlined. The report says that 31 can be implemented with no delay and 29 can be implemented at low or minimal cost. Therefore if in reply the Minister says, "If only there were resources the Government would be able to do this", I say to him that there are hardly any resource implications in the recommendations. I hope that we shall hear a positive response to them from the Minister.
4.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, on initiating the debate and thank him on behalf of the Government for providing the House with an opportunity to debate this interesting report. Who better to introduce the debate than the noble Lord. Indeed, much of the committee's findings must have a familiar ring to him. He chaired a working party in the early 1970s which looked closely at community medicine in the reorganised health service. Reading his report I was struck by how similar its conclusions are to Public Health in England.
It is arguable that if health authorities had fully implemented the recommendations of that earlier report we would not be facing the problems regarding the specialty of community medicine that Public Health in England has highlighted. That is as may be. But times have changed. We must ensure that any proposals we adopt to solve the only too familiar problems are suitably adapted for the NHS in the late 1980s and beyond.
As the report makes clear, it is the first general review of the public health function since the Royal Sanitary Commission of 1871. Sir Donald Acheson's remit was so wide, and the weight of evidence so great, that it proved to be impossible for the committee to report within the timescale originally proposed. I am sure that the House will agree that the time taken has been fully justified. I should like to thank Sir Donald and his colleagues for the care and energy they have devoted to a most constructive and thought-provoking report. Seldom have I ended up with a list of so many questions in a short debate. From those questions it is clear that the report has generated wide interest among your Lordships. I am sure that it will influence developments in the vital field of public health services for a considerable period of time. Today's debate gives us a most welcome opportunity to hear the views of noble Lords and for them to be taken fully into account in the Government's consideration of the report.
If the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, thinks that I am going to go through the 30 or so recommendations of the report this evening, accepting this one, not accepting that one and accepting the other in part, I am afraid that he will be disappointed. The report was presented to the Government in January 1988. I have to come clean at the beginning and say that the Government have not yet made up their mind on the recommendations. The noble Lord shakes his head. Whether he expects me to be able to announce the Government's findings or decisions on the report I do not know. He gave me the impression in his speech just now that he does.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Yes, I expected such an announcement. Although many of the issues were admittedly not put into the report (which was not seen by Ministers until four months ago) they are ones that have been discussed in the department for

239
a number of years. Sir Donald Acheson did not start from scratch, so of course I expected in a debate about the report given to Ministers four months ago that we would have replies to the principal recommendations. I shall be disappointed if we do not.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in that case, the noble Lord will have to contain his soul in disappointment.
As I said, in 1972 the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, studied many of the matters discussed in the report. To that extent I accept the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that some of the matters contained in the report are not new. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, did not however include communicable disease, and the Acheson Committee's report is a careful and detailed analysis of the extensive evidence which was presented to it across the whole field of public health. Well over 300 individuals and organisations submitted written or oral evidence to the inquiry.
My noble friend Lord Trafford and many other noble Lords pointed to the relationship which exists between public health and other government departments, whichever of them is responsible for the public health function at any period. I accept that the Acheson Report is only the latest in a long line of reports which have drawn attention to the interdependence of health and other services; for example, housing, education, social services and environmental services and of course the responsibility | which each one of us has for our own health. Again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that there is an interrelationship; but decisions on the composition of the Cabinet and the restructuring of the government machine are not for me. However, I shall pass on the many comments that have been made by your Lordships this afternoon.
With regard to that interrelationship, an example was produced by my noble friend Lady Faithful!, who raised the issue of children in bed and breakfast accommodation, which she sees as a public health responsibility, and especially a child health responsibility—and one which is neglected at that. I am most grateful to her for sending me the two reports about families in such accommodation. I shall read them with great care. As I understand it, they illustrate vividly the complex and varied problems of homeless families in inner London and the importance of a co-ordinated approach to resolve these problems. Of particular relevance to the debate is the way that they highlight the many agencies which have a role—local authority housing and social services departments, general practitioners and so on.
The importance of local authority public health responsibilities was emphasised in the report, as was the need for effective collaboration among the many agencies concerned. The report Public Health in England also drew specific attention to the director of public health's responsibility for assessing and advising on the comprehensive provision of preventive and surveillance services for children,
240
which is especially relevant to some of the problems discussed in the reports on homelessness.
The department has also funded a four-district project looking at the organisation and management of child health services. It includes Riverside, where the problems of providing health services for a highly mobile population are well recognised.
One of the committee's first tasks was to agree a working definition which fully recognised the wide range of influences on public health. Its definition accepted the importance of lifestyle as well as those aspects of public health, such as sanitary hygiene and epidemic disease control, with which it is more commonly associated.
The committee fully recognised that the task of minimising, and where possible removing, injurious environmental, social and behavioural influences of all kinds is fundamental to public health and that this task is the shared responsibility of a wide variety of government departments. However, it also recognised that to investigate such an all-embracing concept would go far beyond its collective capacity or the time available for its work. So it concentrated on reviewing the relevant aspects of the work of those statutory agencies with major responsibilities for securing the health of the public; that is, it interpreted its remit as being concerned principally with arrangements within the current institutional framework to do three things: to improve the surveillance of the health of the population centrally and locally; to encourage policies which promote and maintain health; and to ensure the means are available to evaluate existing health services.
A number of points emerged in the evidence given to the committee. The most important of these was a lack of co-ordinated information on which to base policy decisions about the health of the population at national and local levels. In its view this has led to: a lack of emphasis on the promotion of health and healthy living and the prevention of disease; widespread confusion about the role and responsibilities of public health doctors both within the NHS itself and among the public, to which I referred earlier; confusion about responsibility for the control of communicable disease and poor communication between the agencies involved, in particular widespread dissatisfaction with the position of the medical officer of environmental health, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, drew attention; weakness in the capacity of health authorities to evaluate the outcome of their activities and therefore to make informed choices between competing priorities; and, lastly, wide support for the need for a well trained, medically qualified public health specialist as a key figure in the health service.
"Bring back the medical officer of health", says my noble friend Lord Trafford. We shall have to consider whether, and, if so to what extent, it is possible to turn back the clock and resurrect a post set up to co-ordinate public health functions in the last century. I should remind my noble friend that local authorities were much more involved in the health scene at that time than they are now. The committee has recommended however that the function of the medical officer of health is:
"To inform himself as far as practicable respecting all matters affecting or likely to affect public health",

241
to quote from an Act of the last century, and to advise his employing authority by preparing an annual report which should be incorporated into the responsibilities of the individual that the committee calls the director of public health, who would also take on a number of other public health functions more suited to the health service in the late 20th century.
The committee adopted a number of key principles which underpinned the recommendations it made. These include: clarifying the nature of the public health responsibilities of health authorities and making named individuals accountable for the discharge of these functions within the framework of general managements; improving the means whereby objectives and targets for health are set; and stressing the need for collaboration for health among central and local government, the voluntary sector, industry, the media, the private sector and the individual, but particularly among the triumvirate of agencies at local level—health authorities, local authorities and family practitioner committees.
In his inimitable way, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, put his finger on a major problem, which is how to find who is responsible for public health. We acknowledge that problem. One of the main principles behind the report's recommendations was that health authorities should identify named individuals who would be personally accountable for performing carefully defined functions.
The question of the evaluation and measurement of the outcome of the public health function, or indeed any health function, is exercised sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly—I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—by the Secretary of State of the day, and is a situation incidentally which has not changed in the period between the noble Lord's distinguished tenure of that office and that of my noble friend today. The emphasis given by my noble friend Lord Trafford and the noble Baroness Lady Masham to the importance of a scientific base for the input of the public health medicine, the development of health indicators and the growing importance of health targets are of course of great interest to this Government at the moment. I rather wonder why nobody else has had the idea of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to set up a health index so that we can identify where there are gaps or a lower quality of service delivered in various areas of the country. I should have thought that this was essential.
I agree with both my noble friend and the noble Baroness that there is a desperate need to quantify health in this country. I anticipate such a unit as the report suggests, namely a central unit within the department, to facilitate and improve the monitoring of the nation's health. I see that unit doing just such a job.
The recommendations are designed to secure the better discharge of public health functions mainly but not exclusively by health authorities, local authorities and by family practitioner committees. To crystallise this higher level of functioning the report recommends a change in the style of community medicine to public health medicine. There are early indications that this change is going to be taken up by
242
the professions. The report recommends that both regions and district health authorities appoint directors of public health and I gather in some places this recommendation is already being put into effect. The director of public health would, as I understand it, become a source of medical advice not just to health authorities but also to local authorities and family practitioner committees.
Another key recommendation is that authorities should publish an annual report in which the director of public health would report on the health of their population. This would be drawn up after consultation with family practitioner committees and other relevant local bodies. The report's training and manpower recommendations follow on from these main recommendations affecting the way in which the public health function is discharged. Those which deal with the control of communicable diseases are important to pursue because of the need to ensure that everything is done to deal quickly and effectively with outbreaks when they occur and the need to prevent them taking place wherever possible.
In a speech which I found most interesting and very wide-ranging, the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, asked me a vast array of questions. I should like to take up straight away the point about smoking. The risks associated with smoking in pregnancy were once again highlighted in the recent fourth report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. We are considering the recommendations it made. It is clearly important that pregnant women should be aware of the risks. Indeed cigarette packets have carried the specific warning since 1986:
"Smoking when pregnant can injure your baby and cause premature birth".
The House will know however that it has never been a principle of the National Health Service that people should be assessed and charged according to the extent to which they contribute to their own ill-health. There are many illnesses, not just smoking-related ones, which are connected at least in part with people's lifestyles. Our aim must be to try to prevent ill-health by making people aware of habits which they should avoid and the positive actions that they can take such as having a better diet. This emphasis on prevention is the key to the Government's approach.
There are three major causes of ill-health. In heart disease the number one cause is diet, followed by smoking and lack of exercise. As far as cancer is concerned, the order is reversed somewhat, and the No. 1 evil is smoking followed by inappropriate diet, followed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will know well, by excessive consumption of alcohol. I find it particularly interesting and not a little disturbing that the amount that the public is prepared to spend on alcohol almost exactly equals the amount that the country currently spends on the National Health Service as a whole.
Several noble Lords mentioned family practitioner committees. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, asked whether they should be re-amalgamated with district health authorities. In our White Paper on the Government's programme for improving primary care, which all noble Lords from their speeches have clearly read, we responded to the recommendation made last year by the Select Committee on Social

243
Services in Primary Care that family practitioner committees should be re-amalgamated with district health authorities. We concluded that this was not the time for further major organisational change.
The separation has given the family practitioner services a stronger voice in the National Health Service overall and the FPCs are taking an increasingly active part in the planning and development of services in their areas. Our hope now is to build on that and to extend their management role as a means of securing improvements in primary care services.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, that part of the trouble is that FPCs rather hide their light under a bushel. I can advise him that they systematically inspect doctors' surgeries. The department has recently issued guidelines on general practitioner premises. Furthermore, paragraph 3.5, I think it is, of the White Paper on Primary Health Care says that the Government will also review minimum standards. FPCs will continue to be responsible for the inspection of premises and will be required to apply sanctions more stringently than before in respect of inadequate premises.
As regards the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, I suggest that a friendly and effective receptionist is an important member of the practice team. Very often the receptionist is in the first line for complaints rather than the GP or the dentist. The Government's review of the complaints procedure will make it easier for patients to make complaints where that is appropriate. I am sure that the whole House would agree with that as a point of view.
This brings me very neatly to the role of general practitioners. The Government's White Paper on Primary Health Care again contains proposals on important changes in the GP's contract which would have the aim of increasing their role in prevention. Clearly this is an area of great potential for preventing disease and promoting good health.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, pointed out that it is only the general practitioner who sees people from life to death. That is not always so. I was told recently by a family practitioner committee that a doctor had not seen a particular patient for over 20 years. I should therefore say that with computerisation the general practitioner is the only person who is in with a chance. Therefore, computers and computer-aided general practitioners are the essential first link in what will be a very long chain if the report's major recommendations are accepted.
However, the noble Lord is quite right. In spite of the rude remarks which many of your Lordships have made about it, the Acheson Report leaves us in no doubt about the need to acknowledge the role of the general practitioner. It envisages the work of a director of public health as drawing on information provided by family practitioner committees. Clearly general practitioners, as both the White Paper and the report say, have a major role in prevention.
The report concentrates its attention on how health authority responsibilities for public health could be emphasised and clarified, but repeatedly emphasises the role of the many other agencies and
244
individuals who make important contributions to public health, not least general practitioners. For this reason, it also stresses the importance of collaboration between health authorities and family practitioner committees on public health issues.
Should general practitioners do more AIDS counselling? With the development of care in the community it is clear that general practitioners will play an increasingly important role in the care and treatment of people with AIDS and HIV infection, not only in providing the necessary treatment during periods of symptomatic illness and liaising with other professionals and groups involved but also in providing counselling and support. We have recognised the importance of GPs by funding counselling training courses, a course in the clinical management of people with AIDS and part-time training services for general practitioners to work under the supervision of hospital specialists.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, is of course quite right. At the moment only a change in personal behaviour will reduce the spread of this incurable disease and certainly there is opportunity for general practitioners to influence personal behaviour. Gaining accurate information on the extent and the speed of spread of HIV infection is clearly also very important. An expert group under the Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service has been reviewing the current surveillance arrangements. The group's report will be published shortly.
I was very pleased that my noble friend Lord Auckland felt able to comment favourably on the Government's international activities in the field of AIDS. The House will be interested to know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be continuing this theme in Geneva next week.
Many noble Lords spoke about immunisation. The House will know that in 1985 we asked health authorities to set progressive uptake targets for all major childhood immunisations and to designate one person to be accountable for performance in this field within the health authority system. These people are called immunisation co-ordinators. So important is this subject seen to be in district health authorities that at a recent meeting in London that I addressed over 80 per cent. of a possible 191 designated officers attended. I was told that this was extremely unusual in such a meeting where it would be good going to get 60 per cent. of representatives from district health authorities countrywide to attend.
We have no plans to introduce compulsory immunisation in this country or to make it a condition of school entry. Indeed there is some evidence now emerging from the United States that compulsion of this kind does not necessarily lead to a universally high uptake. Health authorities in this country are already aware that no opportunity should be missed to immunise a child against infectious diseases. But equally we do not yet believe in compulsory immunisation. It has never been compulsory in the United Kingdom except for a very brief period for smallpox in 1949 and there is no present intention to change this.
I think that it would be right to move on very rapidly to meningitis and to the question of the noble

