Sitting of 1 February 1988

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

Imprisonment of Member
Mr. Speaker: I have received letters from the resident magistrate at the Belfast petty sessions informing me that Mr. William McCrea, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, and Rev. Ian Paisley, the hon. Member for Antrim, North, have been sentenced to periods of imprisonment of seven days. I shall cause the texts of those letters to be published in Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report.
Following are the letters:
Dear Mr. Speaker,
William Robert Thomas McCrea, Member of Parliament for Mid-Ulster, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 11 December 1987, of taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I fined him £20.00, to be paid within 28 days. As that fine has not been paid Mr. McCrea was today committed to Prison for a period of 7 days.
Yours faithfully
C P McRandal
Resident Magistrate
Dear Mr. Speaker
Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, Member of Parliament for North Antrim, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 11 December 1987, of taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I fined him £20.00, to be paid within 28 days.
682
As that fine has not been paid Mr. Paisley was today committed to Prison for a period of 7 days.
Yours faithfully
C P McRandal
Resident Magistrate
Petty Sessions Office,
Courthouse,
Albert Place,
Ballymena,
BT43 5BS.
27th January 1988.
Dear Sir,
I have to advise you that the Rev. Ian R. K. Paisley, MP, of North Antrim was convicted at Ballymena Petty Sessions on 11th November 1987 of the undernoted offence:
That he on the 11 th April 1987 at Ballymena, in the said District and County Court Division, took part in a public procession in respect of which the requirements of Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 as to notice had not been satisfied, contrary to Article 3(5) (a) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
The Rev. Ian Paisley was fined £15 which was not paid. On the 23rd December 1987 a Warrant of Default was issued and was executed this afternoon. The Rev. Ian Paisley was lodged in Her Majesty's Prison, Crumlin Road, Belfast, for seven days for non-payment of the said fine.
Yours faithfully,
A. E. Wright,
Clerk of Petty Sessions.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  HASTINGS BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
  Ordered,
  That notwithstanding that the Hastings Borough Council Bill was taken into consideration by the Committee on the Bill in the last Session of Parliament before a report from the Attorney General on the Bill had been presented to the House pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order 158 (Bills affecting charities or educational foundations) the proceedings of the Committee be deemed to have been taken in compliance with that Standing Order. — [The Second Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Drink-Driving
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has of the effectiveness of the Government's Christmas and new year anti-drinking and driving campaign.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Preliminary police figures indicate an encouraging 16 per cent. reduction in injury accidents during the holiday period. Full figures are expected later this year.
    Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to recent suggestins on the programme "That's Life", no hon. Member can be in any doubt about my hon. Friend's commitment to tackling the problem of drinking and driving? Does he agree that rather than introduce random breath testing, which would have a disastrous effect on relations between the police and the public, the right way is to influence public attitude and public behaviour? The figures that my hon. Friend has just given show that that policy is proving effective in practice.
    Mr. Bottomley: The police have very wide powers. I wish that all the media covering the issue would emphasise those powers. Indeed, 8,000 to 10,000 motorists are caught driving above the legal limit every month, 4,000 of them with twice the legal limit and 20 times more likely to cause accidents. More publicity should be given to the dramatic reductions in injuries. For example, in Gwent the number of fatalities more than halved last year because of cooperative local effort.
    Mr. Boyes: I welcome the reduction in accidents, but does the Minister agree that there were far too many accidents at Christmas? Does he also agree with 81 per cent. of the British public who believe that the best solution to the problem is to introduce random breath tests? I hope that 81 per cent. of the British public will sharpen his mind.
    Mr. Bottomley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's sustained interest in combating drinking and driving. The big issue is not whether to introduce random breath testing, but whether we, as drivers, stop drinking and driving; whether we, as hosts, stop encouraging drivers to take alcohol, and whether we, as passengers, decline to be driven by someone who has been drinking.
    Mr. Higgins: The large number of drivers injured or killed who are found to have been over the limit suggests that there may be a case for random breath testing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the present situation is unsatisfactory? The House has not voted on random breath testing, yet police officers are using their powers to stop vehicles for no reason and testing drivers who they think may have been drinking. In effect, we have random breath testing now. The House should reconsider this matter and correct that apparent anomaly.
    Mr. Bottomley: Although it is not a matter for me, I am sure that many hon. Members would welcome the opportunity for a debate. Perhaps the Opposition will
    684
    provide the opportunity for a debate on road safety issues to show that no party politics are involved in trying to cut the appalling casualty toll on the roads?
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: I welcome the Minister's suggestion that the Opposition should be doing the Government's job, but the truth is that the overwhelming majority of the public believe that random breath testing is the right way to control the abuse of drinking and driving by a small minority. If the Minister does not accept that, will he at least tell us that the advertising campaign carried out before Christmas will be continued throughout the year? The Minister is right. It is important to get across to the public the real damage done by those who drink and drive.
    Mr. Bottomley: It would be a mistake to look on bribes to the media, by way of paid advertising, as the only way of raising public awareness. Drinking and driving should be covered as news and current affairs. For example, Scottish Television broadcast five or six half-hour programmes. More of the English and Welsh regions should copy that approach.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend take steps to see that when the breathalyser breaks down, as it did in several instances involving some of my constituents, the back-up system is better than it was in those cases? People who were kept at police stations for five or six hours for blood tests were, quite rightly, cross about that.
    Mr. Bottomley: That is probably more a matter for the police and the Home Office. It is important to ensure that the victims receive just as much consideration as those who may or may not be offenders.

    London City Airport
    Mr. Leighton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive a report from the Civil Aviation Authority on the future of the London city airport.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I am not expecting any such report.
    Mr. Leighton: The Secretary of State will be aware of the troubles of the London City airport and of the resentment of many local people to its intrusion and noise. He will also know that an assurance was given that jets would not use the airport. Indeed, that was a condition of planning permission. Is he aware that the operators have already applied for an extension of the runway and are hell-bent on introducing jets? What assurances can he give to the people of Newham that that danger will not be inflicted upon them?
    Mr. Channon: If there were any proposal to have jets at London City airport, that would first be a matter for the airport owners. It would involve an entirely new planning application, and no such application has been made.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that some jets flying today are quieter than the turboprops in operation? As we have a unique facility in the City's STOLport, and a unique aircraft in the British Aerospace 146 that could use it, it seems daft to build a suspension bridge directly under the flight path. I understand that my right hon. Friend has conducted an

    685
    inquiry into the construction of that suspension bridge. Will he say when the House may expect to hear the results of that inquiry?
    Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. I have just received the inspector's report. It will take some time to consider, but we will try to he as speedy as we can. To re-emphasise what I said to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), if there were a proposal for these new types of aircraft to use the London City airport, there would have to be a further planning inquiry.
    Mr. Spearing: As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has pointed out, jets would be unwelcome at the airport. Whether or not jets are used, is the Secretary of State aware that the London docklands railway extension, which will be discussed in Committee shortly, does not go to the airport at all? Is that not an example of the haphazard way in which strategic planning matters are now being dealt with? Does he agree that it would have been better if there had been a strategic planning authority for London, so that problems such as that would not occur?
    Mr. Channon: No, Sir. I do not think that there is any evidence that a strategic planning authority, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, would have done any differently. It is true that the railway extension does not go exactly to the airport, but it will be extremely convenient for the airport and it will be widely welcomed by airport users.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to have completed his review of Channel tunnel rail infrastructure investment; and if he will make a statement, relating particularly to electrification of the Redhill to Reading line.
    Mr. Channon: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to British Rail's study of the possible need for additional rail capacity to cope with traffic growth after the tunnel opens. I have asked for a report by June. Possible additional use of the Redhill to Reading line is being looked at during the study.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that if the regions of this country are to obtain the maximum benefit from the tunnel, we need to be able to get rail traffic round rather than through London? Does he recall that the South-Eastern Railway built the Tonbridge-Redhill-Reading line for the very purpose of a future Channel tunnel more than 100 years ago, that it was kept open by the Beeching proposals against the day when the tunnel would be built, but that so far the Government have refused to sanction the investment in the line for British Rail, so that all the trains will be pushed through central London? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that, compared with what the French are doing, we are in danger of having a penny-pinching railway system and a penny-farthing railway to go with it?
    Mr. Channon: I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend. We have in general terms authorised investment by British Rail in the Channel tunnel project up to about £550 million. British Rail will now have to put detailed appraisals forward for each investment proposal. We are
    686
    studying what my hon. Friend said about the RedhillReading line. Obviously his views will be taken into account, but there may well be better ways of doing it than the Redhill-Reading line. Just because it was suitable in he middle of the 19th century does not mean that it will be the best proposal at this stage. However, I do not rule it out. We will study it during the next few months.
    Mrs. Ray Mitchie: Will the review of rail infrastructure include consideration of the reopening of Freightliner depots, particularly the three that were closed in Scotland fairly recently?
    Mr. Channon: The question whether such a depot should be opened depends on whether it would he commercially worth while arid whether British Rail could show that it would provide a reasonable return. I do riot think that the study will specifically include that subject, but I shall write to the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the number of jobs so far created as a result of the Channel tunnel project? Will he also remind himself from time to time of the advantages of the Reading to Redhill link for the western region, while remembering at the same time the difficulty of the connection between electrification and the diesel operation of the western region?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. If we electrify the Redhill to Reading line, we have to decide what happens beyond Reading — [Interruption.] The connecting lines beyond Reading are not electrified either. The matter is more complicated than it might seem, although we are certainly examining it.
    A reasonable estimate is that about 3,000 jobs will be involved in the building of the tunnel. Furthermore, there will be an enormous spin-off of prosperity and jobs when the Channel tunnel is the great success that I am sure it will be.
    Mr. Barry Jones: If the Channel tunnel is to provide a great stimulus to the rail industry, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any plans for electrifying the Crewe to Holyhead rail line? Does he understand that our unemployment problems would be greatly assisted by such investment?
    Mr. Channon: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity. However, we are not planning a tunnel under the Irish sea as yet; perhaps that will come. I do not think that British Rail has proposed what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but the Government have never turned down any worthwhile investment proposal put forward by British Rail.
    Mr. Sackville: Will my right hon. Friend remember that many of us have supported the Channel tunnel principle on the assumption that his Department will do everything possible to ensure that the benefits accrue not only to the south-east but to the whole of Britain? Will he therefore ensure that there is a proper through rail link between the north of England and our major European markets?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's view, and I agree with him. I am convinced, as are the majority of hon. Members, that there will be considerable benefits to all parts of the country. Indeed, that applies to what is already happening. Materials are coming from firms in the north-east and Scotland, and that is important

    687
    in itself. British Rail is required by the Channel Tunnel Bill to prepare a plan setting out its service proposals, including proposals for through services to all other parts of the country. It is too early to say what the pattern of services will be. Widespread consultation will have to take place in the preparation of the plan, but my hon. Friend has made an extremely important point.

    Bus Deregulation
    Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new funds have been made available to local authorities as compensation for the extra expenditure caused by bus deregulation; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Deregulation has resulted in a substantial overall reduction in expenditure, so there is no need for extra funds.
    Mr. Hood: Is the Minister aware that since deregulation the elderly and disabled in rural communities have become virtual prisoners? Is he further aware that, as a result of the Government's obsession with selling off transport to the quick buck merchants, our rural communities are being caused much stress and concern? Does he understand that, by refusing to give proper financial assistance to local authorities, the Government are compounding a great crisis in our rural communities?
    Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman considers the facts, he will find that the position is somewhat different. Local authorities are responsible for providing services for the disabled. Questions about bus services in Scotland should, of course, be directed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, I understand that, following deregulation, the need for bus subsidies in Scotland has fallen by more than £10 million, and that should provide ample funds for the services required.
    Mr. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that ratepayers in Cheshire have been saved £2 million a year? Should we not be praising bus deregulation and the savings achieved all over the country?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly correct in what he says about Cheshire. The House may be interested to know that across the country as a whole the saving is about £40 million a year for hard-pressed ratepayers and taxpayers. If one includes the savings from precept control, the figure is somewhat in excess of £100 million.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister study the evidence produced by Grampian regional council, which is typical for authorities throughout the country? In eight months last year there were 300 different service changes. The service to rural areas is crumbling rapidly and the director of finance has forecast a crisis unless the Government assist with finance to the area. Is that not the pattern throughout the whole country? Will the Minister publish the evidence instead of relying on homilies on anecdotal evidence, which he appears to repeat from time to time?
    Mr. Mitchell: There is nothing anecdotal about the savings which I have just reported to the House and which in Scotland amount to more than £10 million. That provides the local authorities concerned with the resources
    688
    to provide services in rural areas as may be required. If there are changes in the pattern of services, it may be that the services are more closely resembling what people want rather than simply being what they were before.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend note that the county of Cleveland now has improved services and a £4 million reduction in the money taken from ratepayer's pockets before deregulation? In view of the announcement by Cleveland county council of a 30p increase in rates this year, which is scandalous, I hope that my hon. Friend can find something else to deregulate.
    Mr. Mitchell: I do not have power to control what happens in Cleveland, but well over 60 per cent. of the money previously spent on providing subsidies for bus services in the county has now been saved.

    Section 8 Grants
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the operation of the section 8 grant system; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State agree that the total expenditure on section 8 grants in declining? As a result of that, will he agree to initiate an inquiry into the system, bearing in mind the need to liberalise the provisions and the great exuberance that we have heard this afternoon about the possibility of the Channel tunnel?
    Mr. Channon: I see no evidence for an inquiry. Since 1979, 126 grants have been awarded, amounting to £47 million. About 35 million tonnes of freight are removed from the roads each year by the scheme. Naturally, we continue to see whether there are ways of speeding up the process or of simplifying the administration of the grants, but I see no reason for an inquiry. The system is working well.

    M25 Motorway
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measurements have been taken to assess the overall noise rise (L10 and L90) that has occurred on the M25; when and where they were taken; and what further measurements are proposed in the vicinity of the Theydon Garnon interchange.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Noise levels near the M25 were calculated by the prediction method set out in the Department of the Environment's publication, "Calculation of Road Traffic Noise". Additional noise surveys were carried out in 1985 on the A10-M11 section, in my hon. Friend's constituency, and in 1986 on the Wisley to Reigate section. No further measurements are planned at the M11-M25 Theydon Garnon interchange.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Have not the predicted noise levels been exceeded, to the distress of my constituents? May fresh consideration be given in the Department to an acoustic barrier, a noise resistant road surface and the planting of more trees?
    Mr. Bottomley: I should like to continue to consider some of those matters, but I do not think that the expensive work can be agreed to. Perhaps I can write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. McCrindle: To endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), will my hon. Friend the Minister pay particular attention to the noise emitting from motorway surfaces? I do not know whether that is peculiar to this stretch of motorway, but there is no doubt that that seems to contribute, perhaps disappropriately, to the trouble suffered by his constituents and mine.
    Mr. Bottomley: I understand these genuine anxieties. I am advised that any given level of skid resistance, which is important on motorways — concrete and bitumen surfaces have the same noise characteristics — is undergoing further research.

    East Coast Main Line
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to discuss east coast main line services with the chairman of British Rail.
    Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend plans to meet the chairman on 11 February and discuss a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Beith: Now that it has become clear that it would be possible, after electrification, to run overnight and sleeper services to Tyneside and the Borders without deficit, and that it may be possible to devise a much cheaper compromise even before then, will the Secretary of State use his good offices to encourage the chairman of British Rail to seek a compromise on this matter?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows that these are commercial decisions for British Rail. I have already asked the chairman for his view on the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised with me in recent correspondence. Custom has fallen away and, at Berwick-upon-Tweed—I think the hon. Gentleman's station—on average, only two passengers a night in each direction use the service. The hon. Gentleman may be one of them. Keeping the service going for another three years would lose British Rail about £1 million.
    Dr. Thomas: I welcome the investment on the east coast line. Will the Minister consider the impact of improvements of the east coast service on the west coast service from Scotland and on the Holyhead connection? Will he give an assurance that, at some stage, electrification of that service will be planned as well?
    Mr. Mitchell: I have received no proposal from British Rail for electrification to Holyhead. Several west coast services will be improved as a result of changes that British Rail is introducing.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Minister feel that deficiencies in the east coast service are behind the latest criticism of British Rail from those Left-wing malcontents in the City of London who are complaining that those deficiencies are having an adverse effect on the balance of payments? Would it not be a good idea if, instead of reading a brief prepared by civil servants every three weeks, the Minister and the Secretary of State left their chauffeur-driven cars at home for one week and suffered the same misery as everyone else?
    Mr. Mitchell: I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that both the Secretary of State and I are frequent users of the railway system. Moreover, we are considering the City
    690
    group's report. Ministers have approved substantial investment by British Rail and London Underground Ltd. to improve services and relieve overcrowding. For example, nearly £60 million was approved for new rolling stock for the Great Eastern lines, nearly £18 million was approved for the Bedford to St. Pancras line and £75 million was approved for the tube. It is for British Rail to propose investments. We have approved all investments that it has put before us. I shall be very happy to have my in-tray filled again.

    Drink-Driving
    Mr. Robert B. JonesTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on reductions in drinking and driving since 1978.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Responses to surveys indicate a substantial reduction in the number of people who risk drinking and driving, possibly as much as 50 per cent. between 1978 and 1986. The figures show a downward trend in drink-drive injury accidents, from 20,352 in 1978 to 18,254 in 1986.
    The General Accident Gallup survey of 18 December 1987 indicated that the proportion of male drivers prepared to risk drink driving over the limit halved between 1986 and 1987.
    Mr. Jones: Although those figures are welcome, they show that many people are still drinking and driving, so there is much still to do.
    May I make two suggestions? First, many of my constituents complain to me that non-alcoholic beer is still not available in many pubs. Will my hon. Friend suggest to the breweries, when he meets them concerning these matters, that they should be more co-operative?
    Secondly, does my hon. Friend think that it is wrong that the 10-year rule should apply to people who have more than one conviction for drunken driving? It is a serious offence, so should they not automatically have a major disqualification on the second conviction, even if it is more than 10 years after the first one?
    Mr. Bottomley: The brewers are doing a great deal to promote drivers drinking non-alcoholic drinks or to encourage people to make other transport arrangements after drinking alcohol. I encourage more people to join The Brewers Society's "Wheelwatch" campaign and to copy a good brewery, Charles Wells of Bedford, which has made non-alcoholic beer available on draught.
    My hon. Friend's second point would tempt me to get back into my quotations from "The Mikado", which tend to get me into trouble.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister tasted the non-alcoholic wine available in the House? I can assure him that it is absolutely disgusting and is no disincentive to take alcohol. Will he say whether there has been a correlation in London between the fall in drinking arid driving offences and free transport on London Regional Transport? Would it not be a good thing to have free transport throughout the country and throughout the year, so that we could do away with the problem of drinking and driving?
    Mr. Bottomley: It is worth noting that almost 500 people a year die on the roads in London. Obviously, the more journeys that can be made on public transport, which is dramatically safer than using the roads, the better.

    691
    That is why the great increase in passenger journeys on London Regional Transport, since it was taken away from the hon. Gentleman, is to be welcomed.
    Non-alcoholic drinks can improve, but there are the traditional soft drinks, as well as the new non-alcoholic and very low-alcohol drinks.
    Mr. David Martin: Bearing in mind that a reduction in drinking and driving offences is particularly sought at Christmas and over the new year, and that public transport increases the opportunities for not driving, will my hon. Friend, if he speaks to British Rail about commercial matters, raise the matter of the advisability of services being restored to Boxing day this year and in future years?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that British Rail will bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments when making commercial decisions. It is important to make all forms of transport as reasonably safe as possible. Although I am occasionally willing to wear sackcloth and ashes for appearing to be hysterical, I am sure that most hon. Members support the drop in drinking and driving casualties from 1,500 eight years ago to under 1,000 now. We hope that they will drop to virtually zero.

    Dial-A-Ride
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to increase funding for Dial-a-Ride services.
    Mr. David Mitchell: How much to spend on this or other forms of transport for disabled people is a matter for the local authority in the area concerned.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister support the extension of dial-a-ride schemes to other parts of the country, particularly rural areas? Does he also accept that it should be the objective of such schemes to give the people involved a journey at least once a week? How do the Government justify the freezing of the present grant to the London dial-a-ride schemes?
    Mr. Mitchell: Provision for the disabled in Scunthorpe is provided by the Age Concern minibus and the social service car scheme. The introduction of a dial-a-ride scheme in the area is a matter for the local authority. In many parts of the country local authorities have made such enormous savings, following bus deregulation, that they have the resources to spend on that particular form of service for the disabled, if they want to. The London figure for this year has been increased by the level of inflation, but we believe that much more can be secured by better use of resources.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comment that existing resources can be better used, does he accept that many people are not yet able to use dial-a-ride because they simply cannot get through to it and that, therefore, we do not know how many people are still trapped in their own homes? Will my hon. Friend consider sympathetically other earmarked requests—for instance, for a new telephone exchange for London dial-a-ride, which would do a substantial amount to promote better use of the facilities?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the difficulty that some people have in making contact with the dial-a-ride services in London, and I shall consider his point about the telephone.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister take account of the powerful alliance of the two Robert Hugheses in the House on Dial-a-Ride? Does he accept the effectiveness of Dial-a-Ride and the benefit that it provides to disabled people, especially elderly women? Does he agree that we should aim for one trip a week for those who need the services, not one trip in 11 weeks, and will he use every effort, including the provision of money, and his considerable influence to increase and improve Dial-a-Ride schemes throughout Britain?
    Mr. Mitchell: The dial-a-ride services that are currently available are insufficient to meet all the transport needs of those who depend upon them. Neither the costs nor the assumptions that underlie the one trip a week campaign are entirely accurate or realistic. But I am not unsympathetic to the alliance across the House, which wishes adequate resources to be given to the scheme, and I want to see the good use of those resources.

    Greater Manchester Light Rapid Transport System
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the proposed Greater Manchester light rapid transport system.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I have received several representations in favour of the proposed Greater Manchester light rapid transit system, and about the desirability of bringing in private finance. I made an announcement about the Government's position on 18 January.
    Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the private sector has majority control of the operating company? Attractive though the scheme may be, it is important to ensure that it does not become a drain on Greater Manchester ratepayers and on the public purse as a whole.
    Mr. Mitchell: I can reassure my hon. Friend. Private sector participation should mean rapid construction of the system, and since the private sector will be operating it, we can reasonably expect it to be operated efficiently.
    Mr. Litherland: Does the Minister agree that had it not been for obstruction by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), this marvellous initiative from a Labour-controlled authority would have come to fruition much earlier, to the benefit of millions in the region?
    Mr. Mitchell: In historical fact, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) was anxious that there should be a private sector contribution and that the entire burden should not be borne by ratepayers. That is what is proposed in the scheme that will go forward with the approval of the passenger transport authority.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that that decision was widely welcomed in Greater Manchester? Does he agree that it will mean a big improvement in public transport in Greater Manchester, especially when taken in conjunction with the announcement last year on the Windsor link? Does he have more good news for Greater Manchester?
    Mr. Mitchell: We always keep an eye on the needs of Greater Manchester and the north-west in general. My hon. Friend is right to call the scheme a big potential improvement. Last Saturday in Manchester I spoke to

    693
    several people who were pleased that the scheme was coming, and I have no doubt that when I visit Manchester next Friday for the Transport 2000 conference I shall hear the same thing.

    British Rail Engineering Ltd.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the chairman of British Rail about the future size of the work force in British Rail Engineering Ltd.
    Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the chairman of British Rail about the future size of the work force in British Rail Engineering Ltd.
    Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend discussed BREL's future with the British Rail chairman last November. He then made a statement to the House announcing approval for British Rail to offer the company for sale. Employment at BREL is a management matter for the company and, until it is sold, for the British Railways Board.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Did the Minister accept that part of the British Rail corporate plan which said that the work force of BREL should be reduced to 4,000? If he did, does he intend that the privatised units will have the full right to tender for any work that is handed out by British Rail, or was it just a way of scrapping thousands of engineering jobs, with complete disregard for the interests of people such as my constituents?
    Mr. Mitchell: British Rail Engineering Ltd. has no plans for more major redundancies before the sale takes place, which will confine the loss of jobs to the 3,000 redundancies announced last September. As for the second part of the hon. Lady's question, the purchasers of the company will decide for which contracts to tender.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister confirm that, in spite of grossly overcrowded trains and frequent cancellations due to defective stock, he and his colleagues see no future for BREL? Will he take on board the fact that up to 3,500 jobs could be created over a two-year period in BREL merely by putting one extra carriage on each commuter train leaving the London termini at peak hours? Is he concerned about the prospect of positive job creation through BREL?
    Mr. Mitchell: There are certain practical difficulties about adding an extra coach to all the trains, as the platforms would have to be lengthened, too. British Rail is responsible for its own investment proposals, which it puts to Ministers. Ministers have approved all proposals that have come forward from British Rail, and the reductions in the labour force at BREL are a result of a fall in repair and maintenance work, much of which is a result of new investment in rolling stock, leading to fewer repair requirements.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Security
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide a further update of the costs so far incurred in the "Spycatcher" case, and in all other cases in which
    694
    Her Majesty's Government are a party, and which involve the restraint of publication of security-related information.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): In the "Spycatcher" litigation the total amount of costs expended to date by the Government is about £575,000. The total expenditure to date on other current cases relating to the duty of confidentiality is about £9,000.
    Mr. Winnick: It is all a waste of money. Will the Attorney-General state whether in any of these cases it was the Government's position that members of the security service could carry out criminal activities without any action being taken against them? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the lack of any effective parliamentary scrutiny of the security service is not only wrong in itself, but is undoubtedly a blot on our democracy?
    The Attorney-General: The contention in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was never put forward on behalf of the Government. I might remind the House usefully of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in a written answer the other day:
    "At no time have the Government asserted that any of the alleged actions which have featured in recent newspaper articles could lawfully be done under the prerogative when they would otherwise be criminal offences." —[Official Report, 29 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 397.]
    The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Warren: How is it that people such as Wright arid Cavendish can flout our law and apparently publish what they want with no action taken against them? Is there no jurisdiction over them?
    The Attorney-General: Mr. Wright and Mr. Cavendish, are rather separate considerations. Mr. Wright is outside the jurisdiction, but action has been taken in the courts in Australia. In the case of Mr. Cavendish, civil proceedings have been taken in England and Scotland.
    Mr. Beith: When will the "Spycatcher" farce end? As the Government's actions seem to have led to the enrichment of Mr. Wright, how does it uphold the confidentiality of members of the security services to continue them? As the information contained in his book is now widely available throughout the world, is not the effect to keep from the British people information that they can obtain only with adverse consequences for our balance of payments?
    The Attorney-General: My answer to the last part of the question must be the same as it has been for many months. It is important to uphold the duty of confidentiality — that has now become common ground in the litigation. Mr. Justice Scott in his judgment at first instance on the question whether the injunction should be made permanent said:
    "Mr. Wright was in flagrant breach of the lifelong duty of confidence owed to the Crown."
    We must consider whether we should stand back and allow someone in that position to publish in this country, which must he the most profitable market, with all the consequences for the liaison security services of our allies that would follow.
    It is not right to describe all this as a farce. It is a matter of serious import, and it is still before the Court of Appeal.
    Mr. Stokes: Would it be possible for my right hon. and learned Gentleman to provide a further update of the costs so far incurred in the "Spycatcher" case by unnecessary and tedious questions from Members of Her Majesty's Opposition, and in particular from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)?
    The Attorney-General: I never complain that the questions are asked, but I sometimes complain about the reception that the answers receive.
    Mr. John Morris: May I ask the Attorney-General whether the Treasury has suggested that there should be a cash limit to this worldwide litigious rampage by the Government? Since there is considerable anxiety that the present Legal Aid Bill will result in furthering a second-class service for ordinary litigants, will the right hon. Gentleman publish a table of the fees paid in this case and compare it with legal aid fees so that we shall have an idea of what constitutes fair remuneration?
    The Attorney-General: The last time that I was asked about costs I said that I thought the money was well spent. I remain of that view. Of course the Treasury will welcome it if the Government's litigation is ultimately successful. For example, the Government's claim for an account of the profits would substantially reduce the net outlay. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked a rather omnibus question about legal aid. As he knows, that is a matter for the Lord chancellor. It is not my practice to publish fees that are paid to individual members of the Bar or to solicitors.

    Jurors and Witnesses (Costs)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the maximum expenses and loss of earnings claimable by (a) jurors and (b) witnesses.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The maximum limits on expenses and compensation for loss of earnings reimbursed to jurors and witnesses are reviewed annually in accordance with Treasury guidelines. The maximum compensation for loss of earnings was increased from £25·40 to £27·50 per day in October 1987 for witnesses and in November 1987 for jurors. The levels of other expenses, including, for example, subsistence payments, were also increased at various times during 1987.
    Mr. Bowis: At the time of the next review, will my hon. and learned Friend pay particular attention to the burden on the self-employed and on the agency or temporary worker of performing this community service as a witness or juror?
    The Solicitor-General: No distinction is made between those who are employed and those who are self-employed. Increases are made by reference to increases in national average earnings.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Attorney-General: I last met the director on Friday 29 January. We discussed matters relating to the Crown Prosecution Service.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to discuss with the director that peculiarly offensive and evil document known as Holocaust News? In particular, has he considered counsel's opinion that the perpetrators of this document are in breach of the law and should be prosecuted? Can we expect action from the Attorney or the director, or from both, and if not, why not?
    The Attorney-General: It so happens that that extremely unpleasant publication to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers was among the subjects that I discussed with the director on Friday. He and I have both considered the opinions of Mr. Beloff QC, and also of first senior prosecuting counsel to the Treasury. The director and I remain of the view that there should be no prosecution.
    Mr. Aitken: When my right hon. and learned Friend advises the Director of Public Prosecutions that a prosecution is not in the public interest, what, precisely, are the criteria on which he bases his advice? May I ask him to expand on his statement to the House on Monday by saying how he decides on priority between, say, the public interest in maintaining the operational secrets of MI5, the public interest in avoiding a breakdown in Anglo-Irish relations and the public interest in upholding the rule of law? How and why does he choose?
    The Attorney-General: I shall answer in general terms the question about my general criteria, but I do not think that the question about Holocaust News relates to Ireland. Having satisfied myself that the evidence is sufficient to justify proceedings, I then consider whether in any particular cases the public interest requires a prosecution. Each case is judged on its own facts and with special regard to the circumstances, both of the alleged offence and of the alleged offender, and to any other considerations affecting public policy. This is simply an application of long-established principles previously endorsed by the Attorney-General's guidelines on the criteria for prosecution now reproduced in the code for Crown prosecutors issued pursuant to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General clarify the statement that he made last Monday concerning the responsibility for the decision on whether it is in the national interest to prosecute? Will he confirm that that decision is for him alone, and that if, in his view, it is not in the national interest to prosecute, that is the end of the matter and the DPP has no role other than to implement his decision?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that that is not the case. If he has studied the code for Crown prosecutors, he will know that, in every prosecution decision, it must be asked whether the public interest requires a prosecution, even if the evidence is sufficient and the other criteria are met. In cases in which the DPP is the prosecuting authority, and does not seek the consent of the Attorney-General, that process must be carried through by the DPP. In a case in which I must give my consent—for example, under the Race Relations Act 1976 — the responsibility is mine. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that the matter was fully dealt with by my predecessor in a written answer a year or two ago.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid Budget
    Miss Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the value in current prices of official aid flows by Her Majesty's Government in 1979 and for the latest available year.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): In 1986 prices, gross public expenditure on overseas aid was £1,623 million in 1979 and £1,358 million in 1986.
    Miss Mowlam: In view of the poor record that the Minister has reported to the House, does he accept that there is a case for raising the total level of aid, particularly in view of the billions locked up in the Treasury, which his Government are unprepared to spend elsewhere—even on the National Health Service?
    Mr. Patten: As for our record, as the hon. Lady will know, the Labour Government left a number of public expenditure programmes in 1979 which they could not conceivably have sustained at the then current levels. If the hon. Lady does not believe that, perhaps she should read the autobiography of the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
    As for the future, I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that our aid programme is set to grow in real terms over the next three years.
    Mr. Jack: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether any of the flows of aid finance went to Panama in respect of programmes to counter international concern that the destruction of the country's rain forests may be affecting the future of the Panama canal?
    Mr. Patten: That is the first question that I have ever been asked about Panama. I am delighted to say that we have been able to make contributions towards the protection of rain forests in other countries. I do not believe that we have yet done anything in Panama, but I shall look up the details for my hon. Friend. We do a fair amount in Central America through the European Community programmes.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The Minister is continually defending the Government's record on aid. Surely, however, a proper criterion is comparison with other countries. Is it not a matter of some concern to the Minister that the recent OECD figures demonstrate that the Soviet Union has now passed us in the proportion of its national income that is spent on aid?
    Mr. Patten: I have not always been as convinced by the figures produced by the Soviet Union as the hon. Gentleman clearly is.
    Miss Mowlam: Look at the OECD figures. The Government usually accept them as a correct record.
    Mr. Patten: According to the OECD figures—which greatly impressed me, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) will be impressed as well—whereas about 60 per cent. of the money provided by other donors goes to the poorest countries, the United Kingdom figure is 75 per cent.
    Mr. Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the handsome progress that he has made on the aid budget.
    698
    Will he tell the House what steps he and his Department are taking to discourage some of the countries to which we give large amounts of aid from some of their more lunatic financial excesses?
    Mr. Patten: As my hon. Friend may know, we have given increasing amounts of support to the structural adjustment programmes being pursued by a number of African and other countries. We have also made a substantial contribution to the enhanced structural adjustment facility, which will encourage developing countries to follow sensible policies.
    Ms. Lestor: May I refer back to the answer that the Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) on the level of aid? The Minister has suggested that the Labour Government, had they continued in office, would not have been able to sustain the plans that they had in the coffers. Bearing that in mind —and in view of the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) stressing the need for a timetable to reach the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product for aid, and the various calls on the aid budget—will the hon. Gentleman put pressure on the Foreign Secretary to have an open debate in the House of Commons, in Government time, to discuss the aid budget and future Government allocations to it?
    Mr. Patten: That sort of question is more normally put on Thursday afternoons, but I shall always be more than happy to have a debate on our overseas aid programme, during which I can tell the House about several matters, for example, the Chancellor's debt initiative.

    Sugar Producers
    Mr. BarnesTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any further plans to increase aid to Third world nations who depend on sugar production for their livelihood to enable them to diversify and increase their food production; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I am always ready to consider proposals from sugar-producing countries to use the aid available to them to help diversify their economies and increase efficient domestic food production. We already provide that kind of help.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that the EEC is dumping sugar on world markets and that that has a catastrophic effect on sugar production in the Third world? The World Development Movement estimates that 12 million workers are dependent upon sugar for their livelihood. Wages in the Philippines are only 35p a day for sugar workers, and great disruption is being caused by EEC policies. In addition to working for a new international sugar agreement, will the Minister consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with a view to bringing about a change in EEC beet production policy so that dumping on world markets will not continue?
    Mr. Pattern: I have read the interesting literature produced by the World Development Movement. Of course, extra sugar production is not a unique European Community problem. In recognition of that fact, the Community has tabled proposals in the GATT Uruguay

    699
    round for urgent measures to improve the world sugar market, including a reduction in the amounts that are placed on the market by major exporters.
    Mr. Wells: Is it true also that it is important to maintain the support price for 1·4 million tonnes of sugar imported into the country and that, indeed, there is now an opportunity to increase imports to Europe at the support price by increasing the amount that Portugal accepts from ACP countries? Will my hon. Friend support such a move?
    Mr. Patten: We shall have several opportunities to discuss the issues as we start on the next round of negotiations under Lomé. The Government remain fully committed to the maintenance of guaranteed access for ACP sugar under the Lomé convention.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that access alone is not enough and that the price referred to by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) is important? Does he agree also that if the EEC is to discharge its moral responsibilities to ACP states, price and refiners' margins are equally important, and that we should reduce the surpluses to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman will have several opportunities to ask that question of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

    Food Aid Programme
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will raise at the next meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers the report of the Court of Auditors on the operation of the food aid programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The Council's working group on food aid has discussed the report. It agreed that the new procedures that were introduced in 1987 should help the European Community in future to avoid many of the serious problems listed by the Court of Auditors.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the report showed that there was massive waste and corruption, that aid for starving people was arriving a year late, and that some food was rotten and inedible and, in one case radioactive? Does he believe that the best way of stopping taxpayers' money being wasted in such an appalling way is to say on 12 February that there will be no additional funds to the Common Market until such scandalous waste at the expense of starving people is stopped?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that the report to which he referred concerned the management of food aid that went on before we helped to secure the reform of the regulations during our presidency of the Development Council. The auditors' report confirmed the good sense of the reforms that we pushed through the Development Council.

    Tanzania
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to make further aid available to Tanzania.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I have just returned from Tanzania, where I announced a new pledge of £20 million of fast-spending balance of payments support. This will be part of the World Bank's new initiative for co-ordinating such aid for poor, debt-distressed countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are following adjustment programmes. It brings our pledges in support of Tanzania's economic recovery programme since August 1986, when it reached an agreement with the IMF, to over £70 million.
    Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on our aid to Third world countries. Will he take account of the figures given last week that there will be 1 million AIDS sufferers worldwide by 1990, a substantial number of whom will come from Tanzania and elsewhere in Africa? They are posing a threat not only to the continent of Africa but to Britain and Europe. What will his Department do to alleviate this problem?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of this issue. While I was in Tanzania, I announced a contribution of £1·5 million, to be made through the World Health Organisation, to help with the Tanzanian AIDS control programme.

    Ethiopia
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration has been given to the appeal by United Nations agencies for emergency aid for Ethiopia; and what response has been made.
    Mr. Chris Patten: As I have already informed the House, we are providing £2 million in response to the United Nations disaster relief co-ordinator's request for assistance with an emergency food airlift in Ethiopia.
    I have also now decided to provide £600,000 to the United Nations Children's Fund Ethiopia appeal.
    Mr. Barron: I congratulate the Minister on responding to the United Nations Children's Fund. On 30 November I asked him to do so and he said he would consider the matter. He has taken a long time. Is he satisfied that the grant is enough, given the difficult position of children in Ethiopia?
    Mr. Patten: I thought that it was important to see the position in Ethiopia for myself, which I have now done twice, the second time briefly. Our contribution to the UNICEF appeal is the joint third equal of other national donors. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that contribution should be added to the £35 million that we have made available so far for humanitarian assistance with the consequences of the present drought.

Britoil
3.31 pm
Mr. John Smith: (by private notice): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, following the acquisition by BP of the majority shareholding in Britoil, he will make a statement on how he proposes to use the special share to preserve the independence of the company.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The Atlantic Richfield Company, Arco, has now formally agreed to sell its 24 per cent. holding in Britoil to BP. Taken with its existing holding of 29·8 per cent., this would give BP nearly 54 per cent.of Britoil's ordinary shares. How many more shares it acquires depends on the response to its increased offer.
In the circumstances which have now arisen, the Government will be discussing the situation with BP and with Britoil. These discussions will, of course, be without prejudice to the decision by my right hon. and noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the light of advice to him from the Director General of Fair Trading, on whether the acquisition should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The House will understand that in advance of these discussions it would not be sensible for me to give details of the outcome which I have in mind. But I can reaffirm that the powers of the special share will be used for so long as it is in the national interest to do so. We shall, of course, take fully into account what is best for Scotland and for the development of the North sea.
Mr. Smith: Is it not clear to everyone that BP now has effective control of Britoil, and that unless the Government use the special share Britoil will cease to be an independent company?
Does the Chancellor recollect, when he was Secretary of State for Energy, saying:
"The very existence of these powers"—
the special share—
"will act as the most formidable deterrent to anyone who tries to take over control of the board, of the company or of the majority of its shares, and who the Government consider to be unacceptable." [Official Report, 31 March 1982; Vol. 21, c. 334.]
Will the Chancellor describe how BP was affected by that "formidable deterrent", as, in pursuit of Britoil, it has acted as if the Chancellor's specially devised protection simply did not exist?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer to the question: is BP acceptable or unacceptable to the Government? Does he recollect another assurance that was given to the House by the then Minister of State, now Lord Gray of Contin, who said:
"The articles will contain effective safeguards for Britoil's independence and the safeguards will be triggered if there is an attempt to take over voting control of the company or to control the Britoil board or its composition." —[Official Report, 1 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 450.]
In the light of those assurances given by and on behalf of the Chancellor, what will he now do to honour them? Surely his only course is to say now, emphatically, that he will use his special share to maintain Britoil as a wholly independent company, as independent in every way as it was before the BP bid was lodged. If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that, but produces some cobbled-together deal garlanded with more assurances, he will have engaged in a dishonourable retreat from specific
702
guarantees given to the House. If that happens, will it not prove that, once again, privatisation leads to the bolstering of monopoly?
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this company is the largest publicly quoted company in Scotland and that the obliteration of its independence would be a severe blow to the west of Scotland and to the dispersal of corporate headquarters throughout the country? Is it not time that the Chancellor cleared the whole matter up and made it crystal clear that the special share will be used to achieve the national objectives which he advertised some years ago?
Mr. Lawson: I have made the position crystal clear. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted from what I said nearly six years ago on Report on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, and I am especially glad that he quoted column 334. I point out that. Britoil has enjoyed complete independence for some five years since it was privatised.
I shall again read—the House should pay attention—the quotation from Hansard, accurately read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when I said:
"The very existence of these powers will act as the most formidable deterrent to anyone who tries to take over control of the board, of the company or of the majority of its shares, and who the Government consider to be unacceptable."
I shall read two further quotations, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested. I said:
"We wanted to create effective safeguards which would enable the Government to prevent any unacceptable change in the future control of the company".
I said:
"We have given, as has BNOC and its advisers, considerable thought to the articles to ensure that they are an effective means of protecting Britoil's independence against unacceptable changes in control." —[Official Report, 31 March 1982; Vol. 21, c. 333–4.]
It was quite clear from the beginning that the possibility of an acceptable change in control existed.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether control by BP would be acceptable. That depends on the outcome of the discussions which we shall have. That is precisely what they are about.
It is strange to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman treating BP as though it were some kind of pariah. I should like to read what he said in the House on 29 October 1987, barely three months ago, about the share offer and BP. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"Is it not the case that the first victim will be BP, Britain's largest company? … Is it not clear that BP will suffer … I regard it as a matter of grave seriousness for BP and this country.
The interests of BP have been cast aside". —[Official Report, 29 October 1983; Vol. 121, c. 541.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's schizophrenia is such as to make his remarks today totally valueless.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Tell us about the Kuwaitis' nationalisation.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not keep interrupting from a sedentary position.
Sir Michael Shaw: Is not the outcome, so far, of this affair entirely satisfactory? The foreign bidder has been deterred and Britoil remains British. Is that not the object of the exercise?
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend makes a very important and pertinent point.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Why can we not have straight answers to our questions? Is BP unacceptable, or not? It is certainly wholly unacceptable to the staff and management of Britoil. Why does not the Chancellor say that, as part of his objectives in any discussions—about which we are suspicious—that he may have with BP, at the very least he wants Britoil to remain an independently managed company and the head office and corporate functions to remain in Scotland, in Glasgow?
Mr. Lawson: I am very conscious, as I mentioned in my earlier answer, of the Scottish dimension. It is important to consider the best interests of Scotland in all this.
The right hon. Gentleman may not find BP an acceptable company, but the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) showed the greatest solicitude for BP's welfare some three months ago, so he clearly regards it as an acceptable company. Whether the change of control to BP will be acceptable will depend on the outcome of the discussions which will be taking place, as I informed the House.
Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the original objective of the special share was to deter a foreign takeover rather than to protect the independence of Britoil in perpetuity? As that is now not contemplated, surely there is no need to use the special share?
Mr. Lawson: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. I know—I recall well—that at the time of the debates that we had in 1982 the concern of the Opposition was that there might be a foreign takeover of Britoil. That was their concern, and nothing else. However, I do not think that it is right now to give up the special share. It is necessary to maintain the special share to ensure a satisfactory outcome and to ensure that whatever is agreed is adhered to.
Mr. Malcom Bruce: Will the Chancellor acknowledge that BP's takeover of Britoil is its revenge on the Government for the Government going ahead with the sale of shares last November, and that BP is now in direct confrontation with the Government's interests on this matter? Will he not accept that the existence of Britoil as an independent company is vitally necessary, not just for Scotland, but for the healthy development of exploration activity in the North sea, and that in those circumstances, the loss of Britoil's corporate headquarters from Scotland, and the loss of Britoil as an independent company, would set that course back? Does he not acknowledge that BP is transferring people from Aberdeen to London? How does that square with it keeping its corporate headquarters in Scotland?
Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Gentleman is bidding for the leadership of the new party, he will have to do a little bit better than that.
I specifically mentioned the best interests of the development of the North sea, and especially Britoil's assets in the North sea, in my reply. As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is any difference between BP and myself over the question whether the BP share issue should go ahead, which the hon. Gentleman has alleged and which was alleged earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that, of course, is totally untrue.
704
I should like to read briefly from what the chairman of BP, Sir Peter Walters, said at the annual BP press lunch a fortnight ago. He said:
"The outcome was in my view the right one; the sale should have gone ahead. I was very pleased though that there was this temporary lifeboat represented by the Bank of England offer to buy back the partly paid which has now expired and which, as you see, almost no one took advantage of. There was no disagreement between myself and the Chancellor as to whether the sale should go ahead or not."
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us believed that it was right for there to be a big foreign interest in the North sea but that no one in this House contemplated the chance of virtually the whole of our oil industry in the North sea being controlled by foreign interests? Is he aware that many of us think that the wisest decision that the Government made was to keep a golden share and keep some control in our hands? Is he also aware that Nomura Securities of Japan is bigger than all our banks put together and that it could take over Prudential Assurance and have that as only petty cash? Is it not right that we must make it clear what we wish to control and what we are willing to sell out to other people?
Mr. Lawson: I note very carefully what my hon. Friend, who is an expert in all these matters, has said. Of course, it is not a matter for me, but I would have thought that if there were—I realise that this is purely hypothetical—to be a bid by Nomura Securities for the Prudential, there must be a strong chance that that would be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Mr. Tony Benn: Does the Chancellor recall that, as Liberal First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill took control of the Anglo-Persian oil company which became BP, in 1914, because oil was so important to the British Navy and to Britain; that the establishment of BNOC gave us further control; that Britoil also gave us control and that when Burmah Oil company went bust, BP acquired its shares to strengthen British control and influence? Does he also realise that, both as Secretary of State for Energy and as Chancellor, he will be the man who threw away our control of the oil resources and the revenues accruing from them?
Mr. Lawson: I have answered that question many times before at greater length than I propose to do now, although it is always good to see one of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Energy in his place when we discuss these matters. The plain fact is that times have changed. It is no longer necessary for the British Government to own shares in BP and, indeed, BP believes, that it is far better off without the British Government. Furthermore, I must remind the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that he presided over the first sale of BP shares.
Mr. Ian Gow: Since it was the primary purpose of the special share to prevent the unacceptable takeover of Britoil, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the indignation—however synthetic—of the Opposition would be much more justified if there had been an unacceptable acquisition?
Mr. Lawson: I suspect that my hon. Friend, as usual, is correct. Certainly, although the special share was put in, as I said at the time, to prevent any unacceptable change of control, I remember very clearly the debates that we had

705
at that time. All the Opposition were talking about was the risk of the foreign takeover of Britoil. That was all that they were concerned about.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman is remembering the numerous debates that we had on those issues. Does he remember the numerous times that he said that the whole point and purpose of privatisation and the creation of Britoil was to create a bright, independent British oil company in the North Sea? What price now that independence? Is it not the case that BP's interests now appear bigger than the national interest and bigger than the Government's wishes?
Mr. Lawson: I remain anxious to have the best possible development of the United Kingdom continental shell and I know that that concern is shared by the hon. Gentleman. However, I do not believe that it necessarily follows that that has to be secured by Britoil remaining unconnected with BP. We shall have to see what can result from the discussions that we shall have with BP.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the Government's forthcoming discussions with BP will be in the nature of a vigorous wrestling match, or tea and sympathy? I urge my right hon. Friend to adopt the friendly approach, which I believe is suggested by his tone this afternoon. Unless the Government are suddenly adopting the blinkers of Scottish nationalism, surely it is inconceivable that BP's ownership would be contrary to the national interest.
Mr. Lawson: I believe that discussions will take the form of hard negotiations conducted in an amicable atmosphere.
Mr. George Galloway: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought weasel words to the House this afternoon. The golden share was to be a shield to protect the independence of the independent oil-producing and oil-exploring sector, but it has proved to be no more formidable than a piece of silver paper.
Much has been made by the Chancellor of the unacceptability issue. The board and the staff of Britoil —highly skilled staff at the top of their profession—to a man and woman find the BP takeover proposals completely unacceptable. One of the things that has been said concerns the Britishness of BP. How British is BP? Will BP be BP with a billion shares owned by the Kuwaiti Government through the Kuwaiti Investment Office? Unless the Government stiffen their back and offer some resistance to the proposals, this will represent another well-heeled kick in the face of Scotland and the oil-producing sector.
Mr. Lawson: BP is most certainly British and will remain so. The acceptability issue is extremely important. As the hon. Gentleman reminds the House, and as I did earlier, we specifically took the power to prevent any unacceptable change of control. [HON. MEMBERS: "Independence."] The whole thing must be read in context. I said that on no fewer than three occasions in that one column of Hansard alone. That is what is at issue now. The discussions are designed to ensure that if there Js to be —I said if—any change of control, it will take place in an acceptable manner. It is the responsibility of the Government, acting in the national interest, to decide what is acceptable.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an extension of Question Time.

Northern Ireland (Stalker-Sampson Inquiry)
3.50 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, Under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for urgent action by Her Majesty's Government in the light of new information concerning the conduct of the Stalker-Sampson investigations in Northern Ireland."
The issue is important because it concerns the basis of the rule of law, whether it applies to the police and Ministers, whether they are above the law and what considerations were given under the Official Secrets Act to the publication of Mr. Stalker's memoirs, compared with the considerations given to Mr. Cavendish.
It is urgent because tomorrow there is a meeting of the Anglo-Irish secretariat at which the Secretary of State will be seeking to explain away the Attorney-General's mind-boggling decision and the disciplinary measures he is proposing to take against a number of officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is important that we should know whether the Chief Constable of the RUC, who originally asked Stalker to undertake this investigation but who later wrote a letter denying him information because it was classified as grade A by the Special Branch, is among those to be disciplined.
It is important to know whether the assistant chief constable, Mr. Forbes, who refused to give Mr. Stalker access to the file of a possible agent provocateur unless ordered by the Chief Constable and would not forward Mr. Stalker's request to the Chief Constable, is also to be disciplined.
It is important to know whether the officer who denied the existence of a file for three months, thus causing extra work for six officers, and who handed over the file only when he was cautioned that he was a criminal suspect, is to be disciplined.
It is important to know whether tomorrow the Secretary of State will confirm the existence or otherwise
708
of a tape recording of the events in the hayshed where Tighe died, which was not available when the case was tried by Lord Justice Kelly.
We also need to know whether the conclusion of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to proceed with shoot-to-kill allegations of 11 and 24 November and 12 December 1982 was supported by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson, whether Mr. Sampson heard the tape, whether it was handed over and whether it is still in existence.
Those are important matters. They go to the root of our relationship with the Republic of Ireland, our allies in the most important fight against terrorism in these islands. The House should debate these things before the Secretary of State goes to his meeting tomorrow, where the reputation, honour and honesty of this country, the rule of law and the integrity of Ministers and the police are at stake.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The need for urgent action by Her Majesty's Government in the light of new information regarding the conduct of the Stalker-Sampson investigations in Northern Ireland."
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow.
I regret that I cannot find that the matter the hon. Gentleman has raised meets the criteria laid down under Standing Order No. 20, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Tony Benn rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am about to call the right hon. Gentleman to move his own application under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Benn: May I—
Mr. Speaker: No. I have dealt with that matter.