245
Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. I confirm that there has been an upsurge since 1984 similar to the one in the 1970s. In 1987 notifications in England and Wales reached 1,090. I could go on but I think that it might perhaps be appropriate if I wrote to the noble Baroness.
I mentioned earlier the interest of my noble friend Lady Faithfull in children. Again I think that I should write to her on this matter, but I wish to comment on the overall effects of the new social security arrangements, which are clearly still misunderstood. Before 11th April about 210,000 children in families receiving family income support actually took free meals and a further 340,000 took them under local education authority discretionary schemes. The Government estimate that cash help in the form of family credit will reach around 650,000 children of school age so the new arrangements will benefit around 100,000 more children. It is too early to say how these arrangements are affecting children's diet, but of course as with the other forms of social security we shall be watching this.
In considering the report's recommendations our aim must be to ensure that any changes we implement and any new mechanisms we set up are appropriate and workable. We should not wish to make matters worse by making quick decisions recommending solutions that will not work in practice. We are considering the report with the urgency noted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in announcing publication in January. Our intention remains to make a statement on implementation in the near future.
I know that that will disappoint some of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has made it quite clear that it disappoints him, but as I said it is only four months since we received the report. There is much more in it than in the previous reports, and we shall need to look at its reaction on other proposals that we shall be bringing forward for the health service as a whole.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, we have had a good debate. I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BBC: Responsibilities and Duties
5.26 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to call attention to the responsibilities of the BBC under the Royal Charter and the licence and agreement granted by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 2nd April 1981; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to propose the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may at once apologise to the noble Earl who will be replying to the debate because I know that the timing of the debate has disrupted some of his other arrangements. I am sorry that that is the case.
I should also like to say how gratifying it is to see past and present members of the governors of the BBC in their places this evening. I must especially say how gratified I am that, given his eminent role in the guidance of the BBC's affairs at the moment, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is in his place this evening.
On 15th March in your Lordships' House I tabled a Starred Question on a BBC television programme called "Airbase" which was a so-called drama documentary programme set on a United States air base in the United Kingdom. In the course of replying to a supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, delivered a lapidary judgment. I quote from col. 1031 of the Official Report:
"Programme content is a matter for the BBC. It is not a matter for the Government to interfere in".
That of course is nothing new. It is a doctrine to which successive governments have resorted whenever they are confronted with a criticism of the BBC. It is my purpose, in introducing this Motion this evening, to suggest that that is a false doctrine without any constitutional foundation. I shall in fact go further and suggest that the Government not only have a right to "interfere", if that is the chosen word, in the content of the BBC's programmes, but that in certain circumstances they have a statutory obligation to do so. I hope that I shall not detain your Lordships long.
The BBC operates under the provisions of a number of constitutional documents. The central and most familiar of these is the Royal Charter granted by the Sovereign. The current charter came into operation on 1st August 1981 and, if all goes well, remains in force until 31st December 1996. For the purpose of my Motion today I wish to draw the attention of the House to Article 20 of the charter which contains the following important provision:
"The grant of this Our Charter is made upon the express condition that the Corporation shall strictly and faithfully observe and perform and cause to be observed and performed the provisions prescribed therein or thereunder, and also the provisions prescribed in or under any licence which Our Secretary of State may from time to time grant to the Corporation".
To put that in simple lay language, the charter is granted strictly on condition that its provisions and those of the accompanying licence are observed. Furthermore, the charter goes on to state unambiguously that if it appears to the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the provisions of the charter or the licence and agreement have not been observed, and if within a specified time the corporation has not rectified the matter, the Sovereign may on the Home Secretary's advice revoke the charter.
As sound and television broadcast programmes are, under the charter, the principal objects of the corporation, I for one am at a loss to understand how the Secretary of State can discharge that obligation without reference to the content of those programmes. That is all that the BBC does. If a programme which is broadcast by the BBC offends against the charter or against the licence and agreement, the Home Secretary is empowered to require the BBC to remedy the matter. How can he possibly do that without (to use the chosen phrase) "interfering in the content of the programme"? It is the content of the programme that is at issue.
Let us look at the licence and agreement which is issued in conjunction with the charter. The current licence and agreement is promulgated under a Treasury minute dated 2nd April 1981 granting a new licence to run coterminously with the Royal Charter—that is to say, from 1st August 1981 to 31st December 1996. Like the Royal Charter, it is subject to revocation in the event of non-observance by the BBC of either the charter or the licence.
One of the conditions upon which the licence and agreement is granted is set out in the preamble. It states:
"and whereas by a resolution dated the 8th January 1981 and annexed hereto the Corporation has renewed the assurances previously given in respect of the general standards of programmes broadcast by the Corporation".
That is a part of the preamble and it means that the BBC's resolution to which it refers is an integral and essential part of the licence. It is a part of the conditions upon which the licence is issued and the charter continues in force. The relevant passage from that BBC resolution for the purpose of my Motion this evening is as follows:
"The Board recall that it has always been their object to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality and they intend to continue this policy both in the Corporations news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy".
Perhaps I may point out at this juncture that the words contained in that resolution:
"the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy",
bring such programmes as drama-documentaries within the scope of the resolution and therefore, by extension, within the scope of the licence and agreement.
If I have misunderstood the position I hope that the Minister will put me right when he comes to reply, but as I understand it, one of the conditions of the continuation of the charter and the licence and agreement is that the corporation shall treat all controversial subjects with due impartiality. If it does not, it appears to me that it is clearly within the power of the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Royal Charter to take the necessary action. I repeat that I entirely fail to understand how the Secretary of State can do that if he rejects any responsibility for the content of the BBC's programmes. It is only a programme or some part of a programme which can offend in that respect.
It is my contention that the corporation has, for some time, systematically contravened the requirement for impartiality. I could recite a long list of plays, documentaries, news and current affairs programmes on both radio and television which could not, without making a mockery of the English language, be described as impartial; and here let me say that the concept of the balancing programme is in my view a confidence trick. If the corporation transmits one biased and partial programme and then balances it with another biased the other way, what you have is two biased and partial programmes.
That gives rise to the kind of mental confusion which leads spokesmen of the corporation to remark from time to time that if they are attacked for bias from both sides of the political spectrum they must be
248
doing something right. The real implication is that they are doing everything wrong. The duty laid upon them in the constitutional documents is clear. It is to treat controversial subjects with impartiality; not to be partial in one direction on one occasion and in a different direction on another.
I should like to use as a brief case study one programme—the so-called play entitled "Airbase", broadcast on 1st March 1988 and the subject of my original starred Question. This is, as I have said, not an isolated case but merely one of a long succession of controversial programmes in drama, drama-documentary and current affairs. I shall not waste time with the artistic merits of "Airbase", since it had none which I could discern. One can only marvel at the intellectual impoverishment of those who write and produce such stuff and at the motives of those who allow it to be broadcast. My concern today is with its relevance to the requirements of the BBC's charter and licence.
In order to determine the relevance, it is necessary to answer two simple questions. First, did the programme deal with a controversial subject? The answer must surely be "yes". There are few more controversial subjects than the presence of American nuclear bombers on British soil. Secondly, did it treat the subject with due impartiality? Its main proposition was that the pilots and officers of the American bombers on this base were foul-mouthed, irresponsible morons who flew their operational missions under the influence of drugs. There was not one single character in the play who was not psychologically, morally or intellectually defective.
There was, furthermore, a clear inference, which the author and producer must have known to be utterly false, that biological weapons were stockpiled at the base. In fact, the entire production was an intemperate, sustained and malevolent attack upon a group of servicemen whose bearing, behaviour and motivation, as anyone who knows them will readily confirm, are of a very high standard, and who make a vital contribution to the security of the free world.
One of the lines of defence advanced by apologists for the corporation in this case is that it was "only a work of fiction". In this context, it may be worth calling the attention of your Lordships to an article which appeared in Radio Times, an organ of the BBC, in the issue which advertised the programme. In that article a journalist was commissioned and allowed to add his own measure of poisonous drivel to the mixture under a headline including the words "Just like the real McCoy" and to say of the play, among other things, that:
"it may seem paradoxically exaggerated, but that is all part of its accuracy."
It is difficult then, to resist the conclusion that the BBC allowed to be broadcast in its programme and its official organ a treatment of a controversial matter which was in clear contravention of the terms of its licence and of the Royal Charter. I am sure that other noble Lords speaking in the debate will have no difficulty in recalling other programmes which have offended in similar ways. I shall leave that to them.
Before I conclude, I should like to ask the Minister, when he comes to reply, to answer a number of quite specific questions, of which I have given him notice,

249
since this Motion is intended to be contructive and not in any way abrasive or mischievous. Does the Minister accept that under the charter the Home Secretary has a responsibility to ensure that the BBC observes its requirements and those of the licence? Does he accept that impartiality in the treatment of controversial subjects is one of those requirements? Does he agree that it is impossible to ensure impartiality without becoming involved in or at least interested in the content of the programme? Can he assure the House that the Government will in future desist from claiming that they have no right to interfere in the programmes of the BBC when it is clear under the terms of the charter and licence that in certain circumstances they have a clear obligation to do so?
Finally, I have a more specific message for the Minister, of which I have also given notice. In order to deliver it I must return to Article 20 of the Royal Charter and draw his attention to the following words. I paraphrase the words this time because to quote them in full would be time-consuming and perhaps even confusing. The charter says that "If it is made to appear to our Secretary of State on the representation of any person that there is reasonable cause to suppose that any of the provisions of the charter have not been observed, he may take the actions prescribed in the charter".
I am now making that representation under the provisions of the charter and am formally representing to the Secretary of State through the Minister that such reasonable cause exists. If as a result of that representation the Home Secretary decides to take no action, it will be clear that it is because he decides not to and not because he has no power to do so. The power is there under the terms of the charter and the licence.
Will the Minister therefore now ask the Secretary of State whether he will take the action clearly prescribed in the charter to ensure that the corporation shall in future comply with its responsibilities and refrain from permitting the broadcast of such programmes as "Airbase"? Will he further remind anyone in the BBC or elsewhere who still believes that the corporation has no responsibility to anyone but itself that the extreme penalty for failure to comply may in certain circumstances be the revocation of the licence by the Government and of the charter by the Queen in council. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.43 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, I think most of us agree that this is a timely debate; we are grateful to the noble Lord who has just sat down. There have been many developments in broadcasting and the BBC has enjoyed its privileged position for no less than 60 years. I well remember the debate in this House in the early 1950s when it was proposed that Parliament should license commercial television. I shall never forget how Lord Reith, with the zeal of an Old Testament prophet, resisted that proposition.
In discussing the BBC's responsibilities, it is useful to look at an interesting document published by the corporation as Appendix 6 to its annual report for
250
1986–87. That document offers a number of explanations and comments on the corporation's constitution and organisation. It describes, as the noble Lord has just described, the Home Secretary's power to veto under the licence. However, it proceeds to point out that never yet have those powers been invoked, even when there have been very severe criticisms of editorial decisions taken by the BBC. The document cites Suez and the Falklands war.
As we read on, we find that under the licence,
"The corporation shall at all times refrain from sending out broadcast matters expressing the opinions of the corporation on current affairs or on matters of policy".
The appendix comments:
"Newspapers may editorialise on any subject, broadcasting authorities are specifically prevented from doing so".
By "editorialise" I suppose is meant ex parte and attributable statements of views and opinions. The appendix proceeds:
"Not only the BBC may not express views of its own, it would not do so under its long established rule of impartiality".
It is explained that,
"An essential ingredient is fairness. The opportunities for all parties to controversy or debate to put their case. … Balance and fairness arise naturally out of the BBC's obligation to avoid expressing editorial opinions".
Yet as we read on we discover that precept and practice are at odds. We are told that there are some important qualifications to the concept of balance. We discover that,
"Balance may not always be the appropriate means of achieving impartiality".
We reach this significant statement:
"It used to be thought that every programme on a controversial subject must be balanced within itself. Experience shows, however, that too much emphasis on balance within a single programme could confuse the audience".
In support of that thesis is quoted the dictum from a former director general of the BBC, Sir Hugh Carleton-Greene:
"We have to balance different points of view in our programmes but not necessarily within each individual programme. Nothing is more stultifying than a current affairs programme in which all the opposing opinions cancel each other out. Sometimes one has to use that method, but in general it makes for greater liveliness and impact if the balance can be achieved over a period, perhaps within a series of related programmes".
One can see how readily justifications can be found for by-passing that fundamental condition of the licence. What is more, in this document impartiality is expressly discarded in what are called "access programmes". These, we are told, set out to offer personal views. And the document cites a series some time ago by the late James Cameron called "One Pair of Eyes". It is a persuasive example. One cannot help wondering whether it was the late Mr. Cameron's virulent anti-Americanism which attracted the talks section.
It may be that it is not necessary for the BBC to editorialise. The corporation's collective mind set can be better conveyed to listeners by the choice of programme makers and editors, by news items, correspondents and speakers like Mr. Cameron. Few can doubt that a large, powerful and influential corporation as is the BBC, with its great resources, has developed its own collective attitudes to public policies and current events which it is anxious to

251
promulgate. As the document illustrates, by professing a duty as well as a willingness not to editorialise, the corporation avoids accepting onus for the timing and content of broadcast matter which the members of its staff put out on its behalf, no matter how irresponsible and damaging in the national interest. Controversial opinion and statements can only be effectively countered immediately and in the same programme. Counter-arguments, if offered later, are heard by different audiences knowing little or nothing of the points to be answered, and no meaningful debate is possible. Authors of controversial current affairs programmes mounted on the principles of Sir Hugh Carleton Greene are allowed possession of the field long enough for their purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has eloquently pointed out the responsibilities of the Home Secretary. It is my view—perhaps he does not share it—that in practice not only has the Home Secretary not exercised his authority but that he will not exercise it because it will never be accepted in the general political world that his veto of BBC programmes is quasi-judicial. We saw lately the hubbub that emerged about Mr. Brittan's persuasion over a programme on Northern Ireland.
Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has pointed out, the Home Secretary has but one shot in his locker—suspension. It is inconceivable that in time of peace any government would move thus far, despite their obligations. The BBC's position is one of entrenched privilege, unrestrained. And it is judge of its own performance. It is, indeed, subject to the general body of criminal law, but on its own powers in practice it is sovereign and unassailable.
The appendix I have quoted reveals clearly the BBC's ambivalent attitude to the licence and charter. I agree with those who propose that at an early date the charter and licence should be replaced by a statute which would make the BBC answerable to the courts of law in respect of its own obligations and performance.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I shall not discuss the programme "Airbase", which seems to me too small a wart to be worthy of the expensive time of this House. I should like to look at some more general principles at stake.
We are naturally concerned with broadcasting in general, and the BBC in particular, because it represents a very special power in national life—the power to communicate with the whole population. Indeed, it is the main single channel of communication available, used between and within the whole nation. It has a potential unequalled for influence over the nation's mind for good or ill. If good, the influence will enrich society; if bad, it may degrade our society. Only a privileged few have that power in Britain—a few channels of television, relatively a few wavelengths of radio—and the BBC is primus among those privileged. It is therefore right for us to be concerned about the BBC and how it meets its obligations, though it is not right to be obsessed with its minor warts.
252
The obligations of the BBC are not just to meet or to massage some political preferences but primarily, and much more importantly, to provide quality in programmes. Impartiality is part of it, but only part. Quality of course is difficult to judge. It is subjective. But most of us know quality when it is there—and especially when it is not there. I was recently in the United States and, watching their television, I knew that quality was not there. I have just returned from Australia, and I knew it was not sufficiently there. I am sometimes in Italy, and I know that it is not there at all. Why? What do they have in common? They have in common the greatest degree of private ownership and the least degree of public service broadcasting in the advanced world. The correlation between public service broadcasting and programme quality is very high.
I believe that the BBC is still the supreme example of a public broadcasting service by its range of programmes, its national coverage and its truth, integrity and independence—some of which is polluted by political or commercial pressures—which are vitally linked to the independence and adequacy of its revenues.
In Britain ITV exhibits those characteristics too. I believe that that is partly the regulatory hand of the IBA, but it is especially because the BBC long before set a benchmark of quality for it. Having said that, of course the BBC is not perfect. It is very imperfect. It is surely impossible for such a large corporation to be perfect. Some of us are imperfect; I enjoy being very imperfect. The companies we work for make mistakes. We should not set impossible standards for a corporation of that size.
It is right that it should be criticised and that it should definitely be held accountable. We know how it has erred in an opposite direction in the past. It is right that the BBC should be required to change and adapt. It must become more commercial especially and more efficient. What worries some of us—and I felt that the tone of some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, might reinforce those worries, though he was not the source of them—are certain rumours and vibes that Her Majesty's Government want not adaptation but destruction, driven by a rather crude ideology of market economics and alleged consumer preference and also by what I believe are exaggerated allegations of Left-wing bias. I share the noble Lord's anger whenever I hear them, but I believe that they are exaggerated.
The Government aim to destroy the alleged duopoly power of the BBC and ITV. I believe that that would be wanton hooliganism. The BBC is by practical standards a precious national asset, however flawed and however irritating. Overseas, as the chairman of the Peacock Committee discovered—I imagine not to his surprise—foreigners envy it. They think that we are mad to contemplate damaging it. Sadly, there are now very few areas of human life in which Britain exhibits excellence and leads the world. We still lead the world in the theatre. We once led the world in the universities, but I think we no longer do so. I am told that we lead the world at snooker. Broadcasting remains pre-eminent, and we should not vandalise it.

253
We should be wary of hypercritics and pseudo-reformers in this field—those from the far Left, those who want state party propaganda and those from the far Right who want broadcasting as propaganda for the established order and who become paranoid about any radical criticism. The BBC is nowhere near being a vehicle of Comintern; nor do we want it to become a subsidiary of the CIA. It dissatisfies and irritates us all, and it will continue to do so. That is its job. It will err towards bias, because perfect balance is very difficult to achieve, but we should remember that one man's bias is another man's fair criticism, as we often appreciate in this House.
We should not be obsessed by these minor imperfections but should put them in perspective. Let us remember what Thomas Jefferson said about a healthy democracy needing a free, healthy and critical journalism. We need that. The BBC is still the best broadcasting service in the world, however flawed, and in practice is better than anything else on offer.
Would we prefer the proprietor of the The Times to be running our television? While it meets its true obligations, which are to produce a large number of high quality programmes—although not all high quality programmes; that is not humanly possible—we should count ourselves lucky. It has been very imperfect in the more recent past but it now has a new management team. It is beginning to take a more commercial approach. It has to do so much more, and we should support it. We should stop harassing it. We should resist the philistines who wish to destroy public broadcasting in Britain or those who exhibit very narrow obsessions with very minor parts of its activities.
6 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I listened to the indictment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, with great care. Of course he is right. As anyone who has read the charter of the BBC knows, it provides the Government with all the powers that even the Greek dictators would have wanted to hold over a broadcasting organisation. It can veto programmes; it can insist on programmes; it appoints the board of governors; it has all the power to control the BBC which it cares to use.
In the same way in our parliamentary system Parliament is sovereign. There are no restraints on what Parliament could do if it cared to do it. But liberties in this country must depend, and always have depended, on self-restraint on the part of the Government and of the population. The noble Lord urges the Home Secretary to exercise his powers in the BBC. If he were to do so he would be replacing the board of governors which on his behalf exercises those powers as a buffer between political influence and impartiality.
If one involves a Secretary of State in the daily affairs of the BBC by previewing, or in other ways, in the way that Mr. Brittan unfortunately involved himself in "Real Lives"—which, as people who saw it subsequently will remember was a curiously inoffensive and balanced programme, although not a
254
very interesting one—one runs into real difficulties and dangers. We should not abandon the self-restraint which is the only foundation on which the liberty of this country depends.
I do not expect that any argument that I can deploy will convince the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that the BBC is not a nest of subversives planning to undermine the institutions and the liberties of this country and to hand them over to some extraordinary body of people.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, the noble Lord need not convince anyone of that point. It has never been an article of my faith that the BBC is a nest of subversives. This is a very specific point on the provisions of the charter. I hope that he will not misrepresent my views.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the provisions of the charter are absolutely clear. No one denies that. The question is whether those provisions should be deployed on account of one programme.
The noble Lord has said elsewhere that he can produce a mass of evidence that this is a systematic process. If that evidence comes from the Media Monitoring Unit he will not find that it convinces many uinbiased persons. If we want the opinion of unbiased persons on the Media Monitoring Unit and the evidence that it produces, perhaps I may refer to the Sunday Telegraph, which is hardly a Left-wing paper, and Brenda Maddox, who is hardly a Left-wing columnist, who writes that the researcher was not a professional. The MMU endeavour was unintellectual and naive in its methods. Not only was just one pair of eyes used. There was no allowance made for the entirely different intent of programmes. One will not find anyone who is professional in sampling or monitoring programmes who will accept the evidence of the MMU. It was openly and self-confessedly a body set up by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I think I am right that he was chairman of it. It is said that he raised the money for it in the City. Is he denying all connection with the MMU?
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. I would not have done so had he not invited me to. Nothing that I have said tonight has any relevance to the Media Monitoring Unit. None of my evidence comes from it. I have not referred to it. It is totally irrelevant to my argument.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I only assumed that the noble Lord was referring to it when he said that he had systematic evidence to back up his statement. If it was not that, it would be interesting to know what the evidence is. Perhaps he will let me have it. I apologise if the Media Monitoring Unit was not the source of the information on which he was basing his argument. However, I do not expect to convince him by any argument that I can deploy that his fears are exaggerated.
There is, however, in the debate, a useful function that can be performed. The noble Earl who will answer the debate may be able to give us some information about the Government's plans for broadcasting and in particular the Broadcasting

255
Standards Council. This was announced six months ago since when we have had no terms of reference. We have had no chairman appointed. There is a multiplicity of rumours as to what its powers are to be. It is said that it may pronounce on individual programmes. It is said that those pronouncements will have to be broadcast. It is also said that it will preview programmes and if necessary have the power to ban them. These are rumours, but they are rumours because there is no hard information. It would be very useful if the noble Earl in answering the debate can tell us where matters stand.
Another rumour in connection with the Broadcasting Standards Council is that Sir William Rees-Mogg is to become its chairman. Sir William Rees-Mogg has many merits but understanding broadcasting is not one of them. In addition he has an unconcealed dislike and contempt for the BBC. If Sir William Rees-Mogg, who was intimately involved in the "Real Lives" fiasco, is appointed it will confirm the fears of those of us who feel that the Government are not interested in supporting the BBC as an institution on which we lay great value, which is of great importance to this country and whose independence should be maintained.
Secondly, if the Broadcasting Standards Council is set up with those powers, one cannot understand what the function of a board of governors is. The board of governors is responsible for defending the public interest, for seeing that the BBC carries out its duties under the charter and for appointing its leading personnel. If over and above the board of governors one places a broadcasting standards council to oversee it, it seems to me that one is dispersing responsibility and running a very great danger of undermining the independence of the BBC.
6.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity provided me by this short debate which we owe to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I put my name down to speak in order to say one thing in respect of a single area of the BBC's responsibilities under the Royal Charter: religious broadcasting. I hope that my brief intervention will not seem irrelevant to the very specific question that the noble Lord is raising.
My most recent experience of the BBC in the field of religious broadcasting was in Holy Week and Easter of this year. I was part of the BBC's output, if I may so put it, at that time. Some noble Lords may even have seen the BBC television presentation of "Songs of Praise" from Ely Cathedral on Easter Day. I was in my place in the cathedral for the two long evenings during which the programme was made. I was moved afterwards to write to the Head of Religious Programmes, BBC Television, to ask him to convey to all concerned my appreciation of the seriousness, sensitivity and tone of all that was done in the cathedral and in the personal interviews which were filmed in the making of that programme. I think that a true religious dimension came through the programme as presented, and many people have told me that they were grateful for it. We in Ely felt that great respect had been paid to our cathedral and what it stood for.
256
I cannot speak of other parts of the BBC's programmes in Holy Week and Easter with the same first hand knowledge. I am not able to follow them as I would, but I looked carefully at the whole schedule of programmes as set out and there can be no question that they were designed to offer a serious and Christian presentation; scriptural, devotional, meditative, musical and reflective in ways pertinent for today. There was not one that I should not have wished to hear or see. I am told, on the religious front to which I confine myself in these brief remarks, that the one complaint received by the BBC about the ordering of programmes in that particular week was from a humanist who felt that there had been too great an emphasis on a Christian presentation. I am moved to hope that the day will never come when on a plea for impartiality pressed hard the BBC would feel inhibited from casting up such a programme. Perhaps I am wrong even to think of such a thing.
I rose to speak on a limited point. I am grateful for the opportunity to have paid a tribute where I believe a tribute to be due.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will know that I have some sympathy with the views he has been expressing because I believe that there is a tiny clique of producers and writers who produce programmes that consistently denigrate not just the policy of the Government but the authority of the state and our country's foreign policy. Its objective is to cover these with slime. It is not an accident that the producer of "Tumbledown" is the same man who produced "The Monocled Mutineer", which was a programme compounded of malevolent falsehood.
However, the whole output of the BBC is not infected. Did the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, by any chance see "The Trial of Sir Roger Hollis" a few weeks ago? A fairer or more serious presentation of the evidence could not have been devised. Did he see a year ago in March 1987 the "Panorama" programme on the Brent council? "Panorama" is often attacked as being Left-wing, but every shot of those local councillors arguing for their so-called anti-racist and anti-sexist policies must have lost the Labour Party hundreds of votes.
I do not agree with the noble Lord about due impartiality. This was discussed at length in the report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting. Due impartiality is different from neutrality and balance. One can achieve a balanced output during a general election, but it would be impossible to do that week in and week out. It means reflecting different views even if those views are biased to one side. But it also means providing a wide range of views and taking into account the weight of opinion holding those views. In our report we said:
"While it is right that the accepted orthodoxy should be challenged, equally it is essential that the established view should be clearly and fully put".
It is that which Lord Chalfont, and I too at times, have felt that the BBC have been failing to do.
I did not see "Airbase" but I am fully prepared to accept that it was every bit as offensive as the noble