Industrial Disputes
3.54 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the direct responsibility of the Government for provoking the industrial dispute in the mining industry and for the proposed strike action by nurses and others, who arc being forced to take action to protect the National Health Service."
Every time that a Standing Order No. 20 application is made, hon. Members are asking you, Mr. Speaker, who have discretion, to give us the right to talk about matters of immediate concern. It is now four years since the miners' strike, and the evidence of the memoirs and other papers that have been published make it absolutely clear that the Government and Mr. MacGregor provoked the miners' strike deliberately for their own purposes.
Four years later, the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers finds that British Coal will not negotiate with it, and is therefore unilaterally in breach of the long-standing contract arrangements dealing with the conditions of NACODS members. That is the first issue. Today most of the pits are closed—I think that only two are open—and industrial action by means of an overtime ban will have a grave effect.
My second point concerns the National Health Service. After the exchanges across the Floor of the House, I do not have to emphasise the importance of the action to be taken by nurses in the Health Service on Tuesday and Wednesday. However, it is important that everyone should have the opportunity to discuss the situation before it occurs. The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) made an old point of mine: before something happens, it is hypothetical; when it happens, it is too delicate; and after it has happened it is too late. If Parliament cannot discuss matters of concern to the citizens of this country, people will not look to this House to articulate their anxieties.
The National Health Service strike on Wednesday is solely and simply the responsibility of the Government. Hon. Members who take this view should be able to express it and Ministers should be answerable for their responsibility in these matters.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the direct responsibility of the Government for provoking the industrial dispute in the mining industry and for the proposed strike action by nurses and others, who are being forced to take action to protect the National Health Service."
I have listened with great care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have to repeat what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I have to have regard to the criteria laid down in the Standing Orders and I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House.

Birmingham Pub Bombings
3.57 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal by the Home Secretary to recommend the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in the case of the six innocent men still standing convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings."
I do so not because these men seek mercy, but because they seek justice. There is widespread concern about the case in many parts of the world and on both sides of the House. It does not matter whether one is Left or Right, Unionist or Republican; one merely has to have an elementary ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
My case is that these people are entirely innocent, that they were not involved in those or any other bombings and that they were not members of the IRA. If I thought otherwise, I should not have wasted one moment of my time pursuing this case over the past two years.
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, you ruled this case sub judice in January 1987. We were therefore not able to discuss it for 13 months. There is the possibility of an appeal to the House of Lords in the next few days and you may rule —I hope that you will not — that we then cannot discuss it until the House of Lords has dealt with it. That would mean — this is the nub of the case for allowing the House to discuss it now—that a period of two years could elapse in which we have not been able to discuss a matter that it has been open to the rest of the nation and the rest of the world to discuss over a long period. It would be quite wrong for the House to be denied the opportunity to discuss this subject.
Let me list the relevant issues. Such a debate would provide hon. Members with an opportunity to test my assertion—which I repeat—that the men responsible for these bombings are alive and well and living in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] Let us discuss that when we get to the debate. It would enable us to discuss the state of the forensic service in the light of the relevation that the main prosecution witness in this case took early retirement at the grand old age of 51 on the grounds of limited effectiveness.
It would enable us to discuss why none of the proposals of a Select Committee on miscarriages of justice, which reported to this House some years ago, have been implemented; to discuss why convictions based on uncorroborated confessions are still permitted; and to discuss the extreme difficulty of persuading British judges to admit to a mistake.
This case will not go away; it will haunt our judges and politicians until they face the fact that a tragic mistake has been made. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to give the House the opportunity to debate this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely.
"the refusal by the Home Secretary to allow the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in the case of the six men still standing convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings".

711
Again, I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, so I cannot submit his application to the House.

School Closures (Scotland)
4 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: I, too, wish to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the intervention by the Prime Minister to change the legal process being followed by Strathclyde regional council in relation to school closures, thereby putting at risk the future of other schools within my constituency."
Last week we were all surprised when, in the late afternoon, regulations were tabled after the Prime Minister had first informed the headmaster of a school about them. In a letter to the headmaster of Paisley grammar school, the Prime Minister said:
"Thank you for your letter of 21 January."
I emphasise the date of 21 January because I want to demonstrate that there was a sequence of events which I believe were illegally conducted, illegal in their intention and illegal in their effect, about that date. The letter was not written out of the blue by the rector, but solicited from the rector by the Prime Minister herself.
We are now told—we did not know this last week—in the words of The Sunday Times, of which the editor is Andrew Neil, a former pupil of Paisley grammar school —[Interruption.] No, this time, it was not reported by Gerry Malone; it was only in the Scottish edition—that on 21 January a meeting took place between Andrew Neil and a senior adviser at No. 10. That is corroborated by his interview in the Paisley Daily Express under the heading, "How I tapped Maggie".
Mr. Neil states:
"'I was at a … lunch with a senior Downing Street figure … and he brought up the subject.
I said something should be done."'
Mr. Neil contacted the headmaster, who wrote to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in the words of The Sunday Times, "fired off" a letter to the Secretary of State who was resisting the proposals to change the regulations, presumably on the same grounds as mine, which were that it was restrospective action when a legal process was three quarters of the way through under one set of laws brought into being and carried out by the Government. The Secretary of State was resisting, so was called in on 22 January when the Prime Minister reinforced her feelings sharply to him. Rifkind got the message.
This is a gross, arbitrary, ministerial intervention in a law which was being carried out—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has had his time. He must bring his application to a conclusion.
Mr. Buchan: I shall conclude in one sentence, Mr. Speaker, perhaps with a minor subordinate clause. The intervention affected every other school in Strathclyde. For those reasons the matter is urgent and important, and was illegal.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the intervention by the Prime Minister to change the legal process being followed by Strathclyde regional council in respect of school closures, thereby putting at risk the future of schools within the Paisley, South constituency."

713
Again, I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, so I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
4.4 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday 29 January, the Government tabled three pages of wide-ranging, controversial, important amendments to the Local Government Bill currently under consideration in another place. The Bill was in Committee in this House from July until December, but we were not given any indication that amendments would be tabled in this way—
Mr. Speaker: Is the Bill in Committee, because if it is—
Dr. Cunningham: No, in the Lords.
Mr. Speaker: If the Bill is in the Lords, it is not a matter for me.
Dr. Cunningham: If I could pursue the matter for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The amendments give increased powers to auditors over elected councillors, so are of great importance. They could, and should, more properly—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If a Bill is in the Lords, it is not a matter for me and I cannot comment or rule on it.
Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have a Local Government Finance Bill before the Commons now. The Government have tabled in the Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill, which are about the administration of local government finance. Why have the Government chosen to proceed in this way? In doing so they are preventing the House of Commons from scrutinising the proposals properly. The House is entitled to an explanation why that has been done and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Member there. If the Lords amend the Bill, it will have to come back to the House of Commons with Lords amendments, and that will be the appropriate moment to discuss it. I am sorry, but I cannot rule on this now because it is not a matter for me.
Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will agree that I rarely take the time of the House to raise points of order. Two questions arise from this. First, in proceeding in this way the Government are depriving the Commons of proper time to scrutinise these matters, so surely there must be a point of protection of hon. Members somewhere. Secondly, even setting that aside, surely it is proper for the Leader of the House — I am grateful for his presence — to give an assurance now that additional time will be provided in the Commons for the proper consideration of these matters. That is a perfectly reasonable request.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): These are matters for the usual channels at the right time.
Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could possibly help some hon. Members on both sides of the House. A few years ago a Select Committee, chaired by one of my former hon. Friends who is now in the other place, made recommendations on Appeal Court decisions. It made several recommendations on the improvement in dealing with procedures where appeals had been rejected by the Court of Appeal and on how more effective justice could be brought about.

715
I am raising this matter because we have a narrow window in time between the decision on the Birmingham Six on Thursday and a possible appeal to the House of Lords next Monday. I hope that you may be able to help the House by thinking about this because that would enable the House, if it felt so inclined, to improve the way in which decisions are reached and to have a discussion, bearing in mind all the relevant facts from the Birmingham Six case which would otherwise be declared, properly, to be sub judice.
Mr. Speaker: Select Committees frequently make recommendations that are not debated by the House. It is a pity that they are not debated, but there has been no change in our Standing Orders in that regard.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) begged to ask leave to adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss the case of the six men who were found guilty, by a jury, of the bombings in Birmingham. Page 361 of "Erskine May" deals with matters to be dealt with by a substantive motion. I understand that certain matters cannot be debated save upon a substantive motion, and that they include the behaviour or actions of judges of superior courts. The hon. Member, maybe inadvertently, said that judges were unable to own up to their mistakes, or words to that effect. I imagine that that is in direct contravention of the provisions set out in "Erskine May". If that is the case, can we have your advice on the matter?
Mr. Speaker: I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in the three minutes available to him, but I have ruled that I do not think that it was an appropriate matter for discussion under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Recently, and at my request, you kindly furnished me with some details of rowdyism in the House of Commons to show that rowdyism in today's Parliament is considerably less than it has been in previous ones. One of the things which became clear to me when reading that information was that the House, certainly the Opposition, tend to get more rowdy when confronted by a Government who are bloated with arrogance, as they say, who fail to—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be unfair to discuss across the Floor of the House what the hon. Gentleman and I may have discussed in private.
Mr. Banks: I merely wished to say that there is potential for further rowdyism this afternoon, it would seem, because we have heard and read in the media recently a lot about a possible proposal to abolish the Inner London education authority. The Secretary of State has not seen fit to make a statement, and it is about time that we had one.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to debate this matter in the business upon which we are about to embark.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I do not wish to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but, further to the point of order, the motion that we are to debate is not
716
about ILEA. It is about a timetable motion for the Education Reform Bill. Thousands of my constituents were alarmed at the news of the potential break-up of ILEA and the enormously increased costs that that would impose on them. Surely it is incumbent on the Government to make a clear statement to the House about the future of ILEA before we debate the timetable motion, which has nothing to do with ILEA.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are today being invited to vote for a motion which would curtail debate on the Education Reform Bill, one of the provisions of which would allow what Conservative Members call the opting out of London boroughs from ILEA. That is an important matter, but it is relatively small compared with the possibility of abolition of ILEA. Opposition Members and, I am sure, parents in inner London believe that if it is proposed to abolish ILEA, doing it as a side-show through this Bill after a timetable motion has been passed by the House would be utterly unacceptable. We would like a statement from the Secretary of State outlining what he proposes to do.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether ILEA is to be abolished. I accept that we are about to debate a timetable motion which is based on the fact that ILEA is not to be abolished. No doubt if anything of that kind were to occur, it would be a matter to bring to the Leader of the House for further discussions on the timetable.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friends have said about this matter. The Secretary of State, who is promoting the Education Reform Bill — GERBIL, as it is known—will change the very nature of the Bill if these proposals go through. It seems to me that the motion which suggests that we get rid of ILEA, which has been signed by more than 100 Tory Members, headed by the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), is not just about the Education Reform Bill, but about the successor to the Prime Minister. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State should make a statement and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot answer questions such as that which the hon. Gentleman is about to ask.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may not be aware of this but, during the weekend, a matter relating to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) was widely reported in the Scottish press, but that is incidental. Some of his suits were destroyed in his flat. The hon. and learned Gentleman was reported as saying:
"One of the suits was made by Mr. Speaker's firm at a cost of £1,500 plus VAT."
The hon. and learned Gentleman continued:
"You cannot just go up to the Speaker and ask him to make a suit for a couple of hundred pounds."
Before other hon. Members start receiving letters from constituents, can you make it clear that not all of us get such favours?
Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to do with my family business these days and I have no idea what they charge, but if what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, I shall have seriously to consider taking a second part-time job.

Education Reform Bill (Allocation of Time)
Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that I have not selected his amendment.
4.18 pm
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not for a moment question your right to select or not select any amendment. However, the timetable motion was tabled at 9 am on Friday. Hon. Members therefore had five and a half hours in which to table their own amendments. As there were not necessarily many hon. Members here on Friday, we are in some difficulty.
Can the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which were expressed last Thursday, be instilled into the motion? Whatever the intent may be, unless the House give, an instruction in the motion, there is no assurance that the intent will be carried out. The intent may be the wish of a whole host of hon. Members, but unless there is an instruction, the Business Sub-Committee could take whatever action it wanted. Would you therefore accept a manuscript amendment which would ensure that the intent of the Leader of the House is not an intent but an instruction?
Mr. Speaker: I have no authority to accept manuscript instructions. They must go down on the Order Paper by way of a motion.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you know me well enough to know that I would never suggest that you should accept a manuscript instruction. I hoped that you would accept a manuscript amendment stating that an instruction be given to the Chairman of the Standing Committee that is considering the Education Reform Bill—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just what I have said the hon. Gentleman cannot do. I cannot comment upon a manuscript amendment until I have seen it, and I have not seen this one. But the hon. Gentleman cannot move an instruction by way of a manuscript amendment. That must be by a motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you assist the House, as Speakers sometimes do, by making it clear whether you have not chosen this amendment for debate because it is out of order or because you have exercised your discretion as to whether to accept the amendment, although it is in order? Members of the former Procedure Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), are very concerned that their recommendation should apply in this case, if it is in order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, is a great expert on procedure and he well knows that Mr. Speaker is never required to give reasons for his selection or non-selection of amendments. Since he has asked, however, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is in order and it will be perfectly in order for the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) to canvass the contents of it during the debate.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very important
718
matter, and I am sure that the hon. Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will wish to discuss it with you after the debate. Are we riot again in the difficulty with which we have been faced repeatedly in the past few months? A report of a Select Committee of the House — in this case, the Procedure Committee — has not been debated and the matters contained in it, which would ultimately have been transformed into resolutions of the House, have not been discussed. Therefore, you are placed in a difficult position.
The Procedure Committee is in a special position. Its reports should be debated immediately they have been published. If they are not, you will have exactly the same problems in the future.
Mr. Speaker: I have already told the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) that I regret that the reports of the Select Committees are not debated, but until the House agrees a change in the Standing Orders, I am bound by the present Standing Orders. I have no discretion in that respect.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you cast your mind back—not as long as I can, but you can go back some time — to previous timetable motions on the Order Paper in which the exact division of times was stated? We decided that it should be left to a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee to decide the division of time because it was better that that should be done by the people dealing with the Bill than by an instruction of the House. It used to be common for the House to give an instruction to the Business Sub-Committee. I simply want you to accept, as an amendment to the motion, a proposal for which there has been good precedent: that an instruction be given to the Committee—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just told the hon. Gentleman, who was Chairman of the Procedure Committee during the previous Parliaments, that the Standing Orders do not allow me to accept an amendment based upon an instruction. I have not yet seen his manuscript amendment. Will he please bring it to me?
4.24 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 3rd March 1988.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 3rd March may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 4th March.
Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than

719
the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time
7. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

720
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Education Reform Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

721
This is the first timetable motion that I have moved, but I am pleased to say that it is also the most generous motion for 20 years.
The House will need no reminding of the importance of the Education Reform Bill, to which the motion would apply a timetable. The Bill represents the most far-reaching reform and improvement of our education system since the Education Act 1944. For schools, it contains provision for a national core curriculum, the control of budgets by governing bodies and head teachers, an increase in parental choice and the opportunity for state schools to opt out of local education authority control.
For higher and further education, the Bill implements proposals in the higher education White Paper by setting up a new Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and establishing a Universities Funding Council, both independent of central Government. The provisions relating to the future of the Inner London education authority take account of the special position of London.
Mr. Michael Foot: What time was devoted in the House to discussion of the 1944 Act and at what stage was a guillotine imposed?
Mr. Wakeham: The answer is 60 hours, which is way less than half, but no guillotine motion was moved.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does it not worry the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House of Commons, that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has been reduced to saying, in relation to clause 94, that it pins its hopes on the House of Lords? Is it not deeply unsatisfactory from the point of view of the House of Commons that that committe should believe that its only hope is in the House of Lords rather than in the guillotined set-up of this House?
Mr. Wakeham: We are moving the timetable motion now to ensure that those important matters are properly discussed in Committee. They are relevant matters and they will be discussed.
The Bill will benefit pupils, parents, teachers, head teachers, governors and those working in higher education. We believe that it will help to provide higher standards in academic and technical subjects, greater freedom for schools and colleges to be run by those who know and use them and greater choice for all in the education system. It is a demonstration of our positive and comprehensive approach in this area.
Of course, our proposals have been known for some time. Our 1987 manifesto, published in May last year, said:
"the time has now come for school reform"
and set out the policies that I have just outlined.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for reminding us of what was in the Conservative party manifesto. What it did not mention was the abolition of the Inner London education authority. Since the Opposition attitude to the guillotine motion will be very much influenced by the future, or non-future, of ILEA, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now whether the Government will table an amendment in Committee to abolish ILEA?
Mr. Wakeham: No decision has been taken on a change of policy on ILEA, so that is a hypothetical question. If such a decision was made, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would make a statement to
722
the House. As for the guillotine motion, if a new factor of major importance arose, it could be discussed through the usual channels. I give that undertaking now.
The Government made it clear during and after the election campaign that we intended to consult widely on the proposed reforms.
Mr. Jack Straw: The Leader of the House said that a statement on ILEA would be made to the House. For how long must London's children and parents wait? Will there be a statement this week, or will this vacillation continue week after week?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give an undertaking that there will be a statement. I said that there will be a statement if there is a change in policy. Until there is a change in policy, the question of a statement is hypothetical.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has issued no fewer than 13 consultation papers, distributing 10,000 copies to interested bodies and sending out more than 100,000 further copies on request.
It has been suggested that insufficient time was allowed for consultation. Nevertheless, about 17,000 responses were received and considered before the Bill was introduced on 20 November last year, and we have made it clear that that was only the initial phase of consultation. The thousands of responses that have come in since the Bill started its passage have in no way missed the opportunity to influence our thinking.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contents of the Bill were widely debated during last year's general election, and that there could be no broader consultation than that?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point well. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues are holding a number of discussions with organisations wishing to make representations.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the consultations and representations that have been received since the last given date will be published and made available for us to read in the Library?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall have to ask my right hon. Friend to deal with the detail of that when he comes to wind up.
These discussions and consultations are part of a continuing process that began more than nine months ago.
In addition to the great debate in the country at large, the proposals are subject to detailed scrutiny inside Parliament. Consideration of the Bill so far in Standing Committee is evidence of that. More than 88 hours of Committee have so far been devoted to the first 43 clauses, and another 104 clauses are yet to be considered.
I welcome the careful attention that the Bill has received so far, but I am concerned that sufficient consideration be given to all parts of this large and wide-ranging Bill. For the moment, the Standing Committee is still debating part I of the Bill; parts II and III, however, contain provisions for higher and further education, and on ILEA, which I believe the House would wish to be considered no less carefully than our proposals on the national curriculum, the delegation of responsibility and the establishment of grant-maintained schools. But that consideration must be balanced against our commitment to ensure that the legislation is enacted this session.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Would the Leader of the House agree that this Bill is the same size as three normal Bills? I believe the right hon. Gentleman said that 40 clauses had been debated in 88 hours; is not a rate of two hours per clause pretty good going?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not complaining about the rate of progress; I am endeavouring to ensure that the Bill is properly discussed right the way through in Committee.
This is a classic example of the need for a constructive timetable—
Mr. Straw: I am pleased to hear that the Leader of the House is not complaining about the rate of progress. Usually, the only reason for a guillotine is complaints about the rate of progress. Now that we have cleared away any suggestion of filibustering by the Opposition, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, at no stage, Government Whips came to the Opposition to discuss arrangements for the Bill to be discussed without the need for a guillotine?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not suggesting that there has been any filibustering. The purpose of my speech is to explain why I believe that a constructive timetable motion is necessary. I brought it forward, not to prevent filibustering in Committee—I am not accusing anyone of that—but to ensure proper, measured discussion of all parts of a complex and important Bill.
In devising the motion, I have in mind also the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues on the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament: that the introduction of a timetable motion too late in the Committee stage can lead to inadequate consideration of a Bill's later clauses. Although you, Mr. Speaker, have not selected the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, I recognise the concerns behind it, which is why the motion has been proposed now rather than later and is so generous in its provisions for further debate.
If the Committee continues to sit each week for 18 hours, which is about the number of hours that it has done so far, there is a prospect of another 90 hours. Of course, it could sit for longer if it wished. I am sure that, in the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendment, the Business Sub-Committee will be concerned to allocate time in such a way as to ensure adequate scrutiny of all the remaining parts of the Bill. As many of the provisions in the remaining clauses are consequential or supplementary, I believe that the Business Sub-Committee will have considerable scope for manoeuvre. In addition, there will be three days of debate on the Floor of the House on Report and Third Reading.
It is perhaps worth pausing here to reflect that the time devoted to this Bill is more than double that for the Education Bill which became the 1944 Act. The Committee stage of that Bill discussed about 122 clauses and six lengthy schedules, and was conducted in only 14 sittings, lasting about 60 hours in total. In an interesting passage from his memoirs Lord Butler said:
"the beauty of the 1944 Bill was that it would keep the parliamentary troops thoroughly occupied, providing endless opportunity for debate, without any fear of breaking up the Government."
So those who cavil at the time provided for this Bill by the motion should bear in mind that the 1944 Bill was
724
considered in full in less than half the time that this one will be—by a House that was deliberately being kept occupied by the Government of the day.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Leader of the House agree that the fundamental difference between this Bill and the 1944 Act is that there was agreement on both sides about the main principles of that measure, whereas there a fundamental disagreement about the way in which this Bill will split our education service?
Mr. Wakeham: I think the hon. Gentleman's memory of history is shaky. He may not have been alive in 1944, but if I recall aright, the 1944 Act's religious clauses, in particular, were controversial. In any case, there is a fundamental difference, in that this timetable motion allocates twice as much time as before—
Ms. Armstrong: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, not only were the divisions about the religious parts of the Bill not across party lines, but there were two full years of consultation before the 1944 Bill was written and presented? This Bill has had such short consultation that, day by day in Committee, the Minister has to change what is on the face of it because it has not been properly thought through.
Mr. Wakeham: The Bill is controversial, but so was the 1944 Bill; indeed, so was the 1976 Education Bill, when the distinguished father of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) was at the Dispatch Box moving the guillotine motion. The amount of time that the motion makes available for the Committee stage, together with the Report stage and Third Reading, shows that it is not our intention to cut short debate on this matter. Rather, our purpose is to meet the anxiety expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that another place might have the opportunity to say that major issues had not been fully debated in the House.
To ensure that all parts of the Bill receive parliamentary scrutiny, the motion—like previous timetable motions—includes provision for allocating the time in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading by reference to a Business Sub-Committee and a Business Committee. That seems to me the key to the sensibly weighted consideration of the rest of the Bill, giving the chance for those who are experienced in these matters and, in the case of the Sub-Committee, for those who are most closely acquainted with the Bill's provisions, to discuss the timing and divide the available time appropriately between clauses.
I commend the motion to the House, in the belief that it represents a realistic way to debate the Education Reform Bill, a measure keenly awaited by pupils and parents alike. Although the House may he sharply divided on its substance, I hope that we can agree on the arrangements to give proper time for discussing all the Bill's provisions. I suggest consideration of the words a Labour Back Bencher in the debate on the timetable motions in 1976:
"Everybody in the House wants to elevate standards … But doing better does not necessarily mean talking and sitting longer".—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1640.]
That Back Bencher is now the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the Opposition. I share those views, and I hope that his party does, too.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Leader of the House accept that the main effect of a timetable motion is the protection of Ministers? It enables them not fully to reply to debates because they can play for time when they know that a timetable motion applies. The right hon. Gentleman will have read our proceedings in Committee. Does he not accept that Ministers were repeatedly under pressure before the guillotine came down? In future they can simply wait until the guillotine drops, and not reply to the difficult issues in the debate.
Mr. Wakeham: When I read through proceedings in Committee, I found examples of Opposition amendments that were withdrawn when the position was explained by Ministers. I believe that we have allocated the right amount of time.
4.39 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: If one forgot that the Leader of the House is a former Tory Chief Whip, one might almost be convinced by his pleas that this timetable motion is intended to slow down the precipitate progress of the Bill in Committee. That was the impression that he tried to create.
The guillotine has a long and not-too-good history for those who invented it. Its inventor had his head cut off by his own infernal machine. It is worth remembering that from a legislative point of view there was a little of that effect the last time the House considered a guillotine motion. The last such motion was to shorten debate on the Scottish poll tax Bill. I do not know how to express in a semi-Latinate phrase the effect of losing one's seat. It is clearly not decapitation, but whatever it is, that was the fate that befell many of the right hon. Gentleman's friends in Scotland as a result of the previous guillotine.
We should not blame the Leader of the House for the motion, because the person to he blamed is the Secretary of State for Education and Science. His dreadful Bill and his dreadful way of dealing with it have led to the timetable motion. I have observed since I have been in the House the progress of the Secretary of State. It seems that he has got on largely by fawning and flattery. He fawns upon the Prime Minister and flatters himself. Not content with flattering himself, he also gets no fewer than 38 press officers in his Department to flatter him if he is feeling a bit down.
The Secretary of State flatters himself most when he asks us to compare his Bill with the Education Act 1944. Such a comparison is not valid. The 1944 Act was the product of lengthy consultation, widespread public and professional if not religious agreement, idealism, experience and hope. The present Bill is the product of consultation so short and secretive as not to be worthy of the name. Far from commanding public and professional agreement, it is opposed in whole or in part by practically everyone who has expressed a point of view. It springs from cynicism and malice towards the public education system by Ministers who underfund it, abuse it and scarcely ever use it.
Mr. Martin Flannery: There is one other outstanding difference between the 1944 Act and the Bill. It is that the Bill fundamentally destroys the 1944 Act and destroys many other things.
Mr. Dobson: I am sure that we all recognise the difference between a positive and a negative measure.
726
After considerable progress in Committee and no attempt to reach an agreed timetable for the Bill's further progress, and when a major departure from the Tory election manifesto over the Inner London education authority is daily rumoured, we are asked to accept a guillotine to shorten proper consideration. The future of our children's education deserves such further consideration even if the Bill scarcely does.
If, in his self-flattering mood, the Secretary of State craves a comparison with the 1944 Act, let us compare the time and effort given to the progress of that Act through the House. The House will not need reminding that in 1944 our country was involved in a united struggle to survive and then to overthrow the racist, murdering regime of Adolf Hitler. One might think that that was no time for modest stillness and humility.
However, in 1944 the Commons found time, even in the weeks leading up to the Normandy landings, to devote no less than 19 whole days on the Floor of the House to the Education Bill. It received two days on Second Reading—the period that we asked for on this Bill and which the Government refused. It received 14 full days in Committee on the Floor of the House, one and a half clays on Report and a further one and a half days on Third Reading, plus a day in Committee upstairs on the issue of recruitment.
How different that is from the legislative life of our own dear Secretary of State. In this as in every other aspect, the present Secretary of State compares unfavourably with his Tory predecessors.
Dr. Keith Hampson: I should like to put the historical record straight. In 1944, the Labour party supported the Butler Act. All that legislative time was necessary to appease the Tory Right, which wanted fees, and the churches. The Opposition view now is a tremendous change of scene.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated the difference between the proposition that was before the House in 1944 and the one that is before the House now. The 1944 Bill commanded the general assent of the people and the politicians. The one before the House today does not.
If we compare the Secretary of State with his predecessors, we find that even Sir Keith Joseph and the Prime Minister occasionally allowed educational considerations rather than party prejudice to influence their judgment. That is not the case with the present Secretary of State. Ambitious and spiteful, he uses his high office to pursue his personal ambition to be the next Tory party leader and to commit vindictive acts against those who run our schools.
The reasons to reject the guillotine motion are many and powerful and have a direct bearing on the schooling of children all over Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will deal with those matters in his usual cogent and trenchant manner. The refusal by the Secretary of State to make clear what he intends to do about the future of ILEA is itself sufficient reason to throw out the motion.
As it stands, the Bill proposes — I quote from the 1987 Tory election manifesto, that sacred text—
"In the area covered by the ILEA where entire borough councils wish to become independent of the LEA"—
that is a spelling mistake—

727
"they will be able to submit proposals to the Secretary of State requesting permission to take over provision of education within their boundaries".
As I shall explain, that is bad enough, but in the past few weeks we have had much publicised statements by the right hon. Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) advocating the abolition of ILEA. More recently we have heard leaks, either from the Secretary of State or from some of his 38 press advisers, to the effect that the Government have capitulated to pressure.
Whatever the arguments for or against that course, the abolition of ILEA would be in scale and complexity one of the greatest educational reorganisations since the second world war. It would involve the dismemberment of a unitary authority providing for 280,000 children, 170,000 college students and more than 250,000 people in adult education. To break ILEA into 13 constituent parts, each supposed to be capable of providing an education service partly within its own boundaries and partly through arrangements with its neighbours, would be a task of the utmost complexity, requiring careful thought and massive preparation. It cannot possibly be done by a few amendments to the Bill in Committee. Any attempt to do so would be an insult to parents in inner London and a deliberate blow to the educational opportunities of their children, For us, it would be a legislative nightmare.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I shall recall for the hon. Gentleman, in case he cannot recall, that remarks similar to his were made when the abolition of the Greater London council was being debated in the House. As everybody knows, the GLC is not now missed at all. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that the GLC was as full of bureaucracy and more difficult to break into than the Kremlin. Surely ILEA cannot be described in any lesser terms.
Mr. Dobson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is inventing quotations. He ought to check, and if he does he will find that I was quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), and that what I said he said was not what the hon. Gentleman said I said.
The present arrangements for ILEA became —[Interruption.] I said that the housing department of the GLC—under the Tories, I might point out—was the slowest bureaucracy this side of the Kremlin, and I was quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East.
The present arrangements for ILEA became law in the Local Government Act 1985. The system that the Secretary of State now proposes to change is the very one that he steered through the House. Why, then, has he changed his mind? Setting aside such base considerations as the salary, status and chauffeur-driven car that go with continuing to be Secretary of State, it may be because, despite all the Tory gerrymandering in the ILEA elections in 1986, Labour won control in a landslide, with the Tories receiving less that one third of the votes.
Over the whole period of the present Government, ILEA has been subjected to carping criticism, constant interference, threats, intimidation and, above all, cuts in Government grants. For the past eight years, ILEA has not received a penny piece from central Government towards the cost of running its schools. I challenge the Government's right to abolish ILEA, or even to change it.
728
They do not pay anything towards it; they do not send their children to its schools; they know little or nothing about it; and they have no mandate from the people of inner London who would be affected.
No one can claim a mandate for the abolition of ILEA, because no one has put the proposition in an election. Certainly, as far as I know, no such proposition has featured in the election addresses of the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford, the Dastardly and Muttley of the present campaign.
As I have explained, the official manifesto of the Tory party spoke of individuals being allowed to opt out if their councils unanimously decided on that option. At the last general election, faced with that proposition, only 36 per cent. of inner Londoners voted Tory, while 41 per cent. voted Labour and 22 per cent. voted for the rest. More than six out of every 10 inner Londoners rejected any interference with the ILEA.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is the hon. Gentleman putting it forward as a general proposition that no Government should bring forward a measure which was not in their election manifesto? If so, I think that he had better look back at his own record on some of the measures that he supported under the last Labour Government.
Mr. Dobson: There is a pathetic shortage of accuracy on the Conservative Benches. I have never sat in the House in government, so I can accept no responsibility for anything that has gone before. But for the chairman of the Tory party — who masterminded the last election campaign, and sat at press conferences saying there would only opting out of London borough. — to lead a campaign to destroy ILEA seven or eight months later is the wildest humbug. No doubt we can expect more from the right hon. Gentleman. I understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that "hypocrisy" is out of order.
The Government talk about giving power to parents, but that is the last thing that they intend to do in inner London. I do not have a lot of time for opinion polls—[interruption.] I say the same when the polls are favourable. All the opinion polls, including those commissioned by the Tory boroughs, show ILEA to be popular with the people of inner London, and even more popular with the parents. It is more popular with the people who know most about it, and who entrust their children's education to it.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not. I do not think that hon. Members representing the far west of Wales should intervene on a matter relating to inner London. They can do their voting.
It is worth noting that, of six representatives on ILEA from the Tory boroughs which want to opt out, half are Labour. There has not even been a vote of confidence there. The three Tory boroughs — Westminster, Kensington and Wandsworth — which say that they want to opt out never put that option in their borough election manifestos, so they have no endorsement either.
In September last year, Wandsworth council held a poll. To its discomfiture, the poll showed that more than three quarters of parents who sent their children to ILEA schools were satisfied, and that, among secondary school

729
parents, satisfaction was higher than the national average. If the Tories want to talk about parental choice, they should perhaps remember that, despite all the bad publicity, more children from outer London are sent by their parents to ILEA schools than go the other way.
Let us take Barnet, part of which is represented by the Prime Minister. Parents of no fewer than 780 children from Barnet so recognised the superiority of the education provided by ILEA that they sent their children from Barnet to ILEA schools. Even if we allow for children going from the ILEA area to Barnet schools, the net flow into ILEA was 332 children. Parents are voting with their feet.
What, then, is this education authority of which parents approve and the Tories do not? It has a duty to provide an education service for inner London. It faces enormous problems. It contains several of the most deprived local authority areas in England. If we take the Department of the Environment's own measures of deprivation, the average level of deprivation for the ILEA area as a whole, even including such places as Hampstead, Dulwich, Chelsea and Blackheath, is worse than that of any other education authority. Rather like the Metropolitan police, ILEA faces extra problems, incurs extra costs and, on crude calculations of performance, appears to compare unfavourably with other authorities in other parts of the country.
Mr. Tracey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could guide the House on whether the material that the hon. Gentleman is using is strictly relevant to the timetable motion? Surely he is making the speech that he might make on Report or Third Reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman's material is perfectly relevant to this wide debate.
Mr. Dobson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Apparently we have another volunteer for the Chair.
Madam Deputy Speaker: There is no vacancy.
Mr. Dobson: Good. We are all delighted to hear it. Even the Government ought to recognise that, when they made ILEA the subject of a special report by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, the inspectors' conclusion was, roughly speaking, that it faced major difficulties, but — all things considered — was coping reasonably well. When Tories talk of concern about ILEA's cost and standards, they are usually repeating what some other Tories have said. When the Tory yobboes attack ILEA, it is perhaps understandable that they should know so little that they can only repeat one another's propaganda. But that is no excuse for a Secretary of State.
As the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors have recognised, ILEA has responded to its problems and challenges with a series of initiatives that have been commended by Tory Ministers, and recommended by them to other education authorities. Those initiatives include the appointment of parent governors; delegating some financial responsibility to governing bodies; the London record of achievement, providing all school leavers with a folder of work and achievements to show to employers; the SMILE mathematics scheme, which enables children to progress at different speeds according to their ability—and, at the same time, helps to monitor
730
the performance and progress of every pupil; the extension of work experience arrangements with employers; and, most recently, the London Compact with major firms in an effort to guarantee jobs to school leavers. The Hargreaves, Thomas and Fish reports, analysing other problems and recommending further initiatives, have generated interest and acclaim far beyond the boundaries of inner London.
The authority, to its eternal credit, has taken steps to counter racism and sexism in its schools and colleges. Those initiatives have been mocked and vilified by people who either deny that racism and sexism exist or, worse still, recognise that they exist, but are not prepared to do anything about them. Such initiatives should have been welcomed by the Secretary of State, because they are vital if we are to achieve a fair and decent society. They are rational efforts by the authority to address real problems faced by real children and young people in inner London. They should not be dismissed in the way in which they have been.
Of course there are problems in ILEA schools. Of course improvements are needed. As a parent of children who have all gone to ILEA schools, I do not need any Tory Members to tell me that. Least of all do I need to be told of ILEA's problems by Tory Members who send their children to private schools.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are discussing a timetable motion. The normal debate for a timetable motion concerns why and whether there should be a timetable. It is not to debate a single issue within the education sphere within or without the Bill. Surely: t is whether or not we should have a timetable. The single issue is not even in the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The House and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) do not need any instruction from any other hon. Member. The hon. Member should be allowed to get on with his speech.
Mr. Dobson: No doubt the hon. Gentleman would be another applicant for the Chair, should a vacancy ever arise.
I certainly do not want to hear that the Inner London education authority, which spends around £2,000 a year on each secondary school pupil, is overspending. I do not want to hear that charge from rich existing or former Cabinet Ministers who send their children to private schools and spend up to three times as much on their children. Between them, Cabinet Ministers have more than 50 children over 11 years of age, and only two of them did not go to fee-paying schools.
Tory Members' ignorance of the Inner London education authority shows in practically their every utterance. Not long before the 1987 election, the then junior Education Minister, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), visited a primary school in Euston in my constituency. When the staff referred to hotel children, he thought that they meant children whose parents owned and ran hotels. He did not know of the squalid bed-and-breakfast hotels into which his Government had forced the homeless and their children.
Such children are numbered in thousands. The main parental choice that their parents would like is a home of

731
their own. They are denied that choice by a Government whose latest White Paper on housing did not even mention the word "homeless".
Mr. George Walden: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's remark, the intervention that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was well justified. If the hon. Gentleman is reduced to retailing such inaccurate and absurd tittle tattle, he should sit down now.
Mr. Dobson: It is absurd, but I have no reason to believe that it is inaccurate. I know the veracity of the people who told me.
Another charge that is made against ILEA is that it is over-bureaucratic. There is some truth in that statement, but if its administration is so bad, why has the Secretary of State given a new top job to Mr. William Stubbs, the man who heads the bureaucracy? It was recently described by the right hon. Member for Chingford as an overgrown, overpriced underperforming monster. Surely the chief custodian of such a monster would be unfit for an important job that was newly created by his right hon. Friend.
Why is it that the right hon. Member for Chingford and his former arch-enemy in the Cabinet — so we understand—the right hon. Member for Henley, have launched a compaign to abolish ILEA? It is partly because it provides a defenceless whipping boy on whom they can demonstrate their Tory credentials to a waiting world.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way. I have given way several times.
Mr. Greenway: This relates to a school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Dobson: All right, I shall give way.
Mr. Greenway: Perhaps the hon Gentleman will concede that I have some knowledge of ILEA, having been deputy head of a comprehensive school in his constituency, having taught in ILEA for 23 years, and having sent three children to ILEA schools. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Williams Stubbs has regularly written about the level of administration within ILEA? He has been concerned about getting resources into teaching spheres and about administration. Is it not unfair for the hon. Gentleman to make such remarks about the retiring education officer?
Mr. Dobson: I have made no criticism whatever of Mr. Stubbs. The hon. Gentleman should have noticed that. It is possible to mention people without criticising them. If people can understand them, my criticisms were directed at the Secretary of State. No doubt they will be directed by the right hon. Member for Chingford at the Secretary of State if he has appointed the person who looks after that monster to a job which, on the standards set by the right hon. Gentleman, he does not seem up to. But that is not my view of Mr. Stubbs.[Interruption.]
The interventions by the right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley cannot really be the result of pressure or, indeed, interest from their local electors in Henley or Chingford. There is another reason. They have
732
realised that the election commitment to let boroughs opt out is a stupid, ill-thought-out, costly blunder. Even the three Tory boroughs that have said that they want to opt out have now asked for outright abolition. If they had confidence in their abilities, one would have thought that they would rather like ILEA to remain in existence so that, by comparison, they could demonstrate the superiority of their new service. They have now looked in detail at the consequences of opting out and have realised that it would be an educational, organisational and financial nightmare.
What is the reaction of the educational vandals who, seven months ago, said that opting out was a great idea? When the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State said that it was a good idea, the right hon. Member for Chingford did not intervene or demur in any way. What did the Government do? They now say, "We were wrong. We got it wrong." Do they abandon it? Not they. Their scheme will not work. Now, to cover their embarrassment, the education of all our children in inner London must be put in turmoil. That is not right, and they know it.
If the Government really want to help the children of inner London, they should drop the current clauses in the Bill and abandon any idea of abolishing ILEA. They should abandon any further threats to its future. They should let it have the resources that it needs to provide a decent education for all our children in inner London, despite the poverty, homelessness, language difficulties, overcrowding and unemployment that beset and threaten so many of them and their parents. If the Government were sincere in their claims to be interested, that is what they would do.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: I appreciate the trouble to which the hon. Gentleman has gone to make a speech that is related not to the Bill but to his assumption about what the Secretary of State may or may not decide to do. Having listened to all that the hon. Gentleman has said, my right hon. Friend will now be wholly convinced.
Mr. Dobson: If the former Secretary of State for the Environment and for Defence thinks that the fate of 280,000 children in inner London should depend on a flippant remark by him or a speech by me, he is treating them with even more contempt than I thought.
If we listen to Tories who talk about reorganisation, we should remember their track record. Look at what they did to the National Health Service, with its never-ending reorganisations. As Conservatives used to know, changes consume vast amounts of resources in ways that do not benefit patients or pupils. Instead of being able to get on with their jobs, staff at all levels must spend time protecting their jobs or even having to reapply for the jobs that they already have.
That will happen if ILEA is broken up. Where is the evidence that 13 separate administrations, each with elaborate bureaucracies to cope with cross-borough issues, will be simpler and cheaper than one authority? I suppose that it might seem so in Kensington, which has only one secondary school. But what sort of parental choice is that?
The Inner London education authority and its future deserve to be dealt with properly, carefully and fairly, with proper consideration by all hon. Members, if they could possibly turn their minds to doing so.
The law permits the Secretary of State to conduct a public and open review of the functions of ILEA and then determine its future. We believe that it would be wholly

733
wrong for the future of ILEA to be determined either by the opt-out clauses of the Bill or by late amendments by the Secretary of State to abolish it altogether. We believe that it will be inappropriate to support the motion unless we know what the Secretary of State's intentions are. Is he suggesting, on the basis of the motion, that he can come forward with a proposition by way of an amendment, which would receive one and a half days' attention, and that the future of the education authority should be determined in that short period? We believe that that would be wrong and wicked, which is why we urge the House to reject the motion.
5.10 pm
Mr. John Biffen: You, Madam Deputy Speaker, reminded the House that this is a wide debate. I hasten to assure you that my speech will be short.
A few months ago, I was flushed out of the usual channels. Since then, I have acquired all the innocence of a born-again Back Bencher. It is in that spirit that I approach the motion.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State well with the Bill. It will be a landmark in Tory education policy and he will follow the traditions of the late Lord Butler. He will be well equipped to counter the partisan remarks of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which were made none the more agreeable by their length.
The Bill is a most ambitious piece of legislation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was most amiable in saying that he was not chiding the Standing Committee with lethargy and that its progress has been quite reasonable. On any rational basis, there was no way in which the balance of the Bill could be secured without a timetable. He assured us that it was the most generous timetable for 20 years. My right hon. Friend looked across the Chamber and saw the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who in one day produced more timetables than most of us dreamed possible. My right hon. Friend said that he was moving in the direction of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), and I hope that that is so. I shall say a few words about that in due course.
Although we go through something of a ritual when we produce timetables, we know perfectly well that for every timetable that, we have in this Chamber about legislation within our control, we give some moral authority to the other place to partake in the legislative process. I have never been an ardent unicameralist. I have been happy to tolerate another Chamber, as long as it could in no way compete in the national affections with what we do here. We always do the other place well when we assert our primacy and its relative role.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), observed, calling in aid the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, that there was anxiety that legislation could be properly considered in the other place only on the basis of this timetable. I hope that closer examination will persuade the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to move a little nearer to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said.
This is not the only occasion that we shall be having a timetable in this Parliament. Very often, consideration of a timetable is related to the known issues and conventions, with which we are well equipped and well informed. However, there is one more recent development that is
734
impelling the direction to timetables — the fragility of legislation when confronted by judicial review. Every Government Department, to some extent or another, is anxious about this issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a bold and friendly exterior. I am sure that he never gives a moment's thought to the Bill being mauled in the courts. I do not think that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Social Services will be quite so heroic about these matters.
We know prefectly well that the Committee stage is no adequate means of making legislation proof against judicial review. If that is to be undertaken, it must be done with the skill and pervasiveness with which the legislation is treated in the Department concerned. That is why the legislative process, in respect of certain aspects of legislation, means that more time will be taken before legislation is produced.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Biffen: I think that that is a fairly innocuous observation. I see that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the next leader of the as yet unnamed—I am sorry — the Social and Liberal Democratic party, is acquiescing, which encourages me. The hon. Member for Linlithgow should not spoil it.
Given the almost universal political pressures to produce a programme that is politically acceptable, there will be pressures on the work that the House will do in dealing with Bills if they have to be better prepared before they receive their First Reading.
That is why I welcome very much the gesture initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. He (IA so in an amiable way, but discovered that the wicket is rather like a Pakistani one. He came expecting to play and found that, on the whole, it was better to retire not out. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will persevere.
I hope that every time we have a guillotine motion the House will use the occasion to talk about guillotines. Much as I have an interest in ILEA, which has burgeoned in the past 90 minutes, I am still concerned about the procedures of the House. I am concerned about the means of reconciling the interests of the House with those of the Executive within our procedures, knowing that they are far from perfect and knowing that recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure have not received the warm embrace that it might have hoped for from previous Leaders of the House.
When my right hon. Friend replies to the debate I hope that he will give a welcome to the initiative shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and I hope that this debate will run and run.
5.17 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who made some points that I hope others will study and read with interest, and with which I fully associate myself in terms of the need to reform the procedures for introducing legislation and then dealing with it. He made those points more elegantly and perhaps with more force than most, if not all, other hon. Members.
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the reliance that is being placed on judicial review as the mechanism by which mistakes can be corrected is

735
dangerous for the House and damaging to the process of our democracy. That, allied with the secrecy that now operates and surrounds government, makes it very difficult for the ordinary people of this country, who will be affected by this legislation, effectively to exercise that option.
The second point that the right hon. Gentleman made concerned the more careful preparation of our legislation. There is a serious case, with complicated legislation which will have a considerable impact, for a procedure that will build a sense of consensus of the sort that was built for the 1944 Education Act, although in different circumstances and perhaps with a different intention. If that were the case, the process of the Committee stage would be more effective.
It has been a pleasure to serve on the Committee. Although our debates have been strenuous and tough, the sense of good humour and accommodation has been a revelation and joy to us all.
There is a danger that the motion will devolve into a debate on ILEA, for reasons that we can all understand. Therefore, I shall say a word or two about the guillotine. It is natural and proper that there is a sense of outrage whenever a guillotine is introduced. That is not surprising, because it is the procedures of the House and the role that we play that are being guillotined. It is proper that the Opposition should feel outraged. Inevitably, that outrage will be synthetic to a degree. All Oppositions rage about guillotines; all Governments use them, whether or not they were previously in opposition. We must remember that, in one day in 1976, the Labour party introduced no fewer than five guillotines.
There is genuine concern about the Bill, for several reasons. Through the Bill, we place in the hands of the Secretary of State a range of powers–182 in all—that are devastating in their effect. I do not share the overheated phraseology used by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about this Secretary of State. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will use most of those powers that the Bill will give him—
Mr. Dobson: Why take them?
Mr. Ashdown: We shall argue about that later.
I do not think that the Secretary of State will use all those powers in the ways about which we are naturally suspicious, but there can be no doubt that our job is to look at legislation in terms not of the present incumbent but of potential powers for people to use in the future. The powers granted in the Bill are draconian in extent. Who is to say that they will not be used by those who follow this Secretary of State, whether of the Conservative party or of another?
I do not understand why Conservative Members cannot see that the very precedents which they establish in this Bill and in others—they could be used by a Labour Government or a Government of my persuasion, should one follow this Conservative Government — are the mechanisms which would so turn education and so corrupt the education process that they would squeal, justifiably, about the effect. A decent Opposition must look to the potential of the powers that are concealed as well as to the person who will exercise them.
736
We must be relatively grateful for small mercies. Although I object to the timetable, it is relatively generous. How much better would it be if we dealt with these matters on a more structural basis and if there were timetabling of serious and important Bills such as this from the start? I do not say that because I think that hon. Members intend to filibuster. It is difficult at the start of consideration of 140-odd clauses in Committee to place an appropriate emphasis on the issues that should be taken up. Inevitably, more weight will be placed on the early clauses than should be placed, thereby perhaps neglecting later clauses.
Perhaps there is a case, in the absence of the type of reforms mentioned by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, for the House to consider timetabling and structuring from the beginning of debates on Bills such as this.
Mr. Spearing: There is a Select Committee report which advocates some of the hon. Gentleman's points. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any such proposal would entirely change the polarities in Committee relating to length of speeches and who speaks and that the Minister's attitude and attention would be revolutionised because he would know that he needed only to get the touch and he would get away? In Committee after Committee, the uncertainty in the Minister's private office and in the Department has exercised its own democratic strengths. Surely that is something to which the Select Committee on Procedure and the hon. Gentleman have not paid sufficient attention.
Mr. Ashdown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point and am grateful to him for raising it, but that is the downside of the issue which we have discussed. It would not be beyond the wit of the House to find a suitable mechanism—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) shakes his head. If he does, I must pay attention, because he is well respected for his opinions and ability in this respect.
Mr. A. J. Beith: He was the author of the five guillotines.
Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that the right hon. Gentleman was the author of the five guillotines mentioned previously. This serious issue needs to be addressed. I am grateful that it has been given serious thought.
The guillotine is of considerable and special concern in relation to this legislation, for several reasons. There has been no attempt to filibuster, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for admitting that. The issues have been toughly debated and the speeches interesting and worth while. On an issue of this importance, surely we ought to let the Bill run its course more evidently than is allowed by the Government's move.
I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise that several times, when Opposition Members and I have approached the Government and said, "Can we structure the debate?", there has been the chilling response, "It does not really matter what clause is reached. We shall stack in the hours as hard as we can and then move the guillotine." It is not appropriate in those circumstances to move as fast as we have.
There is no doubt that, contrary to the experience of the Education Act 1944, this is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation brought forward by any Government