257
Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others have said. But I do not know whether he was too busy when he was a Minister of the Crown in the 1960s to attend the debates in your Lordships' House on the abolition of the Lord Chamberlain's censorship of the theatre. In those debates it was revealed that the Lord Chamberlain's office censored as a matter of course any play which was anti-American. I cannot really believe that the noble Lord wants to go back to those clays. There is evidence of course that some matters in that offensive programme had a basis of fact. For instance, the American armed forces in the Vietnam war did go in for drug taking.
I said that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was right in saying that the BBC had sailed off course. To bring the ship back, what did the Government do? They appointed Mr. Hussey as admiral and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, as vice-admiral. The first thing the two admirals did was to dismiss the captain of the ship and to appoint Mr. Checkland to command the ship. He in turn appointed the first officer of the watch, Mr. John Birt. That has led to the retirement of a number of recalcitrant officers. Finally, the Director-General has made the brilliant appointment of Mr. Paul Fox. He has persuaded him to come back to be Director of Television.
There cannot be a change of course overnight. I think the new team was right to tackle news and current affairs first, but when they come to drama I hope that the critics here tonight will not censure the BBC for dramatising Dickens. Dickens was denounced by the upper classes in his time for being vulgar and biased because he attacked the new Poor Law in Oliver Twist, and the Civil Service in Little Dorris. Your Lordships will remember the Circumlocution Office. Of course Dickens was unfair. Of course he was inconsistent. One moment he was attacking the government for doing nothing and the next he was attacking them for interfering. People who crusade against misery are always unfair in the eyes of politicians and civil servants, because they are the people who have to cope with that misery.
The Motion before the House suggests that the Government should now intervene to revoke the Charter or, at the very least, to wave a mailed fist in the BBC's face. I cannot conceive of anything more disastrous. I was greatly relieved at Question Time last month to hear the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—who was as indignant as anyone against the "Airbase" programme—say with great firmness that the Government had no intention of intervening.
It is no good picking on individual programmes. What is needed is a six-month survey of all current affairs, features and drama programmes that the BBC puts out. The survey must be both dispassionate and sophisticated. Anyone who wants to indict the BBC has to do that. It does not require much wit to set up such an inquiry. It requires a little money, but I have no doubt that if the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, called for funds they would pour in.
The most important quality of such a survey must be due impartiality. There are madmen on the Right who see reds under every bed and there are madmen on the Left who see American conspiracies and the
258
evil hand of the Prime Minister in every public action. Call for and set up an audit. If after six months the audit shows that the BBC is in the red then force the governors to explain why that is so. But keep the Government out of such an inquiry for their own sake. Let us not follow the French example: there whenever there is a change of Government all the major executives in broadcasting are promptly sacked.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, it is always nice to follow the noble Lord, Lord Annan, because he speaks with such éclat. I am sorry that time does not allow one—in cutting down a speech which was meant to be 15 minutes, but now has to be seven and a half minutes—to undertake the niceties and the politenesses and, incidentally, to praise the very good things which come out of the BBC as well as certain transgressions.
I want to concentrate on the lack of impartiality in BBC drama. The noble Lord mentioned Dickens. I remind him that Dickens was not controlled by a charter and a licence, so he had rather more freedom than the BBC has on impartiality. I want to concentrate on the controversy surrounding the forthcoming screening by the BBC of the play "Tumbledown". This was written by an experienced Left-Wing playwright, George Wood, and is produced for the BBC by Richard Broke. Curiously enough, Mr. Richard Broke was also the producer of the "Monocled Mutineer" in which the pernicious practice of inextricably interweaving fact and fiction was similarly employed. There was a time—and we all remember it well—when responsible dramatists were keen to emphasise, when presenting works of fiction, that any resemblance between the characters portrayed and real people, either live or dead, was purely coincidental. We remember those words. It appears that radical playwrights, producers and some members working for the BBC drama department are at pains to intertwine truth with falsehood as inseparably as possible.
Let us consider "The Monocled Mutineer". The series was first broadcast in 1986 and I see that it has been scheduled for repeat. Mr. Putkowski was the series' consultant and he felt it necessary to disclaim responsibility. He declared that this story of a First World War mutiny in France was fictitious and that scenes of' British soldiers raping uniformed women were totally out of place and unjust. He said that is was "riddled with errors". He made that point before the programme was broadcast and divorced himself from it.
In its promotional material for this caricature of events the BBC at first prominently claimed that it was an accurate account. I am glad to say that it later climbed down from that claim. With respect, it was nothing of the kind. As Paul Johnson rightly noted:
"it was another piece of agitprop to inflame class hatred and denigrate Britain".
Now Mr. Richard Broke is back using his preferred formula of real people and fictional events in "Tumbledown", a programme which we are to see shortly. Once again the central character is a real

259
person. In this case it is Lieutenant Robert Lawrence, formerly of the Scots Guards, who received the Military Cross and a desperately serious wound.
Charles Wood's published screenplay gives many instructions to the director stating that he should dwell on the horrendous wounds sustained during the Falklands War. I quote from page 38:
"His hair and head are still matted with blood and dirt. The stitching of his scalp has left great black, rough stitches over the front and a gobbet of brain protruding behind. Pink fluid oozes all the time from his head. The pillow is soaked with it …".
That is not the kind of thing that one wishes to have shown in the homesteads of our country. With respect, it should be possible to horrify people with initimate filming and it could be with horrific details of wounds inflicted on soldiers in any battle, in any war, no matter how just the cause for which the war was being fought.
Yet this play will be a statement about the Falklands War. It will be a statement about specific events and individuals in which and with whom Lieutenant Lawrence was involved. However, all the while the BBC will seek to claim, as they have already, that, despite the naming of the central character, the rest of the film is fictional. The right honourable George Younger, Minister of Defence, has said that he is, deeply unhappy about the mixing of fact with fiction. Understandably the Scots Guards have serious misgivings.
The Curteis play is quite a different kettle of fish. It was personally commissioned by the then Director General of the BBC, Alistair Milne. Mr. Curteis, the author of more than 80 plays and series on television over 20 years, spent a year writing and researching it. He took the trouble of interviewing senior politicians, civil servants and military men. He was gratified to receive a letter from the BBC Director General in June 1986, stating:
"I have now read 'The Falklands Play' and it makes a terrific story, as one would expect".
He added:
"your work has enriched the BBC".
However, according to Mr. Curteis's account in the Guardian on 20th September 1986, the then BBC head of plays, Peter Goodchild, visited him for five hours after seeing the script. To quote from the Guardian, he said that Curteis should:
"consider rewriting some of the War Cabinet scenes to show the decisions being taken by politicians on military matters and tailoring them in order to win the next General Election or to influence the next General Election".
That is a quotation directly attributed by Mr. Curteis as having been spoken to him by the head of BBC television plays. Mr. Curteis also reported how Mr. Goodchild had sounded him out, and again I quote:
"about cutting those aspects of Mrs. Thatcher's character that showed her as womanly and caring … while leaving in those aspects that projected her as hard and domineering".
It is now nearly a year since the general election. The historically-based "Falklands Play" by Ian Curteis has been cancelled by the BBC. The fictionalised "Tumbledown" is to be shown shortly. Its author, Charles Wood, once declared:
"I am not interested in writers who are not subversive".
260
When it commissioned him to undertake the play the BBC must have known that he was dedicated to that attitude of life.
Although the BBC has made efforts to tighten editorial control and honour its obligations, too many current affairs and drama programmes are slipping through the net. Although the spirit at the top is willing, I cannot help feeling that some staff at the workface seem delighted to disregard their professional standards and the obligations of the corporation. It cannot be an accident that current affairs series, such as the six programmes undertaken by Duncan Campbell or the six programmes undertaken by Helena Kennedy, both of whom have strong Left-wing connections, are commissioned by the BBC. "Airbase" is a pathetic and bad example. When one comes to drama, "The Monocled Mutineer" and "Tumbledown" have very different approaches and very different treatments from that accorded to the "Falklands Play" which has been cancelled.
Those are examples. I know that there is a lot which is good but we must ensure that the BBC Royal charter and licence for impartiality is honoured. No noble Lords have dared put forward any solutions but I put these forward succinctly. Either the Government must revise the charter and licence or issue something in its place, or we must set up a regulatory authority so that in future the BBC is no longer judge and jury on its own account.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Swann: My Lords, it is nearly eight years since I was chairman of the BBC. Much in this debate carried me back to the kind of issues I had to wrestle with all too frequently. Before I say a little about them I should first like to thank my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, who battled with me in the BBC. I echo most strongly what he said about the proposed Broadcasting Standards Council. It is either very silly or very dangerous. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who I thought showed an unusually extensive understanding of how the BBC actually works. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who has saved me from saying a number of things that I wanted to say by saying them much better than I could have done.
I shall not take on the role of defending the BBC. There is no need for me to do that because, to some extent, the BBC has already stated where it believes it has gone wrong. The director general and the chairman have already said that they believed "Airbase" was second-rate. They were very annoyed with the Radio Times for publishing an article purporting to claim that it was factual. As noble Lords may know, the editorial control of the Radio Times has been notably stiffened up. If it is any comfort to the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Orr-Ewing, the programme had an abysmally low viewing audience and one of the lowest audience appreciation indices that there has ever been.
Curiously enough, the same cannot be said of "The Monocled Mutineer", about which an article was also published claiming that it was factual. I saw one

261
programme of the series, although this was almost two years ago and I rather forget, but its audience figures were quite impressive. They started at almost 8 million and by the fourth programme they were at almost 10 million. The audience appreciation rose steadily to a very high figure.
One can make of that what one will. The programme was about a very nasty subject—war—and inevitably it was rather nasty. Are we perhaps never to show the realities of war? Having been in one, I should not like to see a shrinking from it. I shall riot go into the complicated ins and outs of the director general commissioning the Ian Curteis play on the Falkland Islands and what has subsequently happened. All I can say is that my erstwhile friends present it a little differently from the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing.
However, I should like to say that I detect a couple of familiar factors. One is that a mixture of fact and fiction is invariably dangerous. On these occasions it was clearly not treated with the care it should have been. In the BBC circles it has a name: "faction". It has always been a source of trouble and I shall refer to how these things are looked at in a moment.
I also recognise—and I think it has something to do with the fact that we have had a Conservative Government for a long time—that people forget what happens when we have a Labour Government. Indeed, having been through two or three changes of party in my time at the BBC, I recall precisely how the volume of complaint switched overnight from one direction to the other. Of course, a lot of bias is in the eye of the beholder.
With that in mind and because it raises one or two other points which I wish to follow up, I want to read what a previous Labour Prime Minister said when opening a new BBC building in Manchester at a time when I was chairman. It was Mr. Callaghan, who is now the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. He said:
"In this country it is the broadcasting organisations which are responsible for programme content. Sometimes your decisions and actions give me pain, and I find myself having to explain to overseas countries, when they are hurt by what you say about them, that the Government does not control you. Even when I have convinced them of this, they still think the Government could do something to stop you if it had the will. I then go on to say that, domestically, you and we sometimes have differences, but that none of these differences has ever disturbed the fundamental principle that the influential medium of broadcasting is free from political control and will so remain".
Of course, I accept that the Home Secretary and the Government have an absolute power of veto over what the BBC puts out. However, I believe it is to the eternal credit of successive governments that this power has never been invoked. For if it ever were to be invoked it would make it that much easier for the same or subsequent governments to do so again and again. That is the classic slippery slope that leads slowly but surely down to the precipice of totalitarian control.
I also deplore the noble Lord's wish to see governmental interference in programmes for another quite different reason, which has to do with the BBC's External Services. All over the world those are regarded as perhaps the foremost jewel in the BBC's crown. They have an enormous international audience; in a great many countries they are regarded as the only source of reliable news and comment; and
262
in many countries they are listened to in spite of heavy penalties for anyone caught doing so.
However, as some of your Lordships will know—and as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was once a foreign affairs consultant to the BBC I feel sure that he also will know—there is a continuing stream of denigration of the BBC's External Services from the governments of ideologically hostile countries attempting to make the case that the BBC is simply putting out clever government-controlled propaganda. If the Government were ever to start interfering with programmes, any programmes, they would indeed be making the hostile governments' case for them. Moreover, as I know all too well from my time at the BBC, that interference would not pass unnoticed. Hostile governments keep a very sharp eye on these things. In short, government interference with the BBC's independence would damage the BBC's international standing rapidly and irreparably and would do much harm to the national interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is clearly convinced that the BBC is in the grip of a Left-wing conspiracy. I have to repudiate that notion totally. Nor can I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that there is a clique of people doing this sort of thing. The BBC has a powerful ethos, even though, all too frequently, it does not live up to it. Of course, in the BBC there are extensive methods for trying to catch up with that. There is the procedure of upward reference. To deal with trouble there was set up in my time what we called the early warning system, and from time to time no doubt these things need to be stiffened up. I used to have to do that and I have no doubt that Lord Reith had to do it too, because there were terrible rumpuses even in his day, contrary to general belief.
One has to keep some perspective on this. There are 15,000 hours of television put out by the BBC a year, as well as 200,000 hours of domestic radio, and the staff would have to be archangels if they were never to make silly mistakes or errors of judgment. Given that some 50 million people of highly diverse views watch or listen fairly regularly, it is inevitable that many people will be annoyed for a few hours per annum and a few people annoyed for a lot of hours per annum. Among them, it would seem to me, are the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Orr-Ewing. I regard that as a small price to pay for maintaining the integrity of the BBC's uniquely influential External Services and preserving the essential element of a free society: namely, the freedom of the media.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Swann, has told us quite rightly that a mixture of fact and fiction is always dangerous. The problem is that fiction presented as fact and viewed as such in millions of homes is bound to distort the opinions of people—nearly all open-minded people—in those homes. The noble Lord also said that he thought, quite rightly, that the Government's power under the charter has not so far been invoked and he said that he hoped it never would be. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has invited my noble friend to say—in

263
addition to the other questions he wants answering—that the Government will ask the BBC to comply with the charter in future.
If your Lordships will bear with me, I wish to examine this matter by giving evidence about "Airbase". I have lived in the diocese of Ely—although not in the old county of the Isle of Ely—within a mile of the perimeter of one of the largest operational air bases in Europe, Alconbury, since it started in 1955 and I was there for 10 years before that. I remained MP for Huntingdonshire for the first 24 years that that base was operational. During that time I visited it several times a year for one reason or another and I got to know many members of the United States Air Force from the rank of colonel downwards. I say without hesitation that in my experience every man whom I came across was a splendid man. I did not come across any others. They were highly skilled technically, as they had to be, and were rather serious. They were good family men and nearly all had their families living with them on the base, where several hundred American children were receiving an all-American education, and doing so without making any demands on our own system.
On one occasion I flew with the United States Air Force to and from Germany in one of their aircraft to visit their headquarters in Frankfurt and West Berlin. From my knowledge of American airmen, which is spread over nearly a quarter of a century, I can assure your Lordships that I never saw any sign of indiscipline, although naturally there was some minor indiscipline from time to time. I did not see any drunkenness and I was never conscious of any depravity. The film "Airbase" gave an utterly false impression of men who had left their own country to help to defend ours and to help to keep the peace of the world.
An apology is owed to the United States Air Force by the BBC. I do not know whether any such apology has even been hinted at, but I certainly think that one is due. Of course, the question arises as to whether an apology is owed on behalf of the people of this country. If that is so, only the Government could give it. That brings us to the problem already mentioned, that the Government would then be in the position for the first time of criticising the BBC and, it could be said, of interfering with its activities, although ex post facto.
I hope that this debate may have served the purpose of bringing home to the television authorities that they sometimes run a risk in the kinds of programmes that they present. When the risk is confined to opinions affecting what we do in this country among ourselves perhaps it matters less, but when they run the risk of offending those of our allies who were in this country helping us defend it, then I regard it as an extremely dangerous matter and full justification for what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and other noble Lords have said.
I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Annan, with all their experience and authority, would agree that, however interpreted, impartiality and balance can be achieved only on the basis of true
264
facts. Accuracy is essential before sound judgments can be reached. But if those responsible in the BBC and in the IBA merely assume that the principle of freedom of speech allows facts to be distorted or extreme prejudice to become acceptable, in my opinion they are failing in the trust which is given to them.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I agree absolutely with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has just said. I saw the film "Airbase" as an ordinary viewer. I did not believe what I saw, and I chose to see it a second time. I did not believe that the BBC could commission or screen such a so-called drama; but it did. Not since the days of Hitler's media controller, Goebbels, have I seen such a vicious, tendentious misrepresentation of a group of people, in this case American airmen. Perhaps I may be forgiven for feeling rather strongly because I survived the last war not least because of the intervention of the Americans, without whom Europe would not have kept its freedom.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, to allow such distortion in the name of free speech is wrong. It is also very wrong to think that because of the low quality of the presentation it is not dangerous or damaging. Hitler got to the top and within an inch of subjugating Europe with precisely that. I have never doubted the integrity of the BBC. Nor have I doubted that it is probably the best broadcasting organisation in the world. But the responsibility of the media is colossal. Whether they live up to that is questionable.
The motivation and the purpose of Goebbels was clear. The motivation and the purpose of the producer of "Airbase", or of its patron, the BBC, are not clear. Perhaps the noble Minister can enlighten us on that.
"Airbase" has been referred to as a wart. The noble Lord who did so told me that he had not seen it. Had he seen it I am sure that he would not have considered it a wart; but it is certainly a million-pound wart of BBC income or taxpayers' money.
Perhaps I may be allowed to make a constructive suggestion. If this so-called drama "Airbase" were offered to Colonel Gaddafi, who has a lot of money and lacks the skill to produce such a persuasive distortion, he may be quite happy to pay for the cost of the film and might even leave us with a profit at the end of it.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I am a rather unwilling participant in this debate for several reasons, but I am encouraged to take part partly by the welcome presence of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, whose appointment was one of the best public appointments that the Government have made in recent times.
I have a considerable affection and admiration for the BBC, having been a governor for five years and having been associated for a much longer period with the External Services. I enjoyed serving under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and in company with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.

265
We all rely on the BBC more than on the quality press for news and comment on domestic and foreign affairs. The BBC and the ITV together have immense political power and have indeed reshaped our democracy. It therefore gives me no pleasure whatsoever to see the BBC being an object of criticism, however justified it may be. As many noble Lords have asserted, there can be no question that under the charter licence and associated documents the BBC assumes certain programme obligations to the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, set them out, and he was perfectly correct. If those obligations are not met the Secretary of State has a right and a duty not only to comment but in the last resort to intervene. The BBC does not contest that.
For example, it says on page 169 of the 1985 annual report with reference to Clause 13.4 of the licence—and I apologise if this repeats something that the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, has said but it is worth hearing what the BBC said in detail
"This clause enables the Government or Parliament to have the last word on issues on which their views and those of the Corporation might he in conflict. It confers on the Government a formally absolute power of veto over BBC programmes. However this power has always been treated as a reserve power and has never been invoked. In its programme activities the Corporation has enjoyed and enjoys complete freedom".
In other words, the independence of the BBC is a highly desirable convention which both parties have respected. Whether this so-called play "Airbase" or any other programme justifies breaching this convention is a matter of opinion.
However, noble Lords will recall the universal disgust about the programme when the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, first raised the matter in the House. It is clear that the Government, if challenged, cannot seek refuge, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, initially did behind the alleged unfettered independence of the BBC. The programme, and indeed all programmes, can be looked at by the Secretary of State in the light of the obligations accepted by the corporation in the charter licence and so on.
Whether it is the Government's intention that the proposed broadcasting watchdog should play a role in these matters I know not, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I do not see why those functions could not be perfectly well performed by the governors or by a combination of the governors and the main advisory committee. There are strong and obvious reasons why conflict between the Government—any government—and the BBC should be avoided and should be the exception rather than the rule. Conflict can only be avoided if governments exercise sensible restraint and the BBC exercises proper discipline over its gifted and intelligent staff.
The appearance of the programme "Airbase" and its accompanying Radio Times article shakes one's confidence. From time to time the programme makers seem able to sneak on to the screen, or on to the air, a programme or play which causes deep offence and comes near to being a breach of the charter. Mr. Birt, who recently joined the BBC, said that impartiality in the corporation is a withering plant. I think that the handling of the Falklands play
266
suggests that there is some substance in that remark. It recalls to me an article written by a BBC broadcaster in a Sunday newspaper some time ago. He said that when he wished to break the rules and flout conventions he always arranged for the programme to be shown on a Friday night because he knew that the director general was on his way back to his country house in East Anglia and all that happened on a Monday morning when the director general returned was that he received a silly smile.
I do not believe that the present high echelons of the BBC belong to the "silly smile" brigade. How they prevent unsuitable programmes from slipping through is their business and we should not attempt to instruct them. Referring up is clearly not satisfactory and the balancing of programmes over an extended period is ineffective.
I seldom complain to the BBC, but I shall cite two rather trivial examples because they give an interesting reflection of its attitudes. I complained about an obscene reference to the Virgin Mary in a so-called satirical programme. The answer I received was that it had been approved by the religious affairs department for "factual accuracy". I also complained about a programme which was shown on a Christmas morning and which denigrated the monarchy, Parliament and the Churches. The answer was that the timing was a little unfortunate but that it was necessary to broadcast such a programme to convince foreigners that the BBC was not a creature of the British Government.
Those are minor blemishes. We all want to see the continuation of the desirable convention which enables the BBC to enjoy a responsible independence, which has been the basis of its reputation. We do not want the Government breathing down its neck and we do not want the charter forgotten or flouted. I recommend refresher courses on the charter and possibly that the charter should be signed by members of staff, in the same way as some people have to sign the Official Secrets Act. The main point is that the BBC is a great asset, but it must play to charter rules.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree with me that we in Britain have what is probably the best broadcasting system in the world. The BBC, which is supported by the licence fees of the watching public to the extent of, I believe, £1,000 million, is the top and cream of it all. It provides us with news, entertainment and comment and also provides news and information to other parts of the world that might not otherwise be so well informed. Anyone who has had experience of television in other nations will certainly agree with me on that point.
Indeed, we are so fond of the BBC that we call her, affectionately, "Auntie", and like a well-loved aunt she lives with us all. She is allowed the freedom of our living rooms and I have found her chatting away in some people's kitchens. I believe there are families who even take her to bed with them. In short, she is totally part of our lives and lives with us all.

267
However, Auntie has changed. Not only has she taken to using bad language—which one would not condone from any other member of one's family—but she has also become very biased; not swinging from Right to Left, with ideas here and there, but almost entirely to the Left. In fact, she is becoming distinctly sinister.
What are we to do with Auntie? Can it be her age? She was born on December 20th, 1926 by Letters Patent under the Great Seal. Ladies, maiden and otherwise, go through difficult periods at certain times in their lives. Or is it perhaps that Auntie is associating with undesirable friends who are influencing her unduly? That is not of course Mr. Hussey or the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I emphasise that we love Auntie very much; she is part of our family life and lives with us all. We especially admire her sound views, her impartiality and her balance. However, we are worried that she is losing her balance.
We have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Renton and Lord Kagan, about the detestable programme "Airbase" which portrays our American allies, with whom we have a special relationship, as something sub-human. It is not surprising that that has caused some upset with them. Noble Lords have already made, and more succinctly, all the points which I should like to have made about the programme.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing also spoke with much force on the projected screening of the Falklands play "Tumbledown" by Charles Wood. Charles Wood is on record as saying:
"Every play I write is subversive".
The playwright lain Curteis was commissioned by Alistair Milne to write a play about the Falklands war. It attempted to show the reasons why the war was fought, the doctrine of self-determination and that the rule of aggression should not pay. It was said that his play was too biased in favour of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and, therefore, was not shown by the BBC before the election so as not to influence voters. However, the election is now over; the play has been shelved and instead we are threatend with "Tumbledown", which is not only biased but, I believe, unnecessarily violent.
The series "Secret Society" is by Duncan Campbell, who wrote for the New Statesman. Many people who were introduced in his series, such as "a former immigration officer at Dover" (Jolyon Jenkins), and "a former US Army Captain" (Bill Arkin) were in fact close journalistic friends of his on the New Statesman—a fact which was not mentioned.
Another friend of Auntie's is the Left-wing barrister, Helena Kennedy, who presented a series of "Heart of the Matter" religious broadcasts. She is closely connected with the Haldane Society of Socialist lawyers. She also defended Thomas Quigley, the Irish terrorist who bombed the home of my noble and learned friend Lord Havers among other atrocities.
We all love Auntie, but we do not like her Left-wing friends; nor would we like it if she had thrown in her lot with the National Front. Auntie is part of
268
our family and our home life. We beseech her to abandon her hard Left views and become once more the auntie that we all know and love.
7 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, the BBC is such a vast organisation that the ordinary listener and viewer who is busy with other things can form no more than a snapshot impression of its outlook. Unquestionably, there is a great deal in that output that is excellent. The World Service in my experience is mostly very good. Indeed, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, whether he would consider making it available at reasonable hours for listeners in this country.
Then, the BBC does an enormous amount for music; its drama serials are admired all over the world; and its nature programmes are superb. Nearly everything from the BBC at Bristol in fact seems first class. Some radio programmes like "File on Four", "From our Own Correspondent" and "The Food Programme" are very well done. I am particularly struck by what seems to be the fair and dispassionate selection of letters from the public on "P.M.", which appears to reflect genuinely what ordinary people think even when they are highly critical of the BBC. I do not think there is generally any party political bias in programmes, certainly not ones that I have heard and seen.
However, there are occasional extraordinary lapses. There was the choice of Duncan Campbell to do a whole series on security matters—an example perhaps of a remaining pocket of the antiestablishment, iconoclastic tradition associated with the regime of the late Sir Hugh Greene whose influence on the BBC was, I believe, largely unfortunate.
Then there was a programme on Radio 4 on 28th January on the Birmingham six, produced by Kathleen Gallagher, on the day of the judgment by the Court of Appeal. By then the BBC knew that the Lord Chief Justice and two other judges had, after 27 days of exhaustive examination, found, as had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in the earlier appeal, that the convictions by the original jury, reached after hearing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, had described as
"the clearest and most overwhelming evidence I have ever heard in a case of murder"
were "safe and satisfactory".
Despite this, the programme did its utmost to suggest that the six were innocent and wrongly condemned. What seemed to me indefensible was long interviews with the three principal defence witnesses without any mention of the judges' remarks, in their judgment, dismissing the evidence of these witnesses as worthless and unconvincing. I took this up with the chairman of the BBC. I am glad to say that he accepted that in this instance the producers of the programme had made a serious error.
There are, I suggest, two specific issues on which the corporation has not always followed the 1981 resolution of its board of directors, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont,
"to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality".