737
for the past 50 years, not even excluding the poll tax legislation. The impact will be felt for decades. What we are doing to our education system is not just a passing injustice, which will be felt for one, two, five or 10 years, when the provisions can then be repealed. It undermines the education process in a way that will be felt by the nation into the next century, until some of the worst effects can be assuaged.
I say that this is a contentious Bill not just because that is my view and that of the Opposition but because it is the view of all those who carry any weight—both producers and consumers—in education. There is not a respectable body — not even the Government's union, the Professional Association of Teachers—that supports the Bill in its entirety and does not see in it sinister and damaging proposals to which it is profoundly opposed. It is not supported even by the parents in whose names it is done, by the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations and many other parent voices —[Interruption.] I shall give way to any Conservative Member who can name a parents' organisation that agrees with the Bill.
Mr. Tracey rose—
Mr. Ashdown: A national parents' organisation? I am certain that an occasional school here and there, with selfish interests of its own—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let me be clear. Some schools with selfish interests of their own may well be in favour of certain proposals in the Bill, but the payment will be made by the education process in the community to which they belong. One can always find selfish people who want to support legislation from which they will benefit, but is it for the benefit of the nation or of the community?
Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman is almost reducing the definition to fit in with the Association of Liberal Councils. I can name an organisation, which I believe will grow and grow — the Campaign Urging Better Education. It was launched last week in Wandsworth—[Interruption.]—with a fine speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with wholesale agreement by all parents.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) makes the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) look like a giant.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says that the hon. Gentleman makes the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) look like a giant. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) mentioned the Association of Liberal Councils. I do not claim that it is a national body which has an impact on the nation's affairs, but how much less does that apply to some organisation in Wandsworth, for goodness' sake? Let us see how this develops. We shall watch the hon. Gentleman's space with some interest.
Not a single body supports the Bill, which is deeply contentious and contains some deeply contentious items that have yet to be discussed. We are halfway through discussing opting out. As we go on, we must discuss first, for example, the city technology colleges. In a single clause, we shall discuss that proposal, which many of us regard as deeply divisive. I do not say for one second that there is not a case for considering the provision of education outside the monopoly provision of local
738
education authorities. There may well be a case for other bodies to think about establishing schools, provided that they fit within the admissions policy and the general education policies of the local education authority for the area, which serves the community as a whole. I do not object to that as a concept; it is well worth considering. However, the CTCs are a bird of a totally different feather. They will be damaging, and it would be inadequate to deal with that matter in such a short time.
Secondly, there is also the question of the Inner London education authority. Again, I do not pretend for a moment that there is not a serious level of concern about the operation of ILEA, nor do I pretend for a second that there is not a need for a fundamental programme of reform or that in some areas ILEA may fail and fall short of what it should be doing. Indeed, that is hardly surprising with an organisation of that size.
However, the idea that we should abolish it by stealth, which is what the Bill will do — or, as the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) would suggest, abolish it by statute—is to my mind wholly unsupportable, because ILEA is a strategic education body that looks after the City of London and the education of 1·25 million of its pupils. The truth of the matter is that both those proposals come from the same stable and are informed by the same motive—political spite. Their suggestion has nothing to do with the education of 1·25 million children in London.
If the proposals were subsequent to a review or study of the operation of ILEA and about ways in which it might be reformed, perhaps one could understand it, but they are not. Frankly, the proposals of those two right hon. Gentlemen, who are not in the Chamber, are a more stark, open and naked option of the sort that the Secretary of State wishes to put forward by stealth. The truth is that those proposals are informed by spite and represent ideological vandalism.
Mr. John Maples: If the desire of the boroughs to opt out is motivated by political spite, why does Tower Hamlets number itself among those boroughs?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman has raised a lair point and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to put the matter on the record. What he says cannot be surprising. The Liberal administration of Tower Hamlets has made it clear that it is in favour of ILEA and wishes it to continue. However, if ILEA is not to continue because of the Government's ideological spite and if the rich boroughs then opt out, surely the hon. Gentleman realises that it would be foolish for anybody to be left in there as a rump organisation. Tower Hamlets is following that procedure simply because it has no other option. Indeed, we now understand that that applies to one or two of the Labour-controlled authorities also.
There can be no doubt that those authorities believe, as I believe, that the destruction of ILEA is motivated much more by politics than by the best interests of the pupils of London. If that were not the case, why is it that all the reforms which the Secretary of State said that he would like to see in ILEA are in his power to deliver? Indeed, the succeeding Education Acts that he has introduced have given him the reforms with which to move into Brent, Hackney and the other areas which we now hear played up as the whipping boys for the Government's intentions, but the Secretary of State has not made one move. He has

739
not used any of those powers to reform the education of London because he wishes to have a reason for doing what he now seeks to do out of political motivation.
Briefly and finally, the third of the proposals is, in a sense, almost the most damaging of them all, with the possible exception of opting out. The proposals for higher and further education will give the Government a direct capacity to control what goes on in our universities and higher education institutions. I suspect that the Government will hear a lot more about that. The Government's control of higher and further education strikes not just at the heart of the nature of our education system but at the nature of our democracy and of the pluralism within our system. That matter should not be discussed under the control of the guillotine.
Therefore, for those reasons, we shall certainly vote against the guillotine tonight. We believe that this legislation will be damaging, divisive, and destructive and that its effect will be felt for decades to come. Therefore, it must have proper consideration and not one which, as the guillotine will propose, will be timetabled, curtailed and far too short.
5.34 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that part of the tradition of the House, to debate with a previous speaker, can be followed in my instance. I take up what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said when he mentioned that, on the introduction of the guillotine, there must be a sense of outrage. That sense of outrage is not shown much by the number of hon. Members attending the debate or in the structure between the usual channels. I take the hon. Gentleman back 20 years, or perhaps more, because, whenever a guillotine motion was introduced in the House then, there really was outrage. The debate was not only for half a day; it was for a whole day and the House was full. Indeed, the relationship between the usual channels was often put considerably at risk. Therefore, the outrage today is immensely synthetic compared with the past.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman go on to talk more about the Procedure Committee than about the guillotine. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take up House of Commons Paper No. 324 of the 1985–86 Session, which contains recommendations for timetabling after 121 hours of debate, with the timetabling in the hands of the members of the Committee so that they could inherently decide.
I refer in passing to the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who suggested that the effect of the threat of delay and the worry of the private office has considerable effect. I advise the hon. Gentleman that the Procedure Committee considered that fully. Our judgment was that in every Bill, in the long run, the Government have always got what they wanted. In our view it is a fallacy to think that what is said has a major effect on whether the Government give way.
Mr. Spearing rose—
Sir Peter Emery: I shall just finish my sentence.
I advise the hon. Gentleman that Governments give way on matters about which they do not really care. Governments are happy to show some movement on such
740
things, but on the things that they are determined to do and on the dates when they want their Bills out of Committee, every Government, of any party, have always had their way during the past 20 years.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. I do not argue with it as a general proposition, but surely the question is how difficult it is for the Government to get their own way and whether timetabling, as his Committee suggested, would make that harder or easier. I suggest that it would not only be easier to some extent, but that it would be more predictable. Those facts combined mean that the Opposition would, by definition, lose certain powers. That applies to any Government of any political complexion and would therefore be bad for the House of Commons.
Sir Peter Emery: I have heard that argument, and I have no doubt that it will be mounted again, but I counter it by suggesting that what I wish to ensure, and what the Procedure Committee wishes to ensure, is the totality of a Bill and that all of it will be debated. That is of greater importance than nearly anything else in the consideration of this Bill and of what happens in Standing Committee.
One real worry would be the type of guillotine before us today if we did not have the assurance that has been given by the Leader of the House. Of the 104 clauses that remain to be discussed in Committee, there would be a considerable chance that between 50 and 60 of those clauses would never be debated in Committee; that we would come to the Floor of the House and they would not be debated fully here; that the Bill would then go to another place and that another place would have the right to begin saying, "We must interfere in that legislation because it has not been dealt with by the House of Commons."
Dr. Hampson: I wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend says. The outrage about higher education is synthetic. There is no question but that, on a Bill of this length, the crucial higher education clauses, and especially the issue of academic freedom, would not have been reached unless my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had brought forward a speedy guillotine. I agree that such big Bills, which all Governments produce, should be formally timetabled so that the discipline of Opposition can he brought to bear on all contentious issues and Ministers cannot escape on any area.
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friend.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: I assure the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that the clauses on education would have been debated because that is in the interests of the Opposition. We were keen to make progress. The Leader of the House has already said that there was no evidence of filibustering on the part of the Opposition parties. We were keen to make progress and would have continued to do so.
Sir Peter Emery: I appreciate that, but with a guillotine it is possible for the Government to stop such filibustering by organising the way in which the time is allocated afterwards. The lack of time may not be the fault of the Opposition, but the way in which the Government engineer that time. For that reason, the Procedure Committee was concerned that the allocation of time

741
should be settled to a greater extent by the Committee than by anybody else. That is a major factor in the presentation of the guillotine to the House.
When dealing with future guillotines, I hope that this debate will represent a move in the direction that the Government intend to continue. An amendment in the names of a number of right hon. and hon. Members much more distinguished than myself was not seen fit to be accepted by the Chair. But the wish expressed by the Leader of the House when he answered my question last Thursday was:
"I intend to see that every clause of the Bill is debated in Standing Committee."—[Official Report, 28 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 489.]
Our amendment did not go as far as that major statement. Given the number of clauses, the Procedure Committee was particularly intent to ensure that all parts of the Bill could be adequately scrutinised and that every substantive proposal could be considered. The amendment that is not before the House contained direct quotations from the Procedure Committee report. There is a lot of difference between consideration of every clause and consideration of every major matter within a Bill.
I welcome what the Leader of the House has done today. We are moving towards the general consideration backed by the two reports of the Procedure Committee. That consideration was backed by a vast number of hon. Members. However, the first report was voted down by the largest turnout of Secretaries of State, Ministers, Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and Parliamentary Private Secretaries ever assembled for any vote of the last Session of Parliament, and despite the fact that that vote was on a one-line Whip. That vote represented a great achievement and was to the credit or discredit of the present President of the Council who organised it. However, we are now moving towards some degree of flexibility. Indeed, it was the flexibility of the Committee's previous report that was unacceptable to the then Government Chief Whip.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replies, I urge him to follow up the undertaking given by the Leader of the House, that every major contention—not every clause—will be debated in Committee before the Bill is reported. If that means that the Committee must sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, or even Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, so be it. In that way, everything could be covered. No one here would suggest that the Education Bill is not of major contention, whatever one's views. With a Bill of such importance, it would be criminally wrong of us to send part of it to their Lordships' Chamber without it having been debated in Committee in the House of Commons. I ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that would reinforce that given by the Leader of the House.
I hope that this small movement to improve the procedures of the House will be acted upon. It may not be necessary to have 80 hours—it could be less—to ensure that the whole time is reasonably organised so that we can get over the problem whereby legislation leaves this place without due and proper consideration in Committee. If this debate marks the first stage in that achievement, it will be much more important than anything to do with outrage or with most of the votes and debates on guillotine motions than we have witnessed in the past 10 or 15 years. If we move in that direction, it will be a major achievement.
5.46 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: I believe that we have before us the first guillotine presented to the House in this Session. This timetable motion represents an attempt to deceive the House. The Bill contains nothing less than a syllabus of deceit of parents. They are being given the impression that the Bill, when enacted, will afford them greater choice for the education of their children, more power over the schools that their children attend and higher standards of education.
However, in effect, the Bill will give a little more choice to a few parents, and in many cases, will lead to less choice for virtually all parents. In no case will it give parents any power over the boards of governors, because parents will be in a permanent minority. Because of the divisive opting-out proposals, it will be much more difficult for local education authorities to deliver higher standards of education. However, we are now being asked to limit the amount of time that we can spend debating the Bill in Committee.
As a new Member, I have found it something of a revelation to watch what happens in Committee. I have been amazed at the way in which some Conservative Members have introduced amendments, for which they have spoken most eloquently, but have then either withdrawn them, on the most feeble assurances from the Minister, or voted against the said amendments. I find that a most amazing occurrence, and I am still awaiting a reasonable explanation for it, especially as some of those hon. Members have been paid consultancy fees by organisations that have promoted those amendments.
Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I am not paid a consultancy fee, but there is a sensible explanation for such procedures. If someone has got an assurance from a Minister that something they have asked for on an amendment may be delivered on Report, it is naive to put that amendment to the vote, because that means it may not be called on Report. If a vote is not taken in Committee, Mr. Speaker will assume that the issue should be debated on Report, especially if the Minister has given such an assurance.
Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) was right every time that has happened, I would not have bothered to mention it. However, on some occasions, Ministers have denied any possibility of an amendment being considered; at other times, they have presented 20 arguments as to why they should not consider it, and then have decided to look at it again. Hon. Members have, on occasions, been in the feeble position of voting against their own amendments.
I turn to other things that happened in Committee. One afternoon we were to debate the proposals on testing and assessment. That same afternoon, a substantial report by the task group on assessment and testing—the TGA I report—came out. We barely had the chance to look at it. We were promised a debate on testing and assessment later. However, today we know that the Bill will be guillotined. We are in the shadow of the guillotine and the time that can be given to a debate on testing and assessment must be limited. It is questionable whether we will have sufficient time to examine the report — of several hundred pages — which, in many respects, contains proposals with which the Prime Minister would not agree.

743
Currently, we are discussing the opting-out proposals. We have spent some time on what must be regarded as the most divisive and dangerous part of the Bill. We could spend some time on it if we were not subject to the threat of a guillotine.
It has been interesting to note how Ministers have changed their stance under questioning. I shall cite one incident in Committee that shows that it is important for us to have time to tease out of Ministers what they really mean. The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science said that the fees—perhaps I should say the voluntary contributions that parents in opted-out schools will be encouraged to pay—will not be used to pay for the staff at the school. However, after half a dozen questions we were told that if the school governors so decided, they would be able to use those voluntary contributions to finance the staff. It took some time to get a complete volte-face from the Minister. Under the pressure of a guillotine, there will not always be time to probe Ministers. They will know that they can be saved by the guillotine.
However, there are many important topics that we have not yet touched upon, such as higher and further education. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has already dwelt on the real future of ILEA, and he has explained at some length that, while we are under a guillotine, we cannot be sure which clauses and which amendments on the future of ILEA will be debated.
The Government have introduced a large number of amendments to tidy up the Bill as originally drafted. That is another important factor in our belief that there should not be a guillotine and that the measure should be debated in full, unencumbered by Government threats of a time limit.
I shall refer briefly to two parts of the explanatory and financial memorandum—the financial effects of the Bill and the effects on public service manpower—which arise in many other parts of the Bill. The Government show a lack of knowledge about what will really happen if the Bill is put into effect in its current form. The statement on the financial effects of the Bill says that some of the testing and assessment proposals will cost £33 million, but that for the rest of the Bill the financial effects will be broadly neutral, especially in regard to financial delegation. It says that, because there will be a change in administrative responsibility, any extra costs incurred in the schools will be saved within the local education authority.
Anyone who knows what happens when an organisation is attacked in such a way will realise that it is not easy to make strict comparisons of savings and losses. The Coopers and Lybrand report, sponsored by the Government, was quick to point out that it should not be imagined that financial delegation to schools will save any money. Again, we are threatened with the possibility of having insufficient time to find out exactly what will be the financial effects of the Bill.
Finally, I should like to raise the issue of public service manpower. The effects of the Bill on manpower — or perhaps it should be called personnel, as more than half the manpower is women—states:
"The implementation of the national curriculum and new admission arrangements for schools may require some redeployment within planned overall teacher numbers."
744
That is an example of the certainty and depth of knowledge with which the Govenment have applied themselves to constructing the massive Education Reform Bill. The Opposition are certain that it will have significant effects. At one time, the Government gave us some assurances about the Bill's effects on personnel. We are still waiting for an answer. The probing questions asked in Committee received no answers from the Government.
Despite the fact that the Bill has been before the Committee, there is probably a myriad of civil servants in the Department of Education and Science trying to find out what will be the exact effects of the Bill. It is a disgrace that the Bill is to be guillotined when the Government have no confidence that they will be able to answer questions on so many aspects of the Bill regarding the future of the education service.
5.58 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey: I know that I am not alone in speaking as a parent. It is right and proper that the voices of parents should be raised in the House about the urgency of their children's education. There is a real danger that, in regard to education in Britain we, as politicians, could be criticised for fiddling while Rome burned.
We must remember that 10 years ago Lord Callaghan began the great debate on education. His Government did very little about it. Quite a bit has been done by my Government since that time. The Labour party's efforts during those years were criticised, rightly, by Mr. John Lloyd, the editor of the New Statesman, who could hardly be described as a Conservative, when he said on 16 October:
"The Left did not face up to failures, and to the manifest alarm of the mass of parents."
That is precisely what the Government are facing up to and that is why we consider that it is urgent that the reforms in the Bill should be debated and implemented as swiftly as possible.
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman said that he is a parent and that there are many other parents in the House. However, does he send his children to schools within the state system of education? As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, our experience is that the people who are out to destroy the existing system of education, just as in the National Health Service, do not use it. They are paternalising and lecturing to us about our children's education while sending their children to private schools.
Mr. Tracey: I am grateful for that intervention. Both my wife and I were educated in the state sector. My wife is a member of the Inner London education authority and all four of my children are being educated in the state sector. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends often run away with the fallacy that Conservative Members are not interested in state education and are not educating their children in the state sector.
It is urgent for parents, children and employers that the reforms in the Bill should be implemented.
Mr. Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned urgency. Will he tell the House how many representations he has received from parents? I have written to every governing body in my constituency

745
and I have not received a single letter from any parent or governing body saying that they are in favour of the Bill or the speed with which it is being put through.
Mr. Tracey: I have received several representations from parents within my constituency and outside—[HON MEMBERS:"HOW many?"] Some tens of representations. That is a fair number for a Member of Parliament to receive. The schools in my constituency , which is in the royal borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames, are well regarded by parents because we still have a grammar school and secondary modern system that the parents fight to retain. Indeed, they recently fought a Liberal-Labour coalition on the council to ensure that the grammar schools and secondary moderns were retained. On the question of standards as a whole, I have received representations and heard from parents saying that they support the aims of the Bill.
The comparison of performance between British children and children in Germany is illuminating. We hear that nine out of 10 children leave German schools with qualifications at 16 that are matched by only four out of 10 on a comparable basis in this country. There is considerable and accepted under-motivation of children in British schools and the level of attainment is not adequate; so many parents and employers regularly speak to Members of Parliament about that. I have been present at meetings of governing bodies where employers, who have been governors of schools, have raised that point with me.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why so many national organisations and parents have written to members of the Committee opposing the Bill? I am prepared to show the hon. Gentleman the number of letters I have received opposing the Bill. Is he prepared to show me the letters he has received welcoming the Bill?
Mr. Tracey: There is no doubt that the number of representations Committee members have received—no doubt the hon. Gentleman has received the same as me have come mainly from unions and people who have been encouraged to write. My experience in inner London is that many parents and governing bodies are being whipped up to write to Committee members by ILEA. That authority says it is short of money but, as with Labour authorities that we all know so well in London, it can spend large amounts of money on producing propaganda to throw out when legislation is being discussed in the House.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if parents and governing bodies are being whipped up in response to the Bill, it is as a result of the dismay they feel at the proposals the Government are putting forward?
Mr. Tracey: My view is that the whipping up is being done by partisan politicians, particularly from the Labour party. The literature I have received as a governor of an ILEA school has been urging governors to write to the Department of Education and Science and Members of Parliament saying that the governors are out of sympathy with the legislation. That is a ridiculous use of ratepayers' money by the Inner London education authority.
The Inner London education authority was discussed at great length by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). As I pointed out at the time, I thought that the speech should have been about the
746
timetable motion, but he seemed to think that it was a debate on ILEA. The question of the future education of our children in inner London is critical. I believe that ILEA should be abolished and I have said that on a number of occasions over a number of years. I believe that our children in inner London are being ill-served by the political majority in county hall and I believe that the standards they could achieve are not being reached. I am sure that—
Mr. Dobson: Can the hon. Gentleman name one Tory Member of Parliament who put that proposition in his election address at the general election?
Mr. Tracey: Nobody put that precise point in their election address because the Government were being seen to move towards allowing boroughs to opt out. If the Bill continues in its present form, a few Labour boroughs will opt out. In itself, that would trigger the full abolition of ILEA. I have tabled an amendment to reduce the trigger point from eight boroughs opting out to five boroughs. However, I believe that the best possible solution would be for ILEA to be abolished at a stroke. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will agree to that policy.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman is complaining about the political direction of ILEA. Does he not realise that his proposals and those of the Government will put the schoolchildren of Southwark, Camden and Hackney into the hands of their boroughs? Is he happy to see that happen? That seems to be about as responsible as appointing as a head teacher at a school a drunken bankrupt who is in the process of having a nervous breakdown.
Mr. Tracey: I understood that the Liberal party had some hopes of winning control of Southwark council, so I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. When faced with a choice between the policies of the Conservative party and the policies of the Labour party, the electorate may well return a Conservative authority. It will be able to compare Labour's policies with the policies that have been pursued by Conservative authorities in well-run boroughs such as Wandsworth, where there is support for opting out.
I shall now direct some remarks to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The Times pointed out the other day that, at the "Labour Listens" exercise in Brighton, he did far more talking than listening.
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the precise quotation from The Times, or is he getting yet another quotation wrong?
Mr. Tracey: I think the point made was that it was a "Labour Listens" exercise and that the hon. Gentleman did more talking than listening. By his rapid intervention just now, he has proved that he prefers to do more talking than listening.
The hon. Gentleman talked at length about ILEA. On 19 November there was a by-election in the Southfields ward of Wandsworth borough council. There was a rumour that the whole Labour Front Bench would be turning up to support the Labour candidate. As Labour Members are fair-weather politicians and it was a rather wet day, they resorted to sending only the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I cast no aspersions on what

747
campaigning he tried to do, but the Labour party fought that by-election on the call to vote Labour and save ILEA. In fact, the Conservative candidate considerably increased his majority and, as a result, Wandsworth continues towards opting out of ILEA.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to the wonders and successes of ILEA. On that and on Conservative education policies, I can do no better than to quote none other than Mr. Neil Fletcher, the Labour leader of ILEA, speaking to the Socialist Education Association on 30 September;
"The appeal that the Tories are making, and which plays on parent's fears, clearly has some resonance. Put bluntly, these fears are that comprehensive education does not stretch and challenge children enough or provide them with the essential skills needed for survival in the modern world. How do you build into a comprehensive system a real emphasis on the achievement potential of each child … Does our system let down these children? For too many of them, if we are honest, the answer is yes. Why are working class children still not doing as well as their middle class peers? I am doubtful as to how far we should take socio-economic background as a determinant excuse."
Those are the words of one of the leading exponents of the Labour party's education policies. Mr. Neil Fletcher apparently accepts exactly what the Government are driving at and understands why there is an urgent need for the Bill to be implemented.
6.14 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I wish to make two brief points. First, as a person of extreme moderation, I find it difficult to know how I can be expected to vote for the timetable motion if the Secretary of State does not tell us in his wind-up speech whether ILEA itself is to be guillotined. At the moment, it is being destroyed by a thousand cuts and, as I told the Committee, by the tactics of chambre des oubliettes, but it seems that there is worse to come and that two Tory grandees, who have slipped out to avoid the whiplash of my tongue, are seeking to test to destruction the nerve of the Secretary of State.
As the Government try to make up their mind when and how to behead, dismember and disembody ILEA, they stand guilty, first, of denying the validity of the democratic process; secondly, of tormenting those who have the job of running ILEA's education system; and, thirdly, of playing with the education of 270,000 pupils. I should have thought that everyone, including the Secretary of State—good, decent, liberal person that he is—would find it tragic that the future of the children of the capital should be made contingent on the splenetic outbursts of the tigerish tiger from Henley and the Knuckleduster Kid from Chingford. Surely, the Secretary of State cannot be beyond shame. He cannot allow himself to become the cat's paw of the tigerish tiger and the punch bag for the knuckleduster kid.
I was present when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) spoke about ILEA on Second Reading. He now appears to be in the driving seat at the Department of Education and Science. On Second Reading, he spoke about schools in ILEA and the institutions of higher learning that ILEA runs, with roughly the same gushing ignorance with which he speaks about so many other subjects. He comes here as a Privy Councillor and dabbles in this, that and the other. He ends up by appearing rather
748
like a father who buys his young children a bucket and spade prior to sending them on holiday to the Rocky mountains.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, parents whose children attend ILEA's schools are beginning to wonder what it is—apart from political ambition — that makes the right hon. Member for Henley so concerned about the education of some of the poorest children in the country when he is one of the richest people in England. Parents in Hackney have decided that the right hon. Gentleman is living proof of Maurice Baring's famous dictum:
"If you would know what the Lord God thinks of money, you have only to look at those to whom he gives it."
My first point, therefore, is simply this: before we vote on this timetable motion, the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State himself, as he is to reply, should tell us when the right hon. Member for Henley will officially take over the portfolio at the Department of Education and Science.
My second point concerns the offer of a job made to Mr. William Stubbs, the education officer of ILEA, by the Secretary of State and the fact that Mr. Stubbs has accepted that offer. We should not vote on this issue until we have had a statement from the Secretary of State about what he perceives to be his role in this and how he perceives and justifies the role of Mr. William Stubbs. In New Testament biblical times, the going rate for treachery was 30 pieces of silver, but for Mr. Stubbs it appears to be 10 G — that is, the £10,000 that I understand the Secretary of State will add to his salary when he takes up his new job and abandons ship at ILEA.
I do not want to criticise Mr. Stubbs professionally, but I criticise his courage, because a serious political point is involved that cannot be forgotten. In abandoning ship, Mr. Stubbs reminds me of the naval captain who, on hearing that war was about to break out, scuppered his ships so that he would not have to engage in battle.
Mr. Stubbs tells us that there is no conflict of interest between what he is doing and the fact that he is the education officer at ILEA. I ask Mr. Stubbs, the Secretary of State and the House to consider that. The Secretary of State, who is giving William Stubbs a job, only last week announced that he was cutting ILEA's budget, which Mr. Stubbs heads, by £114 million, putting at risk 3,000 teaching jobs. To say that there is no conflict of interest is to abuse the ordinary use of the English language.
The Secretary of State has offered a job to Mr. William Stubbs, the head of ILEA, who says that the Secretary of State's proposals in the Bill will destroy ILEA. Only somebody well versed in devilish semantics would seek to argue that there was no conflict of interest there.
Worse than that, the job offered to Mr. Stubbs is as head of the funding council of the polytechnics. Every ILEA member to whom I have spoken is opposed to the way in which that funding council will operate and to the role that Mr. Stubbs will play in denying academic freedom to polytechnics. That is the point that the universities' and polytechnics' funding councils have made. How dare the Secretary of State or Mr. William Stubbs seek to argue that there is no conflict of interest in the offer and acceptance of that particular job?
If Mr. Stubbs really believes that there is no conflict of interest, he no longer recognises the nature or quality of his acts, he is no longer capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and if he came before a court of law he

749
would be certified under the M'Naghten rules—and so, incidentally, would the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] We know that this is about, not certification, but political will power. [Interruption] I heard the Secretary of State ask me to repeat what I said outside the House. I was not going to tell him this, but over the weekend I wrote Mr. Speaker a private, confidential letter indicting the Secretary of State and Mr. Stubbs of breach of privilege and contempt of this House. I cannot talk about private confidential letters to Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that Mr. Speaker will take this matter rather more seriously than perhaps the Secretary of State has done.
This reminds me of the time when I was at the Bar, defending professional criminals. When some people had committed a serious crime, although their dabs were all over the scene of the crime and they had made a full and frank confession to the police and signed it, there was no way that counsel for the Crown—however hard he or she tried or however skilful he or she was—could get that guilty person to make any incriminating statement. By intensive psychological pressure one can wipe a crime out of one's mind. In this case, Mr. William Stubbs and the Secretary of State, caught bang to rights, will not issue a plea of guilty. Therefore, I hope that Mr. Speaker will take up the matter and come back to the House on it.
Mr. Walden: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he has ranged widely from the Old Testament to the Rocky mountains and back to confessions. I was reminded of what my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said about the unpressured confession of Mr. Neil Fletcher. We are discussing the failure of ILEA, a massive and over-financed organisation, to provide education of quality for ordinary children. Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal with that central point and come back from the Rockies and the Old Testament?
Mr. Sedgemore: I was about to sit down, but I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's intervention. In my discussions with ILEA, it has been put to me that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, there is a management problem. I do not want to criticise Mr. Stubbs professionally, but as the hon. Gentleman is drawing me out, I must say that the consensus of those who have studied the issue is that the management problem is not the problem to which Mr. Stubbs has addressed himself over the past 10 years. Although he has done some good work for ILEA, he has not addressed himself to the problem to which the hon. Gentleman objects most seriously. If that is true—and it is what ILEA members say—I regret it.
One should not damn ILEA out of hand. We hear a great deal about its examination results, and HMI has produced reports which show that, if ILEA's examination results are adjusted for social deprivation, they are slightly better than the average. I do not say that that is great; they should be improved. If there is any place in inner London where there is room to improve ILEA's education, it is Hackney which I represent. I am not trying to push ILEA to the skies or to knock it down. Nobody could suggest that either boroughs opting out or the Secretary of State introducing proposals to abolish ILEA, as we think he will, is sensible, and Mr. Stubbs to his credit, at least until recently, has argued that the proposals are silly.
Mr. Harry Greenway: As one who worked with Mr. William Stubbs, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to slur Mr. Stubbs to the extent to which he has done, without at least saying that Mr. Stubbs has given the most distinguished service to the children and teachers of London and to all connected with education.
Mr. Sedgemore: Mr. William Stubbs has done some first-class work for ILEA, and the range of its educational service, which is universally admired by the inspectors, is to Mr. Stubbs' credit. On the debit side, Mr. Stubbs does not appear to have addressed the management problem. On the issue which I have raised, I do not retract one comma, colon or full stop. Everybody to whom I have spoken has been shocked by Mr. Stubbs, the speed with which he has acted and the fact that he did not consult his colleagues, or the people for whom he worked. In my view, his action constitutes a constitutional outrage for which both he and the Secretary of State must answer.
6.27 pm
Mr. Christopher Hawkins: It may please you Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that I intend to speak not about ILEA, but about an issue of concern to people throughout the United Kingdom.
I strongly support the motion to timetable the Education Reform Bill. It is a massive Bill, as befits a massive task. It aims to reform all levels of education. up to and including universities. Since the Bill has more than 140 clauses and so far we have covered only 43, my fear is that we may not reach the important clauses on universities unless we have the timetable proposed by the Government.
Some of the clauses on universities worry me. Although the proposals for schools are catching the media spotlight, the proposals for universities seem to be at least as radical. Sadly, in some respects the proposals for universities will be extremely harmful. Since some of my hon. Friends believe that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals supports the proposals, I should like to quote from a recent letter from Mr. Taylor, the secretary general of the CVCP. He writes:
"The universities are on the side of change. And indeed they have changed radically in recent years. They have been able to do so because their autonomy has allowed them to act imaginatively. They in no way question the importance of accounting in full for public moneys granted to them and have recently taken steps to sharpen up their procedures in this respect.
Their autonomy is now threatened. This Bill would create a new beaurocratic machinery subservient to direct and detailed ministerial intervention. This is strangely at odds with the Government's declared intention to foster university autonomy and runs counter to its express belief that organisations respond best if they are given the responsibility implicit in freedom …
At this stage we wish to concentrate on two major issues. The First is The Universities Funding Council and the powers of the Secretary of State. (clauses 92, 94). The Bill represents a very significant increase in the powers of the Secretary of State even above those foreshadowed in the consultative document issued six months ago.
For example:
The Secretary of State is empowered to 'make grants to each of the funding councils of such amounts and subject to such conditions as he may determine'. (94.3)
The Secretary of State 'may by order confer or impose on either of the funding councils such additional functions as he thinks fit'. (94.1)
The funding councils 'shall comply with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State'. (94.4)

751
The logic of this is that the UFC would merely be the Secretary of State's agent."
Nobody with a nervous disposition should read the powers given to the Secretary of State in the clauses relating to universities. Nobody should look on this Bill as a Bill solely for this reasonable Secretary of State, as we are writing legislation which may last 30 to 40 years and could cover all manner of Secretaries of State. These are extraordinary and dangerous powers. They are strong enough to destroy any reasonable level of autonomy in our university system.
On tenure and academic freedom, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals says:
"The Government has decided to abolish academic tenure. Assurances have been given in speeches and parliamentary statements that academic freedom will be protected when tenure is removed. By 'academic freedom' universities do not mean unqualified job protection. They mean the freedom within the law for academic staff to question and to test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing individuals in jeopardy of losing their jobs. The Government has accepted this definition in its recent statements. So why is there no protection in the Bill?"
The Association of University Teachers is also opposed to the proposals on tenure, which it believes will add significantly to the brain drain. If our brightest academics can be fired at short notice, perhaps only for expressing unpopular views, why should they not go to other countries—even to America, which so many of my colleagues admire as the great home of the free market, where tenure is generally available in a free-market system and where no Goverment have tried in a nanny or any other way to remove universities' power to give tenure if they wish to do so.
These proposals are unwelcome in universities at all levels. I fear that they will create confrontation and ill will. It saddens me to see that resulting from our proposals.
I thought that it might be helpful for the House if I gave some figures to show what academic tenure means in practice—whether it means a job for life. Further, I thought that it might be helpful if I contrasted such figures with equivalents in the bracing atmosphere of the Department of Education and Science and other parts of the public sector, where, we are told, tenure does not exist.
I expected, of course, to find a static, sleepy university sector and a rapidly changing, thrusting and ever-moving DES. I found from the University Grants Committee official figures that one in six university staff in Britain have lost their jobs since 1979—some job for life․—and that 10,000 staff are on temporary appointments.
In a written question, I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science
"how many employees of his Department have been made redundant on grounds of redundancy or financial exigency in the last 10 years". —[Official Report, 8 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 100.]
Those are the words used in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State replied that, from 1977 to 1985, the number of people declared redundant in the DES amounted to one part-time cleaner in a local office. In 1986—another heavy year for redundancies in the DES—one packer, nominally on secondment to the British Library in Boston, was declared redundant solely because he or she was unwilling to accept regrading.
I thought that it might be of interest to the House if I gave some figures for the House of Commons—another
752
bracing atmosphere. I asked the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), as representing the House of Commons Commission,
"how many employees of the Commission or its predecessor have been made redundant on grounds of redundancy or financial exigency in the last 10 years".
He replied:
"In the last 10 years one employee's appointment has been terminated on grounds of redundancy."—[Official Report, 10 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 242.]
The idea that tenure means a job for life is clearly a myth when one sixth of university staff have lost their jobs since 1979 and when 10,000 are on temporary appointments. All the flexibility that the vice-chancellors could possibly want, and which any reasonable Government could want for any reasonable plans for universities, is already built into the system. I ask Ministers, hon. Members and the Committee to bear in mind the figures that I have given. I hope that Ministers will seriously reconsider the draconian proposals in this part of the Bill.
6.37 pm
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) has set out clearly his worries about the parts of the Bill that affect universities. I shall not cause him further embarrassment by praising his speech too warmly, but I am sure his trenchant criticism and the statistics that he provided will strike the absent Minister with responsibility for higher education when we reach the relevant clauses in Committee.
I shall be brief, as there is no need for those of us who are members of the Committee to rehearse setpiece debates that we have already had or those we are likely to have. I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about the need for timetabling. I understand the argument that the exigencies of Committee work can sometimes lead to unexpected concessions late at night. My response is that we have had very few concessions, late at night or otherwise, from any of the Ministers. There have been no changes and it looks increasingly likely that changes will not be conceded unless the Government lose a Division.
We are not dealing here with the logic of the argument or the pressure on Departments. We should move towards pre-legislation reform through consultation with persons outside the House, and increasing use of Special Standing Committee procedure, followed by timetabling of all legislation. That would give us a more rational form of law-making than is available at present, when timetabling is not introduced until late.
I agree with one point made by the Leader of the House. There has been no attempt by the Opposition—neither the Labour, nor the minority party Oppositions as all Oppositions are plural in this House—to forestall or prevent the progress of reasonable debate in Committee. That is a credit to all Committee members and, particularly, to my hon. Friends who lead for the Opposition. They have been criticised in the education media for their role, but it is preferable to adopt such a tactic in Committee where principles and certain detailed issues can be debated and taken up with Ministers in a rational way. That is preferable to the notion of opposition which begins at clause 1, produces 100 amendments to that clause and wastes the Opposition's and the Government's

753
time. It is right for minority Members on the Committee to pay tribute to the way in which the Committee on the Bill has been conducted.
Although I have spoken in favour of the principle of timetabling all legislation, my hon. Friends and I will oppose the timetable motion, not because of the principle of timetabling, but because of the principles of the Bill. Those principles are unnecessary for the education system in England. They are not being introduced in Scotland because the Scots, quite sensibly, do not regard the need to legislate centrally as a prerequisite of curriculum or structural changes in education policy.
In the light of history, the Bill will be seen as a major centralist intervention in the education system, destroying the partnership between local education authorities and central Government and creating new forms of centralisation in the guise of local decentralisation. Grant-maintained schools will be established through a central Department agency, although I do not see many such schools being set up in Wales. The local democracy of local education authorities will be subverted. In that sense, the Bill's principles are centralising tendencies. They are not about local freedom. They are about the destruction of local communities, because they will take the control of educational institutions away from the local community.
Similarly, the proposals for the national curriculum are centralisation proposals. They are attempts by the Secretary of State to impose an unnecessary structure on the curriculum development in schools. The agencies for change existed in the Schools Council and the examination bodies, but the Department prefers to undo those democratic structures, which included an elected element from the teaching profession, and replace them with centralising tendencies.
Although I am pessimistic about the Bill, I have a great deal of confidence in the education system. The Secretary of State may legislate, but he will not be able to deliver the negative principles in the Bill. That is already emerging. When he sets up groups of experts to consider assessment, they will come back and say that these simplistic notions, such as testing the attainment of kids aged seven, 11 and 14, cannot be implemented. The centralising hand of the Department cannot operate in the curriculum because it cannot reach into the reality of the classroom and of the education system. Although we who have lived and worked in education are concerned about the Bill, we are convinced that the reality of the system will be very different from what is being legislated for in the Bill.
6.44 pm
Mr. James Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road which he has signposted, but I do wish to make a brief reference to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I listened to his comments about Mr. William Stubbs and thought, "Methinks he doth protest too much." Mr. Stubbs must indeed be a good choice if he upsets Opposition Members as much as he evidently does.
The Education Reform Bill is important to the education system and to the nation's children. Like many other Conservative Members, I am anxious to see it enacted in time for the new school year in September. That is why a guillotine is being introduced. It is a large Bill, which, including the schedules, contains 158 clauses, and,
754
so far, in Committee we have dealt with about a third in some 89 hours. It will, of course, receive much further consideration in Standing Committee.
I listened with interest to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when he described this timetable motion as the most generous for 20 years and said that it provides a further 90 hours to enable the Bill to be fully considered. In addition, it will be considered on Report and will attract considerable discussion and attention in the other place. If the motion is not agreed and the Bill continues at its fairly leisurely pace in Committee, the nation's children will not have the benefit of the reforms incorporated in the Bill by the next school year. That is why I and my hon. Friends will give the measure our unconditional support this evening.
Much nonsense has been talked about timetable motions. I have listened with interest to the comments of some Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, the record for timetable motions is held not by one of my right hon. Friends, and certainly not by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but by a member of the official Opposition who, when in government, guillotined five Bills in one day, on 20 July 1976. That was truly a black Tuesday in the history of the House—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends describe the right hon. Gentleman as Robespierre, but it is not for me to comment on that interesting thought.
It is an impressive list of Bills. The Bills guillotined that day were the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the Dock Work Regulation Bill, the Health Services Bill, the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and—I hear the expressions of shock and horror from my hon. Friends, but the worst is yet to come—the Education Bill. That Bill set out to destroy choice and to introduce uniformity.
Opposition Members have expressed concern about the democratic process and the need for full discussion. I do not know how they can square their statements today with the actions of the Labour Government in 1976, but clearly actions speak louder than words. Their consciences, like their policies, must be pretty flexible.
The amount of time devoted to the Education Reform Bill so far is quite significant. More time has been spent on it than was spent on the corresponding stage of the Education Bill 1944, on which all post-war education has been founded. Here I must acknowledge with thanks the research done for me by the Library. The staff have advised me that about 86 hours, over 14 days, were spent on the 1944 Act. This Bill has therefore had more discussion than the 1944 Act.
The holier-than-thou attitude adopted by Opposition Members must sit uncomfortably on their shoulders, in the light of their party's previous actions. All Governments use the guillotine, and all Oppositions protest. The most effective weapon available to the Opposition is the delaying tactic—my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) made that point—but if Governments are to get legislation on to to the statute book, they must use timetable motions. I am anxious that the measures in the Bill are adopted as quickly as possible.
Incidentally, the Labour party speaks with a forked tongue on the core curriculum. On 11 October 1987, speaking on "Frost on Sunday", the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said:
"I chaired a working party of the Labour party 15 years ago which recommended a national curriculum. It is a sensible way of trying to guarantee standards of education in all our

755
schools … I am in favour and so is the Labour party of what we call diagnostic testing and regular and continuous assessment of children to find out how they are getting on."
Those are comments of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be proud, but it seems that between 11 and 20 November last year, a sea change occurred in the thinking of the hon. Member for Blackburn.
It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, but opposition for opposition's sake on an issue as important as this is grossly irresponsible. That is why I hope that my hon. Friends will support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby tonight.
6.51 pm
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) obviously wrote his speech before he heard the debate. He has certainly not remembered much of what has happened in Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about you?"] I admit that I prepared notes for this debate—
Mr. Pawsey: Why is my preparation wrong and the hon. Lady's right?
Ms. Armstrong: The House can see what we are having to put up with in Committee.
I accept that a member of my family has in the past spoken in the House in favour of guillotines. I am not against guillotines in general, but I am against the guillotine on this Bill now.
In Committee, we have had serious debates, during which Opposition Members, on the instructions of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), have made brief speeches. We have tried to consider matters carefully, without wandering from the subject, and to stick to the amendments. That has meant that Opposition Members have spoken for less time than Conservative Members. The guillotine motion has been moved at a much earlier stage of the Bill than on any Bill during the past 20 years. It has been moved now because the Government know that we are getting near those aspects of the Bill on which they are most rocky and to which hon. Members and people outside the House object most fiercely.
We have been told that, at our present pace, we could not hope to get through the Bill in time and discuss all the issues, but Conservative Members must know that that is nonsense. The Opposition have dealt with the Bill responsibly to make sure that we would reach the end in time. We were determined that every bit of it should be discussed effectively.
The number of hours that has been quoted for our discussion of the Bill is inaccurate, because it includes tea breaks and adjournments for Divisions in the House. It is much less than 89 hours.
The inadequate consultation on the Bill and inadequate preparation by the Government have meant that the Opposition are expected to do things in Committee for which any schoolteacher would be disciplined for bad behaviour. We must consider reports as they come into Committee and then the clauses which relate to those reports. The procedure is, at best, anti-democratic. It makes nonsense of any Government's commitment to consultation or to democracy.
756
I should have liked to say more about this outrageous guillotine motion, but I do not have time. The Opposition are determined to discuss the Bill properly, but the Government will make that impossible.
6.56 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: This has been an interesting and entertaining debate, with fine speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) for his remarks about the organisation of the Opposition.
We heard a courageous and stimulating speech from the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), and we look forward to his contribution on that subject in Committee. It is noteworthy that the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) stayed for the opening speeches and then disappeared—such is their close interest in the Bill and the future of the Inner London education authority.
The timetable motion is an abuse of power. No one can deny the wish of a Government to secure progress for their business, but that must be balanced against the need for adequate debate and discussion of a measure, for such debate and scrutiny of legislation are central to the work of Parliament. Guillotines can be justified only where an Opposition have filibustered a Bill, where they have refused all reasonable suggestions to agree a timetable, or where there is no possibility of the Government getting their business through at reasonable speed without a guillotine.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Chingford anticipated all that. He said:
"In an attempt to show value for money, the official Opposition will insist on having about 80 hours' debate on clauses 1 to 3 or thereabouts in Committee, and then force a guillotine."—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 809.].
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that he is not here to answer my point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know where he is. I told him that I would mention him.
The right hon. Gentleman was right about one thing: we have spent more than 80 hours in Committee. But during those 87 hours we have covered 43 clauses and two extremely long schedules. Even without a guillotine, we have devoted fewer than two hours of debate to each clause or schedule. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West said, Opposition Members have spoken for less time than Conservative Members.
The Leader of the House made the interesting admission that there has been no filibustering by the Opposition. We have had no interest in filibustering. Our interest has always been in careful and relentless scrutiny of the Bill, and it is precisely because of that dissection of the Bill, which caused acute embarrassment to Ministers, that the Government now wish to curtail our discussion.
None of us should be surprised about that, because the members of the Committee have witnessed some extraordinary performances by Ministers. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)— I am not surprised that he has had his hand over his face—agreed that the national curriculum need take up only one minute of any week. He described the

757
national curriculum—to which the Conservative party devoted an entire party political broadcast—as a "fairy tricycle" or a "three-wheeled bicycle".
Under questioning, the Minister of State admitted that the policy of open admissions was in reality one for accelerated closures of schools and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, gave three different answers in the same speech about whether opted-out schools could use money raised by parent-teacher associations to employ teachers.
Then there is the Secretary of State himself, a man who thought he would make his name with this Bill, but has found out otherwise, because support for opting out has not risen since he went around the country proselytising on behalf of the cause—it has declined still further from the 35 per cent. that it achieved in the polls after the election. Support for his version of the national curriculum has declined by an even greater percentage; it stood at 67 per cent. before he started advocating it, and it is now down to 46 per cent.
So I was distressed to read in the papers at the weekend that the odds on the Secretary of State in the Conservative leadership stakes have lengthened slightly as a result of his performance. That is a matter that causes me considerable distress. As I have told him, our interest, apart from trying to defeat the Bill, is to ensure that he remains upright when the leadership contest takes place. I am glad to see the Secretary of State taking that in the spirit in which it is offered.
Last Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman could have taken all day to justify his proposals for opting out, but such is his real support for those proposals that he decided instead to take only seven minutes.
One reason why the Government have gone ahead with this completely unjustified guillotine — given that we have not filibustered — was to avoid the continuing embarrassment of Ministers. However, the Government planned to guillotine the Bill even before it was published. They did so for two reasons: first, because there was doubt about the competence, not to say the loyalty, of the Secretary of State's junior Ministers. When we heard the Secretary of State telling the Committee that he had never underestimated the capacity of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to dig himself out of any hole into which he had dug himself, we understood his dilemma.
The second reason for the guillotine, even before the 13111 emerged from the printers, was that the Secretary of State was petrified at what would happen on Report, in the other place, and when the amendments from the Lords returned to this Chamber.
Since then, there has turned out to be a third reason why the Bill should be guillotined—the incompetence of Government business managers. They are creating a logjam in the House of Lords; it took them two and a half weeks to get the poll tax Bill into Committee, which would certainly not have happened if the Secretary of State for Education had been in charge.
Mr. Sedgemore: There would not have been a poll tax.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is wrong: it was the right hon. Gentleman's idea. I must tell Conservative Members that they need to watch the Secretary of State—he is very fly. He invents the poll tax and then clears off. He invests opting out and dismembers ILEA, and will then clear off. I daresay he will be put into the DHSS and then be cleared off.
758
The luckless Lord President of the Council is responsible for the fact that the House of Lords will have to digest 570 pages of legislation in about two months. I am not surprised that he sought to guillotine the Bill with no justification. Whatever the honeyed words of the Leader of the House or the syrupy words of the Secretary of State, this guillotine has only one purpose—to stifle debate.
I must tell the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that he will have to find a bit more backbone if he wants to be the leader of the Liberal party, or the Social and Liberal Democratic party, or the Social Democratic party. To suggest, as he did, that the guillotine is relatively generous, is virtually to cross the Floor. He must be blind to what is happening. If we do the arithmetic, we discover, that roughly speaking, we have devoted just under two hours to each clause until now. As the hon. Member for Yeovil knows, that is not enough—despite the fact that he has spoken for a good deal of that time. But we have not wished to embarrass him by his record. If the Leader of the House had wanted to refer to a filibuster, he might have singled out the hon. Members for Yeovil and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).
Under the guillotine, there will be fewer than 45 minutes per clause. That is what the hon. Member for Yeovil calls relatively generous — —[Interruption.] Of course he will be voting with us. As we know, members of the Social Democratic Liberal party—or Liberal and Social Democratic party—are reasonable people and always wish to be on both sides at once. On the one hand, the guillotine is relatively generous. On the other, it is outrageous. There is a facility for voting on both sides in the House, and I urge the hon. Member for Yeovil to use it.
It is outrageous that we shall have only two and a half days to discuss opting out, two days on the reorganisation of further education, two days on state control of universities and only a day and a half on ILEA.
Why do we need more time to discuss opting out? The critical clauses on the balloting arrangements for opting out will be allowed only five hours of discussion. We need a lot more than that for the Secretary of State to explain the ballot-rigging that is inherent in those clauses, and how it is democratic and fair to devise a ballot so that the minority—and I mean the minority of those voting—wins. Under the proposed arrangements, parents of a minority of the children whose parents have voted win the ballot.
If we take a school, put all the children in the playground, separate out the children of parents who have not taken part in the election — on the grounds that those people do not count—and then ask the children of parents who have voted for opting out to peel off in one direction and the children of those parents who have riot voted in favour in the other, there will often be more children on the side that voted against opting out than on the side that voted for it—yet the side that voted for it will win. And they call that democracy.
Ministers must find time to explain another point. Why, at the same time as they are saying that a 50 per cent. majority of those who bothered to vote is enough for schools to opt out, have those same Ministers voted for the Second Reading of the Housing Bill, which provides for a completely different arrangement, insisting in clause 96—I am happy to give a copy to the Secretary of State, who is looking puzzled at what the clause contains even