269
These are South Africa and Ireland.
On South Africa, there has been lack of a sense of proportion, a tendency to go on and on about the wickedness of the South African Government while the dreadful things that go on, as anyone in my old profession knows, in many other countries receive less attention.
At the time of the Commonwealth conference in 1986 the BBC, regardless of the licence requirement that,
"the corporation shall at all times refrain from sending any broadcast matter expressing the opinion of the Corporation on current affairs or on 'natters of public policy"
made little secret of its support for a policy of mandatory sanctions.
When the House debated South Africa on 4th July 1986, the BBC gave a misleading and one-sided report of the debate, suggesting that support for sanctions in this House was much more general than in fact it was. It made no mention of criticisms of the BBC by for example, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and myself.
The BBC seemed then to have developed something of an obsession with South Africa. We live in Wales. I remember listening anxiously for news of the radioactive cloud from Chernobyl. I heard nothing about that; only a long piece on South Africa and then an item about the number of blacks in the Brigade of Guards. Happily, in recent months, there has been much less about this question. The reporting has been more balanced.
On Ireland, for some years until very recently there was, I believe, a noticeable slant towards the republican view. This was evident in the choice of people interviewed and in the editing and presentation of news on Northern Ireland. However, it has been much less marked in recent weeks. I hope that means that the bias is being corrrected.
Nevertheless, air time is still sometimes given—and not only by the BBC—to terrorist spokesmen. I think that that is wrong. I commend to your Lordships the excellent article by Conor Cruise O'Brien in The Times of 6th April. I believe that we should, like Dublin, ban broadcast interviews with all terrorist spokesmen, as he suggests. I urge the Government to add this to the Bill at present under consideration to control terrorist funds.
On the whole, however, I am hopeful. I believe that the BBC's new chairman and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will bring about much needed changes. Already there are signs that welcome improvements are being effected. Obviously things cannot be changed overnight. The BBC, like Shell, has always believed in decentralisation. Where one gets a good producer, one gets regularly good programmes; where one gets a bad one, one gets carelessness and bias.
I believe that the corporation is now in good hands. I welcome today's announcement that £62 million is to be put into news and current affairs programmes, increasing foreign coverage and business news. Provided that tight control is kept on standards of fairness and impartiality and bad producers moved out, the prospects are, I believe, now more encouraging than some noble Lords may think.
7.7 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Chalfont for the opportunity to express my concern over the showing of the programme "Airbase" by the BBC on 1st March, and to question the accountability of the BBC under the Royal Charter and the licence and agreement, granted by the Home Secretary in 1981. As I do not have time to dwell on the positive aspects of the BBC, I ask noble Lords to forgive me if my speech is rather negative.
"Every now and again a programme swims on to the screen that is so grossly offensive, so horribly biased, displays such contempt for the intelligence of the public and is clearly so unsuitable for prime time viewing that it leaves one astounded that it could have got through the network planning procedure".
That was the view of the television critic Peter Paterson, of the Daily Mail.
The issue for this debate is not that the BBC in its wisdom allocated prime time to a third rate play. The issue is whether it was a play or a documentary, whether it was mere fantasy or an account of life as it is lived on our airbases in the United Kingdom and, whatever it was, whether it offended against the charter of 1981.
The reason for such confusion and for the offence and anger caused by the programme was the deliberate advance publicity in, of all places, the BBC's own publication Radio Times, which titillated the viewers' appetite by claiming that:
"US fighter pilots arc flying high on drugs, sex and death just like the real McCoy".
However, it then went on to give a very clear impression that, however exaggerated or incredible the programme might appear, it was all the more significant because of its "accuracy". As a play it was awful; as a documentary it was dishonest and a complete distortion of life on USAF bases within the United Kingdom.
A former director general of the BBC, Sir Hugh Greene, said:
"We have to balance points of view in our programmes but not necessarily within each individual programme".
However, that is no defence of this programme. A programme of the Left—this has already been said—which is dishonest, personally indulgent on the part of the author and inconsistent with the conditions of the charter cannot be balanced by an equally dishonest programme of the Right. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Alan Whicker, of television fame, recently wrote:
"I am increasingly worried by the way in which television documentaries try to nobble you and make up your mind for you. It seems to me that the trend is to write the script in the office then go and find the facts and the people who will support the contentions. I think that's totally wrong … most documentaries you see nowadays should have a caption underneath reading, 'we have temporarily lost our sense of objectivity'".
Added to this is the practice of appointing extreme Left-wing protagonists in controversial political issues to key presentational positions—for example, Helena Kennedy to "Heart of the Matter" and journalist Duncan Campbell to "Secret Society". That they would produce biased documentaries was entirely predictable. One's suspicions are really aroused by the refusal to screen Ian Curteis's play about the Falklands because it was deemed to be

271
pro-Government, when it is planned to show "Tumbledown", the Falklands play with a Left-wing bias.
I am privileged to be the chairman of an Anglo/American community relations committee for the large USAF base, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, of Alconbury in Cambridgeshire. I know from first hand experience that the young airmen, and in particular the front line pilots, so savagely dealt with by the programme "Airbase", are highly disciplined and highly skilled, are committed to their role as our allies in NATO and are concerned to achieve the highest standards of professional and personal conduct. They live in our community and I am constantly humbled by the catalogue of activities in which they are engaged, involving them in giving generously of their time, energy and money for charitable and community causes. As for flying highly complex and expensive airplanes under the influence of drugs or alcohol—as suggested in "Airbase"—it is simply an absurd suggestion.
Mr. McKay, author of "Airbase", together with Francis Wheen and others of their ilk have a mission. It is to discredit the Americans, to undermine the professionalism and commitment of the armed forces, to undermine the confidence of our allies and to undermine this country's defence strategy and our commitment to NATO. To achieve these ends they are no seekers after truth. It would appear that they can do this with large sums of public money. They can be provided with a vehicle to peddle personal and political viewpoints masquerading as documentary with license to use the Radio Times to propagate, advance and supplement their work. How can that be consistent with the obligation of impartiality and fair treatment under the charter and the licence and agreement of 1981? Free, self-regulated media are by far the most desirable, but with that freedom goes responsibility. The production of "Airbase" flouted the system. My Lords, where is the accountability?
This debate begs a most serious question. Meanwhile, an apology, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is due to a fine body of American men and women whose commitment to peace in the West is considerable and who cannot on this issue defend their own position.
7.14 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in my capacity as honorary treasurer of the Christian Broadcasting Council of Great Britain about the moral standards, or, more appropriately, the lack of moral standards, set by the BBC. There can be no doubt that many members of the public, to judge by Mary Whitehouse's Listeners and Viewers Association, which had its annual general meeting on Saturday, are still gravely concerned at the continuing permissive trend, and particularly the emphasis on sex and violence, that characterises so many of today's programmes. And it is pointless to say that so many of these programmes are shown late at night, when, apart from children being allowed to stay up late, the programmes can be recorded and shown to the whole family.
272
The early years of the charter, right up to the end of World War II, were glorious years for British radio. The BBC was recognised worldwide for its depth and fairness in reporting, for the high quality of its entertainment and for its Christian and moral stance. However, as we all know, standards have declined since the war, particularly in television. Is it not true that the BBC is now more concerned with ratings than with the quality of the product? A significant change has been the universal concept that only pop music shall be played on BBC local radio, a curious concept.
What of the spiritual attitude of the BBC. This surely has also undergone a sea-change, from the early days of Lord Reith, who saw it as a valuable tool for the evangelisation of Britain, to today when its attitude might be described as scientific-humanist. Noble Lords will say that the BBC's religious affairs department has a notable output, particularly on radio. Many of us derive spiritual profit from such programmes as "Prayer for Today", "Thought for Today", "The Daily Service", "Songs of Praise"—the right reverend Prelate mentioned the "Songs of Praise" programme from Ely Cathedral which I think we all agree was magnificent—and other similar programmes.
However, these programmes, excellent though they be, and a welcome relief from the constant battering of pop music, the anaesthetic of sex and the stimulus of violence, tend to be about "churchianity", if one can use such a word. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for using it. They tend to be about "churchianity" rather than about Christianity, and represent, to some of us at any rate, the icing on the cake. Could we not have programmes with a more solid theological content, such as talks by Magnus Magnusson, programmes which emphasise that religion should be the bedrock of our being? And why not programmes emphasising the bonds uniting families rather than, as happens all too frequently, the stresses and traumas dividing them?
There are now at least three bodies with which I am connected working to promote family unity. They all see the family—by this I mean the conventional definition of the family, not the one-parent family or the so-called homosexual family—as the stabilising, life-giving element which enables its members to withstand the manifold stresses and strains that come their way. Has the time not come for the BBC to help us to think in terms of right and wrong, of black and white, instead of those hazy half tones, those dingy browns and murky greys which becloud so much of our moral thinking today?
Finally, I should like to refer to the Broadcasting Standards Council about which we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Like many noble Lords I look forward with much eagerness to the time when the wraps are removed from the council. Like the noble Lord I hope very much that the Minister will be able to do this for us. Perhaps I may express the hope that when the wraps are removed we shall find standards in line with some at least of my thinking.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I shall go back to how the BBC started with its charter and licence. The charter and the licence provide a remarkable degree of freedom to the BBC and its governors to do what they think best in the interests of broadcasting and to act, in a phrase first employed in 1972, "as trustees of the public interest". The charter contains almost nothing about the making of programmes. The licence and agreement say little more.
The commitment to taste and decency in programmes derives historically not from statute but from the codification of the BBC's own thinking and practices. Unlike many other noble Lords, I find that not only right and reasonable but reassuring. This freedom allowed to public service broadcasters has underpinned the BBC's practices. If we invoke the charter and licence, we shall be on a slippery and dangerous slope. I hope that we do not see that happen.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the three plays which they viewed with horror, contempt, dislike, fear or a mixture of all four—"Airbase", "The Monocled Mutineer" and "Tumbledown". I do not support what was in those plays, and did not particularly like them. The chairman of the BBC has made it clear in correspondence to those people who wrote in complaining about "Airbase" that he saw no merit in it, and nor did many other people in the BBC. "Tumbledown" and "The Monocled Mutineer" are two plays which are quoted all the time. I find it interesting to note that although we have constantly heard about those three plays during the debate, they are three plays out of an output of 800 plays over the past two years. Of course they were of varying lengths but they were all from the BBC's drama department. We may not be giving enough credit to the positive side of what is being done while repeating too vociferously what we think is wrong with the other plays.
There is another point which worries me. I do not like the feeling that we and other people are sitting in judgment on other adults. Why should people be treated in what I frankly find to be a rather patronising and protective way? They have the right to decide whether they wish to see a programme. They can always turn the "off" switch, which is something we have heard nothing about today. They can turn off the television and not watch the play. One noble Lord said that he had watched a play all over again because he could hardly believe what he had seen, and I found the reference to Nazi Germany made by the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, in the context of one of those plays offensive.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, should not worry overmuch about American reaction to "Airbase". They are too tough-skinned and sensible; they will not be put off or have a tantrum because one play refers to American airmen.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I shall not give way because we are having a timed debate. Perhaps the noble Baroness and I could have a word afterwards.
274
It is worrying if we set ourselves up as arbiters of everyone's taste. We have the right to be the arbiters only of our own taste.
Today the BBC faces unprecedented challenges. There is the challenge from the privatised, and fundamentally unaccountable, cable and satellite systems. That is one of the most obvious examples. There is the challenge—we are seeing it exerted tonight—of ever greater political pressure on broadcasters. I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter, Lord Swann and Lord Greenhill of Harrow, over the Broadcasting Standards Council. It is another example of not treating people as adults. It is entirely unnecessary when the BBC has a board of governors and various committees which have been set up.
It is of course the BBC's responsibility to respond when mistakes are made, and they inevitably will be made unless we expect the BBC to operate in a straitjacket of caution. Its response must be tempered by the belief that if there are no mistakes there will probably be no innovations. The BBC must temper such judgments in the further knowledge that what some people call mistakes are often no more than uncomfortable truths. If we do not find a place within our society for uncomfortable truths to be uttered, so much the worse for us.
The BBC's responsibility is to sustain its independence from all political and commercial partialities. The BBC's responsibility — this is what Parliament has called for for six decades—is to the whole of our society and its people and not to the narrow-minded prejudices of a small but vociferous minority which would castrate the BBC journalistically and creatively. Such a minority prefers a dull and obscuring calm to the excitement, illuminating passion and sheer pleasure which we find in the BBC at its best. The fact that it does not always reach those standards is not a great criticism—because in which walks of life are standards of perfection reached?
It is not our responsibility to encourage, and nor do we want to see, the broadcaster meek, blinkered, evasive or partial. The world is full of organisations which, in the eyes of their governments, are all too responsible. I do not believe that noble Lords want that position, because we should then be moving to dictatorship in radio and television—which play a larger and larger part in our lives. Our responsibility is to remind the BBC and all its critics of what was said by a former chairman, Sir Arthur Fforde:
"(It) is of cardinal importance that everyone in a position of responsibility should be ready to set himself or herself the duty of ensuring to those creative members of the BBC staff, who must take the daily, hourly or even instantaneous decisions, that measure of freedom, independence and élan without which the arts do not flourish".
During the debate the BBC has been asked to change its ways somewhat, and to be tolerant of our views and those of other people. At the same time we owe such an institution a tolerant hearing. We want to see it make better programmes. We should give it encouragement rather than a great deal of discouragement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wanted to know whether the BBC had apologised to the American Government. With great respect, that is nonsense. In

275
any case, Mary Whitehouse took it upon herself to write to President Reagan and apologise on behalf of the whole country. I think that was quite enough on that score.
We should be supporting and safeguarding the freedoms of the BBC and also the IBA, although the debate is not about the IBA. We have seen the slippery slope in other countries when heavy fists are laid on an organisation which is struggling to do right. It does not always do it. It sometimes makes mistakes. As far as the programmes are concerned, the BBC will readily admit that some are failures. But even if that is so—as it is—that is no reason for us to try to contain the organisation in a straitjacket. That is the one thing which should not be done. I believe that in going along the line that it takes at the moment the BBC is behaving generally in the right way and that it does not deserve the calumny and acrimony which have been poured on it to some extent tonight.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has introduced an important debate today in a characteristically forthright and impressive manner. I am indebted to him for having given me notice of the points which he intended to make. I think that we have had a very reasoned debate and one of great interest. Many noble Lords have considerable knowledge and experience of the BBC and of the problems which it encounters. We have had the advantage today of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Swann, with all the experience and wisdom which he obtained when he was such a distinguished chairman of the BBC.
I propose to confine my remarks to the more limited subject matter of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I shall resist the temptation to stray into the rather wider fields, such as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham Carter, suggested, of the Broadcasting Standards Council and other such excitements on which some of your Lordships touched.
The noble Lord, Lord Swann, referred to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and I should like to do so also. He said that if programmes are good they will enrich society; that if programmes are grey, they will debase society—I think that that is what he said—and that the BBC has great powers; that the BBC is the best public broadcasting company in the world and it is difficult for a large corporation to be perfect. I may not have got the noble Lord's words quite right but that was the basis of what he said. As a general canvas of the subject which we are discussing today, I thought that his remarks were pretty accurate.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said that the contents of some of the BBC's programmes are so biased that they have offended against the charter and the licence and agreement and that he wishes the Home Secretary to take note, and preferably to take action. That is pretty stout stuff! The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is entirely correct to draw to the attention of your Lordships and the public what he believes to be an intolerant and biased content of
276
programmes. He knows—and we all know—that the BBC has undertaken to produce programmes of a high general standard, and with due impartiality.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that equilibrium is not achieved by having one programme which is grossly biased in one way, only to be balanced by another one which is grossly biased in the opposite direction. That is not impartiality. However, programmes cannot be just anodyne presentations. Inevitably they will have substance; periodically they will enter, and rightly so, the realms of controversy. Sometimes to some that will be unacceptable.
Programme-makers inevitably require a degree of artistic licence. But the licence infers a gift of tolerance on the part of the viewer towards the programme-maker in return for programmes of quality. Obviously this should not be abused. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and other noble Lords have suggested that this tolerance has been abused. In his Question on 15th March and again today the noble Lord vigorously criticised the content of the programme "Airbase", and other noble Lords agreed with him both on that occasion and today.
It is quite clear that that programme caused offence, not only to your Lordships but also to many members of the public and to our many friends overseas in America. I have seen part of the programme myself and I can easily sympathise in a personal capacity with the views which your Lordships expressed about it. As a result of the exchanges at Question Time on 15th March, I undertook to let the chairman of the BBC know the opinions which noble Lords had expressed. He replied to me pointing out that, in his view there was little merit in the programme and that:
"It was one of those failures which are, I suppose, inevitable in such a wide and varied dramatic output".
Those were the words of the chairman of the BBC. He also added that the article which appeared in the Radio Times was an error of judgment and that it was an inappropriate article for this publication. I understand that steps have been taken to ensure that the editorial procedures do not in future allow a recurrence of such a mistake.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has asked some specific questions and in particular he has referred to Article 20 of the BBC's Royal charter. It is important that we should be quite clear exactly what the position is. There are two documents. One is the Royal charter which defines the constitution of the BBC and its organisation. It gives the BBC the right to broadcast within some fairly general parameters. The licence and agreement set out the details of how the BBC should carry out this responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is perfectly right that in Article 20 of the charter the Home Secretary has the right—indeed he has the obligation—to accept the expression of views which may be made to him, pointing out that the BBC has offended against its charter or its licence and agreement. The Home Secretary would have to consider those representations and, if necessary, he would ask the BBC to satisfy him that it had met its obligations. If it was not able to do so, the matter could then be referred to the Privy Council and to Her Majesty the

277
Queen who could, if they saw fit, revoke the charter. Those are very important powers and they are not to be used lightly.
However, I am bound to tell your Lordships that there is no obligation about programme standards in the Royal charter or the licence and agreement which would enable or oblige my right honourable friend to use these powers. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that the annex to the licence and agreement provides just such an obligation. I am bound to tell him that the annex is a resolution by the board of governors. It is a statement of intent by the board of governors that they intend to "treat controversial subjects with due impartiality". As such it is important, but it does not contain nor does it confer obligations on the Home Secretary which can be enforced under Article 20, unlike the obligation to broadcast an impartial account day by day of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. This is a specific requirement and it is spelt out in Section 13.2 of the licence and agreement.
That is a very important factor. If such a requirement for impartiality had been enforceable under the charter, it would place the Home Secretary of the day in an intolerable position. He would be obliged to be the arbiter in any or all of the representations which may be made to him about programme content. He or his officials on his behalf would have to consider the representations, see the programmes and make a judgment. Then the Secretary of State would be obliged, where appropriate, to take action. That would be censorship. It would be broadcasting by government consent. It could even develop into broadcasting by government diktat. I hope that I carry the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others with me in saying that that would be an intolerable position for any government of this country to be in. It would be quite unacceptable as a method of televising and broadcasting.
The BBC has a responsibility for impartiality. And the way in which the Government see to this is by appointing the board of governors. The Government appoint to the board eminent and responsible people—of whom the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is one—whose duty it is to ensure that the BBC conducts itself in a proper and responsible fashion. If it does not do so, it is to the board of governors and to its chairman that aggrieved people should address themselves.
At the risk of being told by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that I am making another lapidary judgment, I would say that it cannot be for the Government to dictate or to determine the quality of progammes. That is, and must be, essentially the responsibility of the chairman and the governors of the BBC.
If we were to accept the principle of government interference or the right to censure the BBC on the contents of any, some, or all of its programmes, then we would be embarking, as the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, have said, on a very slippery slope of broadcasting and televising by government consent. That I think few people wish to see.
278
My answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is, in short, that he is right to complain. He was entitled to be offended by that programme and entitled to claim—as I think the chairman of the BBC has conceded—that the programme did not live up to the standards expected of the BBC. But that is not a matter which falls within the Government's responsibility; nor does it offend against either the charter or the licence and agreement. It is not a matter, despite criticism of that programme or concern about the impartiality or otherwise of programmes in general, upon which my right honourable friend is justified or even entitled to take action.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful to the House and to all those who have taken part in an extremely valuable and stimulating debate. The arguments on both sides were adduced for the most part constructively and thoughtfully. Before begging leave to withdraw the Motion, I shall make two brief points. The first is that there seemed in some speeches to be a misunderstanding of the aim and the object of the Motion. It was not my intention to suggest that the BBC is, as someone said, "a nest of subversives" or that it is, as someone else said, "a Left-wing conspiracy". That is not my view; therefore, it would have been surprising had I put it forward.
My aim was less ambitious. It was to do two things; first, to question a doctrine set forth by the noble Earl in answer to my original Starred Question. I must tell the noble Earl that I am far from satisfied with the reply he has given tonight. I do not believe it is right to say, as he has now said, that the BBC and its governors are the ultimate judge and jury in their own case on matters of programme content. I have to disagree with the Minister fundamentally in the interpretation of the charter, but this is not the time to go into that.
My second aim—it has, I think, been fully achieved—was to give an opportunity for those in your Lordships' House who wished to do so to express to our American friends their deep regret that such a disgraceful programme should have been allowed on the air by the BBC. A number of noble Lords have done that, and I am grateful to them. I am content with that result, but I am sorry that not everyone felt able to make that apology. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Foreshore Development: Planning Control
7.44 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they still consider it appropriate to plan for foreshore development by means of private legislation rather than bring such developments within the planning system.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It arises, as some of your Lordships may have guessed, for want of a better word, out of the Swanage Yacht Haven Bill.
I am not under any circumstances going to go into the merits or the demerits of that particular development but I think that it is worth while just recalling to your Lordships what happened. A promoter got together with a local authority; the local authority thought the scheme an acceptable one, granted planning permission on the landward side and, under the rules as they presently stand, approached your Lordships' House for parliamentary permission to increase the enclosed harbour which then existed.
This matter was perfectly properly debated on Second Reading and an instruction was given to the Committee. It went through a Committee on which I have the honour, and I would add the very great pleasure, of sitting. That is a duty in your Lordships' House which I find not only instructive but also enjoyable and intellectually stimulating as one sits and listens to very clever and almost certainly highly paid lawyers arguing the pros and cons of a case. We were quite excellently chaired by my noble friend Lord Alport.
We came to a split decision and the matter came to the House and was slung out on Third Reading. That is a perfectly acceptable procedure as the rules of your Lordships' House stand. It was, however, completely unprecedented except for the legislation on Felixstowe Docks, which I shall come to at a later date.
My point in raising this matter is not to argue the merits of the Swanage Yacht Haven Bill or even to discuss it in detail. But I think that I have to hang my argument upon it. My argument is that there are better ways of coming to what are essentially planning decisions than by having two separate lines of communication and decision making. Those two separate decision-making processes are disconnected and not in any way answerable to each other.
If there is a fundamental disagreement it would even be more acceptable to throw out a Bill such as the one in question on Second Reading rather than on Third Reading. It has been put to me that the argument which the Chairman always produces on Private Bill legislation is that a Bill should not be thrown out on Second Reading but should go to Committee, and that then on Third Reading noble Lords say that the Committee has already discussed the matter so it should be thrown out. It is rumoured—this is gossip more than anything else—that this doctrine was invented by our late and much loved clerk, Euan Graham, to get business through the House. I do not know whether or not that is true but I accept that there is a certain limitation on the powers of the House by saying—[Interruption.]
My Lords, laughter is always a much better form of interruption than hostile ribaldry.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Earl will permit me I only wanted to draw the attention of the House to a phenomenon in a way that can be recorded in Hansard. I wanted particularly to draw attention to the expression on the face of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am sure that is out of order. Let us return to serious matters. It would seem to me that there is a limitation on the power of the House. There is a slight fallacy in the argument that the House cannot make a decision on Third Reading but that it must leave that to five people—good men like my noble friend Lord Foot or my noble friend Lord Alport—all of whom make up their minds quite independently of party pressure.
It might be worth while for me to comment on some of the other Private Bills with which I have been relatively closely connected. The first such Bill was the Okehampton Bypass Bill. I was involved because I was chairman of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society. The society then read what I had said and sacked me but did not tell me that it had sacked me. It was embarrassing for them and quite funny for me. On that Bill the inspector came to a decision and, because of some promise which had been given, the matter had to go to a joint committee. The Government were convinced that the committee would come down on their side. That did not happen. They then had to overrule the joint committee. That is not a satisfactory way of proceeding in fairness to anybody.
What I hope that we shall do in this small debate—I would not expect my noble friend on the Front Bench to do anything other than make a very prepared speech because we know that there is a joint Select Committee sitting on the subject—is to throw just a little more light on the whole subject.
The Fleetwood Harbour Bill came forward and I was on the Committee. We slung that out on what I think were relatively spurious grounds but quite correctly. The Preston Docks Board objected to Fleetwood Harbour building a roll-on roll-off ferry because it said that that would threaten the interests of Preston docks. I suspect that they have probably closed down now, although I do not know. However, we slung that Bill out because we established from the promoters that they were intending to build enough ro-ro capacity at Fleetwood for more than three times the amount of forecast trade with Ireland until the turn of the century. We thought: "That is a pretty silly way of proceeding". Whether or not we were actually allowed to take that decision within the rules of procedure, I think that it was probably the right decision. However, it was possibly not what we should have done even though we may have been right.
I was also deeply involved—in this case, wearing a sort of Fitzroy Raglan hat—in objecting when Guildford Borough Council wanted to build itself a sort of palace on some public open space which had been protected by the Guildford legislation of 1926. It wanted to build a palace and a lot of local people thought that it should not be allowed to. We had a Second Reading debate in this House and the Committee threw the Bill out on what I am fairly certain were financial grounds. The late Lord Gordon-Walker was one of the Members of the Committee. It was thrown out on financial rather than planning grounds.
Many people take the Felixstowe Docks Bill as the precedent for slinging a Bill out on Third Reading. I

281
suggest that that Bill was slung out not on any planning grounds whatsoever but because it was going to extend the dock labour scheme to Felixstowe. That was in the dying days of the Administration of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. The House threw it out as a political rather than a planning Act. I believe that that was reasonable because it was political. In my view, planning should go along one line of decision.
I have reason to believe that the objectors to a proposal submitted to Parliament very often prefer their objection to be heard before a public inquiry. They reckon that sometimes they have a fairer hearing there, perhaps because we on these committees sometimes put on impassive faces and they do not know what we are thinking. I do not know. However, I believe that that is the case.
I accept that in any enclosure of the foreshore there are bound to be navigation, pollution and drainage or water board difficulties. Such things can and should influence the planning process. Those considerations can perfectly easily be called in by the Minister in the event and if the local authority gives consent a public inquiry can be asked for. I do not think that it is beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby a scheme such as that proposed for Swanage—I am not taking a view as to whether the actual decision was right or wrong—could have been more fairly dealt with by putting the whole thing together in one concept before one decision-making body and giving everybody the same amount of access and the same amount of time for legal argument and ensuring that the decision would not be subject to parliamentary ambush.
I accept that that proposal would mean legislation, and I accept that there is no likelihood of that legislation being introduced. I accept that all I am doing is asking a Question and putting forward a view. However, considering the Channel Tunnel Bill, it is possible to consider that the hybrid part of that Bill—I believe that the Government said when they promoted the Bill that to argue whether Waterloo Station or some other station was the right station from which the line should depart was part of the concept of the Bill and not a detail of the Bill—could have been wrecked by somebody saying: "No, you cannot start from Waterloo Station. You have to start from Medward Green". That station has not been used since it was put down by the Beeching Act of 1963.
I accept that that may be an extreme argument. However, here again is the possibility that an outside decision-making process can come in to which there is no appeal back to the main process. All I suggest and hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider is that there is a case for looking at the matter with care and in detail.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my name does not appear on the list of those intending to speak. I hope, however, that your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments while I express my view on the Question put by my noble friend with his usual penetrating approach to problems.
282
It is for my noble friend on the Front Bench to answer the Question. However, I hope that what I have to say may have a bearing on his reply. My noble friend Lord Onslow suggests that we should abolish the Private Bill procedure not in general but in particular circumstances; namely, for yacht and harbour developments which have been subject to statutory planning procedures, as they normally must be. Therefore, in those limited circumstances, my noble friend wishes Parliament to deprive itself of a part of its sovereignty. It is as simple as that. It is a part of Parliament's sovereignty which is asserted by its practice of passing Private Bills. That is a very ancient practice, going back to the 16th century, if not earlier. However, its antiquity is not the justification necessary for its retention.
I find myself unable to accept the argument put forward by my noble friend. It is not only because Parliament would be depriving itself of part of its sovereignty that I disagree. I disagree also because there are inevitably occasions when Parliament finds that the planning procedures which it has put forward arc inadequate or are not working in the public interest. When that happens the situation can be retrieved by passing a Private Bill. I suggest that it would be wrong to restrict Parliament in the way that my noble friend has suggested.
8 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have not put my name down to speak, but what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a moment ago has provoked me into making an observation, which will be very short. There is a good deal of sense in what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has suggested. I do not see that it in any way detracts from the sovereignty of Parliament. If Parliament decided to change, modify or to restrict the Private Act procedure, then it could equally restore it, so that it in no way affects the sovereignty of Parliament. I simply could not follow the argument. I normally am able to follow the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but I simply cannot understand him on this issue.
Parliament is a sovereign body. It can take to itself powers, it can enlarge its powers and it can restrict its powers. Provided it always has the right to do so, then its sovereignty remains unimpeached in any way. It seems to me that that issue must eventually be dealt with on pragmatic grounds. The expensive procedure of moving for a Private Bill and running the risk of being defeated on Third Reading, as happened in the Swanage instance—and I agree entirely with the decision which this House came to on that issue—is a terrifying prospect for promoters of the Bill. They may prefer the greater certainty of the planning procedures.
The only reason that I am provoked to make the observation is that I simply did not understand the objection made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that so long as the Private Bill was in force—having been passed through both Houses and received Royal Assent—then Parliament during the currency of its being in force (and it might