759
though he voted for it—that for local authority tenants to block a decision by a voracious private landlord to take over their tower block or council estate, 50 per cent. not of those voting, but of the total number of council tenants and people who happen to have bought their council houses must vote against that private landlord for the decision to be blocked?
I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Chingford has returned. He must explain how he supports these proposals, when he sponsored the Employment Act in 1982. It contained a proposition, still on the statute book, that if a closed shop was to be approved, 85 per cent. of those voting had to approve it. The present Government Chief Whip, then the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, said at the time that that was because of the overwhelming importance to the work force of a closed shop and its effect on individual rights. If the closed shop had immense importance for individual rights, why does not the issue of opting out have similar importance? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Mr. Tebbitt: I can immediately point out to the hon. Gentleman a great difference between the two things. A closed shop can easily rob a man of his job, with no appeal, but opting out of a school will not rob a child of his education.
Mr. Straw: We disagree on both counts. I believe that opting-out schools will rob children of their education. If the right hon. Gentleman has such confidence in his proposals, why does he not agree even to the idea that 50 per cent. of parents in a school should support a particular proposal?
Mr. Tebbit rose—
Mr. Straw: I must close in one minute.
The Secretary of State has often described the Bill as a gerbil. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware of the natural history of the gerbil, but according to Maurice Burton's "Systematic Dictionary of Mammals of the World", gerbils are carriers of fleas bearing sylvatic plague. The "Encylopaedia Britannica" tells us that the African genus tatera gerbil is a possible carrier of bubonic plague. The Bill will bring plague to the education of the nation's children and the timetable motion should be opposed.
7.10 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): This has been a short, interesting and crisp debate with excellent speeches from some of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Members for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) made excellent contributions and I shall consider carefully what was said. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), and we had two speeches on procedure to which I shall come shortly.
I stress at the outset the amount of time that has already been taken up in discussing this great measure of reform. It started on 26 October last year on an Opposition Supply day, when the Opposition asked for a debate on our consultation process. So keen were they that, on the day after they tabled the motion, they tried to change the order of business to put it off. That shows their commitment. When the Bill was introduced on 20 November 1987, they
760
said that it was all far too early. The Government wanted to introduce the Bill at that time to ensure that there would be plenty of debate in both Houses on this important measure.
On 1 December, we spent seven and a half hours on Second Reading and the money resolution, and the Standing Committee has spent 88 hours discussing 43 clauses. Under the terms of the proposed timetable motion, there will be a further 90 hours in Committee, making a total of 180 hours in Committee, and that will be followed by three days on Report and Third Reading. That will add a further 18 hours and the House will then have spent well over 200 hours considering the Bill.
By any standards that is a generous amount of time—even allowing for the fundamental reforms contained in the Bill. The Education Bill 1944 took 60 hours. The Opposition have said that that was an agreed measure. They should look at the debates on that Bill and at the debates preceding it to see how contentious it appeared to the various religious groups.
If we look at the three major Education Bills that we introduced in 1980, 1981 and 1986 and add together their Committee stages, we arrive at a figure of less than 200 hours—the time that will be spent on the present Bill. This is the most generous timetable motion for over 20 years. Of course, I recognise that no allocation would be sufficiently generous to prevent the Opposition's ritual complaints.
I invite the House to consider the facts. At the Committee's average rate of progress—and progress has been rather slower than average in the last two days—it will take about 250 to 300 hours to complete discussion of the Bill, including the detailed schedules. That is about another 15 weeks. Allowing for the Easter and Whitsun recesses, it is unlikely that the other place would receive the Bill until about June. If the Lords receive it in June, there is no way that they could complete consideration of the Bill by the end of July, and it would have to go into the October overspill.
If the Lords received the Bill as late as June, there is a real danger that they could not complete consideration at all. Of course, that is what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would dearly like.
Mr. Straw: If all that the right hon. Gentleman says is true, why did he not ask the Opposition for a deal?
Mr. Baker: It became quite clear in various informal discussions that I undertook that there was no possibility at all of a deal. That has been confirmed by the assertions made during the debate. The Opposition have said that we need plenty of time to discuss all the measures in the Bill that have still to be debated. That is what I want to secure.
The matter of a filibuster has been raised. There was nothing on the scale of John Golding's filibuster. He talked for 11 hours on the Telecommunications Bill and I heard every minute of his speech—[Interruption.] That was in Committee. No Opposition Member on the Committee upstairs could hold the Committee's attention and interest for 11 minutes, never mind 11 hours.
The nearest to come to that was the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He opened his capacious mind to the Committee and gave it discourses on philosophy, equality, homosexuality in public schools and the financial policies of the Pharaoh Amenhotep III, generally known as Amenhotep junior,

761
the golden emperor who ruled Egypt in the 15th century BC. We also heard him on Welsh disestablishment and on agnosticism and atheism.
The hon. Member startled the Committee one day by asking us if we all realised that at school he had won all the religious and scripture prizes. What a wonderful beginning! Since then it has been downhill all the way. He also wrote a poem about me. It was an awful piece of doggerel. Indeed, it gives doggerel a bad name. It neither rhymed nor scanned. The post of poet laureate is filled, but I suppose that the hon. Gentleman could well qualify for the post of poet lunatic.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is a distinguished former Chairman of the Procedure Committee asked about the general nature of timetable motions. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) also asked about that.
I have had the task of taking through the House under the guillotine procedure two major Bills — the British Telecommunications Bill and the Local Government Bill 1985. The Procedure Committee should take seriously the proposal that we should find a better way of dealing with some of our legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North is a great parliamentarian. Therefore, in view of the positions that he has held, when he advises the House to consider new procedures for these matters, the House should weigh his words very carefully.
As I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton was the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that reported on this matter. Its second report recommended that a Committee should be established at the start of each Parliament to consider which Bills were likely to involve lengthy discussions in Committee, so that the guillotine could then be introduced for these Bills. I understand that that proposal was later turned down.
My hon. Friend has rightly drawn the attention of the House to the amendment on today's Order Paper. It was not called by you, Mr. Speaker, but none the less it is an important amendment. The amendment proposed:
"The Business Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee shall allocate the time so as to ensure that all parts of the Bill can be adequately scrutinised and every substantive proposal of the Bill he considered."
I give my hon. Friend the assurance that, in my discussions with the hon. Member for Blackburn, I shall certainly try to ensure that every major matter is given full and measured debate. It is in the interests of all that that should happen—not only the Opposition, but the Government.
The purpose of this guillotine motion is to ensure an even pattern of debate so that the major issues are debated. So far, we have covered the national curriculum, assessment and testing, open enrolment, financial delegation and now grant-maintained schools. There is still much to be done. We still have to deal with the rest of the grant-maintained schools, further education, collective worship, city technology colleges, higher education, financial delegation to colleges, polytechnics and universities and, of course, the Inner London education authority.
On the subject of ILEA, I confirm, as I said at the end of last week, that we are considering the various views put forward about its future. No decision has been taken and the matter will have to be considered collectively by
762
Ministers and our conclusions reported to he House. I re-emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House — that should there be a major change of policy there will have to be discussion through the usual channels about its implications for the timetable. I want to ensure that all these measures are properly arid fully debated. It is important that they are, because, as hon. Members have said, they are important measures.
The hon. Member for Blackburn chided my colleagues and me about our conduct in Committee. The House should recognise that the amount of time that we have now allocated, about 200 hours, is generous by any standards. I see that the Leader of the Opposition is calling it a gag. If it is a gag, it must be accounted the most inefficient in history. I think that the Leader of the Opposition knows all about gags— not from using them on himself, but from the accusations now being made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about his silencing debate in his own party. It would appear that the only party in the' listening party who is not listening is the Leader of the Opposition himself.
None the less, that has not prevented the hon. Member for Blackburn from attacking the timetable motion. In fact, it has given him a new lease of life, because the Labour party has been rather subdued in Committee. Labour Members have not voted against 36 of the 43 clauses that have been taken as standing part of the Bill, including three dealing with grant-maintained schools. All observers of the Committee have been struck by the muted nature of the opposition.
I have had an analysis made of the time taken by each member of the Committee. The hon. Member for Blackburn has spoken for 321 minutes; the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), on the other hand, has spoken for 475 minutes. He has spoken for longer than all the Conservative Back Benchers put together. It is therefore not surprising that The Guardian has described the performance of the Labour party in Committee as lacklustre. I have to say to the hon. Member for Blackburn, in the words of the old nursery rhyme. "Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack's tripped over the Liberal stick." —[Interruption.] Let me point out to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that at least my poem rhymed and scanned.
The hon. Member for Yeovil—the Liberal stick—has tabled more amendments than any other member of the Committee, including the Government. We all know his very good reason for doing that. In the past few weeks, he has wanted it clearly known that he will not be concerned with any of the shenanigans in the Liberal party. On that fateful night when the joint manifesto was being drawn up by the leaders of the Liberal party and what is left of the SDP, he was in Committee Room 14. What is more, 31 hon. Members can testify that he was there, boring them all to distraction, at the time when the crime was committed. The hon. Gentleman has a perfect alibi.
With all this volume of eloquence, we thought that we might get something out of the hon. Member for Yeovil about the Liberal party's education policy. However, our hopes have been dashed. The hon. Gentleman says that he likes parent power, but not too much; he likes choice, but not too much; he likes delegated budgets, but not too much; he likes excellence, but not too much. He has conducted a sustained exercise in restrained enthusiasm. As he flits from one half-belief to another thinly held

763
conviction, the hon. Gentleman has become the snapper-up of unconsidered half-thoughts. How suitable in a spokesman for half a party.
Mr. Ashdown: I am somewhat flattered that the right hon. Gentleman has so far spent more of his speech attacking me than he has spent attacking the official Opposition. He knows perfectly well that those policies were laid out in a document that I know he has received. Is he prepared to say to the House what he said in Committee: that the only effective opposition to his proposals has come from me, rather than from the official Opposition?
Mr. Baker: Such modesty. Where is the manifesto? Where are the words? There we have it all. Where are the hon. Gentleman's colleagues? There is none to listen. His words have fallen on stony ground. The electoral college is not here.
The Opposition have not been making good use of their time in Committee. They have notably failed to put their arguments across convincingly. There is much more to be done.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills).
Question put accordingly.
The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 222.

Division No. 159]

[7.24 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Aitken, Jonathan

Buck, Sir Antony

Alexander, Richard

Budgen, Nicholas

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Burt, Alistair

Amess, David

Butcher, John

Amos, Alan

Butler, Chris

Arbuthnot, James

Butterfill, John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Ashby, David

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Aspinwall, Jack

Chapman, Sydney

Atkins, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Atkinson, David

Churchill, Mr

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Baldry, Tony

Colvin, Michael

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Conway, Derek

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bellingham, Henry

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bendall, Vivian

Cope, John

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Couchman, James

Benyon, W.

Cran, James

Bevan, David Gilroy

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Curry, David

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

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

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Day, Stephen

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Devlin, Tim

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dickens, Geoffrey

Boswell, Tim

Dicks, Terry

Bottomley, Peter

Dorrell, Stephen

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dover, Den

Bowis, John

Dunn, Bob

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Durant, Tony

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Dykes, Hugh

Brazier, Julian

Eggar, Tim

Bright, Graham

Emery, Sir Peter

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Evennett, David

764

Fallon, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Farr, Sir John

Mates, Michael

Favell, Tony

Maude, Hon Francis

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Forth, Eric

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mills, Iain

Franks, Cecil

Miscampbell, Norman

Freeman, Roger

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

French, Douglas

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Gale, Roger

Moate, Roger

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Monro, Sir Hector

Gill, Christopher

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Glyn, Dr Alan

Moore, Rt Hon John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Goodlad, Alastair

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Moss, Malcolm

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Moynihan, Hon C.

Gow, Ian

Mudd, David

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Neale, Gerrard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Needham, Richard

Gregory, Conal

Nelson, Anthony

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Neubert, Michael

Ground, Patrick

Nicholls, Patrick

Grylls, Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Page, Richard

Hampson, Dr Keith

Patnick, Irvine

Harris, David

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Haselhurst, Alan

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Hawkins, Christopher

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Pawsey, James

Hayward, Robert

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Heddle, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hill, James

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hind, Kenneth

Powell, William (Corby)

Holt, Richard

Price, Sir David

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

Rattan, Keith

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Redwood, John

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rhodes James, Robert

Hunter, Andrew

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Irvine, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Jessel, Toby

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Key, Robert

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Roe, Mrs Marion

Knapman, Roger

Rost, Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rowe, Andrew

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Knowles, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Knox, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lang, Ian

Sayeed, Jonathan

Latham, Michael

Scott, Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SM)

Lilley, Peter

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lord, Michael

Shersby, Michael

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Sims, Roger

McCrindle, Robert

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

MacGregor, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Maclean, David

Speed, Keith

McLoughlin, Patrick

Speller, Tony

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Squire, Robin

Madel, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Major, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

Malins, Humfrey

Stern, Michael

Mans, Keith

Stevens, Lewis

Maples, John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Marland, Paul

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Marlow, Tony

Stokes, John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stradling Thomas. Sir John

765

Sumberg, David

Waller, Gary

Summerson, Hugo

Ward, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Warren, Kenneth

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Watts, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Wells, Bowen

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wheeler, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Whitney, Ray

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wiggin, Jerry

Thorne, Neil

Wilkinson, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Wilshire, David

Thurnham, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Winterton, Nicholas

Tredinnick, David

Wolfson, Mark

Trippier, David

Wood, Timothy

Twinn, Dr Ian

Woodcock, Mike

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Waldegrave, Hon William

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walden, George

Mr. David Lightbown and

Walker, Bill T'side North)

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cunningham, Dr John

Allen, Graham

Dalyell, Tarn

Alton, David

Darling, Alastair

Anderson, Donald

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

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

Ashdown, Paddy

Dixon, Don

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Dobson, Frank

Ashton, Joe

Doran, Frank

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Douglas, Dick

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Dunnachie, James

Barron, Kevin

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Battle, John

Eastham, Ken

Beckett, Margaret

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Beith, A. J.

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Bell, Stuart

Fatchett, Derek

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Faulds, Andrew

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

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bermingham, Gerald

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

Bidwell, Sydney

Fisher, Mark

Blair, Tony

Flannery, Martin

Boateng, Paul

Flynn, Paul

Boyes, Roland

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bradley, Keith

Foster, Derek

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Foulkes, George

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Fraser, John

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Galbraith, Samuel

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Galloway, George

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Buchan, Norman

Garrett, Ted (Wallsendj

Buckley, George

George, Bruce

Caborn, Richard

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Callaghan, Jim

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Gould, Bryan

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Graham, Thomas

Canavan, Dennis

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Cartwright, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Grocott, Bruce

Clay, Bob

Hardy, Peter

Clelland, David

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Cohen, Harry

Heffer, Eric S.

Coleman, Donald

Henderson, Douglas

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hinchliffe, David

Corbett, Robin

Holland, Stuart

Corbyn, Jeremy

Home Robertson, John

Cousins, Jim

Hood, James

Cox, Tom

Howells, Geraint

Crowther, Stan

Hoyle, Doug

Cryer, Bob

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Cummings, J.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

766

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Pendry, Tom

Illsley, Eric

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Ingram, Adam

Prescott, John

Janner, Greville

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

John, Brynmor

Quin, Ms Joyce

Johnston, Sir Russell

Radice, Giles

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Randall, Stuart

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Redmond, Martin

Kennedy, Charles

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Reid, John

Kirkwood, Archy

Richardson, Ms Jo

Lambie, David

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Lamond, James

Robertson, George

Leadbitter, Ted

Robinson, Geoffrey

Leighton, Ron

Rogers, Allan

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Rooker, Jeff

Lewis, Terry

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Litherland, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Livingstone, Ken

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sedgemore, Brian

McAllion, John

Sheerman, Barry

McAvoy, Tom

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McCartney, Ian

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Macdonald, Calum

Short, Clare

McFall, John

Skinner, Dennis

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McKelvey, William

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

McLeish, Henry

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

Maclennan, Robert

Snape, Peter

McTaggart, Bob

Soley, Clive

McWilliam, John

Spearing, Nigel

Madden, Max

Steel, Rt Hon David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Steinberg, Gerald

Marek, Dr John

Stott, Roger

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Strang, Gavin

Martlew, Eric

Straw, Jack

Maxton, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Meacher, Michael

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Meale, Alan

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Michael, Alun

Turner, Dennis

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Vaz, Keith

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wall, Pat

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Walley, Ms Joan

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wareing, Robert N.

Morgan, Rhodri

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Morley, Elliott

Wigley, Dafydd

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Mowlam, Marjorie

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Mullin, Chris

Wilson, Brian

Murphy, Paul

Winnick, David

Nellist, Dave

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Worthington, Anthony

O'Brien, William

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Tellers for the Noes:

Parry, Robert

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Patchett, Terry

Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 3rd March 1988.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 3rd March may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 4th March.
Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the last

767
of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time
7. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

768

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Education Reform Bill;

769
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.37 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill comes to us from another place, where it has already been discussed in some detail. But to assist the House in its consideration, let me put the Bill into context, describe the background, arid then deal with the three separate parts of the Bill on woodlands, farm diversification, and the structure of the Development Commission. I intend to keep my remarks brief because it is not a full-day debate. I am sure that many hon. Members wish to speak.
The new opportunities that the Bill will bring about are part of a coherent policy that we have been developing for agriculture and the countryside in relation to the alternative use of land. The farm woodlands and forestry diversification proposals will contribute in differing ways towards our general objective of promoting an enterprising and more market-orientated agriculture, a flourishing rural economy, and an attractive and living countryside.
I stress that the proposals are only part of the programme. No doubt we shall debate or have already debated other proposals on other occasions. Such proposals include environmentally sensitive areas, for which we already have powers. We have been moving ahead fast. We have successfully led the way in the European Community, which now contributes 25 per cent. of the cost of ESAs. The proposals also include developing set-aside for alternative crops, in looking at alternative crops, and encouraging research and development into alternative industrial uses of agricultural products. Tonight, we are focusing on only two parts. I shall briefly set the background.
The House is well aware of the Government's efforts to deal with agricultural surpluses and the soaring costs of the common agricultural policy. This will call for major adjustments in the farming industry. In particular, when combined with the continued technological progress, which we can foresee in the next 10 years, it is clear that more land will have to come out of conventional food production.
A very useful report on the subject was published by the Agricultural Economic Development Committee last year called "Directions for Change: Land Use in the 1990s.'" I shall not go into detail, but it predicted that significant amounts of land, scattered throughout the United Kingdom, will be released, mainly from cereals and dairying, over the next seven, eight or nine years. Although experts would differ on the figures—it is impossible to be precise because it will depend on the changing and differing reactions among farmers and other matters—most would accept this basic premise.
The main thrust of action to tackle surpluses must be taken at Community level. Price restraint and stabilisers are the key to this, but other emerging Community policies will have an important part to play in the adjustment process, especially set-aside. Proposals on set-aside are currently before the Council of Ministers that build on existing provisions for the extensification scheme, which we have already discussed in the House.

771
These proposals have considerable potential for taking land out of production. They are, however, still under discussion. Indeed, they are due to be considered at the European Council in 10 days' time. This is a fast-changing and fast-moving scene. It is impossible to say exactly what extensification or set-aside proposals we shall end up with, but that we shall do so I can confidently predict.
There is a broad measure of agreement that such schemes can make a substantial contribution as a complement to price policy in reducing over-production. Now is not the time to go into detail on set-aside; no doubt there will be other opportunities to do so.
Meanwhile, the Bill gives us the enabling powers for two other elements of the programme of new opportunities that the Government are making available in the United Kingdom to assist in the necessary process of adjustment and to ensure that alternative farm resources employed in diversification are used to enhance the attractiveness of our countryside and to assist the rural economy.
Mr. Tony Benn: I have looked at the Bill with great care. I can find no reference in it to any requirement of viability of enterprise arising from the enormous subsidies that might flow from the Bill. Will the Minister explain why there is no test of viability for the receipts of grants from Government by farmers who are now in serious difficulties?
Mr. MacGregor: There are two aspects to the Bill in this context, and I hope to come to some parts of that later.
The farm woodlands scheme is not simply a scheme to get agricultural land out of agricultural production. It also has an important environmental context. That is one of the other key objectives of this proposal. I am satisfied that it will be a sensible measure to assist with the problem of reducing surpluses.
With regard to the farm diversification scheme, we are talking not about enormous subsidies—I think that they were the words used by the right hon. Gentleman—but about comparatively modest measures to assist farmers in the diversification process. I shall explain later how we hope that this will be a sensible way of achieving viable businesses and why the proposal in the Bill is designed to help with that viability.
I shall now turn to the content of the Bill. I should like to take clause 2 first. It is the major part of the Bill and it provides enabling powers for Ministers to make a scheme of grants in respect of farm woodlands for any one or more parts of Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, the necessary powers already exist.
Encouragement for woodlands forms part of our package because woodlands have been focused on by many experts as offering one of the most realistic alternatives to land currently in productive agriculture. Many people, when considering alternative ranges of crops, have focused on woodlands as one of the most hopeful sectors. I am realistic, and I recognise that they can make only a partial contribution to the land use problem. I do not want to claim that the Bill contains the panacea for alternative land use in the two proposals that it puts forward. There is no single panacea; all can make a contribution of one sort or another.
The 12,000 hectares a year scheme that we are proposing over the next three years could result in up to 30 million new trees a year, or 90 million trees in all. It is
772
important to put that figure in context. We have all been concerned about the devastation that the storm damage caused last October in many parts of southern England and East Anglia. We now know that about 15 million trees were lost. In the farm woodlands scheme there is potential for 90 million trees to be planted in the next three years. That is interesting in comparison with the 15 million trees that we have lost, which we all regard as having had a devastating environmental impact. The Bill has potential to create an attractive environmental impact.
Assuming that the House can give the Bill a swift passage, we shall be introducing the farm woodlands scheme in time for the autumn tree-planting season.
As some hon. Members will already know, I have revised significantly the Government's original proposals, taking into account the representations that we received during the consultation process. In particular, I have retargeted the scheme primarily towards arable land and improved grassland. This has a dual purpose, since, first, it will do more than the original proposals to reduce agricultural surpluses and, secondly, it will minimise the risk to land of conservation value. I know that the changes on the environmental and conservation aspects have been warmly welcomed by those interested in conservation matters.
To be eligible, improved grassland will have to have been cultivated and re-seeded in the past 10 years. Some have urged a less restrictive definition, but we must draw the line in a simple and effective way if we are to realise savings in agricultural support costs. That was the point to which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was trying to draw attention. As I always aim to do, in this scheme I have gone as much as possible for simple guidelines and simple administration.
We need to prevent farmers from ploughing up unimproved land to try to make it eligible for the scheme. We may therefore require a declaration from farmers to the effect that the land in question was already in cultivation in a particular base year — most probably 1986–87, as envisaged under the extensification scheme. Many of the points of detail are not for the Bill but for the regulations later.
At this stage, I should refer briefly to the main reason why it was necessary to bring forward a farm woodlands scheme. Of course, farmers are already eligible for forestry grants. It has been recognised in recent years that there is a cost in management to farmers in planting woodlands. There is also a loss of income on the land given to woodlands. There is a dual problem — a cost in managing, particularly in early years, and a loss of income on that land. Set against that is the fact that the income from woodlands is many years hence. There has been a question of income loss as well as the issue of encouragement to plant through planting grants. It is therefore the annual payments and the income to which the scheme is addressed.
Ms. Joyce Quin: In consideration of the farm woodlands scheme and the incentives for people to go into it, will the Minister say how many of the trees that he envisages being planted will be conifers? Will he accept that many people are worried about the environmental impact of large-scale conifer plantations and wish, therefore, to see environmental safeguards being built into the regulations?
Mr. MacGregor: I am coming to the environmental point. I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the way in which we have re-targeted the scheme to concentrate very much on broadleaf planting.
Because we are concentrating primarily on this more productive land, we have increased the rates of annual payment significantly compared with the amounts in the consultation document — to £190 per hectare in the lowlands, £150 per hectare in the disadvantaged areas and £100 per hectare in the severely disadvantaged areas. We are also encouraging more broadleaf planting by offering longer payment periods of 30 years for woodland containing more than 50 per cent. broadleaves and 40 years for pure oak and beech planting. The payment period for other planting will he 20 years.
As well as these annual payments, farmers will be eligible for forestry planting grants under existing schemes to get their woodlands established. For a wood of three to 10 hectares, the broadleaf woodland grant for pure broadleaves is currently £800 per hectare, nearly double the conifer rate of £420 per hectare. We have also accepted an amendment in another place which requires Ministers to review the rates of payment periodically. This appears as clause 2(3).
Because we are determined to try to keep down the administrative cost of the scheme and get as much of the money as possible through to the farmer, I have already announced that we shall be cutting down on the procedures whereby the Forestry Commission consults local authorities about proposed planting. Consultation on smaller schemes—those of less than 10 hectares—will no longer be required except in, for example, sites of special scientific interest, environmentally sensitive areas, national parks in England and Wales and national scenic areas in Scotland — national nature reserves are, incidentally, excluded from the scheme altogether.
I believe that this change will help to make the scheme more attractive to farmers, who are often put off by the complications of consultation, and will encourage the planting of small woodlands. I do not foresee any real risk to habitats or landscape from the planting of small areas of trees, mainly on improved land. Indeed, I think that the environmental impact of the scheme will be positive, particularly as applications are scrutinised by the Forestry Commission and can be amended if they are unsatisfactory on environmental grounds. But we shall look at this aspect very carefully when we come to review the scheme in 1991 at the end of the three-year experimental period.
Mr. Tony Speller: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the problem of farm incomes in general? I am sure that we all agree with my right hon. Friend's line on the environment, broadleaves and so on. Farm incomes are falling and falling. It seems as though on the present rating we are talking merely about slowing the decline in farm incomes. This is not a great help to the farmer.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has taken me rather wider than the Bill and I would probably be ill-advised to open up a much wider agricultural debate. As I have said, the Bill will help the process of adjustment on the reforms of the CAP.
Mr. Gordon Oakes rose—
Mr. MacGregor: Having given away quite a lot, I should prefer to move on and enable as many hon. Members as wish to speak 'to do so.
The farmer's first point of contact will normally be with the agriculture advisory services. When he has prepared his application, perhaps with professional help, he will send it to the local Forestry Commission office. Checks will be carried out, including checks on the eligibility of the land, and a Forestry Commission official will visit the site to ensure that the proposals are suitable. The Forestry Commission will also conduct consultations with local authorities and other agencies where these are required. Once the application is approved, the agriculture Department will write and offer the farmer a place in the scheme. The farmer will then be required to confirm the number of hectares he intends to plant and when. In effect, the scheme is a sophisticated form of cash limit — a hectarage limit — and I should like to explain how I hope it will work.
This procedure is necessary, first, to ensure that the right sort of planting takes place, and, secondly, to enable us effectively to operate the limit of 12,000 hectares a year –36,000 hectares over three years. That is our limit. We cannot sensibly operate a first-received, first-served system, because applications will take different lengths of time to process, especially when consultations with other bodies are required. We do not want all applications to have to wait for the slowest one.
We intend, therefore, to allocate places in the scheme in order of applications being approved—up to when the hectarage limit is reached. One might describe this as a first-sorted out, first-served system. A similar system will operate for the quota of 3,000 hectares over three years for planting on poorer land in the less-favoured areas. This will attract the original — as in the consultation document—£30 rate of annual payment in recognition of the much lower agricultural income forgone on such land.
We shall, of course, monitor carefully the rate of approvals and, by limiting the total area approved to 12,000 hectares a year, we shall be able to ensure that expenditure on the scheme is kept under proper control. The area planted each year will determine the Government's financial obligation, first, in terms of planting grants from the Forestry Commission and, secondly, in terms of annual payments from the agriculture Departments which start to be paid a year after planting.
Because the area is monitored at an earlier stage than actual expenditure, our system will combine the virtues of limiting the Government's commitment and allow farmers to be reasonably clear where they stand. The monitoring of applications will also provide an early warning system so that, if the scheme clearly will be over-subscribed, we can close it to new applicants. This will save unnecessary work both for farmers in preparing applications which have to be rejected and for those administering the scheme.
One aspect of the scheme which I know will exercise the House in considering this Bill — farmers have often raised it with me — is the possibility of tenant participation. I am therefore pleased to be able to say that the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors have recently agreed on the model texts on which they have been working for some time. There are two types of model text — model clauses for use in

775
existing tenancy agreements under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 and a model forestry lease for use on larger schemes where this seems more sensible.
All sides also seem agreed that, given the long-term nature of tree growing, it would be wrong to allow tenants to join the scheme without their landlord's consent. As always, these landlord-tenant issues are among the trickiest issues to deal with in any new initiative and I am sure that it is best wherever possible to keep them out of primary legislation. Agreement on this model approach to tenant participation is therefore very welcome to the Government.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
Mr. MacGregor: There is obviously a great deal of interest in the Bill. It would be better if hon. Members made their points in their contributions and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with them.
Clause I will enable us to introduce non-capital grants towards the establishment, expansion, promotion and marketing of the products and services of a diversified farm business. This will give us the powers we need to bring in the assistance towards enterprise feasibility studies and marketing costs envisaged under the farm diversification scheme. Here I return to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
As the House will know, capital grants of 25 per cent. for investments up to a value of £35,000 in a wide range of on-farm diversifications have been available under this scheme since 1 January this year. These grants are designed to encourage farmers to explore the possibilities of earning income from activities other than the continued production of surpluses. The scheme will also, therefore, contribute—I freely confess that it will be in a minor, but important, way—to the adjustment process made necessary by CAP reform. An amount of £3 million will be available annually for the capital grants and £1 million for the feasibility and marketing grants. Those sums will be cash-limited.
The degree of interest shown in the scheme so far has been very high. We have already received 71 applications for improvement plans in England alone and more than 2,000 inquiries about the possibility of getting grants on particular diversification projects. This sign of farmers' willingness to adapt and to explore new opportunities is encouraging and, of course, it is only one indication. We see it in many other ways. The range of ideas coming forward is enormous and a tribute to the skill, ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit of the industry.
Diversification is not, of course, a panacea for all.
Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
Mr. MacGregor: I should press on.
I fully recognise that some farmers will not have the scope for reorganising their businesses to bring in new activities, nor may they have the spare resources in buildings, people and land which can be appropriately diverted to non-agricultural enterprises. Equally, I am bound to say that, as with any new business venture, not all will be successful. An element of risk is inevitably involved. By setting the capital grants at 25 per cent. we hope to stimulate those businesses which might not otherwise be able to get going, but it is the farmer who will need to fund the major part of the capital required.
776
Where we will be able to provide particular help is in assisting the farmer to plan his new venture sensibly, since careful analysis of all the implications is vital in developing a successful new business. That is why I attach importance to the grants for enterprise feasibility studies and marketing costs that the Bill will allow us to introduce.
During the consultation exercise, several organisations made the point that a greater stimulus was needed in respect of marketing costs, particularly in the first year. Other representations we received asked for higher grant ceilings. I have now decided that non-capital grants of 50 per cent. will be available towards the cost of an enterprise feasibility study and grants of 40, 30 and 20 per cent. degressively over three years towards the cost of employing marketing personnel in the initial phase of a diversified enterprise. Grants will be available to individuals and groups. The ceiling will be £3,000 a year for individuals and £10,000 a year for groups.
The farm diversification scheme is tailored to activities which naturally arise on farms and both types of grant will be available only to farmers. I have been particularly anxious in devising the new scheme to ensure that it complements rather than duplicates or cuts across assistance on rural diversification coming from other agencies, chief among which is the Development Commission and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, but we have also kept in close touch with tourist boards, the Sports Council, the Countryside Commission and others in developing the new scheme.
In the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service we have a very useful network which will serve as the first point of contact for farmers. ADAS will also be keeping in very close touch with all the agencies that can contribute particular expertise or forms of assistance. We are keen to strengthen the rural economy by encouraging diversity of economic activity within it. The farm diversification scheme will give further encouragement to farmers to play their part in that vital process.
Finally, I draw the House's attention to clause 3, which will increase the limit on the maximum number of members of the Development Commission from eight to 12. That will assist with the merger of the Development Commission and its main agency, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. It will also make it possible to increase the range of interests represented on the Development Commission proper. I am sure that that will be generally welcomed.
I am glad to have this clause in my Department's Bill because it is symptomatic of how closely we now work with our colleagues at the Department of the Environment, who are responsible for the Development Commission. It also fits in well with the overall rationale of the Bill and with our new policy in relation to alternative land use, which is to encourage, in a variety of ways — some experimental — the alternative use of agricultural land; to encourage more diversity on farms and in the rural economy at large; to encourage more market-oriented and outward looking farming industry; and a different balance between the interests of the countryside and environmental objectives, and those of food production in this new world of surpluses. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
8.2 pm
Dr. David Clark: This is a most appropriate time for the House to discuss the Bill, which

777
is an enabling measure and about which we do not complain. We accept that we are discussing the Bill at a crucial and critical time in the history of agriculture in Britain because the industry is in a state of crisis and turmoil and facing many unknowns. In all the years that I have followed the agricultural and rural scene, I can never remember so much anxiety and uncertainty in the countryside and in farming.
Last week saw the publication of the annual review of agriculture, which confirmed that impression. In real terms, farm income is at its lowest level since the second world war — apart from during one year. In many upland areas, farmers have very small incomes indeed. The imposition of the poll tax will be the last straw for many of them. While we are on the subject of economics, we should note that investment in plant and machinery in agriculture is at a post-war low.
It is small wonder, therefore, that farmers are increasingly debating the virtues of alternatives which, sadly, they may often be ill-equipped to handle. However, I accept that the Bill is an attempt to persuade and to help some farmers to cope with the problems that they might incur in trying to develop alternatives.
Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that for some curious philosophical reason, on seeing the plight of the farmers, the Government are not saying to them that market forces will solve their problems and that the thrust of entrepreneurial ability will be left isolated, but that the industry will be cushioned yet again by support from the Government, which is a complete philosophical U-turn from their attitude towards manufacturing industry?
Dr. Clark: I take my hon. Friend's point. It is an interesting observation that agriculture does not operate in a free market. Indeed, I should like to make that point at some length a little later.
It is also noteworthy — my hon. Friend has drawn this to my attention—that we are debating the Bill at a time when the European Commission does not have a budget for the current year and, as a result, will run out of money midway through the summer, unless we find a solution. The Prime Minister faces a tough time in Brussels next week, but as long as she stands firm in reducing surpluses significantly, she will have our support.
That brings me aptly to the Government's raison d'etre for introducing the Bill. The House will remember that the first formal intimation of the Government's proposals came in a statement to the House on 9 February 1987 by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). The statement was made in somewhat ignominious circumstances. The Minister was forced to come to the House and to interrupt the debate at 7 o'clock, following an article in the previous day's edition of The Observer which had exposed the Government's secret plans for the countryside. It was so instructive that on the following morning the Minister faced a vote of no confidence — unsuccessfully — at the National Farmers Union annual conference. We are now discussing the formal Bill 12 months later.
It is interesting to read what the Minister said when he announced a review of changes in the CAP and his intention for the package of measures which the Minister rightly outlined to us earlier. The then Minister said:
778
"We have concluded that, given the scale of agriculture surpluses now facing us, a new balance of policies is needed. This will entail less support for expanding production, more attention to the demands of the market, more encouragement of alternative uses of land, mote response to the claims of the environment, and more diversity on farms and in the rural economy." —[Official Report, 9 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 70.]
The House will note that the motive for that laudable change in agricultural direction was the unacceptable level of surplus production, and especially its cost. It is important to emphasise flat. The Government are absolutely correct to do so because it is ludicrous that two thirds of the cost of agricultural support in Europe goes on the storage and disposal of surpluses, or, put another way, only one third of agricultural support goes to the actual producer of the food, the farmer. That cannot be correct. Therefore, the Government are right to try to tackle that issue, although I concede that I do not think that it will be an effective mechanism for tackling the problem.
However, in spite of their fine words on the environment, the Government's response in the Bill has more to do with finance than anything else. Indeed, they have missed the golden opportunity of a more enlightened approach to agriculture and we shall seek to redress that at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. Of course, as the Minister has reminded us, the Bill is only one of the various mechanisms that the Government propose to tackle the problem of surpluses. Others include set-aside, afforestation, capital grants for diversification and stabilisers.
It is worth re-emphasising that the Government have introduced the Bill primarily to reduce surpluses. The Minister returned to that time and again. They have not introduced it to improve the countryside or agricultural practices in themselves.
As a result of their approach, the Government have ignored one of the most positive options of de-intensification or low-input farming. The advantage of that proposal is that it would, by and large, encourage farmers to do what they do best— farm the land. By that approach to agriculture, farmers would cultivate all their land, but less intensively. There would be a lower input of fertilisers and a more benign use of pesticides with the accompanying beneficial side effects on the environment. However, that approach would still retain the machinery and labour on the farm. In addition, it would also allow us to increase food production again if the necessity arose, as well as meeting the present increasing demand for organically produced food.
We believe that that is a much more sensible approach than that of set-aside, whereby farmers are paid simply for doing nothing. I regret that the Minister has been unable to follow that approach in the Bill. Such an approach would also minimise the risk of encouraging farmers to diversify into activities for which they may not have the aptitude or the training. I do not, for one moment, doubt the versatility or entrepreneurship of many engaged in farming. However, I believe that such alternative options may be more attractive at a superficial level than in substance.
We are all aware of the individual and spectacular successes of farm diversification. The manufacturing and marketing of yogurt and other value-added dairy products spring easily to mind. Those enterprises are nothing new. Yesterday, I was interested to see the Tyne-Tees "Farming

779
Outlook" programme which profiled one such enterprise, Calthwaite farm in Cumbria. The owners of that farm, the Pattinsons, are no ordinary farmers.
At one time the family owned a mill in West Cumberland. They moved to Calthwaite farm about 30 years ago and astutely identified a niche for themselves with the production of high quality dairy milk from pedigree Jerseys. That production made them exceptional. Later, they diversified into the manufacture of yogurts and other products. Currently, they are marketing those products extremely successfully throughout the north of England. They developed their business most skilfully and with great business acumen. They have constantly reappraised their business and, on one occasion, reshaped their venture—when they thought they were growing too quickly—by reducing their work force from 80 to 28.
I emphasise the example of the Pattinson family because they are aware of the need to re-assess continually the feasibility of their operation. In doing so they have made considerable use of advice from the Department of Trade and Industry. Does the Minister believe that the new farm diversification schemes will include advice from his Department or the Department of Trade and Industry? In the past it appears that the Department of Trade and Industry has given such advice. Let me emphasise that we are talking about business and industry and not so much about traditional farming.
The Pattinsons are not unique; there are many other examples in every county. For example, there is Longley farm, owned by the Dickinson family, in Holmfirth. However, it is important to emphasise that there are only a limited number of farms that can diversify into yogurt, dairy products or indeed tourist accommodation or golf courses. There are only a limited number of outlets for such activities.
To revert to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), one of the key difficulties that farmers might not appreciate is that they have traditionally been used to a guaranteed market, but in their diversified businesses they will normally have to fight for their particular share of the market. I do not believe that that can be repeated too often.
Mr. MacGregor indicated assent.
Dr. Clark: I note that the Minister is nodding his head and I am aware that the Government are aware of that difficulty.
Clause 1 makes provision for grants to be paid to farmers for feasibility studies into projected alternative businesses. It is significant that the Government have made provision for the payment of grants towards the capital expenditure of diversified business before making provision towards the cost of the feasibility studies. That is putting the cart before the horse. The Minister has been ill advised to rush ahead with the end product before he has allowed farmers the opportunity to benefit from the grant for feasibility studies.
One of the crucial issues in the successful establishment of any new business is planning consent. Numerous farmers have built up successful farm-related businesses only to fall foul of local planning or highway authorities at a later stage. The Minister is aware that often there is
780
no need for planning consent when a small business is getting off the ground, but at a later stage planning consent is necessary.
The classic case is that of the North Yorkshire farmer, Brian Moore, who built up his ice-cream business to such a successful scale that he was required to obtain planning permission. The objections to his operation did not come from the urban dwellers — the townies—who enjoyed visiting his farm shop, but from his rural neighbours who felt the negative effects of his success in the form of increased traffic and the loss of privacy. It is worth emphasising that farmers represent only a small proportion of our rural population.
We recognise that the successful development of alternative businesses on farms may have the potential for serious conflicts of interest. Will the Government make it clear that they do not countenance any weakening of the well-tried local planning system? That planning system has stood us well over time and I believe that it would be a retrogressive step if it were weakened.
I specifically ask that question because I know that the Government, are contemplating—indeed, the Minister mentioned it earlier today — limiting the consultation process with local authorities for any farm woodlands under 10 hectares. We believe that that is a retrograde move. For the long-term viability of the new farm ventures, whether business or woodland, we believe that it is essential that local approval and, if possible, consensus, is reached at the outset. That precludes difficulties at a later stage. I urge the Minister to consider that matter most carefully.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Is my hon. Friend aware that 10 hectares of forestry represents at least 25,000 trees? To allow 25,000 trees to be planted without consultation or without any local involvement in the decision-making is excessively generous.
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend has made a pertinent point. Ten hectares may be intrusive on the local environment, and one can imagine that in a particularly sensitive environment or landscape, which may not be in the accepted areas outlined by the Minister, even one acre may be intrusive. I believe that there must be much more consultation with local authorities.
The Minister may say that the Forestry Commission will be consulted. However, will he send a circular to the Forestry Commission to draw its attention to the requirement of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 that imposes a duty on the Forestry Commission to pay regard to environment and conservation? I believe that that would be a useful exercise.
Clause 2 deals, quite rightly, with farm woodlands. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has reminded us, farm woodland may greatly affect the face of our countryside. Obviously it is desirable to plant more trees and redress the loss of 40 per cent. of the broadleaved woodland that existed in 1947. Furthermore, we are still losing hedgerows at the rate of I mile for every daylight hour of the year.
Mr. Andy Stewart indicated dissent.
Mr. Hardy: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head.
Dr. Clark: I do not know if any hon. Member is seeking to argue about that statistic. It was produced by the

781
Countryside Commission in 1985 with finance from the Department of the Environment. They are not my figures, but the Government's figures.
More trees and farm woodlands would not only add to the aesthetic value of our landscape, but would enrich the habitats of our native wildlife. However, what type of tree should be planted, and where? Obviously, there is concern that our lowlands may be covered with a boring blanket of conifers. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has already raised that point. The Ministry has tried to avoid that. problem by offering larger grants for deciduous trees, but even then it is aiming for only one third of the plantings to be deciduous and has no power to insist on that proportion.
When pressed in the other place on that issue, the Minister refused to include in the Bill any clause relating to the proportion of deciduous trees to be planted. The argument was that 64 per cent. of private sector planting under the Forestry Commission grant schemes in lowland England was of that type. If private sector planting is currently achieving a rate of 64 per cent. of deciduous trees, and that is the going rate, why can that not be included in the legislation or in the statutory instrument? That would be logical. Will the Minister reconsider increasing the level and requirement of deciduous planting?
The Forestry Commission and private forestry in Scotland have an excellent record of allowing the public access to their land. As considerable public money is now to be invested in farm woodlands in lowland Britain, what proposals do the Government have in mind to ensure that there is adequate public access to those woodlands?
Clause 3 seeks to increase the membership of the Development Commission. I was interested to see that clause in a Ministry of Agriculture Bill. As the Minister said, we are pleased that the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture are working together. Would that that were always the case. We look forward to seeing a happy development along those lines. We agree that the Development Commission has a vital role to play in the revitalisation of the rural economy, and we are happy to support that move. However, we urge the Minister to ensure that at least some of the new appointees have wide environmental and conservation expertise.
While, generally, the Development Commission has a good track record, there is some evidence that of late it has been carried away by its own enthusiasm. I specifically have in mind its support of a golf course complex in rural Northumberland, which now includes the proposal to build 60 to 80 houses for permanent occupation in the green belt. Hon. Members will recall that that led to the famous gaffe by the Secretary of State for the Environment that there were no golf courses in the northeast of England. He was wrong. There are more than 90 in north-east England. The presence of a sound environmentalist on the commission might have helped to avoid that difficulty.
We give the Bill a cautious welcome, but certain aspects of it still concern us. In particular, we feel that it is too narrow and that it does not encourage the farmer to develop his own farming skills in an environmentally sustainable manner. Furthermore, we see the risk of stampeding the farming community into establishing diversified, farm-related industries which they lack the expertise and training to operate. By decreasing liaison with the local planning authority, there will be a danger
782
of increasing conflicts locally if businesses flourish and woodlands develop. There a re weaknesses in the Bill, and we shall seek to improve it at a later stage.
8.23 pm
Sir Charles Morrison: There are two characteristics of any debate about forestry and trees. The first is an expression of general hatred for the poor unfortunate conifer, and the second is a furious demand for the right of access so that people can see the conifers. I have never quite understood that conundrum, but it has happened repeatedly for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament. I shall refer to some of the points made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) later in my remarks.
The context of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has reminded us, is the over-production of agricultural commodities, and the consequent need to reduce agricultural surpluses. No one would claim that the Bill is, or will be, the last word on the subject, or that it will come anywhere near a solution of the problems of excess production, which stem from the amazing advances made in agricultural science, and those advances being put into practice by able farmers and skilled farm workers. Nevertheless, the Bill is another small step in the right direction of containing the output of food. Therefore, it is to be warmly welcomed.
The methods proposed for the reduction of output are, in clause 1, the diversification of farm businesses, and, in clause 2 the conversion of farm land into farm woodland. I should like to say a few words about each of those clauses. Clause 1 seeks to stimulate investment in a variety of alternative farm enterprises and to encourage effective marketing. Assistance is to be given to businesses involving horses, particularly livery stables and, in the uplands only, horses for hire. The general principle of giving assistance seems excellent, but why for horses for hire in the uplands only?
The demand for riding horses and ponies is huge and growing, particularly in areas adjacent to towns, some distance away from the uplands. Why is assistance not to be available nearer towns? If it were, it would encourage the removal of more good agricultural land from food production. That would cut surpluses more than in upland areas.
Horses and ponies, to a far greater extent than has yet been recognised, can help the Minister to overcome excess production problems. More people want to ride horses and ponies as a recreation; therefore, more horses and ponies need to be bred, and more acres need to be set aside for their keep and use. It is worth noting that even now, the latest national equestrian survey estimates that there are more than 1 million households in Britain in which someone rides a horse, and about 3·3 million people ride regularly.
The horse and pony breeding industry alone uses about 293,000 acres. Furthermore, labour intensity in breeding establishments is much higher than it is on general agricultural land, involving about one person per 23 acres compared with one person per 132 acres in agriculture generally. Thus, in addition, horse and pony breeding establishments are a good means of sustaining rural employment, and the demand for horses to ride is growing.
The little help that the Bill offers is welcome, but i7rom every point of view—above all from that of my right hon. Friend the Minister — if might be worth being a

783
little bolder. I must add that the use of land for horses will not be increased or helped unless the Government act to equate horse and pony breeding with other agricultural activities by derating it, as was the case from the mid-1930s until 1981 and the recent outcome of the Whitsbury stud test case when the courts decided, contrary to a 1930s judgment, that horse and pony breeding establishments should be rated.
There seems to be little point in encouraging better opportunities, as the Bill does, while elsewhere there are new deterrents to the breeding and maintenance or horses. I know that this is not a subject that can be dealt with in this Bill, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the deterrent that the newly imposed burden of rating on horse and pony breeding establishments has on breeders and the adverse effect it could have on possible alternative land use.
I have no doubt that clause 2 will be an encouragement to farmers to reconvert some of their land to farm woodlands. I was glad to hear from my right hon. Friend today about the National Farmers Union-CLA-RICS agreement. It is a credit to all those concerned, and undoubtedly it will be helpful in the achievement of my right hon. Friend's objectives.
I said "reconvert" some of the land to forestry, because it should be remembered that in times past much more of our countryside was wooded, incidentally providing variety, windbreaks and cover for wildlife. We import about 90 per cent of our timber needs, so it must be sensible to use more of our land for timber production. The environmental benefit is an excellent extra bonus.
I shall now deal with one of the points made by the hon. Member for South Shields. I must express my regret that in another place — and apparently so far here — the Government have remained unprepared to accept a new clause that would have provided a third method in their armoury of weapons aimed at cutting surpluses. That method goes under the terrible title of de-intensification. Putting it simply, it would involve a return to more traditional and simpler forms of farm production.
A variety of schemes could be considered, but, for the most part, they would limit, or even disallow, the use of fertilisers and chemical sprays. Clearly, organic farming would qualify and so would the conservation headlands that have been pioneered by the Game Conservancy Trust. Such schemes would have a double benefit. They would reduce production and be enormously advantageous for environmental conservation. In passing, I must give credit to my right hon. Friend for including conservation headlands in the Breckland environmentally sensitive area. However, their application could be much more general and beneficial.
The effect of the headlands in terms of the regrowth of wild arable flora is astounding. The seed bank, which still happily exists in the land, and the consequential effect of the germination of seeds from that bank on insect and bird life has to be seen to be believed. It is a pity that there is not a de-intensification clause, even of the Government do not immediately wish to make use of its provisions on the basis that they may wish to carry out more research before doing so. In spite of that reservation, I welcome the Bill for what it proposes and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on taking another step in the right direction.
8.32 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I ask for the indulgence of the House because I have not participated in an agriculture debate before. I hope that my interest in the Bill will become apparent as I proceed. I should like to congratulate the civil servants who drafted the Minister's speech because it gave new meaning to the old phrase about not being able "to see the wood for the trees".
The reality is that the Bill derives from the total failure of the common agricultural policy. It seems inconceivable that the Minister did not mention the fact that on television we hear of starvation in the Third world, while he is boasting that he hopes to reduce food production in Britain and that the Common Market will be reducing food production too. An incapacity to relate world needs and world resources is one of the great problems facing humanity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is also a Member of the European Parliament, told me that the CAP costs about £11–50 per family per week. That is to pay farmers to reduce production and to bring about—this new phrase—de-intensification. When the miners of south Wales object to six-day working at Margam, I shall advise them to talk about de-intensification. It is really a way of saying that if more people could be employed with lower productivity in economic terms, one is serving a purpose that the Government want.
The farmers are in trouble. One has only to listen to "Farming Today", which is one of my regular diets, to know how serious the problem is and why so many farmers have come to participate in the debate on the Bill tonight.
I read the Bill with considerable interest. In particular, I read clause 1. It talks about the power to give grants for
"the establishment or expansion of a farm business".
It talks about grants for
"the establishment or expansion, for purposes connected with the establishment, expansion or carrying on of such a farm business"
or
"the promotion of such a farm business"
or
"the marketing of anything produced".
The Bill began to ring a bell. It is the same as my Industry Bill of 1975. I have with me the very copy of that Bill which I took through the House against bitter Tory opposition. That Bill dealt with the establishment of the National Enterprise Board. It talks about assistance to make a grant and the
"assistance of the economy of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom;
(b) the promotion in any part of the United Kingdom of industrial efficiency."
It states:
"The functions of the Board shall be—
(a) establishing, maintaining or developing, or promoting or assisting the establishment, maintenance or development of any industrial enterprise".
That Bill was introduced by a dangerous man about whom I read in the newspapers from time to time—myself. The Bill was designed to deal with the problems in industry that have now hit agriculture. Community membership damaged our industry by exposing it to competition from the more competitive German and French industry. The common agricultural policy raised the cost of food in this country instead of adopting the old farm support scheme introduced after the war.

785
The Minister has drafted the first Bill for a Socialist Government in Britain. It is nice to have the Queen's Speech drafted for us by the Conservative party. I would make only two amendments to the Bill. The first would be to delete the words "Farm Land and Rural Development" and call it the "Development Bill", and secondly, so as not to make the farmers left out, because I sympathise with them as with others, I would add "and others".
The Conservative party has lectured the miners year after year for their failure to be productive or competitive and in the Bill the Government are subsidising—that is the word, and I have no objection to the idea—farmers, faced not with foreign competition, but with the absurdity of the agricultural support scheme that flows from our membership of the Common Market.
There is another issue about which I am concerned. I hardly dare mention it because it is so reminiscent of the nanny state we are supposed to be repudiating. That issue is the power of the Minister to
"impose requirements to be complied with by persons applying for the grants."
Local authorities are not allowed to do such things. They are not allowed to have contract compliance so as not to have to buy from South Africa. The Labour Government would no doubt use clause 2(2)(b) to
"confer a discretion on the appropriate Minister …
(c) to provide for the grants to be paid to persons on such terms as may be specified in or determined".
It is interesting that the Bill proves once and for all that this is not a monetarist Government. I never believed that they were. I never thought that the Prime Minister sat up at night with a cold towel round her head reading the works of Milton Friedman — however attractive, given the alternative, that might have seemed — before going to bed. The Government are paying their supporters for the support they depend on in the shires. The Bill reveals the Conservative party as having an absolutely simple pork-barrel view of how to get back into power.
Sir Charles Morrison rose—
Mr. Benn: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman. Short of the newly elected president of the National Union of Mineworkers, nobody could have done better for the industry of which he is a member.
Sir Charles Morrison: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his remarks with the fact that the Government have invested some £5.5 billion in the coal mining industry since 1979, at a rate of about £2 million per working day, and, what is more, plan to invest another £2 billion over the next two years?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should allow himself to be led down that path; it does not relate to the Second Reading of this Bill.
Mr. Benn: Like the cavalry, Madam Deputy Speaker, you save me from a tempting diversion, although I do not notice this Government now, at this stage, allowing food from South Africa to come in without restraint, which would automatically not be permitted under this Bill.
Why do the farmers need the money? It is partly because of the problem that I described and partly because tenant farmers are having to pay rising rents to their landlords for their land. As with all land, the price of agricultural land has risen very sharply. High land prices are creating the urban crisis of high rents in housing in the towns and pressure on tenant farmers in the countryside.
786
The money paid to farmers under the Bill will go in part to landlords. I again congratulate the legal department of the Ministry on explaining, through the Minister, the difficulty and complexity of landlord-tenant relations in agricultural legislation. If one wants to bring rents down, it would be better to bring them down by common ownership.
Lest any hon. Member should think that this is a new idea that has emerged from what is now known laughingly as the "Champagne" group of Labour Members, I remind the House that the idea of common ownership is a very old idea. The idea that the earth is "a common treasury" and that it is "a crime to buy and sell the land for private gain" goes back to the 17th century.
And for the benefit of the Liberal party—whichever of its factions is here today—I was brought up on Lloyd George's land song:
"The land, the land, the land on which we stand,
Why should we be paupers with the ballot in our hand?"
I therefore hope that I may be acquitted of introducing a controversial note by taliking about the common ownership of land.
The private ownership of land was the result of a medieval privatisation. I have been to the Library to look at the Enclosure Acts, under which common land was sold to the rich farmers, just as British Telecom, British Gas and British Petroleum were sold. It was the Enclosure Acts that took the common land and gave it to the landlords, who are now to have their rent subsidised through a grant, in the guise of providing money for woodlands.
I have introduced a little Bill, which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to read. Its purpose is to bring the land into common ownership—except for owner-occupied land, which is a different case. The rent of all the land in this country would amount to £70 billion a year. That would cover the full costs of the rates and the rate support grant. It would be the answer to the poll tax, which I understand my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are working on very carefully—and listening as they do it. The answer to the problem of the poll tax is the common ownership of land, which is in the constitution of the party of which I happen to be a member.
For all the reasons that I have given, I shall support the Bill with enthusiasm. If there is a Division, I shall go into the Lobby with the Minister, because I believe that what he has done, in a flash of rhetoric—albeit perhaps riot fashioned by his own pen—is to expose the nature of the Conservative party. It is a party that does not believe in free enterprise, in the Common Market, in monetarism or viability. It believes—as any party naturally would—in winning power. As Samuel Gompers once said:
"Reward your friends and punish your enemies."
This Bill rewards the Minister's friends and, meanwhile, his enemies are being punished in the mining areas of Britain. Incidentally, I never heard any argument about the environmental advantages of coal over nuclear power, although we have heard today the environmental argument for woodlands.
At this late stage in the third term of the Prime Minister, who is evidently going on for ever and ever, it is refreshing to find at long last that we know the true nature of the Conservative party. It has come out in the Bill and, if necessary, I shall be a Teller for the Ayes. Otherwise, I shall raise my voice loudly in its support and thank the Minister for the clarity that he has brought to such an important subject.
8.44 pm
Sir John Farr: I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument. He should be reminded that the reason for the success of agriculture, which has brought about the surpluses, is that over the past 10, 15 or 20 years there has been a massive annual increase in productivity.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman has turned his back; he will not even do Conservative Members the courtesy of listening. The present problem of agricultural surpluses has been brought about by the tremendous increase in efficiency and productivity year by year, which has left the coal mining industry and every type of manufacturing industry miles behind and in another street. That unparalleled success, brought about by intensive mechanisation, accounts for our problem of surplus. That is a far better problem with which to have to deal than the problem of shortages that we have in our coalfields, which means that we are having to import cheap coal from all over the world. I am proud of what British agriculture has done with Government aid.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on his important remarks. He referred in particular to clause 1, which deals with the diversification of farm businesses. He also said that it was necessary to get improved planning consent arrangements. As it happens, my reason for speaking is to illustrate to the House the difficulties that people who want to expand are facing in obtaining planning consent. In the east midlands, we have a very active branch of the National Farmers Union, which covers the counties of Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland. That branch has repeatedly had difficulties with local planning authorities which have failed to give approval for bringing redundant farm buildings into use again.
In December, the local NFU wrote to me about a case which came up a few weeks ago. One of my constituents, who often lets out work in his farm, has a large grain dryer which is a redundant farm building. His daughter and son-in-law have set up a computer business, which they run from part of the grain dryer. Planning permission was refused, and I was sent a copy of the correspondence. The Harborough district council's refusal, dated 19 December, relating to the conversion and use of the farm building for storage, offices, craft shop and workroom at Wood lane, Tugby is worth quoting to the House. It gives us an example of an obstructive local authority that has not changed with the times. The refusal states:
"The site lies in the countryside and the proposal is contrary to policy L/SE14 contained in the Structure Plan for Leicestershire … whereby development normally will not be permitted in such areas except where it can be shown that it is essential for the efficient operation of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, recreation, public utilities or tourism. The District Planning Authority is not aware of any special circumstances which would justify setting aside this policy. The site is prominent in this pleasant rural landscape and approval of the use proposed would have an adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality."
The NFU received the refusal in December and the group secretary, Mr. Theakston, asked me to raise the matter in the House because, repeatedly, local authorities, such as Harborough district council, continue to give adverse responses to applications to save redundant farm buildings from complete and utter dereliction. The purpose of this admirable Bill is to keep those old
788
buildings in use. We have entrepreneurs who want to retain the buildings in the countryside, but time and again local authorities bar them. In his letter of 16 December Mr. Theakston stated:
"In the meantime I am still interested in the principle of why the Government has made encouraging noises for conversion of redundant farm buildings to rural industry, yet this has not percolated through to local Planning Authorities."
It is all very well passing this Bill, but it is meaningless if there is a network of obstructive local authorities. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who replied on 27 January, saying:
"Since 1980 we have consistently urged planning authorities to treat applications for the re-use of redundant farm buildings sympathetically … . Permission for the re-use of redundant farm buildings should therefore be granted unless there are specific and convincing planning objections."
Clearly, my right hon. Friend must encourage the Minister for Housing and Planning to do more than merely "urge" local authorities to behave in that way.
The Minister has been kind enough to send me a couple of booklets—one published in 1987 and the other in 1985 — dealing with this matter. Both have been circulated to local authorities, but local authorities seem to be determined to turn their backs on what I regard as not progress, but maintenance of an existence. I hope that my right hon. Friend will urge the Minister for Housing and Planning to look again to see whether local authorities should not be more than just "urged".
I agree with my right hon. Friend on forestry. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) said about the terrible word "de-intensification". It is not a double negative, but a double positive and it could be improved on. It is a weapon which Ministers could bear in mind. I understand that in the other place a new clause on de-intensification was discussed and that the Government took on board some of the points raised. If a new clause were introduced in Committee, it would help with some of the nitrate excesses, chemical excesses the factory farming and outlook of agriculture and it would possibly reduce some of the worse excesses of the intensive farming system. A de-intensification clause would provide additional encouragement.
I welcome what is said about forestry in clause 2. The new payment of grants towards expenditure incurred in the conversion of agriculture land to woodland is long overdue and badly needed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree in Committee that some improvements can be made to the Bill. It would be helpful if there were a form of indexation for the payment of grants so that they keep pace with inflation.
I particularly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about co-operation between the CLA and the NFU and the agreement which has now been reached to make available to tenant farmers the available grants after agreement with the landlords through the CLA. I am also particularly pleased to welcome the four main objectives of the farm woodland scheme, which are to enhance the landscape, to encourage recreation and tourism, to contribute to supporting farm income and to maintain or stimulate rural improvement.
This is a good Bill and certainly it will not be opposed tonight. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing it.
8.55 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: I have waited nearly 15 years for the opportunity to debate tree planting. It has been a tradition in our family from my great grandfather down to myself to plant thousands of trees annually. I shall say a few words from my experience of tree planting in the less-favoured areas in the mountains of Wales.
To help the Minister and perhaps the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on their way —I should be a little worried if I saw them going into the same Lobby; I am sure that I would go the other way—over the past 80 years my grandfather, father and I have planted more than 10 per cent. of all the land in the less-favoured areas, and we have been able to increase our stocking rating over the years as we take more land out of production to plant trees. The simple reason is that sheep like shelter. We have planted small plantations of up to 10 acres, not hundreds or thousands of acres, and we have been fortunate in having grants from the Ministry. This year I shall go in for similar schemes.
About 20 years ago, when I was keen to plant about 20,000 Sitka spruce and Japanese larch on a particular piece of land, permission was not granted. Nevertheless, I planted the trees and today they are worth looking at.
The everyday reality for farmers is that they have to come to terms with a changing market and control of food surpluses. Following the introduction, with such indecent haste, of milk quotas, thousands of dairy farmers found themselves in heavy debt. The rural economy has been undermined seriously. Only last week, five creameries—one in my constituency and another in that of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)—were scheduled to close, with the loss of hundreds of jobs. I warn the Government that producers of other commodities face similar difficulties.
On behalf of hill farmers in less-favoured areas, I plead with the Minister not to dismantle the sheepmeat regime. Farmers are pleased and satisfied with it. It is a wonderful regime and it has been with us for decades.
We must welcome any attempt to help farmers and improve the rural economy. The Bill is a small step in the right direction, though it will not solve the problem of surpluses and not every farmer will be able to benefit from it. The Minister will find it difficult to persuade many farmers to go in for tree planting. I have tried to persuade many of my friends in Cardiganshire, but they will not do it. I hope that the Minister and his team will be more successful in persuading hill farmers to plant trees.
This is a constructive measure which has received general support from farming unions and conservation bodies. One criticism voiced by farming unions is the failure to find a way of including areas of permanent pasture which could qualify for the farm woodland scheme. Paradoxically, they are the areas where farmers are least able to diversify and where many farm incomes are coming under pressure.
I understand the Minister to say that he is considering giving farmers a chance to plant land that has been cultivated during the past three or five years. I am anxious that the planting of broadleaved trees should be encouraged as much as possible. I like, however, to see a conifer growing here and there— I have planted many thousands of them.
790
With respect to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), conifers have been criticised a little too much by many people. The Sitka and the Scots pine are beautiful trees if they are not planted too thickly. The mistake that has been made in Wales as well as in Scotland and England is that thousands of acres have been planted with conifers. It would have been better if those in charge of the Forestry Commission had planted, say, 1,000 acres, left another 1,000 and then planted the next 1,000, rather than plant all of a 10,000-acre plot.
There may not be sufficient assurances that the annual payments will keep pace with inflation. I believe that there is an argument for making the commitment to review the scheme a more positive statement.
Although my grandfather planted many trees, as did my father after him and as t have, I do not think that we have made one penny out of it. We like the trees and we will leave them. My advice to the Minister is to carry on with the planting. I shall give him all the advice that I can if he needs help, but I do not think that he does. Since he took office after the general election last year, he has not, with respect, given farming much encouragement.
I know that the Minister finds it difficult to persuade his counterparts in Europe, but farmers are looking for encouragement. We all shout at the farming community to produce less, but we cannot expect farmers then to produce less when they are offered no incentives—only a freeze at the annual price fixing. We cannot penalise the farmers and expect them to produce less. That situation cannot go on. I hope that the Minister will persuade the Prime Minister to give extra financial aid so that he, in turn, can look after the interests of the farming community much better in future years than he has over the past four years.
9.4 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), and I endorse very much of what he said.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in his place. His speech was such fun that one could not take it seriously. He told us that he starts each day by listening to farming programmes on the radio. He may well listen to them, but I fear that he understands and learns little from them. His speech was a treat of a grandiose Socialist extravaganza, but irrelevant to the debate.
I welcome the Bill as a quiet and relatively uncontroversial aspect of the Government's policy, which seeks to discourage the production of surpluses and encourage the creation of a more soundly based rural economy. The central points of the debate are well known to us and I shall be brief. I want to refer only to the farm woodlands scheme and its environmental and wildlife implications.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) referred to the exclusion of permanent pastures from the scheme. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knows that this worries the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. The measure will remove from the scope of the scheme one third of agricultural land in England and a higher proportion of agricultural land in Wales. It removes a great deal of the wetter, heavier soil of the west country and of the north of England, which are

791
among the best parts of the country for growing trees. In such areas, options for diversification are few and farm incomes are under greatest pressure. It is to be regretted that the scheme is not more widely applied, and I hope that further thought will be given to it, even at this stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) spoke of the need to index payments. This is an important point. I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to increase the amounts from his original proposal. I welcome the fact that he is prepared to review the scheme after three years and then at least every five years. The scheme will lack confidence unless this indexing can be achieved.
The need for annual review of a different sort has been put forward by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has contributed so much to debates about the Bill. The RSPB is surprised that the Bill makes no provision to review the effects of the scheme annually and the extent to which it achieves its objectives. The argument is for a statutory annual review. Taxpayers' money is being used and the environmental impact should be monitored. It can be argued that the scheme should have greater monitoring.
To be effective, the scheme must be readily available to tenant farmers. All hon. Members welcomed the statement at the beginning of my right hon. Friend's speech. I am glad that a formula has been produced, whereby tenancy agreements can be readily adapted. Unless the scheme is readily available to tenants, it will be seriously weakened.
I wish to make a number of observations about the implications for the environment and wildlife. Much fear has been expressed that the small areas of conservation value will be badly affected. The Government propose to reduce the consultation process for small developments of less than 10 hectares. The Nature Conservancy Council and others fear that less consultation will mean less protection. We still look for reassurance from the Minister that this will not be the case.
There is anxiety about the impact of the scheme on unimproved land, on which 3,000 hectares of planting will be targeted. That will benefit hill farmers and bring back to the uplands birch and oak woods, but the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says that those uplands are inhabited by important species of wild birds, especially greenshank and curlew. We look for more reassurance from the Minister that those interests will be safeguarded.
Much the same could be said about improved agricultural land of conservation value. Many improved pastures have reverted to rough grass and rushes. Those pastures are breeding habitats for many species of wading birds. We want reassurances that improved pastures will not be turned into woodland and unimproved land ploughed up, thus doubly damaging wildlife habitats.
I should mention a final point on o which we need clarification. In a letter to many Members of Parliament, the National Farmers Union expressed the belief
"that the exact mixture of broadleaf and conifer trees in each plantation is best left to local negotiation between the interested parties."
What does the Minister understand by the term "interested parties"? Are environmental organisations involved? On what criteria should interested parties base their judgment, and will those criteria include planned provision of wildlife habitat?
792
Although some points need further consideration, the Bill should be welcomed. Above all, in its implementation, the greatest care should be taken to ensure that the farm woodland scheme enhances the beauty of the countryside and effectively protects and promotes wildlife.
9.11 pm
Mr. Elliott Morley: As a Member of Parliament for a largely rural constituency, I give a general welcome to the Bill, but I also wish to mention the balance between the needs of the farming community and the environmental needs which we all share as a community. I hope that when he replies the Minister will clarify some parts of the Bill. On diversification in farming, will nature trails or wetland habitats in the form of nature parks be eligible for grant? Will the environmental impact on a scheme be carefully considered before, instead of after, aid is given, so that a scheme which may have an undesirable environmental effect can be rejected?
Hon. Members have talked about marginal land and ploughing up meadowland. Could a farmer receive a grant for planting trees and then plough up empty marginal land to plant crops, thereby not only receiving the grant for the woodland but retaining the capacity and defeating the purpose of the Bill?
I understand that areas of outstanding natural beauty will not count under the terms of the 10-hectare limit. That is a glaring omission from the Bill.
I see some benefit in granting aid for planting in severely disadvantaged areas, especially if it includes the planting of indigenous species, including broadleaf trees. But the schemes could affect the habitat of breeding birds in those areas, and some of the rarer species, including the merlin and the hen harrier, are under threat. The Minister will be well aware of the controversy that is raging in the flow country about the effect of such tree schemes on those habitats.
I am concerned that insufficient emphasis is given to the involvement of local authorities in the schemes. There has been criticism of local authorities that have stopped the development of rural areas and farm building, but local authorities have a responsibility to the whole community. While I am in favour of diversification, I am not in favour of it at any price. Local authorities should have a say in any sort of scheme; they should give their point of view and protect the needs of the whole community.
Hon. Members have mentioned monitoring of the schemes; annual monitoring is important, and it is also important that assistance be given to farmers who plant woodlands. For many of them it will be a new venture in a new business. So I hope that any woodland scheme will be staged and staggered so that when it comes to cropping the woodlands in the future, they will not all be cleared in one go, but in stages. I am sure that such advice is available to the people concerned. The Bill is an important step forward, but I would appreciate some assurances from the Minister on the points that I have raised.
9.15 pm
Mr. David Curry: I want to raise two themes that are important to the success of diversification generally and my constituency in particular —planning permission, which has already been aired at length tonight, and Sunday trading, which is important in the context of an integrated rural economy.

793
My constituency consists of large tracts of Yorkshire Dales national park. When growing trees there, conifers arc an important element as a nursery crop to afford protection from hostile weather to the broadleafs that are growing in association with them. My constituency also consists of an important part of green belt between Leeds and Harrogate in which, among many others, Mr. Moore lives — a fact which Opposition Members have mentioned. I think that he will fall on his feet at the end of the day, because he is an enterprising person. There is also some high quality arable land in the vale of Mowbray.
So my constituency is a microcosm of the countryside of Britain. If the programme of farm diversification is to work, it must work there. It is also a major tourist area of wilderness and urban fringe. Planning delays, perhaps more importantly than restrictions, coupled with Sunday trading, are in danger of being an unintentional instrument for the destruction of jobs and opportunity—precisely the sort of opportunity that the farm diversification programme seeks to create.
The national parks present their own problems, and the work of COSIRA and the Development Commission is important in that context. This Friday, I shall have the pleasure of presenting some COSIRA awards in my constituency.
The green belt is a harder problem. It is easy enough to read economic lessons on how anti-economic the effect of the green belt is, but there is a clash of legitimate interests in it. There are no villains; there is a lack of consensus, if that is not an unparliamentary expression, about what the countryside should do. It extends to relations between some Government Departments, although I am delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister that emissaries have been exchanged between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment.
We see the dangers and the problems when we read the reports of inspectors who have the misfortune of trying to adjudicate cases sent to them on appeal. In practice, they are trying to reconcile opposing advice. In trying to reconcile different interests, that opposing advice remains at odds. We do not want a landscaped people, with suburban Marie Antoinettes playing shepherds and shepherdesses in an ephemeral Ruritania; we want a working countryside. Equally, residents who have purchased for amenity have the right to expect that necessary developments will be sensitive to that amenity in scale and nature. Unless there are clear guidelines based on such a consensus, plans for rural development will sink beneath the quicksands of innumerable planning subcommittees.
If the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has sent emissaries to the Department of the Environment, I invite it also to send an ambassador to the Home Office, because Sunday trading is also an important issue affecting the rural economy. Shops in most small villages and towns are able to open for trading in the summer. The problem arises in winter because small shops which take perhaps as much as one third or one half of their takings on Sunday need to be able to cater for the tourist trade. That is vital for small shops. The villages are the focus of visits and the visitors then spread out to the farms and to the various other amenities offered by the farm diversification scheme.
Shops are at the mercy of an arbitrary and asinine law that shuts shops in one village and leaves them open in
794
another, and that closes one market square and allows another to trade. That is not the fault of local authorities which have no option but to apply the law once a complaint has been received. Perhaps the law has a right to be an ass, but it must not be an indiscriminate ass in its application. There is no point in farms setting up businesses that require retail operations if the law then closes them down on the day on which they are likely to do most of their trade.
The Government must not funk this issue. It is intensely destructive to the rural economy, especially in the tourist-orientated areas such as the national parks in the northern uplands.
When we talk about farm diversification, as often as not we are inviting the farmer's wife to take more responsibility, because a major part of the diversified activity may fall to the wife. I recommend that an emissary be sent to the Treasury to sort out the married worried woman's tax treatment. That is a major disincentive to farmers' wives to mount this sort of collaborative enterprise. A little help in that direction will do a great deal more than a whole string of marketing aids.
9.22 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister emphasised the co-operation between his Department and the Department of the Environment and certain other agencies. I am sure that we all welcome that. He devoted a good portion of his speech to clause 2. That deals with tree planting, and, as he said, we in Northern Ireland already have the necessary authorities and mechanisms in place.
I am mainly concerned about clause 1, which deals with farm businesses. I am sure that grants under this heading will be very welcome. What farmer has ever declined grant assistance? Farmers are an enterprising race, and most of them will make a success of their business, grant or no grant. Their main problem will be not finance, but, as some hon. Members have pointed out, the attitude of planning authorities. To some extent the Bill renders that attitude obsolete.
I do not advocate the wholesale scrapping of planning safeguards; I merely suggest the introduction of some common sense. Common sense has not always been very evident in some planning decisions. I shall give one example. A farmer with suitable premises opened a farm shop to dispose of his own produce. Seasonal fluctuations in supply forced him to purchase produce from other sources. Immediately, the planners pounced and finally ordered him to revert to own produce or close down. Then, wonder of wonders, along came Marks and Spencer with a planning application for a massive supermarket within a few hundred yards of that farm shop. That application has been granted. When I was asked for my view, I said that I would accept the own-produce restriction on the farm shop if Marks and Spencer could be required similarly to sell only goods produced on its new site.
In view of the Minister's mention of co-operation between Departments and agencies, I hope and trust that Ministers in the Departments concerned, who have a reputation for tenacity and fairness, will see that the Government's approach to this matter is a seamless robe.
9.24 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I wish to speak briefly in this important debate on behalf of the west

795
country, and particularly South Hams. As the House may know, my constituency, which is mostly south Devon, consists of designated areas, known as areas of outstanding natural beauty. Little of South Hams is not designated as such. Nearly 70 miles of my constituency are "heritage coastline": conservation areas, areas of great landscape value, sites of special scientific interest and, of course, part of the Dartmoor national park.
What has kept the area so beautiful? It has really been the farmers, who have done a tremendous job in looking after the land. What concerns me, and other west country Members, is how we are to find solutions to the problem of conserving such a wonderful part of the country, when the production and income of those farmers are to be reduced. If diversification grants fall short, how will the farmers maintain the area? They cannot be expected to turn into golf course pros or safari park attendants. Areas such as South Hams need special grants to protect them.
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister, when he replies to the debate, say whether he is considering giving grants to farmers who are farming areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as the lower slopes of Dartmoor? I do not see how such areas can be maintained on the present grant. If the Bill is fully put into practice, the planners will inevitably be under enormous pressure to relax their regimes. Many disused barns will be used for small craft workshops; hillsides will be used for modern housing and urban sprawl.
Ivybridge, a small town in my constituency, contained 2,000 souls 10 years ago. There will be 14,000 there by 1992, all just on the edge of the national park. That is the extent of the suburban sprawl and the pressure on the south: a 14 per cent. increase in the population of South Hams in the past 10 years. The pressure is increasing. Unless my hon. Friend is very robust, the diversification policy will mean that areas such as south Devon, which has been traditionally preserved by the farmers, will be destroyed by the farmers.
My plea to the Government is to introduce an extensive new category for compensation. Let the Government tell farmers in the west country that they are needed for their conservation work, and that my hon. Friend wants to see south Devon kept in pristine condition, with its rare beauty preserved. Will he perhaps declare as areas of outstanding natural beauty Britain's "farming preservation areas"? I know that we are very fond of declaring special areas, but could we at least designate such areas by another name than the de-intensification of farming? That term was defeated in the other place. We need a new name. We could vote on it, and then my right hon. Friend could say that he had won.
We must have a means of preserving south Devon and other west country areas as tourist attractions. We must preserve the countryside and find alternative land uses which, while they will not solve the farming crisis on their own, will help to solve it. Besides allowing farmers to get out of farming, the Government must encourage others to remain in farming to keep the countryside attractive so that people will spend their vacations in the west country.
That is my message today. Will my right hon. Friend act to preserve areas of outstanding natural beauty against destruction or neglect?
9.29 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). As an ardent conservationist, it would give me great pleasure to see an amendment to the wildlife and countryside legislation that recognised that, under the Government, farmers have become an endangered species. The hon. Gentleman might support that proposition in the Division Lobby. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter of great concern.
In many parts of Europe, there is deep anxiety about rural depopulation. It would be a great mistake to allow the present fearful situation to lead to excessive population growth and the blighting, destroying or disfiguring of attractive areas, when the scale of the problem could effectively be dealt with by greater emphasis on de-intensification. "De-intensification" is an ugly word, and the hon. Member for South Hams will recognise it as such. It is an ugly word, but it is one approach that the Government should properly pursue.
I noticed that the Earl of Cranbrook, whose father was of considerable assistance in respect of two or three of my private Member's Bills in the 1970s, put forward a cogent set of arguments in favour of that approach. I hope that a Ministry will accept that Lord Cranbrook's amendments represent a possible approach to the problem and a sensible arrangement. I do not say that the Minister's proposals are not acceptable. I am merely suggesting that other approaches should be considered.
The Minister may agree with the suggestion that the World Wildlife Fund has made to me. It suggested that the approach contained in Lord Cranbrook's new clause, which he unsuccessfully moved in another place, would be perfectly within the terms of EEC regulations. EEC regulations 1760/87 would allow the approach that the Government have so far rejected and might be an important arm in reducing the food surplus.
I have certain anxieties about the effect of the Government's proposals, which have already been aired by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who referred to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on whose council I serve. I shall not delay the House by referring to anxieties at any length, save to say that other hon. Members will refer to conservation bodies' axieties. I certainly hope that the Minister will take into account the points that have been made and seek to ensure in Committee that the anxieties that have properly been expressed and which are genuinely felt can be resolved. The Government will have to move some way towards an adequate and improved arrangement for consultation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) sought to intervene during the Minister's opening speech. He wished to make a specific and important point. He cannot be present, so I agreed to make it on his behalf. My right hon. Friend is the vice-president of the Association of County Councils. As my constituency contains a metropolitan authority, I must recognise that the Association of County Councils may have more representatives on Conservative Benches than on Opposition Benches.
The Association's concern is non-partisan, but it is serious. I referred to it in an earlier intervention. I pointed out that 10 hectares, which may be planted without any

797
consultation, can accommodate 25,000 trees. The Government are saying that someone can get 10 hectares of land and, without consulting anybody, can plant 25,000 trees.
Frankly, there may be some parts of the country in which the planting of 25,000 trees may be an advantage. There may be areas in which 25,000 trees may be planted and not many people will notice. However, there would be plenty of people in the constituencies of Labour Members — constituencies which we treasure more dearly than Conservative Members treasure theirs—who would be horrified if the Government allowed 25,000 trees to be planted without any consultation with or consideration for local authorities.
We have reached a pretty pass. Over the past three years, the Government have shown contempt for local government. Now they appear to be prepared to take on and ignore local government by allowing a locality to be disfigured. I accept that some Conservative Members will not worry at all. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) introduced the subject of Sunday trading into the debate. He might be prepared to swap Sunday trading for 25,000 trees in his area of Yorkshire.
Many of my constituents would bitterly resent the planting of 25,000 trees in their area and in the hon. Gentleman's area without consultation. I hope that he will not be bombarded by representations from all parts of Yorkshire if he supports this development, which is a cause for anxiety among local authorities representing the shires of England. It is because of the concern of the Association of County Councils that I hope that the Minister will pay heed not only to my comments but to the urgent point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton.
The Minister suggested that this was a limited debate touching on only some of the aspects of the problems of food surpluses. I have consulted farmers in my constituency, and they, like me, would welcome a wide debate in which we could consider the realities of our European involvement. The Minister suggested that the responsibility lies to a large extent with Europe rather than ourselves. We need a debate in which we can consider the implications of increased agricultural production, not only on a national or continental basis but on an international basis. Until there is international agreement with the United States on the price and production of cereals, the problem will continue to be serious.
If we are to consider the problem on a European scale, the Minister must recognise that the proposals made or practices followed by some other member states give cause for considerable anxiety about the arrangements that we make here. For example, the Minister well knows that the Italians have not introduced milk quotas. The French appear to be ignoring the system of dairy farming. The Germans have brought forward proposals for set-aside that make the Government's proposals—apart from the new ones with regard to certain kinds of tree planting—seem ridiculous. We cannot take a completely different view and operate on a lower scale of expenditure than our European colleagues.
I spoke in the Council of Europe Assembly debate on launching the North-South campaign last week. I largely reflected the view of the committee that I chaired with regard to forestry. We showed that the rate of destruction of forest in the world is such that the area of forest destroyed in the past four years equals the size of the largest European country. The pace of destruction is
798
accelerating. Given that fact, the Government must have our sympathy in tackling the problem of afforestation in a realistic manner.
I shall not suggest that our present dependency on £4.5 million-worth per year of imported timber can be ignored. We must match that dependency by increasing our timber production in Britain.
I am concerned that in this and in other ways the Government's forestry policy is largely irrelevant. We are talking about planting more trees on marginal and poor land. Perhaps we could increase our timber harvest through that policy, but it would be a marginal or modest improvement. We must increase our timber production, but not by using the poor land that cannot grow anything else and does not produce much timber per hectare. We must grasp the nettle and grow timber on grade 1 and grade 2 land. Those are largely the farms that produce the surplus and will remain untouched by the Bill. The debate —a modest one, as the Minister said—is irrelevant, to an extent.
I am not suggesting that we should turn 20 per cent. of our arable land to the production of standing timber. The Minister knows that the French have already embarked on producing cellulose and timber for industrial purposes. Once again, we are allowing a lead which we could have obtained to be surrendered to our continental colleagues.
We must afford a modest welcome to the Bill, not merely because it is the first obvious step in the spurning of market forces, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) reminded the House, but because it gives us an opportunity to debate the priorities that the Government should pursue. I hope that the Government will be sufficiently sensible to listen to the suggestions of my right hon. and hon. Friends, whether in the Chamber or in Committee, and to pay heed to the advice available from various sources, including the conservation bodies.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been commended by others, and it has basked in a little self-righteousness, in regard to its movement towards conservation. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)—I am not complaining about the fact that he does not take part in the debate; there are obvious reasons — shook his head vigorously to deny that hedgerows had been cleared at a regrettable rate over the past few years. I remember the Ministry blocking my Hedgerows Bill in 1982 and making it clear in 1983 and 1984 that it would continue to block the Bill if I presented it again. The reason that the Ministry advanced for blocking the Bill in 1982 was that it regarded the problem as largely resolved. I believe that it had not been resolved in 1983 or 1984. It was not resolved in 198:5, and hedgerows are still disappearing at an unacceptable rate.
If the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is serious about the timber policies that it is proffering in the Bill and is concerned with the environment, as it has suggested throughout the debate, I wonder what it will do when I again present a hedgerow protection Bill later this Session. Perhaps the Minister of State would like to demonstrate the sincerity or genuineness of the conversion for which credit has been sought. I wish the Bill well, but I hope that when it emerges from Committee it will be different. I trust that the proposals made by Lord Cranbrook in another place will have received rather more sympathetic attention in this House.
9.42 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the Bill. It is a welcome initiative. I had nearly thought to say that it was a modest initiative, but I appreciate, after some 30 weeks in this place, that the word "modest" must be used with particular care.
I wish to restrict my contribution to clause 2, on the woodlands, and ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to comment on three points. First, why restrict grant in most areas to arable and improved pastures and not extend it to permanent pasture? That disqualifies most of the land that it would be realistic to put forward as suitable.
I understand that the Bill's aim is to reduce agricultural production, but surely this structure will reduce the Bill's effectiveness. In the west country, most applicants under the Bill will be small farmers; therefore, their applications will be for small acreages of woodland. I believe that, since we are talking about just a few acres, the conservation aspect has been slightly overdone, important though it is.
Secondly, in recent years many new sawmills have been set up in Scotland, Wales and England, with all the latest Scandinavian technology, but we know from the latest Forestry Commission revised surveys that there is likely to be a shortfall of coniferous logs. If we are serious about timber production, we must acknowledge that fact.
My third point concerns the planting grants and the annual grants. Unlike the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I thought for once that I had understood the drafting of a Bill and was rather proud of myself. However, I had reckoned without the briefing from that centre of excellence from which no lies emanate, in Smith square, which confused me thoroughly. It stated:
"It was envisaged that during the first three years of the scheme the planting would be paid under existing forestry grant schemes based on the Forestry Commission's powers under the Forestry Act 1979, and that the annual payments would be paid by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is for these annual payments that clause 2 of the Bill provides."
That would seem fair enough for the first three years, although three years is the minimum and it may be longer. However, do applicants make an application under the forestry grants scheme in the normal way and then at a later stage apply to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? It seems a cumbersome process if applicants have to deal with two Departments. Indeed, if one must commit oneself in the first instance to a forestry grants scheme, and then apply for the MAFF annual payments, surely that will make it something of a lottery? The process should be kept as simple and as straightforward as possible. I would greatly appreciate my right hon. Friend's comments on that.
Notwithstanding those points, the Bill is a considerable step forward. The rewards to the nation that will flow from informed woodland management are significant and substantial. In some rural areas they will help to prevent depopulation and they will certainly help to keep local people employed.
9.46 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): As we have heard from hon. Members of all parties, the Bill is modest and must be seen in its proper context. Its limited aim is to tackle part of the problems created by the surpluses in some agricultural commodities in the European
800
Community. In consequence, therefore, it lies on the fringes of the problem rather than being on the centre stage.
As we have heard, the Bill introduces grants for farmers to diversify farm businesses and to encourage them to find alternative sources of income, other than in traditional areas. Although I can give the Bill and its proposals a cautious welcome, the opportunities for diversification are limited in areas such as my constituency. Traditionally, Wales has been dependent on livestock production and dairying. Due to our terrain and weather patterns, it is difficult for our farmers to move into other areas of production. That is why the impact of milk quotas has been so severe, especially in west and north-west Wales. The Government must have regard to those difficulties. Indeed, I suspect that in such areas the Bill will have a limited impact.
I find it difficult to be objective in this matter, but I believe that an element of subjectivity is important for an hon. Member who seeks to elucidate the genuine concerns of his constituents. Over the weekend I visited Llangefni creamery, where 46 people are to lose their jobs. That visit affected me deeply. We are told that the main reason for the closure of that creamery is the lack of milk due to the imposition of milk quotas. Those people at the creamery who now face the prospect of unemployment—some have given 25 years service to agriculture—have been given what they consider derisory redundancy terms.
Those workers will read the record of this debate and they will learn that farmers are to be given grant to diversify. They agree with that prospect, but they ask, "What of us?" They have also provided sterling service to the agriculture industry, but they are to be left with little after so many years of work.
Tonight we have heard a great deal about the need to protect the economy of rural areas. I believe that the plight of the creamery workers at Llangefni and at Felinfach in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) should be recognised by the Government. I urge the Government to ensure that grants are made available to those people who have served the industry well to enable them to set up alternative small businesses. I look forward to the Minister's response to that idea.
Clause 2 relates to woodland. It has already been said many times in the debate that the proposed scheme must be attractive enough to be taken up by sufficient farmers to make it worthwhile. Time will tell whether the rates adopted by the Government will provide sufficient incentives. I welcome the encouragement given to mixed woodland, which will contain a high percentage of broadleaved trees. Parts of the countryside have been spoilt by acres of uniform conifer plantations.
I remind the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North of a Welsh saying, which, translated into English means:
"When we do things, we do things in moderation."
When we consider conifer plantations I urge the hon. Gentleman that we do so in moderation. We must strike a balance between planting of conifer plantation and the planting of broadleaved trees. Having considered the provisions of the Bill and read the contributions made in the other place on Second Reading I question whether the Bill, in its present form, goes far enough to encourage the plantation of broadleaved trees. I hope that those provisions can be strengthened in Committee.

801
The Bill cannot be seen as the answer to reducing surpluses. In truth it is a minimalist Bill. The great problem to be tackled is the economic, cultural and social consequences of the change in agriculture. I hope that, before long, the Government will face up to that central task and bring proposals before the House.
9.52 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: I support and welcome the Bill. I do so as someone who had the privilege to work in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at about the time when these matters were beginning to be considered, so I would, wouldn't I?
The Bill can be defended on three separate criteria, which, as a Conservative, I would support as measures of Government assistance. The first offers adjustments to an industry facing a rapid change in economic circumstances; the second offers aid for starting up new activities within the industry; and the third recognises certain external benefits from the activities of agriculture.
Agriculture is distinctive. Most industries are conducted behind closed factory doors, but the production process of agriculture takes place in the fresh air and occupies 80 per cent. of the land surface. Therefore, it is of immediate interest to the public and to farmers.
I am pleased that the Bill, with its reference to the Development Commission, begins to move away from the concept that has been prevalent since the days of "Dig for victory", that agriculture should be the sole activity of the countryside and that industrial activity should, as far as possible, be pegged back and carried out on industrial estates in towns. The Bill can lead to greater diversification and variety, which is to the good of both.
I should mention two particular interests in woodlands. First, as a member of the Select Committee, I know that we have not yet heard evidence, let alone produced a report, but the Bill is a useful foretaste of what we shall be coming up with later. Secondly, as a farmer, I acknowledge that the Bill is directed towards farmers such as myself. I take a potential interest, as I may avail myself of the scheme later. Farmers who are not naturally knowledgeable about trees have not had to bother about them, but now they find that they may have a certain role in future.
It has been said, almost to the point of boredom, by the Government and others that the Bill is a modest one. It is entirely right that we should not try to oversell what it stands for. The Bill will not deal with agricultural surpluses. Taking out 36,000 hectares might, at best, remove one year's technological improvement in the industry. By the same token, the Bill will not deal with the timber shortage—certainly not for the time being, and, on its own, not at all. It will not reverse the downward trend in farm incomes and employment.
However, the Bill can make some useful contributions to agriculture. First, it can provide an alternative income on suitable areas of individual farms. The definition of marginal land is always somewhat slippery and confusing. It can be quite properly directed in arable areas, where the highest incentives are now to be offered, to farm areas that are less suitable or less convenient for cropping. Therefore, it can fulfil both roles. The second point is not often made in this context. In arable farming, it can spread the labour profile by giving the work force something to do in winter.
More widely, the Bill can increase the timber-consciousness of farmers, to which I referred in my own
802
case. In Germany, half the farms have a significant farm forest enterprise. If that is to catch hold, it will need more than the Bill; it will need a big thrust into the improved marketing of timber. I am pleased to see the way in which the timber industry has reacted to the crisis of windblow in the south-east since October. It will need greater exploitation and recovery of the existing desolated woodlands.
Finally, the Bill can lead to some environmental improvement. It will lead to improvement in game habitat, an important consideration for many farmers. I am glad that not only broadleaves are to be grant-aided, and that there is to be a graded scheme, because many working farmers may wish to avail themselves of it. It is appropriate that they should be able to plant conifers as a nurse crop and a cash crop while the broadleaves are growing up.
That leads me to touch briefly on areas of contention. I support hon. Members who have spoken about permanent pasture. The scheme is cash-limited and size-limited. It is entirely appropriate that, if farmers deem the part of their farm that is now in permanent pasture to be most appropriate, they should be entitled to use it. As for conservation, I have listened to speeches from both sides of the House and read submissions from the RSPB and the CPRE, of which I am a member. The difficulty is that farming has an internal and an external aspect. It is important that both are harmonised and kept in line.
I am not absolutely certain that the answer is to maintain the existing process of consultation through the forestry grants scheme, which has been argued by many conservation interests. It might be worth considering merely notifying, or perhaps the Forestry Commission could pass on submissions, but the Government should return to the matter and give it closer consideration. Perhaps they might consider the possibility of using the quinquennial review of the scheme not only to review the level of grant, but to review the general progress and tenor of the scheme and to work on it as the situation develops.
Both sides of the House want to help farmers and, at the same time, they want to help the countryside. We all want to ensure that the Bill is tailored to achieve those objectives.
9.59 pm
Mr. Calum A. MacDonald: I shall be brief, because there is another important debate yet to be held and time is marching on. I shall confine myself to one important point affecting the highlands and islands of Scotland. I say with genuine regret that I can give only a faint welcome to the Bill. It is not that I do not welcome the principles behind it; I recognise the need for diversification and I welcome the support that the Bill gives to that process.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords] and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords]
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Mr. MacDonald: As I was saying, I support the principles behind the Bill, albeit with the reservations that have been expressed by my hon. Friends.
I wish to focus on the fact that, for the crofting community of the highlands and islands, the Bill represents a missed opportunity. It is an opportunity that has been gratuitously lost. As it stands, the Bill is of academic interest only for crofters in the highlands and islands because, as the law stands, they will be unable to take advantage of the opportunity that the Bill opens up to diversify into commercial forestry. Crofters will not be able to take advantage, because trees planted on crofter common grazings belong, at present, not to the crofter but to the crofting landlord.
To correct that and enable crofters to participate in the woodland scheme would require certain legal changes that I believe could and should have been included in the Bill. In a nutshell, those changes would give crofting townships the right to own the trees they plant on common grazings, which already belong to the townships, thus enabling them to enjoy the economic benefits behind the scheme.
I believe that those legal changes could have been included in the Bill and I hope they might still be included. Surely it is unfair that crofters should be excluded from the opportunity to diversify. Crofters have already shown great commercial aptitude and enterprise in diversifying away from traditional agriculture activity. For example, in the past 10 years we have seen crofters diversify in a large way into aquaculture. Indeed, fish and shellfish farming constitute one of the great economic success stories of recent years. I have no doubt that crofters could make an equal success of commercial forestry if they were allowed to. They would not only be successful in developing it commercially, but would develop it in a way that would be sensitive to the environment and would genuinely benefit their local communities in terms of jobs and income.
I regret that the Government have failed to respond to the many entreaties they have received to extend the benefits of the Bill to the crofting community. I hope that the time and the opportunity can be found during the later stages of the Bill to make the changes necessary to correct that exclusion. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to that and not place obstacles in the way.
10.3 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I should like to join my hon. Friends in welcoming this small but important Bill as a step forward in allowing farmers to diversify from farming into other ancillary industries and tourism. It is to that aspect that I wish to address my remarks.
Perhaps I may reply to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who I thought had made a speech that was intended to sabotage the Bill. He spoke about the similarities that he saw between the Bill and the Industry Act 1975. He urged my right hon. Friend the Minister to follow him down the path that he took in 1975. We all remember the Meriden motorcycle co-operative, the Scottish Daily News and other success stories of the Act.
804
I am sure that anybody with any sense would wish to ensure that the Bill has no similarities with the Industry Act 1975 of late memory.
I was interested to hear that this is the first agriculture debate in which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has spoken. His ignorance shone like a beacon. I probably have more dairy farmers in my constituency than any other hon. Member. If my constituents heard the right hon. Gentleman say that land prices had increased and farmers were making a profit, they would be most surprised. In the past few years, the price of land in my constituency fell from £2,000 an acre to £1,200 an acre, and has only recently increased to £1,400 an acre.
The right hon. Gentleman showed his ignorance of farm incomes, too. The latest figures for farm incomes in Wales, issued by the Welsh Office this year, show that, in real terms, dairy farm incomes in Wales went from 100 on the indices in 1982, to 81 in 1983, 56 in 1984, 79 in 1985 and 83 in 1986–87. My constituents would be very pleased indeed to have the incomes enjoyed by miners in south Wales. I only wish that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield would speak from experience rather than ignorance. He said that he listened to the radio every morning. Perhaps he should listen to Radio 2, as he clearly does not understand the farming programme on Radio 4.
Both my points relate to clause 1. The first concerns planning matters. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have a word with the Department of the Environment about the need to ensure that local authorities take into account the changing structure of the farming in the countryside. Authorities should allow those involved in farming to diversify rather than obstructing them with planning regulations that do not even allow farmers to change to carpentry—as happened recently in my constituency. I should not have thought that carpentry, as a sideline pursued by a farmer's son, necessitated too much of a change in use, but nevertheless the move was blocked by the local planning authority. It is wrong, too, that we should have planning regulations that block farmers who wish to bring derelict buildings on their land back into use, as also happened recently in my constituency. That, too, goes against the aim of clause 1.
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will take account of the need for farmers to be allowed to advertise the businesses that they set up. For too long, restrictive conditions have been placed on advertising in the countryside. No one wants great big neon signs and advertising hoardings, but if farmers who diversify their activities are to market what they produce, it is important that they can advertise to attract passers-by who may come in on impulse and purchase their wares.
I wish to deal with the community charge and its effects on farming. We hope to extend the range of activities that farmers undertake. In my constituency, much of which is in the middle of the Pembrokeshire national park, and which has a large number of caravan sites, I have already heard from people involved in a small way in caravans, including many farmers, that if the community charge proposals go through—up to two units may attach to a second home—the amount that caravan owners have to pay may increase from £600 to £8,000 per site.
Mr. George Foulkes: Did the hon. Gentleman vote against it?
Mr. Bennett: Of course not. This is a matter of detail rather than a matter of principle. I wish the detail of the Bill to be changed, but I do not oppose the principle.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that, when representations are made about the community charge in Wales, we ensure that farmers wishing to have a few caravans on their farms are rated under the uniform business rate rather than having to pay individual domestic community charges. If we do that, and recognise that such activities constitute a business, my constituents will be greatly helped. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take my arguments on board.
10.9 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Like other lion. Members, I intend to brief, and like the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), I give the Bill a cautious welcome. While there is a consensus in the farming community and other organisations that the concept of diversification is worthwhile, the Bill will have a limited effect on marginal or less-favoured areas in the farming industry.
During the debate, it has often seemed as if diversification was a new concept to agriculture, but hon. Members must be aware that in marginal areas the ingenuity of the farming community has kept the community alive. In my area of Banffshire we have deer farming, peat farming, craft centres, pottery centres, knitwear centres, bed and breakfast, tourist centres and walks. All sorts of facilities are run by the farming community to ensure the survival of the rural area. Recently it was announced that the Highlands and Islands Development Board, in conjunction with the Crown Estates Commissioners, would develop the Glenlivet estates on that basis with an overall strategy and plan. All that is happening outside the ideas of diversification in the Bill.
Indeed, within the marginal areas, farmers are much more interested in what will happen to their hill livestock compensatory amounts and to the sheepmeat regime, when the devaluation of the green pound and interest rates will be discussed; and how we shall deal with the contraction of pig production in Scotland, particularly in Grampian region. A whole variety of issues affecting agriculture are not touched on in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will tell us that we shall have an opportunity to consider those issues in future.
I seek clarification on a few points. Have the Government made any assessment of the implications for the capital value of land of planting trees? It seems that effective agricultural land has a high capital value. That is of great importance to farmers who, for example, have overdrafts. The banks are interested in the capital value of their land. Will not land planted with trees decline in capital value? Despite the allocation of grants, there could be adverse financial effects on certain farmers.
The Minister said that an agreement had been reached on a model lease so that tenant farmers could benefit from the legislation. How will the grants be allocated between tenants and landowners? Perhaps it is too early to give us that information, but certainly I shall seek proper protection for tenant farmers, who have often suffered the burden of ensuring that a family farm is continued.
I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Western Isles that we should investigate how we can assist crofters.
806
Finally, on planning permission, many right hon. and hon. Members spoke about the environmental impact of trees on the landscapes and the overall impression of our countryside. Tree planting has implications for existing industries. As some hon. Members know, I spoke at length on that in the Committee on the Scotch Whisky Bill last week.
Extensive afforestation is affecting the acidity levels of water and that could work to the detriment of the Scotch whisky industry. The Ministry must be careful to take into account existing industries and existing interests when it considers tree planting, so that they are not affected adversely by any diversification scheme.
10.13 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: The aims of the Bill must be welcomed. Agricultural surpluses are a major problem and should be dealt with, but they must be dealt with sensibly. It is estimated that about 3 million acres must be taken out of agricultural production to deal with the problem of over-production adequately.
The Government's suggestions to deal with this problem centre around diversification, primarily into timber and tourism. The Government's target for forestry is 90,000 acres and immediately it is clear that that alone will have only a small effect on surpluses. There is a world shortage of timber and the Government are right to encourage farmers, particularly those on lower grade land, to move into forestry, but if they wish the scheme to succeed, farmers must not incur any loss of income.
There must, however, be proper provision to prevent the over-planting of conifers. The Government must encourage the planting of native broadleaved species, especially as many were lost during the recent storms in the south. The consultation document will allow 95 per cent. conifer planting on uplands and 65 per cent. planting on lowlands. Those quotas are far too high. More broadleaves must be incorporated, and conservation aspects must be taken into account. Woodland wildlife must be considered, as must the problems of acidification and the damage that it can cause the environment.
The Government are offering a grant for salaries in marketing activities. Will it be paid to members of the farmer's family? If it is not, it will serve only further to drive off the land the very people who have been brought up to know and care most about it. If family members are not included, the problems of the rural young unemployed will only be accentuated.
Diversification should not be targeted only at small and medium-sized farms. By doing that, maximum returns, in terms of reducing surpluses and preserving employment, will be lost. The change to diversification on the larger farm, where the majority of agricultural employment is to be found, will have a much greater effect on the preservation of jobs in farming.
Timber and tourism will not cure the problem of agricultural surpluses, especially in areas such as my constituency. Other methods are necessary for upland, often marginal, land, as the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) said. The Government show a lack of imagination in simply paying farmers not to work their land. It makes far more sense to pay them to farm less intensively. The Government should realise that the best method of augmenting farm incomes is making it possible for them to produce food in an environmentally sound way. Grants should be paid to farmers who, through a

807
positive effort, lower their yields while keeping their land in production and facilitating conservation. The grant should abate any financial loss incurred through that activity.
Conservation should be the key word when discussing the elimination of surpluses. Farmers should be paid to preserve their land. That is in the interests of the nation. The countryside belongs to the people. Farmers had traditionally been seen as the guardians of the countryside — until the common agricultural policy of the EEC encouraged the hectic drive for higher and higher output. It drove many farmers to damage the environment.
Now that production is to be cut, farmers must be helped into their role as custodians of the countryside. I am sure that most farmers would be prepared to see conservation as a legitimate crop, provided that the price was right.
Any legislation which involves rural areas must preserve, if not improve, the lifestyles of those who live and work there. Moreover, it must protect the interests of the nation as a whole. It must ensure that food prices do not rise. Just as important, it must ensure that the beauty of the countryside is left intact and that it remains accessible to those who live in an urban environment. Farmers' incomes must also be protected or they will not be able to co-operate in any scheme, and grants must always cover any income that is lost.
Tourism and timber should be encouraged, as should other types of diversification, but conservation must never be neglected and the agricultural worker must always be protected by adequate housing and jobs in the countryside. Rural people should be able, with Government assistance, to care for their land as they have for many hundreds of years.
10.18 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: We have had a wide-ranging and instructive debate. The proposals have received support, although some of it has been qualified, from both sides of the House. We have had speakers from every part of the British Isles. This bodes well for the Minister. When he introduced the Bill this evening, he said that he was looking for an easy passage through the House. He will get a swift passage, but I am not quite so sure whether he will get an easy passage.
Most of those hon. Members who spoke indicated their support. None spoke more enthusiastically than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He and I share an interest. He will remember that, in 1972, when he came to my constituency, which was then the constituency of his right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), he visited the Bedwas colliery just outside Caerphilly, and was made an honorary member. Needless to say, that was the first colliery to be closed after the unsuccessful miners' strike.
I reassure my right hon. Friend that the sentiments that he expressed, when he said that we must defend mining communities, are felt strongly and sincerely by those of us who still represent mining communities. We extend our argument to rural communities. It is because we believe in maintaining continuity of employment and because we recognise the need for the welfare and strength of our rural communities that we are supporting the legislation this evening. However, my right hon. Friend introduced an
808
interesting dimension to the debate. I look forward to his contributions in Committee when we discuss matters in more detail.
I wish to correct my right hon. Friend on one point. He said that the Minister will always reward his friends. That is why Conservative Back Benchers support the Bill. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider some of the accents that we have heard in this evening's debate, because the accents of the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), and for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and of my hon. Friends who did not speak in the debate—including the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams)—would have told him that the rural areas, certainly in the west of the country, are not the prerogative of Tory Governments. We enthusiastically reject Tories, just as the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield rejected Tories.
There has been general support for the Bill. Two qualifications have been raised. Some Conservative Members expressed concern about what was called de-intensification, which I prefer to call extensification. The hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and even my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield spoke in support of that case. The hon. Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made it clear that the debate will not be restricted to the narrow parameters set by the Government.
The second qualification concerns areas of outstanding natural beauty. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who spoke very movingly, but unfortunately was so moved that he is no longer in the Chamber, expressed his concern about areas of outstanding natural beauty, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth and for Glanford and Scunthorpe.
It is a pity that the latter part of our proceedings was interrupted by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). He was present throughout the debate, but it is a pity that he could not follow the tenor and tone of the debate and that he had to interrupt with a particularly ill-mannered and arrogant contribution.
The peripheral areas of Britain were represented by contributions from the hon. Members for Ynys Mon and for Western Isles. We must remember that parts of the western periphery of this country have specialised forms of agriculture. I hope that we shall debate the problems of those areas in Committee and that the Government will recognise those problems.
The Minister will have gathered from the comments made that the Opposition have some reservations about the Bill. We give it a broad welcome, because we support its intention of reducing surpluses and expenditure on surpluses and of providing opportunities for those involved and employed in agriculture to diversify their businesses. It will provide a new revenue grant scheme to assist in that diversification and annual payments to assist in woodland management. I especially welcome the second innovation, because, for the first time in the programme of support by successive Governments, we have a management grant to enhance forestry and woodland management practices.