283
last many years) has asserted its sovereignty? Surely it cannot be denied that, if Parliament decides that it should not do that, then it is limiting its sovereignty.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree. Parliament has limited its own powers in many ways and in many directions. It still does so virtually every day of the year and that in no way affects its sovereignty.
8.3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for asking this Question of the Government. There could be two opinions about whether now is the right time to ask it when there is a joint Select Committee still sitting to consider the matter. Nevertheless, he has been able to give the House the benefit of his extensive experience of the Private Bill procedures. That has been valuable. No doubt he will be disappointed that more noble Lords with similar experience have not felt able to take part in the debate, but the matter has been relieved by the intervention of two distinguished lawyers, the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Hooson.
There are two issues which concern us this evening. One is that of foreshores, because that is the specific case mentioned in the Question; the second, arising from it, is the whole question of Private Bill procedures.
First of all I must agree as strongly as I can with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, when he questions the idea that the rather peculiar arrangements which we have for giving planning permission for developments on foreshores are in any way an essential part of the sovereignty of Parliament or that to give them up—in other words to return them to local planning authorities—would be a derogation of the sovereignty of Parliament. After all, as the noble Lord says, we are all the time delegating responsibility for things which are theoretically within our sovereignty. Every act of local government is a delegated act under powers given to it by Parliament. In that respect foreshore developments are no different from developments in any other part of the country. I confess immediately that, although I have some experience of planning in local government, it has always concerned inland developments and I have no experience of the cases about which we have been talking.
There is something special about foreshores. When there was a threat under French law that the foreshore in front of Brigitte Bardot's villa in St. Tropez should be opened to the public—and I understand that French law requires that foreshores should always be available to the public—she raised an almighty fuss. She said that her privacy would be disturbed and that her life would become intolerable and she threatened to move inland. It is clearly a matter which arouses great passions.
There is a general feeling that the foreshore, our coastline, is something special; it is something that belongs to all the people and there ought to be some particular safeguards against unwise developments. They could be on a number of grounds—on
284
conservation grounds for example. The fact that our coastline is the breeding ground for 40 per cent. of the wading birds of Europe is a not unimportant factor. The fact that harbour developments themselves have very significant implications not just for the immediately surrounding community but also for the transport system of the whole country must also be taken into account, as must the fact that dredging and draining and estuarine developments can have effects far beyond the immediate area with which the local authority is likely to be concerned. Therefore there is a case for treating the foreshore, and harbour and estuarine developments, differently from other planning applications. The matter needs to be considered very carefully. I would not assume that prima facie the case for handing it over directly to local authorities has been proved.
However, I must say that the argument for the existing system, the Private Bill procedure, is very much weaker. There are huge defects in the Private Bill procedure, as I have observed as a nonparticipant and a lay Member of this House. It seems to me that the first problem—although the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, questioned this—is that we normally give a Second Reading to a Private Bill of this kind. The effect is that when local people want to object to the Bill they are told that the development has been approved in principle and therefore their objections can only be about points of detail.
The second point—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order but with your Lordships' permission perhaps I could explain that at the Committee stage of a Private Bill one has to prove need for a development. It is different from a Public Bill in that on Second Reading a Public Bill approves a principle but in the case of a Private Bill one has to prove need in Committee, which is rather more than accepting Second Reading. That is a technical detail.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. As I said, I have never served on one of those Committees. I accept his assurance that that is the way the Committee proceeds. I do not think that that affects the fact that, when parliamentary agents are appointed to make representations on behalf of objectors to the Bill, they are told that it has been approved in principle. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. The point I am making is that it weakens the powers of objectors if they have to come before a Committee in that sense.
It is also true that appointing parliamentary agents and providing for representation before a Committee dealing with a Private Bill is very much more expensive than making objections before a local authority planning committee or even making representations before a public inquiry.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think that on reflection the noble Lord will find that objectors have much more freedom to raise their objections under our Private Bill procedure than they have under the ordinary planning procedures. Under the planning procedures the opportunity of even becoming an

285
objector is very limited, whereas almost anyone can become an objector under the Private Bill procedure.
Baroness White: My Lords, before my noble friend deals with that point perhaps he could deal with a detail which affects a situation in Wales where there are a great many proposed foreshore and estuarine developments. You might wish possibly to object but for reasons of expense you refrain from doing so because you know that there is another objection or petition in train and that some of the points about which you may be concerned are likely to be dealt with through the petition of a better financed or stronger body. If it then withdraws its petition, what is the position of the person who originally wished to object?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I yield to greater expertise on both sides of the House. I am certainly prepared to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, telling me that there are improvements required in the publicity given to planning proposals dealt with by local authorities and increases required in the rights of objectors. I have always felt that very strongly.
However, my noble friend Lady White has raised a valid point, which should be taken seriously; that is, the limitations on the ability of objectors to Private Bills to see that their objection is effectively sustained. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, gave us some indications of the issues arising on a number of recently contested Private Bills concerning development. Some of them, like those for Okehampton and Lyndhurst, do not come into this Question because they do not concern foreshore developments, but the Swanage Yacht Haven Bill certainly does, and I was one of those who voted at Third Reading that the Bill should be thrown out. I did so not because I in any way set myself up as an expert on Swanage—I have not been there for 40 years—but because it seemed to me that there was a coherent body of public opinion locally which felt that the borough council was not doing the right thing. That opinion was shown by a town poll, which was the reason that in the end swayed me to think that our own Committee was wrong and that the proposal ought not to go ahead.
With due respect to those who devotedly give up their time to be members of committees on these Private Bills, we do not have the expertise to consider these planning matters. We do not have expertise comparable to that of the inspector in a public inquiry. The kind of debates which take place on the Floor of your Lordships' House—apart from the debates in committees, of which I know nothing—on the whole, seem to me to indicate the strength and force of the lobbies and pressure groups which come before your Lordships' House and attempt to influence your Lordships rather than any necessarily coherent view of the principles on which these planning applications should be considered.
Therefore, our view on these Benches is that the Private Bill procedure for foreshore and other developments is seriously defective. We hope that the Select Committee, which is now meeting to consider
286
these matters, will find it possible to make very radical changes to the procedures. I do not presume to offer a conclusion, but it seems to me that there is enough evidence that the public inquiry procedure, with all its defects, as an appeal against decisions of local authorities is preferable to the procedure which is adopted. I do not believe that it would be a serious loss of sovereignty to this House if we ceased to have this kind of Private Bill procedure for this kind of judgment.
8.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, although directed at foreshore development, reflects a wider concern at the use of Private Bills as a means of obtaining planning permission for development proposals. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has commented on that. The way this works is that once the principle of a scheme has received parliamentary sanction, the Town and Country Planning General Development Order confers an outline planning permission for the development, leaving the details to be submitted to the local planning authority. In some instances, the Bill may seek parliamentary approval for certain of the details as well.
Thus, where a Private Bill is introduced, normal planning procedures, which for controversial schemes will usually involve the holding of a public inquiry, do not need to be followed. However, the Private Bill procedure allows for petitions to be made and heard by a Select Committee in each House and this facility fulfils a similar function to the public inquiry.
As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, knows, the whole question of using Private Bill procedures, including in particular the use of such Bills to authorise particular works, is being examined by a joint committee of this House and another place. The Government have given evidence to the joint committee. I am sure the committee will have been sensitive to misgivings that have been expressed about a number of individual cases in recent years. We must await the committee's report. I am no more able than the noble Earl to anticipate what its findings and recommendations may be.
However, I must make it clear that a Private Bill is not a straight alternative to planning procedures for developers. It can be promoted only if the powers cannot be obtained by any other means. The promoters have to declare this in the preamble to the Bill. But if a works scheme requires other authorisations which can only be granted by Parliament, it seems reasonable that Parliament should consider also the planning issues as part of the consideration of the principle of the scheme. This avoids the need for the developers to go through two separate processes in order to achieve the necessary authorisations. There is no reason why Parliament should not give proper consideration to the environmental implications of a scheme if those aspects are brought before it by way of a petition from those with a special interest in the project, or by being raised on the Floor of either this House or another place.

287
The noble Earl has referred specifically to development on the foreshore—that is, the land which lies between the high-water mark of median high tide and the low-water mark. The general principles which I have just outlined are equally applicable to such development. Most development on the foreshore is in fact dealt with under the planning system.
I should perhaps explain at this point that the normal limit of local authority jurisdiction, and hence of the scope of the planning system, is the mean low-water mark. There are a number of exceptions to this rule, for example in enclosed bays or in harbours for which the local authority is the harbour authority. But the low-water mark is a sensible boundary line. Once one goes beyond it, the normal considerations which local planning authorities take into account when considering planning applications, which relate mainly to the appropriateness of the proposed land use to the uses of neighbouring land, become of less importance. Once out at sea, issues of navigation and fishery have to be considered on which even coastal local authorities do not have, and generally do not need to have, any expertise. Local authorities have a legitimate interest in what goes on just off their shores, but this does not mean that they should be given control. In practice, very few developments are undertaken offshore; each one raises different issues, and, in the absence of any appropriate authority, such projects can be decided only by Parliament.
In those instances where private legislation is promoted for foreshore development it is usually for one of the following reasons. First, it is to authorise activities not within the scope of planning legislation, such as dredging or works extending beyond planning boundaries—that is, as I have said, seaward of mean low water; secondly, to amend existing legislation governing the development of the site; thirdly, to establish the developer as a controlling authority for the development, with the powers necessary for the proper regulation of the development; fourthly, to deal with the question of giving the developer immunity against actionable nuisance for infringing any common law rights, such as navigation and fishing, within the area of the development—I should mention here that a marina would otherwise be subject to these rights, and anyone could legally disrupt its operation by exercising those rights within it. Finally, legislation may be needed to overcome the problem of land which is subject to a public trust—for example, where a local authority wishes to develop a site which it owns for purposes not covered by existing powers.
Where one or more of these reasons apply, the planning system is not capable of giving the requisite authority and the use of private legislation is necessary. The flaw in the argument of my noble friend Lord Onslow is that it would be neither appropriate nor proper for the planning system to be extended to enable a local planning authority, or indeed the Secretary of State for the Environment, on appeal to give the kind of authorisations to which I have referred. It therefore surprised me that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke in support of my noble friend Lord Onslow, in particular with his knowledge of the possible infringement of common law.
288
It may be helpful therefore if I refer to two matters which are of interest to my noble friend. The first one that he mentioned was Okehampton. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, this is not a foreshore development and I too shall not comment on it further. The second is the Swanage Yacht Haven Bill, which was promoted even though the developer had obtained planning permission for the haven itself from Purbeck District Council. In that case there was a two-stage procedure at—I stress the word "at"—the promoter's choice. A Private Bill was required in addition for a number of reasons: first, because common law rights and works extending seaward of the low-water mark were involved; secondly, to allow the transfer of the undertaking of the Swanage Pier Company to the promoters and to repeal the Swanage Pier Act and Orders 1859 to 1948; and, finally, to create the marina itself. These are matters which, as I have explained, had to come before Parliament for the necessary authorisations and which could not have been dealt with under the planning system or on order-making procedure under the Harbours Act 1964.
I entirely understand my noble friend's concern that foreshore development should be brought within the planning umbrella. Frequently it already is within that umbrella. But I hope he will agree that special considerations apply which make it difficult for a purely planning approach always to be adopted. In such cases, we do not think it unreasonable that the whole matter be dealt with by Parliament. However, as I have said, there is a joint committee looking into the whole question of Private Bill legislation and the Government's detailed response must await its report.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.

  LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS
  LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS
  EUROPEAN YEAR OF THE ENVIRONMENT: CONSERVATION GUIDE
  EUROPEAN YEAR OF THE ENVIRONMENT: CONSERVATION GUIDE
  PRISON SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS
  PRISON SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS
  "FIRE FOCUS" EXERCISE
  "FIRE FOCUS" EXERCISE