809
However, the Opposition have considerable reservations about some aspects of the legislation. The Minister will have understood our anxieties on environmental grounds, but I shall make some additional points on which I would appreciate his comments. Our major reservation is that the provisions will have little impact on the current surpluses. The highest woodland grant will be £190 per hectare. That low grant will not act as an incentive to convert into woodland anything other than grade 4 or 5 agricultural land. It will not be enough to attract the cereal growers on grade 1 or 2 land to diversify from cereal production to the planting of woodlands.
Secondly, the scheme will be limited to 36,000 hectares over three years. The National Farmers Union talks about taking out 1 million to 1.5 million hectares of land, so taking only 36,000 hectares out of production for this purpose is inadequate. I have no doubt that during those three years, developments in plant-breeding techniques and other technology will more than offset the loss of 36,000 hectares from production.
Mr. Foulkes: Chickenfeed.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right; it is chickenfeed.
When Baroness Trumpington introduced the Bill in the other place, she called the capital grants scheme the core of the new scheme. When the Committee discussed the statutory instrument relating to the scheme, I challenged the Minister as to whether 342 separate applications would dry up the financial resources available. The Minister conceded that that was true. If he is presenting a brand new scheme, and if its intention is to attract sufficient applications from farmers to diversify into many other activities, and to reduce the present massive surplus, I must tell him that 342 separate applications, which is all that resources will allow, will not reduce the grain mountain by even a shovelful.
The provision of the diversification or woodland grants does not depend upon the recipients reducing overall production. I welcomed the consultation document produced by the Minister some time ago. The set-aside proposals required that an individual participating in the scheme should reduce production in his holding by 20 per cent. Unfortunately, the Minister has not adopted that provision in either of the two grants that are now available.
The scheme would be improved, certainly in terms of achieving its objective of reducing surpluses, if the Minister said that any individual who received a diversification or woodland grant would be expected to reduce overall production in his holding. Under the present scheme, it will be possible to take advantage of the woodland grant and to increase production in the holding by more intensive farming. I know that our anxiety is shared by some Conservative Members.
In Farmers' Weekly in December, a journalist summed up our anxieties adequately when he said of the scheme:
"However, while the scheme is a positive step in the right direction to cut EEC agricultural over-production, I fear that it will have little impact on either surpluses or farmers."
That is a fair summary of our concern about surpluses.
My last major area of concern is the environment, and the fact that the Government have not taken advantage of the opportunities that the moment has presented. In the guidelines on the legislation that we have gathered from the debates in the House of Lords and from documents produced by the Government, there has been little attempt
810
to protect or enhance the environment, using the opportunities that these new circumstances permit. Why have the Government excluded areas of outstanding natural beauty from the special areas on which consultation will continue?
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth mentioned consultation. Last week I asked the Minister:
"what consultation procedures will precede the payment of grants under the proposed farm woodland scheme; whether they will apply to all applications; and if he will make a statement."
He answered part of the question and said, in conclusion:
"However, in areas such as sites of special scientific interest, environmentally sensitive areas and national parks existing arrangements would continue to apply."—[Official Report, 26 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 176.]
Why, if the environment in all those areas is so sensitive as to require consultation, have the Government excluded areas identified by the Countryside Commission and accepted by the Government as areas of outstanding natural beauty? That question was put in the House of Lords, and I put it again to the Minister now. What are the Government's intentions in respect of areas of outstanding natural beauty? Will the consultation procedures apply to them, or will they be excluded? If they are excluded, why will the procedures apply to all those other special areas and not to them?
We are now in the paradoxical position in which an application for a planting grant alone for, say, eight hectares, will be subject to consultation, but a similar application accompanied by an application for a management grant will not. That is nonsense: it means that the more public money goes into the scheme, the less consultation there will be. That is unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) raised another point about the environment, reading well from the RSPB brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe spoke knowingly about it, too, because he understands the RSPB brief. There are no safeguards to prevent the bypassing of the schemes's guidelines. Why, for example, can a farmer who ploughs up land in one year apply the next for a planting grant, on the grounds that the land has been under cultivation? There is no provision for a cut-off point to allow the Minister to prevent that, and it would be a flagrant abuse. The areas that we are discussing, the marginal upland parts of Great Britain, have a particular attraction by virtue of their aesthetic beauty and the birds and other forms of wildlife that live in them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North spoke partly in defence of Sitka spruce. Under the proposals, an area larger than 20 acres in an area of outstanding natural beauty can be 95 per cent. planted with conifers, without consultation. That, too, is unacceptable; I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is nodding his agreement to that. If not, I shall relay to the House the conversation that I had with him before the debate started. I asked him whether he would be speaking on behalf of the alliance, the new party, the Liberal party or himself. He said, and I paraphrase, "Well, you know me, boy. I have always spoken for the Liberals, and that is who I shall speak for tonight." No matter about the earth-shattering political developments over the last couple of weeks; and in spite of the proposed new alliance, we have the

811
consolation of knowing that the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is still speaking for the Liberal party.
We shall seek amendments in Committee, and I hope that we have given the Minister sufficient food for thought to realise that there is support for the Government's proposals but that it is not unqualified. We are anxious to ensure that there are no abuses and that there are adequate environmental safeguards. For the last year or two, farmers have been in a mood of despair and despondency. The Minister will be gratified to know that I do not hold him totally to blame for that despair. Agriculture is at a crossroads and we are presenting our farmers with major challenges. If the Government are to preside over that period of change, they will have to give a lead to the farmers and to people in rural areas.
I am concerned that the legislation is limited in scope. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that it is part of a comprehensive package and one of many schemes. I understand and accept that, but I hope that, as the debate unfolds, farmers will be given a more positive lead and a more positive clue about the way in which the Government wish them to go. We shall look to the Government to give firm evidence of their intentions.
I know of the role played by the Minister in the discussions in Europe. He has received our assurance that, on stabilisers, he will receive our support. I am sure that he values that. It must be of great satisfaction to him when he tucks himself up in bed with his cup of cocoa. We shall continue to support the Government, provided that they give evidence that they will effectively tackle the structural imbalances in agriculture in the United Kingdom. That guidance must protect not only our farmers but the countryside. The Minister will be glad to know that we do not propose to divide the House on this matter. However, I shall join in the dispute with him in Committee on some of these matters.
10.37 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for much of what he said, and particularly for his tribute to the blameless home life of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in Brussels the cup of cocoa normally arrives at about 4 o'clock in the morning rather than at a sensible time.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's comments about seeking the authentic voice of Liberalism. I was surprised that he lighted upon the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), because I thought that I had heard that authentic voice in the speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). On every possible occasion he used the phrase "on the one hand … and on the other". He said that on the one hand we do not want planning arrangements to be too loose, but on the other hand a gentleman selling ice cream was in great difficulty. He said that on the one hand we must not have too many trees because they would be intrusive, but on the other hand there is a great need for trees and we must have as many as possible.
The hon. Member for South Shields started by complaining about the Bill, which is about farm woodland, because it did not deal with organic farming.
812
We also heard a great deal about de-intensification. I was surprised to hear complaints about the Bill because of what is not in it, when the Bill is not designed to deal with those things. It is a modest Bill, in the sense that its purpose is to fill in the areas in which we do not have powers to do things that we need to do in terms of farm woodland and in one area of farm diversification.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) that his pressure for de-intensification to be part of the Bill is understandable. However, I hope that he will look at two things. First, he should look at what is being done on the proposed extensification scheme and, secondly, he should look at the discussions presently taking place in the European Community. We felt that it was a mistake to bring forward further proposals in that area when discussions, still continuing in Europe, would make a great deal of difference to what we were able to propose.
It is also true, of course, that we can do most of the things that we want to do in any de-intensification scheme under existing legislation or by secondary legislation, and we do not need extra powers at primary level. The Bill is largely concerned with the primary legislation that we do not have at the moment.
Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way. We have covered a great deal of ground. I have many answers to give, and I shall try to give them.
I have considerable sympathy with the concern that my hon. Friends have raised about horse and pony breeding. We are carefully examining the matter at the moment. Many changes have recently taken place, and they will need further investigation. I understand the points that were put forward. [An hon Member: "The right hon. Gentleman is a Liberal."] No one has ever accused me of that before. I shall save it for the next opportunity that arises.
After my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, we heard the authentic voice of Socialism from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). We must thank him for choosing an agricultural debate for the moment of reemergence. It is of particular help that his election campaign began here. We shall remember that. I shall be critical of two things that he said. I hope that he will forgive my criticism, but it is an important point.
It is an entirely out-of-date argument to suggest that, if only we could export the over-production of agriculture in the developed world to the developing world, we would do something fundamental for the problems of the hungry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will agree that Oxfam and all other major charities quite clearly say that they do not want food aid as a permanent part of the picture. They want help for countries to produce their own agricultural products and make sure that they are able to meet their own needs. One of the things that undermines them—
Mr. Frank Cook: In the meantime, the starving need to be fed.
Mr. Gummer: We are discussing a serious matter. It is not appropriate to shout from a sedentary position. Some hon. Members care about the matter too much to shout about it in such terms.
The real problem at the moment is that many foreign countries — the poorest countries in the world — find

813
their agriculture undermined by over-production in the West, which is then exported at low prices and makes it impossible for agriculture in such countries to work. One of the major reasons for the need to reduce production in the Western world is to give a fair deal to those who are trying to produce in the Third world. It is a serious matter, and we must address it. Frankly, we cannot do so with the out-of-date views of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
The right hon. Gentleman also tried to compare agriculture with the coal industry. One of the differences is that agriculture has been a fundamentally successful industry in enabling us to compete with other countries. We are not in the difficulty of having an industry that needs considerable restructuring because of its production patterns. We are in the difficulty of having an industry that has been so successful that it is able to feed all those who need its food, yet, at the same time, is asked to look after the land and care for the countryside. All that we are trying to do with the Bill and with other measures is give farmers an opportunity to continue to care for the countryside. After all, they are, and have always been, the first line of conservation.
I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman repeated his belief in the common ownership of land. We shall make sure that no one fails to know that that is still part of the basic tenets of Socialism, and we shall remind as many people as possible. It will have the same electoral effect as it has had since the 17th century. It did much to bring back the monarchy, it has done much to support Conservative Governments down the ages, and we shall make sure that it will continue to do so.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) for his tribute to farmers and his point about planning permission. I inform the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that the problem that he raised about the north of Ireland is exactly the same as that in my constituency. We all heard his words. He said that things in Northern Ireland are different in that they are exactly the same.
There is a great need for some local authorities to remember that the countryside is a workplace; it is a place of employment. It is a place where, if it is to be alive and not a museum, there must be jobs for people—jobs not just for farmers but for farm workers and for ex-farm workers. Unless local authorities are prepared to recognise that it is a workplace, that as such it has as great an importance as many of the other demands that are made of it, including the demands of those who have chosen the countryside as a place of retirement, and to accept that a balance must he achieved between them, there will be many unemployed people who need not be unemployed. The countryside will be artificial and false, not the real countryside that springs from the working population that lives there.
Mr. Ron Davies rose—
Mr. Gummer: I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, to which I should like to reply. No doubt in Committee we shall be able to go into the matter in more detail.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North defended the conifer. I do not want to talk of the conifer in an idealistic way which fails to refer to those marching series of trees, which all of us have seen in many
814
parts of the country, and which the Forestry Commission and others would now admit was not the right way to produce a forestry industry. The hon. Gentleman was right to correct the balance. In the area in which I live, some of the best views are enhanced considerably by conifers. It would be wrong to pretend that all conifers are ugly or that they cannot be planted sensibly.
One must ask how best to do it. It is difficult to achieve a balance, but how does one encourage farmers who have not been foresters in the past to begin to plant trees? One must ensure that the system is not so complicated that they will not begin to try. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) that they will have to make one application, not two. The application will be considered by the Forestry Commission and the Ministry because the needs and responsibilities of each are different.
That is why we have tried to make the consultation system rather simpler. We felt that, if we wanted to encourage people to go into Forestry for the first time, they should not be confronted by a vastly complicated means of so doing. Naturally, they are reserved about the concept of someone else telling them whether they may plant a particular crop. If farmers are to perceive forestry in small areas as a crop, which is what we want, there must not be a special arrangement for this crop that makes it completely different, much more complicated and very much more frightening than other crops.
I understand Labour Members' concern about this matter. It was for that reason that I was particularly careful to meet representatives of all the environmental bodies, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and listened to them most carefully. If we find, in our review in three years' time when we reconsider the matter, that any of the fears that have been advanced are seriously justified, we will have to think again.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was right about the problems with regard to the 25,000 trees and of the tenant farmer. However, in every case, permission must be granted. The grant will be given by the Ministry, and it will be possible for us to say, and we shall do so, "It is unsuitable in these circumstances." The Forestry Commission will be able to say, "It is unsuitable in these circumstances." The mix that is offered is one that the Forestry Commission can refuse.
All these matters are built into the arrangements. If we ask farmers to have a prescription that is so particular and detailed and demands so much negotiation and discussion and say that there must be so many broadleaved trees, whatever the circumstances, we shall defeat the object of the Bill.
Mr. Hardy: Many of us have a high regard for the Forestry Commission, which the Minister will share. It is particularly concerned about production rather than some of the other aspects of tree planting. If the Minister will not give way on consultation, will he ensure—this point has been made by one or two hon. Members — that members of the Development Commission will adequately reflect the conservation interest? If not, the alarm will be raised very much earlier than the three-year period that he referred to earlier.
Mr. Gummer: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. That is not within my gift, but I shall ensure that the point is made clearly to those whose gift it is.
The Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are concerned about this

815
matter. We take the same view. We are looking at the environmental impact. We have made it clear that that is part of what we are trying to do in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) talked about the indexing of payments. I am fundamentally opposed to indexing any payments in those circumstances. That is not a helpful way of proceeding. We must say that we will review the payments after the first three years and then regularly after that. That is the way to proceed.
I am unhappy about indexing. Sometimes circumstances will dictate a different choice. An annual review would provide for too short a time to measure the impact. We have said that we will review it in three years and then every five years thereafter. That will mean a better balance when seeing how it has panned out. Tree growing is a long-term matter, not one that can be easily dealt with as quickly as my hon. Friend suggests.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) talked about the monitoring of the scheme. We shall monitor it, although I do not think that it would be right to do so annually. Grants can and will be withheld if we feel that the circumstances mean that they are an intrusion into the environment.
I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on Sunday trading—we might have some difficulties in that — but I share his concern about planning. I should like to underline what he said about the farmer's wife being a key figure. Clearly, she has been taking the lead in diversification.
Mr. Foulkes: That is sexist.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made clear the need for a diverse society in the countryside. We are trying to carry that through— [Interruption.] There is very little that is sexist in saying that farmers' wives are female, but the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has this difficult problem with which to cope. As he has not been involved in the debate and so far has intervened several times, as usual, from a seated position, perhaps we can leave it there.
The hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred to crofting communities. Such communities are more appropriately a matter for a Scottish Bill. We felt that, if we went into that,
816
we would open this Bill very much further, but I take the hon. Members' points on board and will ensure that the Scottish Office considers them.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that finance would allow for just a very small number of people to be covered if they all asked for the maximum amount and all received it within the right time in exactly the same period. Of course that is possible, but it will not happen. Even I would be prepared to take a very small bet on the fact that it will not happen in that way. Many of the hon. Gentleman's other points are worthy of much more consideration, but that is not one about which I would be concerned.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly raised an important point on areas of outstanding natural beauty. We made a list of places in which we would continue the present consultation procedures. It is no secret that we are considering whether the present consultation procedures in every case are exactly suitable. The hon. Gentleman need not worry. It will be a matter that the Government as well as the Opposition will bring up in Committee, so the hon. Gentleman need not think that it must be pressed now.
The debate has shown general and widespread support for this proposal. Both sides of the House accept that this is only part of a package which is necessary to deal with the problems of over-production, to contribute more towards the improvement of our environment and to ascertain whether we can put something by to meet future timber needs. These are all things that we believe to be good in themselves. They are not anything like the whole package, nor do they go as far as some would like. I remind the House that, as with environmentally sensitive areas, we proposed a relatively small scheme to begin with; we found it rapidly to be a success; and we were able to expand it. The principle of experimentation, of seeking to do enough to learn, is the way in which we should proceed with all these new aspects with which we are concerned.
We can see that the Bill gets off to a good start, with support from both sides of the House. No doubt, in Committee, we shall be able to be a little more tetchy with one another and a little more strongly opposed in order to achieve what I hope will be a major and important step in the changing face of British agriculture.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords] [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Motion No. 3, the money resolution.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Mr. Deputy Speaker —
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is as on the Order Paper—
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I stood to speak on the money resolution and shouted out several times. Therefore, I request that you call me to speak on it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I had not noticed him. I will reverse engines and call him. Mr. Cryer.
Motion made and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any grant paid by virtue of a scheme under that Act; and

(b) any administrative expenses incurred in consequence of that Act by the Secretary of State or by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

10.55 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I take the view that the House should not let money resolutions go through just on the nod. I shall not take up much of the House's time, but a Bill which provides no calculations and which specifically provides for payments to be made under subordinate legislation should not go through without questioning.
The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
"The Bill only provides enabling powers but the subordinate legislation when implemented will entail an increase in public expenditure and probably in public service manpower. The amount will depend on the resources available, the rates of grant, the uptake of the schemes and other factors."
As the Minister said that this was a "modest" Bill, the Government should have some idea of the amount of public expenditure involved, because once the Bill is through this place, that matter is left entirely to the Minister.
The money resolution states:
"That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament".
It goes on to list the grants and other administration expenses.
During his opening speech on the Bill, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told us that the grants will be at varying rates—at 25 per cent. for capital grant and at 50 per cent. of the cost of feasibility studies. However, the Minister can presumably vary that proportion if he so chooses, because he is empowered to make that authorisation under subordinate legislation.
In winding up, the Minister of State said that there will be simple applications and that farmers will be encouraged to make those applications. I do not suppose that anybody will object to that, but the fact is that that will mean
818
potentially greater public expenditure. The Government do not do that, for example, for supplementary benefit applicants. They do not say, "'We want to make it as simple as possible. We are going to encourage people to make applications." Indeed, the Government criticise Labo urcontrolled local authorities that do encourage applications for supplementary benefit. 'They make that argument because there is a great deal of expenditure in the supplementary benefit vote.
Therefore, what concerns me is that, if the Government are to make applications simple and encourage them, they should have some idea of the total expenditure so that, if it is coming to an end, they can tell the farming community that there is not a bottomless pit and that grants will be curtailed because the amount of money that has been allocated is not unlimited. It is that authority that causes me concern.
In, for example, the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill which went through this House recently and cut grants to manufacturing industry in the regions —areas of high unemployment—the financial effects of that Bill were specifically set out. They stated:
"Planned expenditure in 1988/89 is approximately £210 million, falling away to approximately £115 million in 1990/91."
Admittedly it is easier to calculate expenditure than to calculate the amount that will be spent. Surely the Minister would not accept that the Department of Trade arid Industry is more accurate in making those calculations than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am sure that MAFF is used to dealing with the large amounts of subsidies that have gone, in a variety of ways, to farmers throughout the post-war period and certainly as a result of the CAP. Indeed, MAFF has an enviable reputation for providing advice, support and guidance to the farming community. It is important that MAFF provides that help — it did so between 1939–1945 and has done so ever since. Farmers do not stand alone in the market place, in competition, without Government intervention.
Given the Ministry's knowledge, surely some calculations have been made about the amount of expenditure, the number of farmers likely to be affected and the sort of grants that will be made. After all, clause 1 tells us about the proportion of grants–25 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively—that will be entailed in the Bill, and they should give the Ministry some idea of the expenditure.
I do not intend to oppose the money resolution, but I simply wish to place on record the fact that I believe that the Government should provide an explanation for the expenditure and calculations should be made. Such information should be included in the explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill; if it is not included it makes a mockery of the term "financial memorandum".
11.1pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I wish to ask the Minister a straightforward question: how much money has the Ministry got the Treasury to agree should be expended in the first three years operation of the Bill? We are told that it is not an open-ended commitment —those who get it will be the first to apply. Therefore, figures must have been agreed with the Chancellor before the White Paper was published. How much money has the Treasury agreed that the Ministry can spend on this measure in the first three years of its operation?
11.2 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that there is £1 million a year for farm diversification, which is cash-limited. By 1990–91, we expect to be talking about £10 million for the farm woodland scheme. Obviously, if we made alterations thereafter to the rate of grant, there would be a different figure, but that is the nature of trying to make long-term arrangements for forestry. If we want people to grow trees, we must accept that that takes a long time. Therefore, any financial arrangements must take that into account.
There is also £3 million for capital grants that are not specifically in the money resolution, but which have close associations with it. That which is not cash-limited is hectarage-limited. There is no cash-limiting in the long term for the farm woodland scheme, so we have said how many hectares should be covered. That represents a clear financial commitment.
820
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has such great concern about cash limitation and about what the Government are spending, given that the taxpayer has to pay. I look forward to the many occasions on which I shall remind him of his speech. It is not a speech that comes well from an hon. Member who is normally making unlimited demands on the public purse.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any grant paid by virtue of a scheme under that Act; and

(b) any administrative expenses incurred in consequence of that Act by the Secretary of State or by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
11.4 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This modest but valuable Bill was welcomed by both sides of the House on Second Reading. The discussions in the full and comprehensive Committee stage underlined the support for the measure. No amendments were tabled. In the circumstances I do not propose to take up the time of the House at this hour, which is rather later than we were anticipating, with a long speech. However, I shall gladly try to respond to any questions or points that have not previously been put.
As the House will by now know, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency will stimulate private investment in developing countries through the provision of contracts of guarantee against defined political risks. It will also provide technical assistance for investment promotion. Therefore, it should help the social and economic development of developing countries. That is an aim which I know is supported by both sides of the House.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable us to give effect to the MIGA convention by ratifying it. On Second Reading I told the House that 20 countries with about 23 per cent. of allocated shares had ratified the convention. Since then, the number of countries has grown to 23, and their shareholdings to 25 per cent. Britain's allocated shareholding is just under 5 per cent. An early ratification by the United Kingdom would, therefore, bring the total shareholdings of the ratifying countries to the trigger level of one third which is needed for the convention to enter into force.
Once again I confidently commend the Third Reading and I express my gratitude to hon. Members from both sides of the House for the support which they have given the Bill so far, and which I hope they will continue to demonstrate at some stage tonight.
11.6 pm
Miss Joan Lestor: Like the Minister, I have no wish to delay the House for more than a few moments on the Third Reading of the Bill and the ratifying of the convention. After the amicable Committee stage I should stress again that MIGA can play its part in offering a degree of confidence and security to investors in the developing world. However, poverty, hunger and disease are the main causes of the economic instability that investors fear. Although MIGA can definitely play its part, without a conscious and sustained effort by the international community to promote human welfare and economic development, the present decline in overseas investment is likely to continue.
As has been said, MIGA offers guarantees to private investors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) mentioned in Committee, it is fair to ask what guarantee MIGA will offer the developing countries that accept investments. Guarantees on environmental matters were raised, for example, in view of Bhopal. Such guarantees are essential.
822
In Committee the Minister gave some assurances on those matters. It is those matters, in particular, that we will be watching, especially since the president of the World Bank has recently responded to criticisms about some of the environmental shortcomings of some activities and investments. Now it seems that the World Bank is willing to improve project appraisal and to take account of the impact on the environment. MIGA must follow ,:hat example and refuse to guarantee investments that fail to meet the stringent development and environmental criteria. With those few remarks, I hope that we can proceed fairly soon.
11.8 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: Like my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), I will not delay the House too long on this excellent measure, or attempt to make a Second Reading speech on the aid budget. I notice that many right hon. and hon. Members spoke on that on Second Reading from which I was unfortunately absent due to commitments at the Institute of Development Studies on that day.
Having read the reports of the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage, may I ask the Minister one or two questions? First, let me say that a measure that encourages direct private investment in Third world countries is to be wholeheartedly welcomed. I believe that the Minister deserves a great deal of credit for bringing this measure forward quickly. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer also deserves credit for signing the original agreement. It is part and parcel of the extremely fruitful moves of the Minister and the Chancellor who produced the initiatives on debt and produced this excellent measure for our consideration.
May I ask the Minister about one or two technical matters? Will the cost of MIGA add to the costs of private companies investing in Third world countries and, therefore, to the cost of production in the countries in which investment is made? In the long run, will it add to the total indebtedness of, and the repayments due from, Third world countries as a result of investment by private companies in those countries? If so, is there any way in which we can ensure that those costs are minimised and that large overhead costs of running MIGA in Washington are not passed on to the impoverished Third world countries?
Will not MIGA compete with the private insurance market, which also offers political risk insurance? I hope that this international agency will act where the normal private insurance market declines to take a risk and that there will therefore be no direct competition between MIGA and the private insurance market, although I would expect MIGA to offset some of its risks in the private insurance market.
Will MIGA cover trade risks? If so, will that function be included in the total amount available under MIGA, or will it simply be capital risks? Many start-up trade-type investments in projects overseas could properly be entitled trade risks. I am anxious to know whether the new agency will cover the risks of the supply of initial products, raw materials, spare parts and so on to start-up projects.
If a host Government to a MIGA-guaranteed project of investment commits the type of political risk that we are discussing — restrictions on currency conversion or transfer, the possibility of expropriation by the host Government and the repudiation of risks where the

823
investor suffers a loss through breach of contract by the host Government were the principal categories to which the Minister referred on Second Reading — and thus undermines a MIGA-guaranteed investment, will that Government suffer in any way other than by being denied MIGA cover for further investment?
On the delicate subject of the cost to the aid budget, I welcome the dual responsibility of the Treasury, which, I understand, is to bear 50 per cent. of the initial costs of setting up MIGA, and the Overseas Development Administration which is to bear the other 50 per cent. Will the Minister confirm that what is in the aid framework to the end of March is a figure of $131,463? That is my calculation of the ODA's likely contribution from its budget, but I should not like to trust my interpretation of the figures. Presumably the money will not be disbursed this year but will have to be carried over to next year. The figure will, therefore, enter the element of the aid budget known as slippage and will be otherwise deployed for overseas development investment before the end of this financial year.
I also ask that this agency does not operate as the ECGD has operated, rationing the amount of cover which it will give to any particular country according to the overall sum available, and thus denying MIGA cover to some worthwhile investments and making it difficult for an investment to get other insurance from the private market for other elements of the package. I hope that such rationing will not take place because in the case of the ECGD it has been a serious disincentive to investment in many countries.
Those are my few remarks and questions on this excellent measure, and I hope that the House will vote unanimously for its Third Reading.
11.15 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I should like to restate Liberal support for this modest measure which is a constructive initiative to help investment in underdeveloped countries and so, perhaps, to reduce the immense problem of international debt.
Sadly, it is a fact that many still naively suppose that there is a positive flow from the developed to the poorest countries, stemming from foreign aid payments. The hard fact we must face is that the reverse is true and interest alone due on the developing world's debt is greater than the total amount of aid that it receives. Taking into account both aid and debt repayments, the developing world pays a net payment of $26,000 million per year to the developed world, which is about £14,000 million. That is the background to the Bill and the reason why it is of value. It does not go anything like far enough and what is urgently needed is a new initiative from the Group of Seven.
The striking feature about the passage of the Bill has been the almost total lack of dissent from any quarter both tonight and in Committee, which I unfortunately missed. Indeed, the Minister said that he was willing to answer any questions, and I am not sure that that is altogether normal on Third Reading.
But that same confidence has not been evident everywhere outside the House. I have received some correspondence from people who have drawn parallels between MIGA and the International Tin Council which
824
collapsed in late 1985. This is not the time to go into the details of that, and if the Minister has not read the document on that I shall certainly send it to him. I hope that he will confirm that there are significant differences betweeen MIGA and the ITC. I hope that the lessons of that experience have been learnt. Perhaps the most significant difference is that the MIGA convention is clear about the liabilities to which member states lay themselves open by joining. Some 80 per cent. of the subscription takes the form of money on call, held initially by member states, whereas the ITC did not explicitly limit liability in that way, which made the commitment conceivably greater, but in practice much less reliable.
I have three points to put to the Minister. First, in view of those who have experience of the ITC, no well advised company would insure or re-insure risks within MIGA without a cast-iron guarantee from its Government. I question that, but perhaps the Minister will respond.
There is an interesting query about the fact that, apparently, no legal action to enforce a contract with MIGA could be brought in the country where it has an office, which presumably means Washington DC. I do not know about that.
A comparison is drawn between the voting structure in MIGA and that in the ITC. It is argued that the form is similar and could produce comparable paralysis in a crisis. I would be happy to have confirmation that such fears are not well founded. The commitment of the World Bank, its record in such matters and the fact that its president is to be the ex-officio chairman must provide confidence, and it is confidence about which we are talking and which the agency is designed to reinforce.
I happily give full support to this laudable, if limited, Bill and, naturally enough, I trust that the Government will keep a close eye on what is happening and ensure that it operates sensibly and prudently. If it does not, it will fail to win the confidence of investors in Third world countries, which, after all, is what it is all about.
11.21 pm
Mr. Chris Patten: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to this short debate. I start by taking up what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said. The debate is about giving the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill a Third Reading. The hon. Gentleman referred to the correspondence, which many of us have had, about the affairs of the International Tin Council. With respect to that correspondence, it is somewhere between a googly and a red herring. It is a red googly. Perhaps I can turn it to leg relatively briefly, but I shall do so because I know that several hon. Members have received that correspondence.
The critique that has been circulated is based, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, on the hypothesis that MIGA will become insolvent. It does not talk about if it becomes insolvent. It is a spartan "if. For several reasons, I believe that such an event is improbable. First, article 22 of the convention places limits on the amount of contingent liability that the agency can assume, and it envisages risk diversification measures to limit the agency's exposure. Article 25 enjoins the agency to
"carry out its activities in accordance with sound business and prudent financial management practices with a view to maintaining under all circumstances its ability to meet its financial obligations."
It is inevitable that some of the agency's insured risks will become losses, but it is inconceivable that they will all

825
become losses. By spreading its business judiciously, MIGA should be able to minimise the risk of a heavy volume of claims straining its ability to meet its total liabilities. The difference from the ITC, which dealt with only one commodity, is fairly obvious.
Secondly, MIGA will be part of the World Bank group of agencies, and the chairman of its board of directors will be the president of the World Bank. No member of the World Bank group, and no other international financial institution of which the United Kingdom has been a member, has ever become insolvent or even had to call on its callable capital. They all enjoy AAA rating by the major credit agencies.
Thirdly, the experience of ECGD's investment insurance scheme, which is similar to MIGA's, is that, with sound management and taking one year with another, such schemes will be viable.
Fourthly, MIGA will have a board of directors appointed by member countries which, under article 32(a), will be responsible for the general operations of the agency. I am confident that the hoard will ensure that the agency will discharge its obligations following prudent financial management practice.
The financial obligations of members under articles 7 and 8 will be to pay 10 per cent. of their share prices in cash and a further 10 per cent. in promissory notes. The promissory notes will be drawn down only if necessary and if approved by the board of directors. The other 80 per cent. of the capital is callable. The callable capital of the other international financial institutions has never been called. Similarly, there is no reason to expect that MIGA's callable capital will ever need to be called, but it is available in the last resort if needed.
Article 55 deals with the unlikely event of liquidation. It makes it clear that guarantee holders and other creditors would have priority over members in the distribution of assets.
Those are all points that I would have been delighted to make to those who have corresponded with hon. Members. I dare say that I could have saved a few postage bills had I been approached in that way.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) mentioned the needs of the developing world and said that they would not be met even by an increase in private investment in response to this important measure. Of course, we must consider other ways of channelling and effectively targeting resources to the developing world. God willing, several of us will be here later in the week to discuss the
826
International Development Agency replenishment order, which is an attempt—I hope that it will be successful—.to do precisely what the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber want.
The hon. Lady mentioned some of the warnings that she gave in Committee, and that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) gave on Second Reading, about the acceptability and unacceptability of investment in developing countries. She drew attention especially to environmental concerns and paid appropriate tribute to the interest of the president of the World Bank in this issue and his determination that that interest should be reflected in the policies pursued by the bank.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), whom we missed on Second Reading and in Committee, and whose questions might have received even more comprehensive answers had they been put then, asked several questions. I thank him for his comments about the debt initiative which the United Kingdom has been pursuing, with some success, in the international financial forums. He mentioned the costs of investing in developing countries. Investors will have to pay premiums for insurance policies. I hope that administrative costs will be a very small part of the overall turnover. Any costs should be offset by the increased confidence that investors will have about the success of investing in poorer countries. My hon. Friend also mentioned private insurance. We hope that MIGA and private insurance companies will complement each other, with co-insurance and reinsurance. My hon. Friend also asked about coverage of risks. I draw his attention to article 11 of the convention, which I believe covers that point adequately.
My hon. Friend asked about the aid framework. I assure him that the figures that he mentioned are covered in the aid framework: half our initial subscription. The normal rules of rollover apply and are, as my hon. Friend knows from his experience on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the subject of regular discussion with that important and wise body.
I trust that, on that bit of flannel, I can conclude this debate by commending this important measure to the House and looking forward to equally rewarding and uncontroversial discussions in the weeks, months and even years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Local Authority Search Inquiries
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
11.30 pm
Mr. John Heddle: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for attending the House at this late hour to debate a matter of great concern to the constituents of all right hon. and hon. Members. I am delighted to see my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) here tonight. Given that the subject of tonight's debate is the reduction in the delay of local authorities in replying to solicitors' local searches, I shall endeavour to be economical with my words to ensure that this Adjournment debate does not last beyond midnight.
It is the declared wish and intention of the Government, and I wholeheartedly support them, to extend home ownership as widely as possible across the social spectrum in all four corners of the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, the Government's responsibility to ensure that the path to home ownership is not strewn with pitfalls or potholes, with bureaucratic undergrowth or unnecessary expense and, most particularly, that, by precept and example, we eliminate that awful practice of gazumping.
The House will recall that, in February of last year, I introduced, under the ten-minute Bill procedure, the Law of Property (Amendment) Bill, the object of which was to eliminate gazumping as far as practically and politically possible, by reducing the time between the acceptance of an offer by a vendor and the signing of a contract by the purchaser.
I was delighted to read in the Conservative party manifesto the following words:
"Some people are still deterred by the costs and complications of house purchase. That is why we must look for new ways to make house buying simpler and easier. Our abolition of the conveyancing monopoly has already made it cheaper."
Since being returned to Parliament by my constituents in Mid-Staffordshire at the general election last year, I have endeavoured to seek practical and political ways of making the process of house-buying easier, simpler and cheaper. The House may recall that, in November, I introduced in a similar Adjournment debate the subject of Land Registry delays. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General replied in a most positive vein, allowing the Land Registry to retain the £27 million surplus that it made to enable it to increase its staff and to eat into the backlog of cases that all hon. Members will recall that their constituents have to suffer.
Tonight's Adjournment debate directs the attention of the House to a much more fundamental and more sinister source of delay, frustration and expense, which our constituents have to suffer.
It is an established part of the conveyancing process that before anybody is committed to buying a property he or she, or his or her solicitor, should make searches and inquiries of the local authority. The replies that the local authority gives can reveal important facts about the property. The inquiries are part of the process of making sure that the bargain will be as the buyer understood it to be when he or she made the offer in the first place.
828
Prospective mortgagees similarly rely upon searches and inquiries so as to be sure that nothing threatens the value of their security.
At the outset I must draw a clear distinction between two types of information sought from local authorities by solicitors acting for purchasers. Conveyancers usually apply for both together, but technically they are quite separate. First, there are the local land charges registered by local authorities under a statutory duty imposed by the Local Land Charges Act 1975. Everyone has a statutory right to search for information recorded on this register.
Secondly, there are additional inquiries on standard forms to which the authorities have agreed to supply answers. The agreement to reply is voluntary; there is no statutory duty to do so. In some cases, however, the inquiries relate to information that the authority is obliged to make available to the public, and this is a convenient way to make it available.
For some years — and increasingly in the last few years and most certainly in the last few months—it has been impossible in some areas to obtain information in reply to the inquiries within a reasonable time. I regard a reasonable time—I believe that I am supported in this by both the Law Society and the conveyancing standing committee of the Law Commission—as something of the order of 10 to 14 days. That target response time contrasts with some times that have been reported recently in the Law Society's Gazette.
Some London boroughs — these are the only ones that are recorded, but I am sure that the London boroughs to which I shall refer in a moment are not alone in being guilty of this delay and, dare I say, inefficiency and possibly negligence—have recorded periods of up to 20 weeks to reply to simple preliminary inquiries by solicitors. By contrast, correspondence in the same Law Society's Gazette has cited examples of very prompt replies.
The London borough of Lewisham, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, which is a Labour-controlled borough, takes six weeks to reply. The London borough of Lambeth, Labour-controlled, takes 10 to 12 weeks to reply. The conveyancing standing committee of the Law Commission suggests that a reasonable time is 10 to 14 days. The London borough of Camden, a Labour-controlled borough, takes 12 weeks to reply. The London borough of Hackney, Labour-controlled, takes 20 weeks —five months—to reply.
I put it to the House and to my hon. Friend the Minister that to take that long to reply to simple inquiries discriminates against the nurse, the teacher, the first-time buyer—the people who want to stand on their own two feet and rid themselves of the shackles and the interminable delays that would otherwise await them on the council housing waiting list.
I submit that this is the unacceptable face of municipal socialism and that these Labour-controlled London boroughs, and Labour-controlled boroughs elsewhere, are the worst culprits. Local councils that do not deliver a service on time must accept measures that give the public the right to the same quality of service everywhere.
A firm of solicitors in Hackney, reading in the national press recently of the imminence of tonight's Adjournment debate, wrote to me on 14 January and said:
"I send a copy of a search recently received from the London borough of Hackney. You will see that the search was submitted on the 29 June 1987 and was finally received on 12 January 1988."

829
It will not surprise my hon. Friend the Minister that the London borough of Hackney is one of the two boroughs reported to the local ombudsman for that sort of delay. Perhaps I may tell the House what the local ombudsman, Professor Miller Yardley, said about one particular case — that of a Miss Fern, who was frustrated in her attempt to buy a house in Hackney by the council's inefficiency. He said:
"Such delay is quite unreasonable and amounts to maladministration. I am also satisfied from this investigation that Miss Fern suffered injustice as a result of the Council's failure to deal with their administrative deficiencies over a long period of time … The public are charged by the Council for searches and they are entitled to receive a reasonable service for such charges. This they have patently not received in Hackney."
He concludes:
"Nevertheless the Council's maladministration caused her to suffer from the additional time her purchase took, as well as to incur trouble and expense, and the Council should recognise this by making an appropriate payment to her. I would also hope the Council will quickly make some firm decisions on how to provide an efficient system for dealing with searches, and then take prompt steps to deal with the accumulated backlog."
In the time I have left, I want to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister some practical ways of improving the service. Before doing so, it is only right and proper that I should place on record the fact that this debate is highlighting the activities of a minority—how large l do not know—of councils. Overall, most local authorities, especially those in the shire counties, give a good service, and their efforts go largely unnoticed. However, the local authorities that offer a poor service account for areas of high volume and high-price conveyancing transactions; they also cater for buoyant markets in which gazumping can flourish—so drastic measures must be taken.
Without wishing to anticipate my hon. Friend's reply, I imagine that he will tell the House that his Department has engaged in the work of the interdepartmental group by publishing a booklet simplifying house buying. I do not wish to dwell on that, nor on the consultation paper recently produced by the Law Commission entitled "Local authority enquiries: how can we eliminate delays?". I know that the discussion period for that document expires on 31 March, and I eagerly await my hon. Friend's Department's response to it.
I am sure that the conclusions that the Department reaches will be constructive and forward-thinking. However, although I am sure that there are ways of speeding up the process by privatisation and computerisation, by putting out the function of replying to local searches to the private sector, or by compelling local authorities to be more responsive by means of the Local Government Bill, I believe—I raised this point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at Question Time just under a fortnight ago — that there are two practical measures that my hon. Friend could discuss with his ministerial colleagues in the next few days.
First, when I tried to find out, by parliamentary questions, the nationwide performance of local authorities, I was told by my hon. Friend the Member Oxford, West (Mr. Patten) a year ago when he was the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, and more recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the present Minister for Housing and Planning, that the information is not kept
830
centrally. But the Department of the Environment is responsible for the behaviour of local authorities nationwide, and that infonnation should be centrally available to hon. Members, just as information on each authority's rent arrears and void houses is available to us all.
Secondly, and more importantly, when a local authority falls down on its obligations and responsibilities to the public by not responding within a reasonable period of time—I suggest 14 days—legislative powers should be taken to allow members of the public or their professional advisers to carry out personal searches.
Local authorities will tell my hon. Friend that of course they have no objection to the public carrying out personal searches. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that most of the local authorities in my firing line in this debate, and certainly all those that I have mentioned, do not allow solicitors, licensed conveyancers or members of the public to make personal searches. The only way to outlaw this despicable, insidious practice of discouraging people from wanting to buy their own house simply, quickly and cheaply, and the only way to rid local authorities of inefficiency and maladministration, is to do as I suggest. I await with great pleasure and anticipation my hon. Friend's response.
11.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Having listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), I can see how wise his constituents were to return him to the House last June. Such eloquence and such thoughtful argument in so concise a time does credit to my hon. Friend and to the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising a matter that is of widespread concern. He is particularly well qualified to speak on this subject, as he has been involved in the property and housing world for many years, first as a surveyor and currently as a vice president of the Building Societies Association.
My hon. Friend has been hard working and persuasive in pursuing the interests of the house-buying public. This is by no means the first evening on which he has stayed late to press his strongly held views on this subject. I note that he raised the issue of delays in the Land Registry during an Adjournment debate on 30 November last year. I know that he is following with interest the progress being made on computerising local authority searches. I shall of course be responding to the constructive suggestions that my hon. Friend has made, but I should first like to spell out the nature of the problem as we see it.
In the first part of his speech, my hon. Friend alluded to the fact that the search inquiry is a two-part process. It is important to make a distinction between the two parts. First, there is the statutory search of the local land charges register to establish whether the property is subject to any charges. Under the Local Land Charges Act 1975, everyone has the right to obtain information from this register. The statutory search is quite straightforward because it simply involves checking against the index. This part of the process can be done quickly and we have no reason to think that it contributes to delays in responding to inquiries.
The other part of the process is to make general inquiries of the local authority about matters such as planning consents, local structure plans, road building

831
proposals and a wide range of other matters that may affect the value and use of the land. These are generally known as supplementary inquiries. They are not part of the statutory search, but they are invariably carried out as part of the same process, and it is in responding to these inquiries that delays occur. They are much more labour intensive than the statutory search and often require contributions from several different departments within the local authority.
The supplementary inquiries have not always been linked to the statutory search. Until the eve of the second world war, conveyancers were expected to ask for supplementary information separately. At that time, the inquiries were made after contracts were exchanged, rather than before. This was a rather ad hoc system and it became more and more unwieldy as inquiries became more frequent and more diverse.
In 1939, the local authorities and the Law Society decided that it would be more sensible to prepare a list of the main questions which needed answers with a recommended fee for answering the questions. The list of questions has grown over the years, so that the standard forms produced by the Law Society and local authorities now contain 18 questions for use in every case and 13 more questions that can be used when appropriate. They cover a wide range of topics, from drainage to planning to clean air legislation. As the range of inquiries has grown, so has the number of local authority departments that may be involved in supplying the information. Not surprisingly, that has affected the speed with which inquiries are processed. In 1939, the Law Society and local authorities laid down a maximum of seven days for a reply to inquiries. In a paper published last December, the Law Commission's conveyancing standing committee recognised that times have changed. The committee suggested that, nowadays, the satisfactory maximum period for answering routine inquiries would be 10 working days.
We would all agree that, if we were simply talking about an increase from seven days to 10 days, there would be no need for this debate. However, my hon. Friend has demonstrated that the scale of the problem is much more severe than that. He quoted examples of delays. We could all tell similar stories. The question is what evidence there is to show how widespread the problem is. Let me quote the evidence that we have. I shall start by quoting my own. My hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to my constituency. I regret that he had to do so in the light that he did. He is right. Many of my constituents have made representations to me in Lewisham. The delays there–45 days in many cases—are unacceptable.
The local authority associations gave evidence about delays to the Government's conveyancing committee, which published a report in January 1985. The figures that it gave to the committee were interesting. They show that out of 361 authorities who responded, over half replied to search inquiries within 10 days, on average. On the other hand, 61 authorities took more than 15 days to reply. But the figures hide the fact that, in some cases, delays are considerably longer than 15 days. The Holborn Law Society, in evidence to the committee, recorded response times from six London boroughs during the second half of 1982 as rising to five, seven, eight and nine weeks, and in one case to three months. We do not need to go back
832
to 1982 for that sort of evidence. The Law Society Gazette regularly carries a table of delays in London. In 1987, it recorded periods of up to 20 weeks.
I am glad that my hon. Friend recognised that most authorities are providing a reasonable service to the house buyer. We must not lose sight of that fact when we consider the problem. But it is also clear that there is a genuine and serious problem in some areas. For those whose attempt to buy a house has been unnecessarily prolonged or thwarted altogether, it is no consolation to know that there are other areas, often not far away, where the same process would have taken place much more quickly.
When considering the reasons for delays, we accept that it is clear that the amount of work involved in dealing with supplementary inquiries has increased since the present system was introduced in 1939. The number of local authority departments involved has grown. Moreover, the level of activity in the house market has increased in recent years, especially in London and the south-east. All those factors have contributed to slowing down the process. Furthermore, there are undoubtedly cases in which the conveyancer is at fault—by not describing the property accurately; by addressing inquiries to the wrong local authority; by supplying incorrect information; or by not sending in enough money to pay the fee. Local authorities attribute delay to factors such as peaks in demand, staff sickness or vacancies.
None of this alters the fact that some authorities perform much better than others. The difference in performance cannot be attributed entirely to the different circumstances or work loads of particular authorities. My hon. Friend will agree that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that long delays are due to inefficiency or bad organisation or arise because the authority gives low priority to dealing with inquiries.
I suggested at the start of my comments that delays are caused by supplementary inquiries rather than by the time taken to make a statutory search. Local authorities are not under a statutory duty to respond to supplementary inquiries, and they have come to a voluntary agreement with the Law Society about the standard list of questions. Since responding to inquiries is not part of a local authority's statutory responsibilities, there is no formal action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can take. However, that does not mean that the Government have been indifferent to the problems that house buyers face. As my hon. Friend knows, we have already taken action to make the house buying process easier, quicker and cheaper. We have ended solicitors' monopoly on conveyancing, and the Law Society has relaxed the rules that prevented solicitors from advertising, which has stimulated competition.
My noble and learned Friend Lord Hailsham, who was then the Lord Chancellor, set up a committee on conveyancing in February 1984. That committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Julian Farrand, to whom I pay tribute for his invaluable service on the subject, produced a report in January 1985 on conveyancing simplifications. The report described delays in local authority search inquiries as
"the most contentious aspect of the operation of local authority registers".
Following that report, my noble and learned Friend asked the Law Commission to establish a conveyancing standing committee, with a continuing remit to seek and

833
promote ways of improving the conveyancing system. That committee has produced a very timely consultation paper on the subject, called "Local authority enquiries: how can we eliminate delays?" The committee is asking for comments on its paper by 31 March. The Government will be looking closely at the outcome of that exercise.
My hon. Friend has made some suggestions about the ways in which the search process could be speeded up. I have considerable sympathy with his ideas, but I do not want to hide the fact that we want to see the responses to the standing committee's paper and the committee's views before we decide whether Government action would be desirable and, if it would, what form it should take.
My hon. Friend suggested that we should consider privatising the service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised 10 days ago that we would consider that suggestion and that it might even be a candidate for the list of "defined activities" that local authorities must expose to competition under part I of the Local Government Bill. The Bill is currently being scrutinised in another place.
As my hon. Friend knows, we are moving forward on a broad front in that Bill. There is provision in it for my right hon. Friend to add to the list of activities subsequently by order. Our attitude has been that we would prefer not to have to force local authorities in this way. We are doing so only because they are not prepared to go ahead on their own initiative. Therefore, if there is a reasonable prospect that authorities will make use of the private sector to carry out an activity more efficiently and effectively, without the need for legislation, we would welcome it.
In the case of search inquiries, there is a complication. The nature of the activity is to collect information from various departments of the authority. Therefore, it involves a small time input from a large number of staff scattered through various departments. That makes it difficult to disentangle as a function. The delays, by and large, seem to occur not in the land charges department of the authority, but in the other departments. Unless the tenderers took over a wide range of local authority activities, the reduction in delays would probably not be significant.
For those reasons, we do not put local authority searches at the top of our list of activities to be brought within the regime laid down in part I of the Local Government Bill. However, there is a prospect of privatisation in the process and it has to do with computers. The idea of computerising the system has found widespread favour in recent years. I share the view that it has a lot to offer. There are two main reasons why it has not happened as quickly as it might.
First, there have been proposals for a nationally coordinated move towards computerisation. But quite a number of authorities have perfectly good manual systems and are able to reply to search inquiries in reasonable time. They have seen no need to computerise. That feeling has been reinforced by the fact that computerisation involves an initial capital outlay. Many authorities have not been prepared to make the outlay because they place a higher priority on other competing demands. However, the cost to the local authority need not he an obstacle. In many
834
areas, I feel sure that house buyers would be willing to pay a little more if that would give them a quick and reliable service. The cost of developing and installing a computer system could be borne by a private company and recouped by that company over a period of time. This has provided enough incentive for at least two companies, which, I understand, are at an advanced stage in developing computer systems to offer to local authorities. The advantage of that approach is that the private company could make the capital outlay and provide the staff to computerise the system. The costs could then be recouped through the search fee, so that they fell not on the local authority but instead on those who benefit from an improvement in the service.
My hon. Friend also proposed that there should be sanctions against local authorities who continue to respond slowly to search inquiries. The Government have not closed their mind to that idea, but it would be important to ensure that sanctions were effective. I doubt, for instance, whether it would do much for the cause if the sanction was merely to deprive the local authority of its search fee. We would hesitate before going down that sanctions road.
The main reason for hesitating is that we would then have to legislate to give a statutory basis to the supplementary inquiries. As I have already said, they are currently drawn up by agreement between the Law Society and the local authorities. We would have to decide which inquiries should be statutory; we would have to allow in some way for the minority of inquiries, which genuinely require a longer response time; and we would lose some of the flexibility of the present system. There are difficulties, but we retain an open mind and we look forward to the conveyancing standing committee's conclusions on this option.
The debate has been a timely contribution to the discussion launched by the conveyancing standing committee's paper in December. Delays of many weeks in processing search inquiries are a serious disservice to the public and I hope that the authorities concerned will start taking steps now to put things right. I repeat my exhortation to authorities to look seriously at computerisation. There are ways in which they can improve their service to the public.
In conclusion, I say to my hon. Friend that we shall look carefully at what the standing committee concludes and bear in mind his representations not only of tonight but in the other forums in which he has taken the opportunity to drive home the important points that he summarised. They will be taken into account.
I think that there is a prospect of making progress in this regard. I hope that the Government's policy of encouraging local authorities to improve their performance will start to yield results. If it does not, we may have to think again.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my apologies for speaking so rapidly in response to the comments that he made. However, he made so many important points that I wanted to ensure that as many as possible were covered.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Computers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether there are plans to upgrade the current police national computer link into a fully integrated network which would allow connections between any police computer on the network;

  (2) if he will state the extent to which the new packet switched network for the police national computer will involve the linking of police computers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Work is in hand to replace the current police national computer network by an X25 packet switched network which will be compliant with the Government Open Systems Interconnection Protocol (Wide Area Networks) standard. This network would provide a means of linking police computers.

  Immigration (Inquiries)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if interpreters are available at all international airports in the United Kingdom to deal with immigration inquiries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The immigration service employs eight full-time interpreters, all of whom are stationed at Heathrow. Between them they are able to offer interpretative facilities in seven languages. At the last count over 1,500 immigration officers and chief immigration officers were drawing qualifying allowances in 33 different languages. In addition, officers in charge at all ports are authorised to use hourly-paid interpreters when necessary, drawn from lists of suitable persons kept locally.

  Mr. Hui Yat-Chi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he decided to allow Mr. Hui YatChi to remain in the United Kingdom; why he did not notify the hon. Member for Bradford, West of his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  On 23 June 1987, I wrote to the hon. Member to advise him that Mr. Hui's immigration status was under investigation and said I would write to him again if it was decided to remove Mr. Hui from this country. In the event, inquiries by the immigration service established that Mr. Hui entered this country lawfully and was deemed to have indefinite leave to remain here. Mr. Hui's representatives were notified of this on 28 November 1987.

  Crown Prerogative
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the issue to chief 426
  constables of a circular inviting them to apply to his Department for equipment denied to them by their respective police authorities was in exercise of power under prerogative of the Crown.

  Mr. Hurd
  The arrangements for the supply of equipment to chief officers of police set out in the circular were made in exercise of my powers which exist both under the Police Act 1964 and the royal prerogative. The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment, has recently upheld the grounds on which I acted.

  Firearm Certificates
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many holders of(a) shotgun licences and (b) firearms certificates there are in each Birmingham parliamentary constituency, by name, at the latest convenient date and in each of the preceding two years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information available centrally on shotgun and firearm certificates on issue relates to police force areas and for 31 December 1986 is published in tables 2 and 4 of Home Office statistical bulletin issue 2/88, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the current arrangements for maintaining and regularly updating a register of shotgun licences and firearms certificates reported to the police as lost or stolen; how often such a list is circulated to police forces in England and Wales; and what arrangements are made in relation to ammunition reported stolen.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is no register of shotgun and firearm certificates reported to the police as lost or stolen. Ammunition reported as stolen would, as is the case with firearms and shotguns, be placed on the police stolen property index.

  Drink-Driving Offenders
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the number of drink-driving offenders found guilty who are repeat offenders for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information on findings of guilt for offences of driving, etc. with alcohol above the prescribed limit is published annually in "Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables", Table 5 of the issue for 1986, copies of which are in the Library. Information on repeated convictions for these offences is not available.

  Radio
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the licences for independent trust radio and community radio stations will be assigned by competitive tender.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Police Constable (Abscondment)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the incident on 23 January involving the abscondment with firearms and ammunition of a police constable in Chingford.
  427
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand an inquiry is in hand.

  Dr. Frank Skuse
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has anything to add to previous statements made concerning the circumstances, and reasons for the retirement of Dr. Frank Skuse, in the light of evidence presented at the hearing by the court of appeal of the case against the six men convicted of the Birmingham bomb offences.

  Mr. John Patten
  No.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what day the order was given to Dr. Frank Skuse to leave the Chorley laboratory by 31 October 1985.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 23 July 1985 Dr. Skuse was notified that his last day of service would be regarded as 31 October 1985. This arrangement ws confirmed in a letter dated 3 October 1985.

  TLC Tests
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department treats the TLC tests as a unique test for the presence of nitroglycerine.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. It is our normal practice to carry out confirmatory tests for the presence of nitroglycerine when the TLC test is used.

  Drink-driving Accidents
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for drink and driving accidents causing(a) death, (b) injuries and (c) damage to property for each year since 1974, have resulted in (i) acquittals, (ii) guilty verdicts, (iii) imprisonment, (iv) fines and (v) compensation to the victims.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on court proceedings and sentencing at all courts in England and Wales for driving, etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs is published annually in "Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables" (tables 1, 2, 5 and 8 of the issue for 1986). Information on compensation orders could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on deaths, injuries and property damage resulting from these offences is not collected centrally; however, information is published in "Road Accidents, Great Britain, 1986" on the number of persons killed or injured in accidents where the driver failed a roadside screening breath test. Copies of both publications are in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will designate in 1988 a public right of way day in order to promote public awareness of their ancient rights.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Improved public awareness of the opportunities for countryside access is already a key objective in the Countryside Commission's revised policies 428
  for enjoying the countryside announced last September. We do not intend to designate a public right of way day in 1988.

  Housing Defects (Correspondence)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to reply to Easington district council on matters raised in correspondence dated 16 August 1985 regarding new town transferred housing defects.

  Mrs. Roe
  We have been in touch with Easington about the issues it raised with us, and I hope a substantive reply can be sent shortly.

  Smoke Detectors
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what talks he has had with district councils to discuss the installation of smoke detectors in every home; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  My Department is currently undertaking a study of the potential of automatic smoke detection as a means of improving life safety in residential buildings and a review of other research. The results of the review will be published. We will certainly inform the local authority associations of the outcome and give them the opportunity to discuss the implications.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the bids made by the London borough of Greenwich for assistance under the Estate Action programme during 1988–89, indicating when he expects to make a decision on each.

  Mrs. Roe
  The London borough of Greenwich has submitted nine bids for Estate Action resources in 1988–89:

  Continuation schemes

  £

  Barnfield estate

  1,102,000

  Hughesfield estate

  130,000

  Valley Grove estate

  796,000

  Bid for additional resources

  Schemes to start in 1988–89

  Cardwell estate

  655,000

  Cherry Orchard/Mascalls

  640,000

  Connaught estate

  738,000

  Ferrier estate

  1,100,000

  Hughesfield phase II

  551,000

  Meridian house, Azof street

  110,000

  Local authorities have been requested to submit outline bids by the end of January and we will tell them as soon as possible which bids we should like them to work up more fully. Approvals and additional allocations will follow as soon as councils can give us firm information on costs, phasing and other elements of their schemes.

  Charity Commissioners Building (Redevelopment)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will use his powers to call in the plans for redevelopment of the site of the former Charity Commissioners building in Ryder street, SW1; and
  429
  whether he will inquire into the reasons why certain residents and business ratepayers were not informed of these projected developments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Planning permission for this development was granted on 26 November 1987 by Westminster city council, as local planning authority. It is therefore no longer open to my right hon. Friend to call in the planning application.

  Shared Ownership
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's future plans for the extension of shared ownership schemes.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Government have promoted shared ownership since they came into office, as an important means of helping those who could not otherwise afford to buy their own homes.

  Until now, shared ownership has been developed largely by housing associations and local authorities. We believe that it could be made much more widely available if it were financed privately. That is why we legislated in the Housing and Planning Act 1986 to exempt certain shared ownership leases from the Rent Act.

  The regulations which bring those provisions into force have now been made. I hope that housing associations, financial institutions and others will take full advantage of the opportunities which this opens up.

  Homeless Persons
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for all local authorities in the south-west region, the amount they applied for and received of the £1·3 million allocated to the south-west region as part of the additional £44·7 million made available for housing projects for the homeless.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information is as follows:

  Local authority

  Bid £'000

  Allocation £'000

  Avon

  Bath

  450

  150

  Bristol

  250

  200

  Woodspring

  450

  —

  Cornwall

  Caradon

  75

  —

  Carrick

  82

  —

  Kerrier

  310

  —

  Penwith

  200

  —

  Restormel

  185

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  320

  160

  Devon

  Exeter

  184

  —

  South Hams

  200

  —

  Teignbridge

  60

  —

  Torridge

  40

  —

  Dorset

  Bournemouth

  200

  —

  East Dorset

  150

  —

  North Dorset

  210

  210

  Poole

  130

  100

  Purbeck

  257

  125

  West Dorset

  500

  —

  430

  Local authority

  Bid £'000

  Allocation £'000

  Weymouth and Portland

  360

  160

  Gloucestershire

  Cheltenham

  500

  —

  Gloucester

  400

  —

  Stroud

  400

  —

  Somerset

  Mendip

  220

  —

  Sedgemoor

  200

  —

  South Somerset

  150

  80

  Taunton Dene

  175

  —

  Wiltshire

  Kennet

  200

  115

  North Wiltshire

  300

  —

  West Wiltshire

  210

  —

  Of the additional £44·7 million announced by my right hon. Friend on 3 November, £25·7 million was allocated for schemes to combat homelessness.

  Aycliffe and Peterlee Development Corporation
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give details of the bid made by Helicon Bar for the assets of the Aycliffe and Peterlee development corporation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will give details of the management team's bid for the assets of the Aycliffe and Peterlee development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  No. It would breach commercial confidentiality to give details of the bids received.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in descending order those 100 local authorities with the highest number of planning applications sent on appeal to the Secretary of State, and the number of appeals for each local authority in the last three available years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The following table lists, in descending order, the 100 local authorities against whose decisions the highest number of planning appeals were lodged in 1986. In addition, the table includes for each authority the number of planning appeals lodged in 1984 and 1985.

  Local authority

  Appeals received

  1986

  1985

  1984

  Bromley

  254

  182

  196

  Camden

  205

  133

  139

  Chelmsford

  195

  203

  130

  Westminster

  181

  164

  122

  Wycombe

  177

  105

  91

  New Forest

  167

  146

  134

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  159

  120

  130

  Sevenoaks

  159

  124

  88

  Horsham

  157

  118

  98

  Newbury

  148

  102

  93

  Birmingham

  146

  133

  117

  South Oxfordshire

  144

  142

  116

  South Cambridgeshire

  135

  123

  107

  Torbay

  127

  100

  108

  Wealden

  126

  129

  104

  Epping Forest

  126

  124

  106

  Reigate and Banstead

  124

  105

  78

  Bristol

  123

  119

  92

  431

  Local authority

  Appeals received

  1986

  1985

  1984

  Hounslow

  123

  122

  78

  Wokingham

  122

  105

  92

  Macclesfield

  122

  92

  67

  Leeds

  121

  133

  134

  Harrow

  120

  76

  59

  Chichester

  119

  105

  103

  East Hampshire

  117

  84

  57

  Wimborne

  115

  104

  78

  Croydon

  114

  116

  85

  Mid Sussex

  113

  100

  81

  Maidstone

  112

  73

  79

  Waverley

  111

  125

  102

  Barnet

  111

  91

  74

  Enfield

  111

  80

  87

  Tandridge

  108

  85

  97

  Reading

  107

  81

  88

  Basingstoke and Deane

  106

  92

  96

  Stroud

  105

  83

  86

  Mid Bedfordshire

  104

  76

  60

  Winchester

  103

  116

  74

  Kensington and Chelsea

  102

  107

  79

  East Devon

  100

  90

  63

  Test Valley

  100

  67

  67

  Guildford

  100

  103

  105

  Bradford

  100

  71

  81

  Wansdyke

  99

  65

  35

  Basildon

  99

  83

  107

  Chiltern

  98

  70

  81

  Forest of Dean

  97

  73

  85

  West Dorset

  96

  62

  70

  Vale of White Horse

  93

  50

  51

  Kirklees

  92

  88

  83

  Greenwich

  92

  62

  54

  Brighton

  90

  55

  32

  North Devon

  89

  59

  70

  Salisbury

  88

  78

  50

  Northavon

  87

  61

  73

  Teignbridge

  87

  64

  56

  Wychavon

  87

  82

  77

  East Hertfordshire

  87

  90

  67

  Ealing

  87

  58

  65

  Richmond upon Thames

  86

  85

  70

  St. Albans

  85

  93

  109

  Elmbridge

  85

  88

  62

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  85

  65

  71

  Aylesbury Vale

  84

  72

  62

  Dacorum

  84

  55

  69

  North Norfolk

  83

  60

  69

  West Oxfordshire

  83

  68

  80

  South Hams

  82

  72

  83

  Solihull

  82

  96

  79

  Hart

  81

  54

  62

  South Norfolk

  81

  57

  58

  Mendip

  81

  52

  49

  Southwark

  81

  73

  46

  South Buckinghamshire

  80

  79

  69

  Tunbridge Wells

  80

  79

  76

  Runnymede

  80

  75

  70

  Tendring

  79

  71

  57

  Woodspring

  78

  102

  83

  Rother

  78

  77

  53

  Brentwood

  78

  63

  57

  Eastleigh

  78

  39

  29

  Harrogate

  78

  86

  74

  Mole Valley

  78

  75

  56

  Redbridge

  78

  79

  75

  North Bedfordshire

  77

  56

  74

  Lewes

  77

  35

  47

  Wirral

  76

  65

  34

  Three Rivers

  75

  74

  55

  Cambridge

  74

  65

  42

  Braintree

  74

  72

  56

  Carrick

  73

  68

  69

  Fareham

  73

  59

  55

  East Lindsey

  73

  63

  68

  South Somerset

  73

  65

  67

  432

  Local authority

  Appeals received

  1986

  1985

  1984

  Hillingdon

  73

  81

  60

  South Lakeland

  72

  46

  60

  Kingston upon Thames

  72

  74

  74

  Suffolk Coastal

  71

  62

  30

  Bracknell

  70

  63

  47

  Stratford-on-Avon

  70

  64

  73

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the number of planning application appeals he has received from applicants in the Chelmsford local authority area in the last three available years; and how many appeals were successful.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The table shows the number of planning appeals received against decisions of Chelmsford borough council in each year from 1 January 1984 to 31 December 1986, and the number allowed:

  Year

  Appeals received

  Appeals allowed

  1984

  130

  32

  1985

  203

  64

  1986

  195

  85

  New Towns (Insurance)
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requirements are laid down by his Department for the insurance of property and persons in new towns; what are the risks covered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  Subject to the general statutory requirements, new town development corporations are free to decide to what extent they should insure.

  Land Disposal
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since 1974(a) nature reserve lands, (b) public right of way paths, (c) common lands, (d) conservation areas which have ceased to be available to the public and have been given for the use of (i) Army training and exercise, (ii) shopping centres and (iii) other property development purposes.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not available in the form requested. In general, the public have no legal right to access to nature reserves, commons or in conservation areas except where a right of way exists. Rights of way cannot be extinguished for any purpose other than by order made by the highway authority, or an application to the magistrates court. Such orders require confirmation by my right hon. Friend only when an objection is received.

  Safety Glass
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to accelerate the introduction of safety glass and glazing into domestic premises.

  Mr. Trippier
  A consultation letter on stage 2 of the review of the building regulations, which was issued on 15 December 1986, included a proposal that a requirement for safety glazing of doors and low level glazing should be
  433
  included in the regulations. There has been a generally favourable response. We intend to consult on detailed proposals and advice as soon as the British Standards Institution has completed its current work on the revision of the relevant standard.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the effects of the poll tax will be on youngsters' sports and football clubs, which lease recreation and sports grounds from local authorities and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Sports clubs are not directly affected by the introduction of the community charge. Where they remain in sole occupation of property they will normally pay rates at a uniform rate in the pound on up-to-date rateable values following revaluation in 1990. Non-profit-making sports clubs will continue to be eligible for rate relief of up to 100 per cent. at the discretion of local authorities.

  Rating Revaluations
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for how long owners or occupiers will have a right of appeal against the revaluation of their property under regulations governing the revaluation of business and commercial property in conjunction with the reform of local government finance.

  Mr. Howard
  We have published a proposal to limit the time for lodging appeals against the new valuation list to six months. We are still considering the responses to that, and to a number of other proposals, and hope to make a statement shortly.

  Game Licences
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many game licences were issued in each category during each of the last five years; what revenue was in in each category, respectively; and what were the administrative costs involved.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [pursuant to his reply 25 January 1988, c. 46]: The figures for game licences issued in England and Wales for 1986–87 were incorrect.

  The correct figures are as follows:

  1986–87

  Number issued

  Revenue (£)

  Game (Red)

  23,425

  140,550

  Game (Green)

  630

  2,520

  Game (Blue)

  9,818

  39,272

  Game (Occasional)

  1,081

  2,162

  Game (Dealer)

  1,324

  5,296

  Game (Keeper)

  785

  3,140

  TOTALS

  37,063

  192,940

WALES

  Motorway Network
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to improve the motorway network in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Government's motorway and trunk road programme in Wales is set out in "Roads in Wales 1985".

  Religious Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authority high schools in Wales have already phased out religious education as an option in the fourth and fifth General Certificate of Secondary Education years , and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information is not available in the form requested. According to figures supplied by the Welsh Joint Education Committee, 198 out of 230 maintained secondary schools in Wales entered candidates for GCE or CSE examinations in religious studies or scripture in 1987.

  A lack of examination candidates in a school in a particular academic year does not necessarily indicate that the subject is not offered as an option in that school.

  The Education Act 1944 requires schools to provide religious instruction for all children of compulsory school age. The proposals in the Education Reform Bill, now before the House, reaffirm this requirement.

  Radiation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of farms, the number of sheep and the area of land, in acres, under restriction in Wales as a result of radioactivity from the Chernobyl accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are, under restriction in Wales, some 416 holdings, covering about 210,000 acres and containing about 300,000 sheep.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the appointments made by him since May 1979 to public office.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for 1985, 1986 and 1987(a) the number of paybeds, (b) the number of discharges and deaths of private patients, (c) the average number of paybeds occupied by private patients daily and (d) the percentage occupancy, for each district health authority.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information, which is available only for 1985 and 1986, is given in the table:
  435

  1Beds Authorised

  Discharges and Deaths

  Average Daily Occupied Beds

  2Percentage

  1985

  Clwyd

  12

  621

  4·11

  34

  East Dyfed

  7

  273

  3·15

  45

  Gwent

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  8

  270

  3·90

  49

  Mid Glamorgan

  3

  40

  0·26

  9

  Pembrokeshire

  3

  104

  1·10

  37

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  12

  84

  1·53

  13

  West Glamorgan

  4

  127

  0·63

  16

  1986

  Clwyd

  12

  487

  5·78

  48

  East Dyfed

  7

  332

  3·56

  51

  Gwent

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  8

  277

  3·63

  45

  Mid Glamorgan

  3

  83

  0·82

  27

  Pembrokeshire

  3

  102

  2·27

  76

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  12

  75

  1·56

  13

  West Glamorgan

  3

  167

  1·00

  33

  1 As at 31 December.

  2 Approximate measure, calculated as the ratio of the third and first columns.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made with the Chinese Textile Mill inward investment project.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I understand that Nantong has withdrawn from the potential joint venture project with Tootal plc. The levels of assistance potentially available to the project have been confirmed to both partners and the Chinese have indicated their intention to continue to seek industrial and trade opportunities in Swansea.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when WlNvest started negotiations with each of the Japanese companies which he recently announced as coming to Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Initial contacts with these companies were made in August 1986, June 1987 and July 1987.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the average annual percentage increase at 1987–88 prices in National Health Service expenditure in Wales (a) since 1978–79 and (b) 1973–74 to 1978–79.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Between 1978–79 and 1987–88 expenditure in real terms has increased by 36·3 per cent. giving an average annual percentage increase of 4 per cent. and between 1974–75 and 1978–79 by 9·5 per cent., giving an average annual percentage increase of 2·4 per cent. The information requested is not available prior to 1974–75 because in 1974 there was a National Health Service reorganisation which included the transfer of a whole range of services including school health and ambulance and community health services from local authorities to the National Health Service.

  The right hon. Gentleman was perhaps wanting to compare the performance of the two Governments. I have only been able to give him the figures from the first to the last year of the Labour Government which, as he sees,
  436
  shows an annual increase of 2·4 per cent. per annum. The equivalent figures for the Conservative Government are from 1979–80 to 1987–88. During this period there has been an increase in real terms of 36·1 per cent., giving an annual average percentage increase of 4·5 per cent.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Religious Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the prospects for religious education as an examination subject after the implementation of the Education Reform Bill.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government have made it clear that they do not intend to prescribe the amount of time to be devoted to any subject in the school curriculum. It will be up to schools to determine how much time they spend on each subject and the range of subjects in which pupils are entered for public examinations. We believe that study of the foundation subjects of the national curriculum might take around 70 per cent. of curriculum time or more if schools and pupils so choose. This leaves ample time for study of religious education as an examination subject and there is no reason to think that schools will not continue to put in as many examination entries as hitherto.

  Local Education Authorities (Employees)
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, how many were employed in local education authorities who were neither lecturers nor teachers in 1961, 1971, 1981 and at the latest convenient date.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Figures for 1961 and 1971 are not available centrally; the numbers of full-time equivalent staff employed in local authorities in education in England and Wales who were neither lecturers nor teachers were 398,000 at March 1981 and 402,000 (provisional) at June 1987, the latest available date.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what plans he has to expand the assisted places scheme among(a) public schools and (b)state schools;

  (2) how many public schools have applied to join the assisted places scheme;

  (3) if he will publish the numbers of pupils on the assisted places scheme and their schools for each year since the scheme began;

  (4) if he will publish the names of (a) state schools, (b) public schools and (c) other schools participating in the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Dunn
  The assisted places scheme exists to give help with tuition fees at certain independent secondary schools to the parents of able children who might not otherwise attend those schools. A complete list of the participating schools in England and numbers of assisted pupils attending each school from 1985 onwards is given below. To provide a detailed breakdown of places before this date would incur disproportionate cost, and total figures only are given for the years 1981–84. As originally planned the scheme would have reached just over 33,000 places in England and Wales when fully developed. The Government now intend to raise that target to an eventual 35,000.

  Independent secondary schools in England were invited in October 1987 to apply to join the scheme or to take up additional places if they were already participants. The responses received are now under consideration. One hundred and twenty six new schools have applied to join the scheme and are being considered against the same criteria as apply to existing participants.

  Total number of assisted place holders

  School

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Abbey School

  60

  57

  69

  Abingdon School

  85

  82

  90

  Aldenham School

  13

  16

  24

  Alice Ottley School

  55

  65

  70

  Alleyn's School

  158

  184

  198

  Arnold School

  59

  67

  76

  Ashford School

  41

  41

  43

  Bancroft's School

  60

  68

  76

  Bath High School

  76

  85

  90

  Batley Grammar School

  198

  220

  249

  Bedales School

  2

  5

  9

  Bedford High School

  81

  91

  92

  Bedford Modern School

  131

  138

  136

  Bedford School

  69

  75

  76

  Dame Alice Harpur School

  131

  134

  145

  Belvedere School

  132

  150

  163

  Berkhamsted School

  33

  33

  29

  Berkhamsted School for Girls

  25

  28

  28

  Birkenhead High School

  185

  226

  258

  Birkenhead School

  193

  226

  245

  Bishop's Stortford College

  18

  23

  30

  Blackheath High School

  82

  95

  101

  Bolton School (Boys)

  186

  221

  262

  Bolton School (Girls)

  183

  214

  251

  Bradfield College

  4

  1

  0

  Bradford Girls' Grammar School

  44

  48

  58

  Bradford Grammar School

  150

  179

  201

  Brentwood School

  86

  97

  101

  Brighton and Hove High School

  146

  164

  152

  Brighton College

  69

  86

  99

  Bristol Cathedral School

  109

  126

  150

  Bristol Grammar School

  194

  232

  263

  Bromley High School

  93

  107

  120

  438

  School

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Bruton School for Girls

  110

  123

  127

  Bury Grammar School (Boys)

  153

  181

  198

  Bury Grammar School (Girls)

  182

  209

  229

  Canford School

  28

  34

  35

  Carmel College

  64

  71

  91

  Casterton School

  41

  42

  43

  Caterham School

  106

  104

  109

  Central Newcastle High School

  85

  103

  112

  Charterhouse

  14

  14

  14

  Cheadle Hulme School

  101

  117

  129

  Chigwell School

  57

  65

  70

  Churcher's College

  87

  98

  112

  City of London School

  100

  111

  124

  City of London School for Girls

  82

  94

  104

  Clifton College

  50

  59

  67

  Clifton High School

  46

  48

  52

  Colfe's School

  154

  175

  183

  Colston's School

  78

  87

  89

  Colston's Girls' School

  105

  125

  145

  Coventry Schools

  177

  213

  245

  Cranleigh School

  37

  39

  38

  Croydon High School

  95

  105

  119

  Culford School

  40

  45

  46

  Dame Allan's Boys' School

  111

  131

  142

  Dame Allan's Girls' School

  106

  115

  127

  Dauntsey's School

  47

  50

  54

  Denstone College

  91

  106

  114

  Dulwich College

  219

  245

  273

  Edgehill College

  94

  111

  123

  Eltham College

  83

  90

  104

  Emanuel School

  224

  260

  289

  Epsom College

  32

  30

  30

  Exeter School

  136

  153

  164

  Farnborough Hill School

  148

  170

  181

  Felsted School

  40

  44

  47

  Forest School

  115

  126

  138

  Friends' School

  74

  79

  79

  Godolphin and Latymer School

  149

  169

  182

  Gresham's School

  9

  10

  10

  Haberdashers' Aske's School, Elstree

  172

  207

  229

  Haberdashers' Aske's School for Girls, Elstree

  119

  122

  137

  Hampton School

  154

  174

  197

  Harrogate College

  16

  17

  18

  Hereford Cathedral School

  181

  210

  233

  Highgate School

  36

  32

  33

  Hulme Grammar (Boys)

  159

  185

  203

  Hulme Grammar (Girls)

  141

  153

  178

  Hymers College

  133

  141

  152

  Ipswich High School

  114

  126

  136

  Ipswich School

  59

  69

  79

  James Allen's Girls School

  119

  145

  157

  John Lyon School

  86

  93

  94

  Kent College

  62

  71

  80

  King Edward's School at Bath

  99

  113

  128

  King Edward's School, Birmingham

  222

  260

  281

  King Edward VI High School, Birmingham

  149

  160

  173

  King Edward VII School, Lytham

  168

  195

  214

  King Edward VI School, Norwich

  91

  105

  101

  King Edward VI School, Southampton

  184

  197

  222

  King Edward's School, Witley

  55

  67

  76

  King's College School

  75

  86

  93

  King's High School for Girls, Warwick

  136

  153

  170

  King's School, Chester

  73

  79

  94

  King's School, Macclesfield

  144

  157

  177

  King's School, Rochester

  51

  56

  57

  King's School, Worcester

  93

  120

  136

  Kingston Grammar School

  110

  128

  129

  Kingswood School

  36

  37

  36

  Kirkham Grammar School

  39

  55

  63

  Lady Eleanor Holies School

  56

  66

  74

  La Sagesse Convent School

  120

  136

  143

  Latymer Upper School

  244

  275

  291

  Leeds Girls' High School

  105

  122

  127

  Leeds Grammar School

  168

  177

  194

  Leys School

  27

  28

  29

  439

  School

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Liverpool College

  122

  150

  174

  Lord Wandsworth College

  63

  73

  78

  Loreto Convent Grammar School

  59

  66

  71

  Loughborough Grammar School

  98

  111

  120

  Loughborough High School

  77

  90

  94

  Magdalen College School

  100

  111

  117

  Malvern College

  50

  54

  57

  Manchester Grammar School

  205

  235

  271

  Manchester High School

  129

  143

  165

  Maynard School

  136

  159

  158

  Merchant Taylors' School, Liverpool

  149

  169

  186

  Merchant Taylors' School for Girls, Liverpool

  123

  149

  171

  Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood

  73

  81

  85

  Mill Hill School

  60

  64

  78

  Monkton Combe School

  32

  37

  38

  Mount St. Mary's College

  59

  64

  59

  Newcastle Under Lyme School

  340

  408

  459

  Northampton High School

  171

  182

  178

  North London Collegiate School

  59

  64

  73

  Norwich High School

  153

  170

  171

  Nottingham Girls' High School

  154

  165

  188

  Nottingham High School

  50

  70

  89

  Notting Hill and Ealing High School

  72

  95

  116

  Old Palace School

  147

  166

  195

  Oxford High School

  68

  84

  97

  Perse School for Boys

  45

  51

  57

  Perse School for Girls

  68

  73

  79

  Plymouth College

  141

  169

  182

  Pocklington School

  113

  126

  131

  Portsmouth Grammar School

  131

  164

  188

  Portsmouth High School

  127

  140

  149

  Putney High School

  91

  98

  105

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Blackburn

  202

  220

  246

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Wakefield

  127

  143

  153

  Queen Elizabeth's Hospital School, Bristol

  120

  144

  168

  Queen Mary School, Lytham

  193

  215

  237

  Queen's College, Taunton

  54

  60

  63

  Queens College, London

  54

  60

  68

  Queen's School, Chester

  70

  79

  84

  Ratcliffe College

  37

  46

  52

  Redland High School

  60

  69

  79

  Red Maid's School

  121

  140

  157

  Reigate Grammar School

  79

  94

  109

  Repton School

  33

  40

  45

  Rossall School

  31

  35

  43

  Royal Grammar School, Guildford

  107

  118

  116

  Royal Grammar School, Newcastle

  231

  287

  308

  Royal Grammar School, Worcester

  105

  144

  185

  St. Albans School

  109

  119

  124

  St. Albans High School for Girls

  48

  58

  59

  St. Ambrose College

  76

  77

  87

  St. Anselm's College

  139

  167

  175

  St. Bede's College

  157

  194

  213

  St. Bees School

  67

  76

  82

  St. Benedict's School

  58

  64

  71

  St. Catherine's School

  24

  29

  36

  St. Dunstan's College

  133

  149

  160

  St. Edmund's College, Ware

  52

  63

  65

  St. Edward's College, Liverpool

  273

  330

  385

  St. George's College

  21

  30

  28

  St. Helen's School

  29

  32

  28

  St. John's College

  142

  158

  181

  St. John's School, Leatherhead

  8

  14

  15

  St. Joseph's College

  60

  68

  76

  St. Joseph's Convent

  103

  117

  121

  St. Mary's College

  185

  220

  246

  St. Mary's Convent

  76

  84

  95

  St. Mary's Hall

  29

  40

  49

  St. Maur's Convent

  51

  60

  62

  St. Paul's School

  64

  71

  72

  St. Paul's Girls' School

  50

  52

  63

  St. Peter's School

  82

  111

  124

  St. Swithun's School

  3

  5

  3

  440

  School

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Salesian College

  84

  85

  86

  School of St. Helen and St. Katherine

  75

  92

  103

  Sedbergh School

  19

  24

  27

  Sheffield High School

  80

  84

  99

  Shrewsbury High School

  69

  69

  85

  Sir William Perkin's School

  80

  84

  87

  South Hampstead High School

  56

  60

  64

  Stamford School

  58

  62

  71

  Stamford High School

  51

  56

  64

  Stockport Grammar School

  195

  227

  269

  Stonyhurst College

  25

  28

  24

  Stowe School

  7

  5

  5

  Streatham Hill and Clapham High School

  121

  135

  154

  Sutton High School

  55

  61

  66

  Sutton Valence School

  36

  46

  50

  Sydenham High School

  87

  95

  109

  Talbot Heath School

  122

  135

  139

  Taunton School

  38

  44

  50

  Tonbridge School

  2

  3

  2

  Trent College

  96

  114

  116

  Trinity School of John Whitgift

  104

  125

  136

  Truro School

  80

  95

  110

  Truro High School

  55

  54

  55

  University College School

  52

  60

  69

  Upton Hall Convent School

  122

  143

  153

  Ursuline High School

  102

  118

  133

  Wakefield High School

  115

  127

  143

  Walthamstow Hall

  55

  78

  77

  Warwick School

  124

  126

  137

  Wellingborough School

  49

  54

  55

  Wellington College

  38

  43

  44

  Wellington School

  165

  190

  199

  Wells Cathedral School

  62

  66

  66

  West Buckland School

  28

  40

  52

  Westminster School

  11

  20

  26

  Whitgift School

  77

  90

  101

  William Hulme Grammar School

  155

  181

  207

  Wimbledon High School

  56

  58

  63

  Winchester College

  21

  24

  25

  Wisbech Grammar School

  145

  192

  236

  Withington Girls' School

  73

  81

  89

  Wolverhampton Grammar School

  224

  250

  260

  Woodbridge School

  77

  93

  101

  Woodhouse Grove School

  82

  103

  113

  Wycliffe College

  39

  43

  42

  TOTAL

  21,412

  24,478

  26,900

  Total numbers of assisted place holders 1981 to 1984

  Number

  1981

  4,185

  1982

  8,616

  1983

  13,102

  1984

  17,386

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications have been received for places under the assisted places scheme in Cheshire; and if he will give comparable figures for previous years.

  Mr. Dunn
  The recruitment of assisted pupils is a matter for the schools participating in the scheme. Information regarding applications for assisted places is not collected centrally.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the cost, at 1986–87 prices, of restoring student grants to the 1979 level.
  441
  Mr. Jackson
  Approximately £97 million.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the cost at 1986–87 prices of restoring the level of student transport costs to their 1979 level.

  Mr. Jackson
  To restore the arrangements for reimbursement which existed in 1979 would cost about £10 million at 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the cost, at 1986–87 prices, of ending parental contribution in respect of student grants.

  Mr. Jackson
  Over £300 million.

  School Meals
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children are receiving free school meals in Blyth Valley, Northumberland.

  Mr. Dunn
  In October 1986, the latest date for which data are available, 5,841 pupils in Northumberland received free school meals. Information for Blyth Valley is not separately available.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the total number of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-to-teacher ratio in primary schools in Northumberland for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dunn
  The number of pupils on roll and the pupil-teacher ratio in maintained primary schools in Northumberland each year since 1979 were as follows:

  January each year

  Pupils1

  Pupil-teacher ratio

  1979

  21,652

  23·4

  1980

  21,167

  23·1

  1981

  20,147

  23·5

  1982

  18,649

  23·4

  1983

  18,249

  230

  1984

  18,528

  23·3

  1985

  18,720

  23·3

  1986

  18,938

  23·3

  1987

  19,244

  23·1

  1 Full-time equivalent pupils. Part-time pupils counted as 0·5.

  Medicine Courses (Overseas Students)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current minimum sum recommended for fees for postgraduate medicine courses undertaken by overseas students; how many such students were on courses of postgraduate medical training in 1979 and how many are now; and if he will reconsider Her Majesty's Government's decision to charge overseas students full fees for medical postgraduate courses.

  Mr. Jackson
  Universities are themselves responsible for setting tuition fees charged to their overseas students. The University Grants Committee recommend minima. For science and clinical courses in 1988–89 the annual recommended minima are: science, £5,180; clinical, £9,590.
  442
  In 1979 there were 1,204 full-time non-United Kingdom-domiciled students on postgraduate medicine and dentistry courses at universities in Great Britain. In 1986 the comparable figure was 1,179.

  The overall number of postgraduate students from abroad in universities in Great Britain in 1986 was higher than in the late 1970s before the introduction of full-cost fees. My right hon. Friend sees no reason for considering a return to the previous system of subsidised fees.

  Teachers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether he intends to publish his reply to inquiries from the International Labour Office relating to the withdrawal of teachers' negotiating rights in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will place in the Library a copy of his supplementary response of 29 October 1987 in relation to the Green Paper "Teachers' Pay and Conditions"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Evidence submitted by the Government is confidential to the International Labour Organisation and its Committee on Freedom of Association. When the Committee on Freedom of Association has considered the evidence it will be for the governing body of the International Labour Organisation to decide what to publish.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to persuade firms to increase the experience of industry of teachers, especially in scarcity subjects.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We are keen to build bridges between education and industry and to provide all teachers with experience of industry, not just those in shortage subjects. A series of regional conferences to promote collaboration between firms and local education authorities has been held to provide a number of opportunities for teachers in the shortage subjects to obtain industrial experience. The partnership schemes developed by British Petroleum with Hertfordshire and Humberside, and between British Telecom and Bradford local education authorities, should also assist teachers awareness of industry. We are taking every opportunity to persuade employers of the importance of links with education and the value of giving teachers industrial experience is one part of this strategy.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on recent further developments towards establishing city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and 1 December, at column 751. Since then the Mercers' Company and Thamesmead Town have announced their intention to sponsor the establishment of a city technology college in Thamesmead.

  Modern Languages
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish the latest available figures for the cost of training a teacher of modern languages.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not available.

  Mathematics and Physics (Teacher Retraining)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, whether he will make a statement on progress with the programme designed to retrain teachers for mathematics and physics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We believe that earmarked moneys available from April 1988, under the Government's local education authority training grants scheme, will allow the funding of a substantial proportion of the one-year retraining places for mathematics, physics and CDT teachers available at higher education institutions. Grant supporting £4 million of expenditure is ring-fenced for the secondment of teachers on to long courses in recognition of the serious difficulties experienced by some institutions last year. In addition, the scheme will support a further £10 million of expenditure by LEAs on in-service training, which can be used for funding one-year retraining courses, in mathematics and physics. The programme of funding in this area will be reviewed for 1989–90.

  Education Reform Bill
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list the additional staff required by his Department in 1988–89 to deal with the Education Reform Bill; and if he will state the additional cost.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The recently published public expenditure White Paper, Cm 288, shows for 1988–89 planned staff numbers of 2,560 and running costs provision of £66·161 million compared with a target of 2,480 staff at 1 April 1988 and running costs provision of £58·3 million for 1987–88. Final dispositions have still to be made, but it is expected that most of the extra posts will be concerned directly or indirectly with the Education Reform Bill.

DEFENCE

  Chevaline
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the mid-life refurbishing programme for Chevaline flight hardware; what improvements are being incorporated in the system; and whether the cost of the refurbishment programme was included in the latest published programme cost estimates for the Chevaline system.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As for any equipment, refurbishment is part of the planned cycle of in-service support for Chevaline. As is the practice for such costs, they were not included in the project cost estimate last announced on 5 February 1985 at column 512. I am not prepared to reveal further information in line with the policy of successive Governments, for reasons of security.

  Trident
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the responsibility of the controller establishments, research and nuclear, in relation to the Trident programme extends to procurement of the reentry vehicle.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest figure for the real cost reduction in Trident warhead procurement over the 1981 estimate as last given in the Comproller and Auditor General's report on "Control and Management of the Trident Programme" (HC 27), paragraph 3·27; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest estimate for Trident warhead procurement shows a real cost reduction of about 5 per cent. on the 1981 estimate and is included in the overall Trident estimated cost of £9,043 million announced by my right hon. Friend on 21 January 1988.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how missiles from the United Kingdom Trident force will be transported to and from the United States/United Kingdom missile pool in the United States of America.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom's Trident D5 missiles will be transported to and from the United States facility at Kings bay, Georgia by the United Kingdom's Vanguard class SSBNs.

  Departmental Insurance
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give full details of the insurance cover effected by his Department for property and persons, including the risks covered.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is the general rule that the Government do not insure against the risk of any loss which, if it arose, would fall directly or indirectly on the Consolidated Fund. However, it was decided in 1982 that there would be distinct financial and administrative advantages in transferring to commercial insurers my Department's work on third party motor accident and employers liability claims in the United Kingdom. These risks remain with the commercial market, together with those in respect of the participation of Ministry of Defence aircraft and parachute teams in civil organised air shows, the Department's legal liabilities to certain fare-paying air passengers, and the Department's liabilities arising from the civilian use of Ministry air fields. In consultation with our brokers and insurance consultants, we continue to review those other areas of the Department's activities and risks which might lend themselves to commercial insurance, provided that a clear benefit to the Department would result.

  Departmental Staff (Merit Pay)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's civilian staff have received merit pay awards in 1985 and 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The term "merit pay" is taken to refer to the three-year performance bonus experiment which was introduced throughout the Civil Service on 1 April 1985.
  445
  During the first year of the experiment, which ran from April 1985 to March 1986, 684 awards were made to MOD staff. During the second year, from April 1986 to March 1987, 698 awards were made. Details for the third year, from April 1987 to March 1988, are not yet available.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the grades of the recipients of merit pay in 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The term "merit pay" is taken to refer to the three-year performance bonus experiment which was introduced throughout the Civil Service on 1 April 1985. Staff in the grades 3 to 7 and their equivalents were eligible to receive these bonuses.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure on merit pay within his Department during each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The term "merit pay" is taken to refer to the three-year performance bonus experiment which was introduced throughout the Civil Service on 1 April 1985.

  During the first year of the experiment, which ran from April 1985 to March 1986, expenditure on awards within the MOD was £691,500. Expenditure in the second year, from April 1986 to March 1987 was again £691,500. Details are not yet available for the third and final year of the experiment covering the period April 1987 to March 1988.

  Special Pay
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which United Kingdom establishments operate special pay additions.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Special pay additions operate in the following establishments:

  RAF HQ Strike Command, High Wycombe.

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment, Henlow and Wyton.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments, Aldermaston and Burghfield.

  Institute of Naval Medicine, Alverstoke.

  HM Naval Base, Rosyth.

  HM Naval Base, Devonport.

  Directorate General Ship Refitting, Bath.

  Directorate General Submarines, Bath.

  Fleet Maintenance Repair Organisation, Portsmouth and in the Inner London area.

  Merchant Ships (Armilla Patrol)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of British or British dependency ownership of the parent company is required for a merchant ship to qualify for accompaniment by the Armilla patrol.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Ships eligible for RN protection are those registered in the United Kingdom or dependent territories, or those where there is a clear majority United Kingdom or dependent territory interest in the ownership.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps will be taken to ensure that research projects previously funded directly by his Department, whose funding is now to be channelled through the research 446
  councils, will not suffer a loss of income as a result; what steps will be taken to ensure that the total sums available for research will not decline in real terms as a result of this change; what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from universities and other academic institutions about this matter and what reply has been sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  When joint grants are made by the Ministry of Defence and the research councils for academic research of relevance to defence, research council funding arrangements apply. The grants are separate from and additional to contracts and agreements made by the Ministry for defence-related research. Defence spending on R and D in the academic sector has shown a sustained increase in recent years.

  AWRE Aldermaston
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimates were given of the required number of staff to be employed at AW RE Aldermaston for each year since 1979; and how far they have differed from the complement in each of these years;

  (2) how many electronics engineers have been recruited to work at AWRE Aldermaston in each year since 1979;

  (3) how many staff at AWRE Aldermaston have been transferred from research to production duties in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our policy to disclose details of the number or deployment of staff employed on the nuclear warhead programme.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the AS90 warhead production complex will be in operation at AWRE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The A90 complex will be operational in the early nineties on a time scale consistent with planned deliveries for deployment of Trident in the mid-nineties.

  SSBN Submarines
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what date he estimates SSBNs 05, 06, 07 and 08 will have their full complement of missiles and warheads.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Vanguard class submarines will be fully effective from the start of their operational service. These precise dates are classified.

  Uranium
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where secondary enrichment of uranium for weapons grade takes place.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The arrangements for the final enrichment of uranium to the level required for defence purposes remain as announced by my right hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State for Defence on 23 June 1982 at columns 128–29.

  Polaris
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the phasing out of Polaris, in the light of the delays in the operational production line for warhead components.
  447
  Mr. Sainsbury
  As my right hon. Friend reaffirmed to the House on 21 January at column 775, Trident remains on programme to enter service in the mid-1990s. In the meantime, the United Kingdom Polaris force will remain fully operational and effective. The Polaris force will be progressively phased out after the entry into service of Trident.

  Royal Navy Armaments Depot
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the warhead convoys which travel by road between Royal Navy armaments depot Coulport and Burghfield will cease.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to discuss the movement of nuclear weapons.

  Aircraft Noise (Report)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library a copy of the interim report of the NATO pilot study into "Aircraft Noise in a Modern Society".

  Mr. Freeman
  Copies of this report are already available in the Library.

  European Fighter Project
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, at his meeting with the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany on 20 January, he sought to discover when the West German Government intend to come to a final decision on their participation in the European fighter aircraft project.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  At his meeting with the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany on 20 January, my right hon. Friend discussed a number of topics, including progress towards national decisions on the development phase of the European fighter aircraft.

  RAF Binbrook (Near Miss)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 32, he will make a statement on the near miss which took place over RAF Binbrook in Lincolnshire between and Air United Kingdom civil airliner Short 360 and a Phantom fighter bomber in April 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  The joint airmiss section of the National Air Traffic Services has investigated fully the circumstances surrounding the incident to which the hon. Member refers. Its findings have been examined by the joint airmiss working group, and its conclusions have been made known to the aviation community.

  Graphics (Supply)
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that when contract number CB/SL24B/0059 for the supply of graphics to the armed services is considered the needs of the end users will be fully taken into account.
  448
  Mr. Sainsbury
  For all contract tasks whether for equipments or services, including graphics, the end users define the work to be performed and monitor performance by the contractor.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that, following the Department of Trade and Industry's initiative to help small businesses, he will ensure that when contract number CB/SL24B/0059 for the supply of graphics to the armed services is awarded, small companies will be given the opportunity of prime contractor status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The phrase "prime contractor status" can be misunderstood. Depending on circumstances, award of contract can be direct between contractor and the Department, or some of the work can be sub-contracted by a main contractor. It would be wrong to try to forecast the result because tenders are not yet evaluated and will be considered on their merits. Tenders submitted, whether by larger or smaller firms will, of course, be given equal consideration.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that, when contract number CB/SL24B/0059 for the supply of graphics to the armed services is awarded, consideration will be given to splitting this contract up between a number of prime contractors so that it is possible to measure the relative performance of the winners during the contract period.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Because tenders cover requirements in seven regions of England and Wales it is probable that there shall be a number of contracts issued as a result of the evaluation of tenders.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Security
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will seek a variation of the injunction granted on 2 January against Times Newspapers Ltd. in relation to Anthony Cavendish so as to permit publications of a fair and accurate account of proceedings in Parliament.

  The Attorney-General
  At the Government's suggestion, such an amendment was made to the injunction of 15 January.

  Deputy Judges
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor proposes to make any changes to the system of appointing deputy judges; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  Under the present system, the Lord Chancellor appoints, after due consultation, those whom he judges to have the calibre, experience and standing necessary for this judical work. He has no plans to change that system.

  Court Proceedings (Sketches)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy towards the prosecution of those who publicise sketches of court proceedings in contravention of section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925; and if he has any proposals to allow them in circumstances most likely to ensure their accuracy.
  449
  The Attorney-General
  Sketches of court proceeding made with a view to publication are prohibited by section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 only if made in court. Where such an offence is alleged, the Crown Prosecution Service will prosecute if there is sufficient evidence and if it would be in the public interest to do so. The criteria it will apply are those made public by the Director of Public Prosecutions in his code for Crown prosecutors.

  Uncertificated Solicitors
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he will take to prevent uncertificated solicitors from acting improperly.

  The Attorney-General
  The rules of professional conduct and, in certain circumstances, the criminal law seek to prevent improper behaviour on the part of solicitors with or without practising certificates.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will seek a meeting with Mr. Stringer of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau to discuss complaints against the bureau; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will set up an inquiry into the manner in which the Solicitors Complaints Bureau conducts investigations, with respect to its standards of impartiality.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General how many uncertificated solicitors are practising in(a) the west midlands and (b) England and Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  No such statistics are kept. A practising certificate under the Solicitors Act 1974 is not required for all work that a solicitor may do, and information on the matters raised in the question would be difficult to obtain.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will take steps to establish a method of complaints against uncertificated solicitors which is more open to scrutiny than that of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General what action will he take against solicitors who acted uncertificated between November 1986 and 28 January 1987 in north Staffordshire.

  The Attorney-General
  If the hon. Member would supply details, her allegations will be investigated.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he will take to prevent the payment of legal aid moneys to uncertificated solicitors; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  When the legal aid administration of the Law Society receives information that a solicitor has undertaken legal aid work whilst uncertificated, no payment is made for the work concerned. Action is taken to recoup any moneys already paid in respect of the appropriate period.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the amount of legal aid moneys recovered in 1983, 1984,450
  1985, 1986 and 1987 and paid in respect of a solicitor who at the relevant time did not hold a current practising certificate; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not available, but the practice of the legal aid head office is to recover all legal aid moneys paid in respect of a solicitor who at the relevant time did not hold a current practising certificate.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will take steps to arrange for those who satisfy the income eligibility requirements to apply for legal aid to be able to apply for legal aid to be represented at an inquest where such representation is considered important to pursuing claims of negligence against public bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No. In present circumstances extension of legal aid to inquests cannot be justified.

  Solicitors
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he takes to prevent the destruction of any evidence relating to solicitors practising uncertificated.

  The Attorney-General
  I am not aware of any such impropriety.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Allegations)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General what direction in respect of prosecution the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) has issued in respect of an officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other persons in Belfast against whom allegations were made by Mr. Chan Hok-Chun and Mr. Hui Yat-Chi; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  An investigation has been carried out by the Royal Ulster Constabulary with regard to complaints made by Mr. Holc-Chun and Mr. Hui Yat-Chi.

  The results of these investigations were reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland who, having considered all the facts and circumstances reported to him, issued a direction of no prosecution. This direction was issued on 6 January 1988.

  British Rail Property (Offences)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Attorney-General whether his guidelines regarding offences on British Rail property made any reference to trespass by fox hunts.

  The Attorney-General
  I have interpreted the hon. Member's question as referring to the Attorney-General's guidelines on the criteria for prosecution. The guidelines have been reproduced in the code for Crown prosecutors, which is issued pursuant to section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, a copy of which is to be found in the Library of this House. The code makes no reference to fox hunts.

SCOTLAND

  Neighbourhood Heating
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will fund an expansion in the number of neighbourhood heating schemes, along the lines of the Heathwise in Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  As my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Energy announced on 9 April 1987, at columns 223–25, total Government support for community insulation projects in the United Kingdom in 1988–89 will be worth an estimated £55 million to £60 million. This represents an increase of up to 30 per cent. on 1987–88. The proportion of these resources coming to Scotland will not be known until the current consideration of bids for funding in 1988–89 is completed.

  Industrial Projects
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of industrial projects which are to receive public support in the current year in Angus, Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on individual projects which are to receive public support in the Angus local authority

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Grade 3 Under Secretary

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 5 Assistant Secretary

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 6 Senior Principal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grade 7 Principal

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  2

  3

  1

  2

  3

  1

  —

  3

  2

  2

  Executive Officer

  3

  4

  9

  2

  3

  5

  3

  3

  2

  6

  Clerical/Administrative Officer

  16

  13

  18

  6

  10

  12

  8

  2

  3

  8

  Clerical/Administrative Assistant

  27

  26

  29

  22

  14

  13

  7

  19

  9

  8

  TOTALS

  49

  48

  58

  32

  31

  31

  19

  27

  18

  25

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table indicating the number of administrative staff in his Department who have left before retirement for an occupation outside the Civil Service for each year over the last decade.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department does not maintain statistics on the reasons which staff may give for resigning, nor on the occupations which they subsequently take up.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the educational background of administrative class civil servants entering his Department for each of the last 10 years by(a) state, assisted or independent school and (b) university.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department does not maintain central statistics on the schools attended by staff, and the collation of information from individual records would be disproportionately costly.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate, by grade and the department within his Department they joined, the backgrounds of administrative grade civil servants who have entered his Department from other Government Departments for each year over the last decade.
  452
  district in the current year cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality. However, in the current financial year, payments to firms in the Angus district under the original and revised regional development grant schemes have to date totalled some £500,000. There have been no payments of regional selective assistance (RSA). Approvals under the revised regional development grant scheme in the period April 1987 to January 1988 have amounted to £400,000, associated with project costs of £800,000 and the creation of 130 jobs. Details of the offers of RSA cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality.

  Staff
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate how many of his Department's administrative staff have transferred to other Government Departments, by grade, for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is set out in the following table:

  Mr. Rifkind
  This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  "Scottish Homes"
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the number of responses to the Scottish Development Department's consultative document "Scottish Homes".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 10 December 1987 at column 192.

  School Management
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the number of responses to the Scottish Education Department's consultative document, "School Management and the Role of Parents".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government received some 8,000 responses to the consultation paper on school management.

  Drink-Driving Offences
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions in Scotland for drink and driving offences causing(a) death, (b) injuries and (c) damages, for each year since 1979, have resulted in (i) acquittals, (ii) guilty verdicts, (iii) imprisonment, (iv) fines and (v) compensation to the victim.

  Drunk-driving offences, Scotland

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Acquittals

  337

  480

  392

  386

  386

  442

  364

  335

  Charges proved

  12,479

  13,712

  12,438

  11,613

  12,904

  13,557

  13,551

  13,082

  Imprisonment

  167

  188

  147

  203

  244

  252

  293

  279

  Fine

  11,866

  13,025

  11,832

  10,773

  12,129

  12,759

  12,725

  12,330

  Compensation order1 (includes those given in addition to a more serious penalty)

  —

  —

  0

  3

  6

  5

  3

  7

  1 Compensation orders were introduced on 1 April 1981.

  Bridge of Earn Hospital
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated underspend on the Bridge of Earn hospital development in 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no hospital development at Bridge of Earn hospital.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest figure for the expected level of spending on(a) the hospital service and (b) the National Health Service as a whole in 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest estimate of outturn for the year 1987–88 are gross expenditure of £1,697 million on hospital and community health services and £2,334 million on the National Health Service as a whole.

  Strathclyde (Education Expenditure)
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the education element of the allocation to Strathclyde regional council for 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  As regards revenue expenditure, rate support grant is paid in support of an authority's income generally. It is not attributed to particular services. For capital expenditure the allocation to the council for educational purposes is £20,378,000. This figure may be enhanced by capital receipts raised by the region or by virement from its other capital programmes.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the community charge rebate scheme will be based on the full personal community charge levied in each local authority area or based on a national average community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  Under the proposed community charge rebate scheme, rebates will be calculated on the basis of the actual personal community charge payable in each local authority.
  454
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is given in the table. Details on whether injury or damage resulted from a drunk-driving offence are not collected centrally.

  Salmon Netting Stations (River Tweed)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State For Scotland how many people have been employed at salmon netting stations on the River Tweed in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement on the intention of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust to close netting stations on the Tweed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of persons reported to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland as employed at the nets by proprietors and occupiers of salmon net fishings on the River Tweed varies according to the time of the fishing season. The maximum numbers, including those employed on a seasonal basis, are:

  Number

  1982

  107

  1983

  103

  1984

  116

  1985

  99

  1986

  96

  The Government have noted with interest the proposals of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland) in relation to the River Tweed. This is, however, a matter for the trust and the owners of the netting stations. Government approval to any closure of netting stations is not required.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to counteract the fall in blood donations in Scotland, and especially the west of Scotland region, between 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes. I have asked the Scottish national blood transfusion service to mount a national campaign to encourage people to give blood, and this will be launched later this month. In addition, regional efforts are being increased throughout Scotland. New donor sessions are being introduced; there are increased efforts to improve communications with potential donors; and donors may now be invited to give blood more frequently than hitherto.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Pirate Radio
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to increase the resources of the radio investigation service to take effective action against pirate radio stations.

  Mr. Butcher
  We have recently reviewed the resource need of the radio investigation service. We are currently strengthening manning levels in the London area and are investing some £400,000 in new equipment which should assist in the tracing of unlicensed radio operators. At the same time we are implementing new strategies to deal with the enormous tasks facing the service.

  The radio investigation service will act vigorously to clear the frequencies of unlicensed users. Particularly in view of the Home Secretary's announcement of 20 January on broadcast radio policy, I very much hope that unlicensed broadcasters will voluntarily stop broadcasting since they, with other interested parties, may soon have an opportunity to make applications to establish legal stations. At present they are squatting on frequencies assigned for legal stations and, because of the poor equipment they use, they are causing constant serious problems to the radio communications of users in other frequency bands including those who depend on radio for safety of life, such as Heathrow airport, fire brigades, the police, London Transport, British Gas, British Rail and the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received concerning the alleged financing by record companies of pirate radio stations.

  Mr. Maude
  One representation has been received from the Association of Independent Radio Contractors Limited and one from Capital Radio plc.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many prosecutions were brought against those (i) operating, (ii) controlling and (iii) financing pirate radio stations in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maude
  In 1987, 77 prosecutions were brought as a result of investigations by the Department's radio investigation service into the operations of unlicensed broadcasting stations. As a result, 75 offenders were convicted. I am sorry that the breakdown of statistics into the categories requested is not available.

  United Kingdom and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries trade

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports

  Imports

  Total

  Total excluding oil

  Total

  Total excluding oil

  Total

  Total excluding oil

  Total

  Total excluding oil

  Per capita US $

  As percentage of GDP

  1987

  United Kingdom'

  2,322

  2,078

  2,746

  2,616

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1986

  United Kingdom

  1,879

  1,667

  2,210

  2,097

  19·5

  17·3

  22·9

  21·8

  Butane Gas
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will introduce legislation to forbid the sale of butane gas cylinders to young people below the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Maude
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 8 April last, at columns 270–71.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he plans to upgrade his Department's equal opportunity officer post and bring it into line with Civil Service guidance, regarding grades 5/6 for the larger Departments.

  Mr. Butcher
  I see no need to upgrade the equal opportunity officer post. I am fully satisfied that the grade 7 incumbent has the full support of the grade 5 head of branch and the grade 3 head of personnel and has direct access to, and the confidence of, the principal establishment officer as suggested in the central guidance.

  Exports and Imports
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what are the latest figures for the annual value of exports, excluding oil, on(a) a per capita basis, and (b) as a percentage of gross national product; and what information he has as to comparable figures for other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries;

  (2) what are the latest figures for the annual value of exports, including oil, on (a) a per capita basis, and (b) as a percentage of gross national product; and what information he has as to comparable figures for other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries;

  (3) what are the latest figures for the annual value of imports, excluding oil, on (a) a per capita basis, and (b) as a percentage of gross national product; and what information he has as to comparable figures for other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries;

  (4) what are the latest figures for the annual value of imports, including oil, on (a) a per capita basis, and (b) as a percentage of gross national product; and what information he has as to comparable figures for other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information is in the following table:
  457

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports

  Imports

  Total

  Total excluding oil

  Total

  Total excluding oil

  Total

  Total excluding oil

  Total

  Total excluding oil

  Per capita US $

  As percentage of GDP

  Canada

  3,282

  3,137

  3,109

  2,991

  23·4

  22·3

  22·2

  21·3

  USA

  847

  832

  1,578

  1,427

  4·9

  4·8

  9·2

  8·3

  Japan

  1,722

  1,718

  983

  782

  10·7

  10·7

  6·1

  4·9

  Australia

  1,345

  1,281

  1,579

  1,506

  12·9

  12·3

  15·2

  14·5

  New Zealand

  1,738

  1,728

  1,870

  1,708

  22·0

  21·9

  23·7

  21·6

  Austria

  2,976

  2,959

  3,548

  3,379

  23·9

  23·7

  28·5

  27·1

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  6,718

  6,419

  6,657

  6,177

  51·1

  48·8

  50·6

  47·0

  Denmark

  4,030

  3,931

  4,449

  4,159

  25·1

  24·5

  27·7

  25·9

  Finland

  3,319

  3,241

  3,116

  2,764

  23·1

  22·6

  21·7

  19·3

  France

  2,150

  2,114

  2,309

  2,106

  16·7

  16·5

  18·0

  16·4

  Germany

  3,969

  3,940

  3,102

  2,848

  27·1

  26·9

  21·2

  19·4

  Greece

  567

  530

  1,135

  950

  14·2

  13·3

  28·4

  23·8

  Ireland

  3,550

  3,530

  3,257

  3,048

  51·2

  50·9

  47·0

  44·0

  Italy

  1,709

  1,663

  1,744

  1,534

  16·3

  15·8

  16·6

  14·6

  Netherland

  5,525

  4,973

  5,182

  4,656

  46·4

  41·7

  43·5

  39·1

  Norway

  4,373

  3,359

  4,869

  4,663

  26·6

  20·4

  29·6

  28·4

  Portugal

  704

  681

  924

  799

  24·8

  23·9

  32·5

  28·1

  Spain

  707

  663

  919

  756

  11·9

  11·2

  15·5

  12·8

  Sweden

  4,435

  4,325

  3,883

  3,507

  28·2

  27·5

  24·7

  22·3

  Switzerland

  5,720

  5,711

  6,268

  5,935

  28·0

  28·0

  30·7

  29·1

  Turkey

  146

  143

  216

  178

  13·0

  12·6

  19·2

  15·8

  1 Figures based on 1986 population.

  ֵNot available.

  Export valued fob; imports cif.

  Sources: OECD Except UK 1987: OTS.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures for the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the United States of America; and what information he has as to the balance of trade between the United States of America and Canada, Sweden, Japan, West Germany and Brazil.

  United States of America crude balance of trade with

  US $ billion

  Brazil

  Canada

  Japan

  Germany

  Sweden

  1987 January to September

  -2·7

  -10·6

  -41·8

  -11·3

  1-2·2

  1 Estimate.

  Source:

  United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics.

  United Slates: OECD; United States Department of Commerce.

  Illegal Broadcasting
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he will take to prevent the spread of illegal broadcasting; and if he will take steps to curb pirate stations in the London area.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) today.

  Driverplan Insurance Policy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received concerning the Driverplan insurance policy offered by the St. Christopher's Motorists' Security Association Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have received a number of
  458
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is in the following table.

  United Kingdom crude balance of trade with the United States of America

  £ billion

  US $ billion

  1987

  2·0

  3·3

  representations about the undesirability of schemes like the Driverplan insurance policy which indemnify policyholders who are prevented from driving. We shall be looking again at such schemes in the light of the report of the review of road traffic law which is expected shortly.

  Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what studies and reports have been and are being undertaken by his Department into the operation of the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers from 1979 up to the latest date available.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 29 January 1988]: None. My Department does not undertake studies or reports into the operations of other Government Departments.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  International Debt
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the World Bank concerning the alleviation of the international debt crisis.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I maintain regular contact with the World Bank. International debt is often high on the agenda.

  Sudan
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for aid to the Sudan.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In December 1987 we pledged £10 million as quick-disbursing balance of payments support for spending this year. During my recent visit to Sudan I announced a new £15 million grant for rehabilitation projects for spending up to 1991. This will be used principally for projects in the agricultural and transport sectors. In addition, we continue to provide assistance to the power, education and fisheries sectors.

  Kampuchea
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any representations concerning the restoration of development aid to Kampuchea.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have received a number of representations. It remains the Government's view, however, that it would be wrong in principle to give develoment aid to the illegitimate and unrepresentative regime in Phnom Penh.

  Mozambique
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase the British contribution to health care and agricultural development projects in Mozambique.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Over half the £15 million of programme aid which we pledged last year is being spent on agriculture, and £400,000 on medical supplies. We have also provided seeds and agricultural tools and paid for the transport of medical supplies under our emergency relief programme. The Commonwealth Development Corporation is considering investments in agricultural projects. I am ready to consider requests for further help in these fields.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Sri Lankan Government as to assistance for that country following the recent disturbances there.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  At a special meeting of the Sri Lankan Aid Group in Paris on 4 December, Britain pledged additional aid of up to £20 million in support of reconstruction efforts. An aid mission visited Sri Lanka in January for discussions on the use of these funds.

  Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Southern Africa development coordination conference.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I attended the annual consultative meeting of the Southern African development coordination conference in Arusha on 28 and 29 January. During the conference I made a new pledge of £10 million. This brings to £45 million the total we have pledged for assistance through this organisation.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the level of international co-operation designed to avoid famine in Ethiopia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Donors have responded promptly and generously with famine relief for the people of Ethiopia. About three quarters of the food aid needed in 1988 has already been pledged and is being delivered to the Ethiopian ports. If there is a major catastrophe it will not be because donors have failed to play their part but because, tragically, the civil war has prevented food from being delivered to those in need.

  Women
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action his Department has taken to ensure that the needs of women are given due consideration in development projects sponsored by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  All major projects are assessed for social impact and within this context particular attention is give to the impact on women.

  Overseas Development Administration (Underspend)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the underspend by the Overseas Development Administration for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The recent public expenditure White Paper shows that we expect to spend the planned aid programme in full, including the additional £13 million to which I referred on 27 January, at column 427, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs).

  UNICEF (Global Immunisation Programme)
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in UNICEF's global immunisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to it.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Some $211 million has so far been committed to immunisation projects. UNICEF estimates that 50 per cent. of the children of the developing world
  461
  have already been reached and 1·3 million lives saved each year. On present trends, over 70 per cent. of the developing world's children will be vaccinated by 1990.

  Her Majesty's Government have contributed £5·31 million bilaterally to the immunisation programme and we are also contributing through the European Community.

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the size of Her Majesty's Government's aid budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have received representations from a number of sources. The Government White Paper on public expenditure published last month shows that the overseas aid programme is planned to grow by some 3 per cent. in real terms over the next three years.

  Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he will be taking to publicise the work of the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute with a view to securing substantial outside funding for its work.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  As the ODA's own scientific unit, the ODNRI's resources form part of the ODA's total running costs. Ninety per cent. of the institute's work is commissioned by the ODA itself. The remainder is carried out on full repayment terms under contract to outside clients, typically the multilateral aid agencies. The institute is well known to potential external clients by virtue of its reputation as a world centre of excellence. The results of its work are normally published. Its activities are always featured in the ODA's annual review and a separate annual report covering the institute's work is published each year. Copies of the latest edition of these two publications are in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  National Health Service
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration she has given to the communication on the National Health Service presented to her on 27 January on behalf of the Manchester Evening News; if there is any action she is taking; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have noted the contents of the newspaper. I also refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 28 January, at column 313.

  Mr. Nigel Wicks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister why she has appointed Mr. Nigel Wicks as her personal representative at economic summits; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed Mr. Wicks as my personal representative for economic summits in succession to Sir Robert Armstrong, who retired on 31 December 1987.

  Mr. Wicks is well equipped by his Treasury background and by his current position as my principal private secretary for this role.

  Crown Prerogative
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if the alteration in the terms of service of civil servants working at Government communications headquarters since 1983 has been made in exercise of the power under prerogative of the Crown.
  The Prime Minister
  Alterations to the terms of service of civil servants working at GCHQ have been made under the authority of the Civil Service Order in Council 1982, which is an instrument made under the royal prerogative.

THE ARTS

  Works of Art in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) whether he will make a statement regarding the acceptance in lieu of tax of eight drawings by Henry Moore from the estate of Lord Clark; whether these drawings will be vested in the trustees of the British museum, in accordance with the wishes of Lord Clark; and what amount of tax has been satisfied by this acceptance;

  (2) whether he has anything to add to his written answer to the hon. Member for Warley, East on 21 July 1987, Official Report, columns 114–5, regarding the acceptance in lieu of tax of Constable's painting Stratford Mill, in view of the fact that this painting is not listed in his written answer to the hon. Member for Warley, East on 18 January, Official Report, columns 477–8, among those works of art accepted during the half-year ended 31 December 1987, whether allocated or awaiting allocation; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I am pleased to announce the formal acceptances in lieu of tax of the items to which the hon. Member for Warley, East refers: Constable's "Stratford Mill" and nine drawings by Henry Moore. These acceptances were finalised on 8 January and 21 January 1988 respectively. The acceptance of Constable's "Stratford Mill" satisfied tax of £5.5 million, and the painting was allocated to the trustees of the National Gallery in accordance with the wishes of the owners. The acceptance of the Henry Moore drawings satisfied tax of £153,456, and the offer was conditional upon their allocation to the trustees of the British Museum. Ownership of the items will be transferred to the respective institutions shortly.

  National Museums
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what factors he takes into account when allocating central Government funds to the national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 23 November 1987 at column 60.

  Museums (Admission Charges)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has since 1979 given any advice to any or all of the national museums about charging for admission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Whether or not the national museums arid galleries charge for admission is up to them to decide in the light of their plans and priorities.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the changes in mortgage interest tax relief since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  There have been few changes in mortgage interest relief over this period. In 1983 the MIRAS scheme, provided for basic tax relief to be given by deduction at source, started up. This was essentially an administrative change not affecting the basic relief conditions. Also in 1983 the main residence loan relief limit was increased from £25,000 to its current level of £30,000, and relief for people living in job-related accommodation was extended to the self-employed, also with effect from April 1983. In addition, there have been various minor amendments to the operation of the MIRAS arrangements.

  If the hon. Gentleman has something else in mind, perhaps he would write to me.

  Food (VAT)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which food products are currently subject to the standard rate of value added tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  Food products which are currently subject to the standard rate of VAT are specified in group 1 of schedule 5 to the VAT Act 1983.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards value added tax on foodstuffs.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 7 July 1987 at column 192.

  Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust was recognised as a charitable body by the Inland Revenue office in Scotland; under which criteria for charitable status the trust was so recognised; and what is the value of tax relief granted in respect of payments to the trust for the last two years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that I cannot comment on the tax affairs of any particular body.

  Accountancy Firms (Tax Planning)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the tax lost to the Revenue in 1987 as a direct consequence of tax planning by accountancy firms.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 January 1988, c. 365]: If by "tax planning" the hon. Members means the legitimate use of relieving provisions in tax law, there is, by definition, no tax loss.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, at column 603, if he will provide his best estimate of the number of unemployed claimants in the London boroughs of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham in July 1981.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not available. Figures of unemployed claimants at local level are available only from August 1982. Figures for London boroughs are compiled using the ward-based system and are available only from June 1983.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom in March, June, September and December for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom (seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers) for each of the months requested for the last 10 years. The data given are consistent over the time period requested.

  Unemployed claimants, seasonally adjusted United Kingdom

  thousands

  March

  June

  September

  December

  1977

  1,207·6

  1,250·6

  1,292·6

  1,282·7

  1978

  1,247·5

  1,235·1

  1,217·4

  1,166·6

  1979

  1,183·8

  1,131·8

  1,110·4

  1,121·7

  1980

  1,210·2

  1,359·1

  1,605·8

  1,898·4

  1981

  2,107·0

  2,275·4

  2,397·7

  2,479·1

  1982

  2,532·3

  2,605·8

  2,685·0

  2,771·5

  1983

  2,824·7

  2,884·2

  2,893·8

  2,919·5

  1984

  2,966·9

  2,978·6

  3,037·7

  3,069·9

  1985

  3,096·0

  3,109·3

  3,121·2

  3,143·0

  1986

  3,206·8

  3,212·5

  3,183·2

  3,119·4

  1987

  3,039·7

  2,925·2

  2,773·3

  2,614·0

  Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people at work have been(a) killed and (b) injured off the highway by vehicles reversing; figures for each of the last five years for which they are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table gives the available information for deaths of employees at work struck by reversing vehicles. The deaths are those reported under the reporting regulations for accidents at work (see note1). Accidents reportable under the Road Traffic Act 1972 are excluded.

  Information for non-fatal injuries could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Reported deaths of employees, resulting from vehicles reversing1 (not on the highway)

  Great Britain

  Number

  1982

  16

  1983

  8

  1984

  13

  1985

  6

  1986 January to March

  4

  1986–872

  7

  465

  1 Including only accidents in which injury resulted from person being struck by the vehicle and reported to HM Factory, Agriculture, Explosives and Mines & Quarries Inspectorate, under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (for 1982 to March 1986) and under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (1986–87).

  2 Provisional data for year commencing 1 April.

  Reported occupational injuries to employees, resulting from vehicles etc1 (not on the highway) Great Britain

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986 Jan-March

  1986–872

  (a) deaths caused by:

  1. industrial & site vehicles and field machines

  13

  13

  15

  18

  7

  11

  2. transport for public roads

  27

  20

  29

  18

  3

  24

  (b) Reported major injuries3 caused by:

  1. industrial & site vehicles and field machines

  134

  142

  160

  170

  39

  260

  2. transport for public roads

  80

  94

  67

  90

  16

  171

  Reported "over 3 day injuries"4 caused by:

  1. industrial & site vehicles and field machines

  2,489

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,235

  2. transport for public roads

  1,197

  —

  —

  —

  —

  575

  1 including only accidents reported to Her Majesty's Factory, Agriculture, Explosives, Mines & Quarries Inspectorate in which injury resulted from person being struck by the vehicle.

  2 provisional data for year commencing 1 April.

  3 for 1982 to March 1986, as defined in the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrencies Regulations (NADOR) 1980; for 1986–87 the definition is wider as given in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, (RIDDOR) 1985.

  4 for 1982 those leading to claims for industrial injury benefit notified to HSE by DHSS. This source was effectively abolished in 1983. From 1 April 1986 injuries reported directly to HSE under RIDDOR, not comparable with data from earlier period. These data for "over 3 day injuries" exclude reports to the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate.

  Investments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been spent in each of the last 10 years by his Department on attracting investment from(a) inside the United Kingdom and (b) overseas for (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) each of the English regions, by region.

  Mr. Cope
  It is not a principal function of my Department to encourage regional investment. There are, however, two areas of expenditure which do create investment and the regional analysis is as follows:

  Region

  Assistance to tourist projects in England1

  City action team project fund

  1985–86 £000s

  1986–87 £000s

  1986–87 £000s

  1987–88 £000s

  North-East

  621

  644

  1,000

  1,000

  North-West

  1,479

  1,916

  —

  2,000

  Yorkshire

  865

  1,744

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  457

  1,224

  —

  1,000

  East Midlands

  22,241

  784

  —

  —

  South East

  1,317

  1,493

  —

  1,000

  South West

  2,464

  3,519

  —

  —

  East Anglia

  815

  785

  —

  —

  Southern

  1,290

  1,945

  —

  —

  1 Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have equivalent schemes for assistance to tourist projects.

  2 £1·5 million of this sum was to attract investment from overseas.

  All investment is from inside the United Kingdom except where specifically indicated. The Department
  466
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) fatalities and (b) injuries have been caused to people at work whilst off the highway by motor vehicles in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table gives the available information for employees at work struck by vehicles. The injuries are those reported under the relevant accident reporting regulations (see notes 1, 3 and 4). They exclude any accidents reportable under the Road Traffic Act 1972.

  assumed responsibility for tourism matters in September 1985. We ceased to have responsibility for city action teams from 1 October 1987.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made by his Department in reducing unemployment in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on unemployment in rural areas is not readily available. However, an independent unemployment analysis carried out for the Development Commission for Rural England suggests that rural areas are sharing in the general drop in unemployment. The analysis estimated that the average unemployment rate in the Development Commission's rural development areas as a whole fell from 10·4 per cent. in the year to April 1987. During the same period, the unemployment rate nationally fell from 11·5 per cent. to 10·9 per cent. and since then has fallen further to 9·4 per cent.

  My Department is playing its part with other interested Departments in fostering these improvements by helping rural economies to diversify and generate new jobs through support for local enterprise agencies, encouragement of rural enterprise, our enterprise, employment and training measures.

  Food (Retail Price Index)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which food categories are included in the household food budget for the purposes of measuring the retail price index.

  Mr. Lee
  All categories of food are included in the household budget for the purposes of compiling the retail prices index.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  West Bank and Gaza
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Israeli Government on the security situation in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Israeli Government are well aware of our continuing concern at the unrest in the occupied territories and their response to it.

  Mr. Terry Waite
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any recent information on the whereabouts of Mr. Terry Waite; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We continue to receive many rumours about Terry Waite's whereabouts. Wherever practicable they are analysed and followed up, but to date none of them has yielded any firm or reliable information.

  Beirut Hostages
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts have been made with the International Committee of the Red Cross regarding the locations, safety and fate of British hostages being held in Beirut.

  Mr. Eggar
  The International Committee of the Red Cross cannot be involved in negotiations with captors but would act as a channel if necessary as part of arrangements agreed by others. No claim has been made by those holding the British hostages. A formal ICRC role is not therefore feasible, although Her Majesty's embassy in Beirut has informal contact with the local ICRC representative.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any discussions have taken place with other Governments whose nationals are held hostage in Beirut, Lebanon, on establishing a common strategy for dealing with the kidnappers.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have worked hard with our partners and allies to formulate a common policy in dealing with terrorism. All our European partners gave a firm undertaking at the European Council in December 1986 not to make concessions under duress to terrorists or their sponsors. At the Venice economic summit in June 1987, Heads of State and Government confirmed their commitment to the same principle.

  Hong Kong (Human Rights)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application after 30 June 1997 of each of those international human rights conventions and other agreements that(a) do and (b) do not currently apply in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Joint Declaration on the queston of Hong Kong provides that"The provisions of the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force".

  It is our understanding that the Chinese Government will make provision in the Basic Law for the future Hong Kong special administrative region, which they are currently drafting, to give effect to this undertaking in the joint declaration.

  Should further relevant conventions be extended to Hong Kong before 1997, we, together with the Chinese Government, would need to consider their continued application to Hong Kong after 30 June 1997.

  Hong Kong (ILO Conventions)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application after 30 June 1997 of each of those International Labour Organisation conventions that(a) do and (b) do not currently apply in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  It has been agreed in the Sino-British joint liaison group that relevant international labour conventions which currently apply to Hong Kong shall continue to apply to the Hong Kong SAR. Should further international labour conventions need to be applied to Hong Kong before then, we, together with the Chinese Government, would need to discuss the matter.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West, on plutonium,Official Report, 20 January, column 721, he expects to conclude consideration of the representations he has received from 20/20 Television.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend is proposing to offer 20/20 Television a meeting with appropriate officials.

  Crown Prerogative
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what directions he has given to officials in United Kingdom dependent territories on the exercise of the right of Crown prerogative in the course of their duties.

  Mr. Eggar
  The constitutional arrangements for each territory vary. It is not possible to give a general account of the position in relation to the exercise of the royal prerogative in the various dependent territories.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The usual forecast was deposited in the House earlier today. At present nine meetings of the Council of Ministers are planned for February.

  The Internal Market Council meets on 2 February to discuss a number of measures relevant to the completion of the single European market.

  On 2 February, European Community and European Free Trade Association Ministers will meet to discuss mutual co-operation in tackling trade barriers as the European Community makes progress on completion of the single market.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 9 February to discuss the Commission's proposals on the liberalisation of capital movements.

  The Agriculture Council is expected to meet on 8–9 February to discuss hormones (article 7 derogation); beef balance sheets for 1988; an amendment to the rules for granting olive oil production aid and the setting of the percentage of aid which may be retained by producer organisations to cover expenses.

  The European Council, which will be held in Brussels on 11–12 February, will concentrate on the Community's financial situation, including the reform of the common agricultural policy.

  The Foreign Affairs Council meets on 22–23 February to discuss preparations for the forthcoming meeting with Foreign Ministers of the Central American and Contadora group countries; and the commitment made at Punta del Este concerning the rollback of existing restrictions that are inconsistent with the GATT.

  The Budget Council will meet on 23–24 February to continue discussions on the establishment of a draft budget for 1988.

  The Fisheries Council meets on 29 February to consider discussions between the European Community and Morocco on a fisheries agreement; European Community tariff quotas; amendments to the marketing regime; and technical conservation.

  The fourth in a series of meetings between European Community, Central American and Contadora group Foreign Ministers will be held from 29 February to 1 March. Discussions will cover the whole range of the Community's relations with Central America and, in particular, progress on the peace process.

  Hong Kong (Animal Welfare)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the level of export of black rhino horn from Hong Kong in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: In the past five years only one export licence for rhino horn has been issued; this was in early 1984, for the export to Taiwan of 51 kg of black rhino horn which came from stock held since before the convention on international trade in endangered species came into effect. A total ban on export of all rhino products, including horn, has been in force since 1 April 1986.
  470
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government permit the sale of black rhino horn in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: Only black rhino horn which comes from stock held since before the convention on international trade in endangered species (CITES) came into effect is permitted for sale in Hong Kong. Following the adoption by the Hong Kong Government of a CITES resolution in July 1987, the Hong Kong Government are to impose a total ban on the internal sale of rhino horn in July this year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the importation into Hong Kong of black rhino horn in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: Hong Kong has banned the import of all rhino products, including horn, since 1979.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the importation of rare and endangered species into Hong Kong for gastronomic purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The Hong Kong Government take their responsibilities under the convention on international trade in endangered species very seriously. The import, export, or possession of endangered species, whether alive, dead, parts or derivatives, are prohibited except when authorised by licence. Licences for rare and endangered species that could conceivably be used for gastronomic purposes are issued only to bona fide conservationist organisations to facilitate the exchange of specimens for breeding purposes. No licences have been issued to permit the consumption of such specimens and none will be.

  To prevent the illegal importation of rare and endangered species, the Hong Kong Government conduct checks at points of entry and follow up these checks with inspections in markets and restaurants throughout the territory. The Hong Kong Government are at present conducting a review of these measures to see whether they can be made more effective.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials in Hong Kong are employed to inspect local restaurants to ensure that endangered species of animals are not served as food.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January 1988, c. 498]: The Agricultural and Fisheries Department of the Hong Kong Government employ five full-time inspectors whose duties include making inspections and spot checks at markets and restaurants in Hong Kong to ensure that endangered species are not served as food.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the reply of 13 January,Official Report, column 285, he will give details of the 14 seizures made in 1987 by the authorities in Hong Kong following inspections at local restaurants.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January 1988, c. 498]: Following inspection of local restaurants to check

  471
  for contravention of the Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered Species) Ordinance, Cap. 187, the 14 seizures made in 1987 comprised five pangolins, 18 birds of prey, 16 giant salamanders and 12 bear paws.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the reply of 13 January,Official Report, column 285, he will give details of the 136 seizures made in 1987 by the authorities in Hong Kong of illegally imported animals and plants.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January 1988, c. 498]: The 136 seizures made in 1987 by Hong Kong officials of illegally imported endangered species comprised 16 pangolins, 117 birds of prey, 24 giant salamanders, 140 kilogrammes of pangolin meat and 2.5 kilogrammes of giant salamander meat.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the reply of 13 January,Official Report, column 285, he will explain why only 80 restaurants were visited in Hong Kong during 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January 1988, c. 498]: The Hong Kong Government give priority first to the prevention of the illegal importation of endangered species, their parts and products; second, to the control of their commercial shipment under licence where licensing policy allows trade in scheduled specimens; and, third, to carrying out regular random checks of restaurants and markets in order to detect the sale of any such specimens which may have evaded import controls. Eighty such checks were made during 1987. Reports of the illegal trade in scheduled specimens and of the prohibited use of endangered species for food are investigated as they occur. The Hong Kong Government are considering proposals to strengthen their inspection capacity.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  No. 1 Bridge Street
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what are the long-term plans for the use of No. 1 Bridge street.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The building forms part of what is known as the Bridge street, phase II site. The Property Services Agency, with the agreement of the New Building Sub-Committee, has commissioned a detailed design study for the staged development of the whole site. I understand that the results will be made available shortly.

  Meanwhile, when the police recreation area on the ground floor of No. 1 Bridge street is moved to No. 1 Cannon row in 1989, the Parliamentary Works Office will undertake some limited work to enable ITN staff, at present working in Portakabins in Black Rod's Garden, to move into the vacant accommodation.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what agreements exist for civil nuclear waste to be(a) taken into the United Kingdom from other countries
  472
  and (b) taken to other countries from the United Kingdom; and how much waste has been moved under either of these two categories.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No radioactive waste separate from irradiated fuel is imported into the United Kingdom. Irradiated fuel is imported for reprocessing at British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) plant at Sellafield under contracts between BNFL and its customers.

  Since 1965, some 2,050 tonnes of uranium in the form of irradiated magnox fuel and 1,900 tonnes of uranium in the form of irradiated oxide fuel have been imported. The relatively small volume of radioactive waste derived has been stored at Sellafield prior to further treatment.

  Since 1976, BNFL's contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. The Government intend that these options should be exercised and that the wastes should be returned. No wastes have yet been returned to overseas customers pending the completion of waste treatment facilities at Sellafield.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what plans exist for returning(a) the nuclear wastes, (b) depleted uranium, and (c) plutonium arising from the reprocessing of the 140 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel owned by O.K.G. Aktiebolag of Sweden, currently stored at Sellafield;

  (2) if he will make a statement on current policy for the management of (a) low, (b) intermediate and (c) high level wastes arising from contracts signed pre-1976 with O.K.G. Aktiebolag.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The arrangements for the disposal of all wastes arising from such contracts are set out in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 2 May 1986, at columns 502–3. Any plutonium to be returned would be subject to the conditions specified in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the then hon. Member for Walthamstow, Mr. Deakins, on 16 April 1985, at column 123. Similar arrangements would apply to any depleted uranium arising.

  "Brass Tacks" (Transcript)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek to obtain and place in the Library a copy of the full transcript of the interview he gave to the BBC Television "Brass Tacks" production team for the series broadcast on BBC 2 in October 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  No. I understand that the Library obtains transcripts from the broadcasters on behalf of hon. Members.

  Latina Magnox Reactor
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the future of the Latina Magnox reactor exported to Italy and on what opportunities exist for the United Kingdom's decommissioning expertise to be made available to Italy as it closes down its older nuclear reactors.
  473
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that this reactor has been closed. I hope that United Kingdom concerns would be given the opportunity to tender for any future decommissioning contracts.

  Irradiated Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State of Energy what is the cost per tonne of irradiated spent nuclear fuel to be reprocessed for the Central Electricity Generating Board and South of Scotland Electricity Board in the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield; and how these costs compare with those agreed with foreign utilities for imported thermal oxide nuclear fuel.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The terms under which business is conducted between BNFL and its customers are a commercial matter between the parties involved. I understand that the terms agreed with the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board are no less advantageous than those agreed with overseas customers.

  British Nuclear Fuels (Staff Retraining)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the staff retraining programme for British Nuclear Fuels plc, Sellafield required in the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate report, "British Nuclear Fuels Limited, Sellafield, Post Audit progress", December 1987.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The HSE's post-audit report on BNFL Sellafield recognises that improvements have been made by the company in fulfilling the recommendations on training in the original audit report. Both reports are in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Power Plants (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number of(a) nuclear power plants, (b) nuclear fuel cycle facilities, (c) fossil fuel plants, (d) fossil fuel processing facilities and (e) renewable energy production and conversion sites he or his predecessor has visited in the United Kingdom since 1979 in each case giving the date and location of the visit.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The information requested covers a period of three Parliaments and four Secretaries of State; it can be produced only at disproportionate costs.

  Electricity Board Reactors (Reprocessed Fuel)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give, as a proportion of spent Magnox fuel deriving from United Kingdom electricity board reactors reprocessed in the period 15 December 1986 to 15 December 1987, the amounts reprocessed in each year from 1980 to 1985.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  For the tonnages of civil spent fuel reprocessed, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 11 December 1985 at columns 638 and 639. 705 tonnes uranium (te u) were reprocessed in 1985–86.

  For the spent Magnox fuel derived from United Kingdom electricity board reactors, I refer the hon.
  474
  Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 16 December 1987, at column 516.

  Oil-related Fabrication Work
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will assess the availability and potential during the calendar year 1988 of oil-related fabrication work in the United Kingdom; if he will express that total capacity of availability as a percentage of the total capacity of the United Kingdom fabrication sector; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if, following his recent meeting with a delegation from local authorities within the Highlands, he will assess the availability and potential for oil-related fabrication work in the area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  During the course of 1988 we expect that new contracts for oil-related fabrication work of around 100,000 tonnes will be awarded. This work will come from projects already approved and from others currently under consideration. I am very much aware of the difficulties which the United Kingdom fabrication industry faces and of the continuing overcapacity within it. Virtually all fabrication work for United Kingdom continental shelf development is won by United Kingdom-based companies and United Kingdom yards, including those in the Scottish Highlands. Securing new work will depend on being competitive and maintaining good labour relations.

  Polonium 210 (Windscale Fire)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the first official mention was made of the release of polonium 210 in the 1957 Windscale fire, giving details of the source, date and place of publication.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Two reports which referred to polonium were produced by Atomic Energy Authority employees in 1958. The references are as follows:Stewart N. G. and Crooks R. A., Long-Range Travel of the Radioactive Cloud from the Accident at Windscale. Nature vol. 182 no. 4636 pp627–628.
  Dunstar H. J., Howells H. and Templeton W. L., District Surveys following the Windscale Accident, October 1957.
  Proc 2nd UN Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy vol. 18 pp296–308 (1958).

  Nuclear Installations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his answer of 22 January on the Radiation Effects Research Foundation report, he will place the National Radiological Protection Board GS-9 document in the Library; what is the membership of the working group advising the Health and Safety Commission: if the remit of this working group includes a re-evaluation of the cost factors in nuclear power investment and the need for any modifications to existing nuclear installations; when the working group plans to report to the Health and Safety Commission; and if the working group's advice will be made available to any planning inquiry into new nuclear power installations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that the
  475
  Health and Safety Commission's Working Group on Ionising Radiations (WGIR) has the following terms of reference:
  "To consider all matters concerning the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 and related radiation protection matters that are referred to it by the HSE or the Commission and to advise the Commission."

  Members of the working group have been nominated by the CBI, the TUC, local authority interests, the National Radiological Protection Board, Government Departments and professional bodies. Among the issues to be addressed initially by WGIR is what action to recommend the commission to take on the advice on dose limitation provided by national and international bodies. It is expected to have reported to the commission on this by the end of 1988. Wider distribution of any report will be a matter for the commission.

  I am arranging for a copy of the National Radiological Protection Board's GS-9 document to be placed in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been and are being taken to ensure that potentially contaminated sheep taken to Staffordshire from restricted areas of Cumbria are being monitored.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Sheep may only be sold out of the restricted area of Cumbria after live monitoring. Those found to be above 1,000 bq/kg must be indentified by clipping on the head and neck and marking with a distinctive long lasting paint of a specified colour. It is an offence to slaughter sheep until all sheep of that specified colour have been released from control or the individual animal has been subsequently live monitored and found to be below the 1,000 bq/kg level. In this case it is identified with a distinctive Ministry ear tag as being no longer under slaughter restriction.

  All slaughterhouse, livestock market and showground operators in Staffordshire have been informed in writing of the details of these controls and any changes to them, correspondence being copied to the local authority.

  Food and Drink Surpluses
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total current volume in sterling of surplus food and drink in the EEC.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A note setting out the volume of EC intervention stocks of agricultural commodities is deposited in the Library of the House and updated monthly. The estimated book value of the EC stocks set out in the most recently deposited note is £5·5 billion.

  Milk Marketing Board (Chairman)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and I last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board on 16 December when we discussed a number of issues of current concern to the dairy industry.

  Beef (Hormones)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations exist for the prevention of the use of hormones in European and British beef; and whether any action is being taken to ensure that beef imported from the United States of America and Canada is also hormone free.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A ban on the administration of hormones to livestock for fattening purposes imposed by EC directives 81/602 and 85/649 was implemented in all member states by 31 December 1987. Imports from third countries such as the USA and Canada, where hormone growth promoters continue to be used, are, however, authorised until 31 December 1988.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Shooting Range, Bruslee
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what investigations were undertaken by the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture into the potential effects on the livelihood of local farmers of the establishment of a military shooting range at Bruslee, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim.

  Mr. Viggers
  None. I understand that it would have been for the local council, from which the land was leased, to take account of local issues relating to the project.

  Rents
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what increase in rents is proposed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; what reason has been given for this increase; what is its relation to the current rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Housing Executive's proposals for rental income in 1988–89 will be finalised as part of its annual budget which I expect to receive for approval at the end of February. However, the housing expenditure figures for 1988–89 which I announced in November last assumed that Housing Executive rents would rise by 9·2 per cent. from April 1988, subject to confirmation of a similar increase in England and Wales. This would maintain the recent policy of applying to Housing Executive rents the same increase, in percentage terms, as in England and Wales and would represent a rise of about 5 per cent. above the rate of inflation.

  Building Control
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to require applicants who seek planning permission to obtain certification that plans meet building control regulations before proceeding.

  Mr. Needham
  No. Not all classes of building work require planning permission and for those which do it would introduce unreasonable and unnecessary delay without adding significantly to the effectiveness of building regulations.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the numbers of new properties completed and occupied before plans have been
  477
  amended to meet building control regulations; and if he will take steps to ensure that district council building control officers are able to obtain amendments to incomplete plans submitted in a reasonable time after request.

  Mr. Needham
  None. Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained and compiled only at disproportionate cost. Neither the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 nor the regulations made under it require applicants to submit amended drawings within a prescribed period. I have at present no intention of introducing legislation prescribing such a period.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of plans submitted to district councils in Northern Ireland have required amendment before approval could be granted under building control regulations in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained and compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Ballyeasborough Primary School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the enrolment at Ballyeasborough primary school in each of the past 10 years; why it is proposed to close the school; which school in the district has the facilities to accommodate the children of Ballyeasborough; and if he will make a statement on the future provision of primary education for children from Ballyeasborough district in the Ards peninsula.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Enrolments at 31 December were as follows:

  Number

  1978

  58

  1979

  61

  1980

  65

  1981

  67

  1982

  59

  1983

  49

  1984

  48

  1985

  51

  1986

  51

  1987

  58

  In May 1985, the Department of Education approved the formal development proposal to close Ballyeasborough primary school when Victoria primary school, Ballyhalbert, is rebuilt with appropriate extended permanent accommodation. In making this proposal the South Eastern education and library board had regard to the substandard accommodation at both schools, and to the future projected enrolments at both schools which fell short of the recommended viability level for a rural primary school.

  The new accommodation for Ballyhalbert primary school will cater for 91 to 123 pupils. It is expected that some of the Ballyeasborough pupils will transfer to Portavogie primary school.

  Funds have been made available for the new accommodation to be provided at Ballyhalbert, and building work is due to commence his month.

  RUC (Allegations Against Officers)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Royal Ulster Constabulary officers, the subject of allegations made by Mr. Chan Hok-Chun and Mr. Hui Yat-Chi, continue to be suspended from duty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  The question of suspension of a police officer is a matter for the Chief Constable of the RUC. But I understand one officer continues to be suspended from duty.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what disciplinary action is to he taken against Royal Ulster Constabulary officers subject to inquiries into allegations made by Mr. Chan Hok-Chun and Mr. Hui Yat-Chi; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  I understand, that the RUC's investigation is not completed and that no decision has so far been taken.

  Maghaberry Prison
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd),Official Report, column 201, from where he anticipates that the prisoners accounting for the anticipated rise in the number of inmates at Maghaberry from 38 to 100 by mid-February will be drawn.

  Mr. Stanley
  The number of inmates at Maghaberry (male) prison has now risen to 93. These prisoners have been drawn from Maze, Magilligan and Belfast prisons.

  Belfast City Council (High Sheriff)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grounds Belfast city council have given for declining to nominate a high sheriff for 1987 and 1988, respectively.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 28 January 1988]: No grounds were given.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Community Care
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Sociial Services, when he now expects to receive and publish Sir Roy Griffiths' review on the future development of community care.

  Mr. Newton
  I understand that Sir Roy hopes to complete his review shortly. Issues arising from it, including publication, will then be considered.

  Maternity Allowance
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in the Glasgow, Central constituency claimed maternity allowance for the last year for which figures are available; and how many women are expected to qualify for maternity payment from the social fund after April 1987, assuming that the number of births remains constant.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. But in the 12 months ending 12 January 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, the following
  479
  number of claims to maternity allowance were made at the Department's offices which now cover the constituency although the boundaries are not conterminous:

  Number

  Bridgeton

  161

  Laurieston

  579

  City

  145

  Rut herglen

  302

  The number of social fund maternity payments made by local offices in the constituency for the period from 6 April 1987 to 12 January 1988 was as follows:

  Number

  Bridgeton

  243

  Laurieston

  321

  City

  205

  Ruthergien

  450

  No separate forecasts were made of the number of women in the constituency likely to qualify for a social fund maternity payment.

  National Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the details of budgeted expenditures on the National Health Service for the West Midlands regional health authority, Bromsgrove and Redditch district authority, and the Worcester district health authority, for 1987–88, 1987–88 (outturn) and 1988–89.

  Mrs. Currie
  In 1987–88 the West Midlands regional health authority received an initial revenue cash limit of £1,114·4 million. Subsequent additions were made as follows:

  £ million

  Following the Government's acceptance of the review body recommendations

  26·6

  From the waiting list fund

  2·9

  For breast cancer screening

  0·2

  Following my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Health's announcement of additional funding for 1987–88 on 16 December

  6·7

  Outturn figures for 1987–88 will not be available until later this year. The region's initial revenue cash limit for 1988–89 is £1,213·8 million. Allocations to the Bromsgrove and Redditch and Worcester district health authorities are a matter for the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Hospitals (Building and Maintenance Costs)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which hospitals built in the last 10 years have needed more than £1 million of remedial or maintenance expenditure in any one year; and how much has been spent on them.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information held centrally on hospital building schemes in England shows only one instance of expenditure in one year of over £1 million on the remedy of defects: building and engineering costs of reinstatement of the cardiac wing of Great Ormond street hospital are currently estimated at £17 million. Litigation continues in respect of claims for the recovery of these costs.

  Annual maintenance expenditure of over £1 million is incurred on most hospitals over about 500 beds but the inquiries necessary for a breakdown between remedial and
  480
  routine work could not be made without disproportionate cost. If my hon. Friend has any particular hospital in mind I would be glad to inquire for him.

  National Health Service Staff
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the total numbers in whole-time equivalent of(a) directly-employed National Health Service staff and (b) hospital nursing and midwifery staff in England for 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  The available information is given in the table.

  National Health Service staff in post in England at 30 September 1986

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Total Directly Employed Staff2

  801,600

  Hospital Nursing and Midwifery Staff3

  354,700

  Source: DHSS Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to nearest one hundred (100) whole-time equivalents.

  2 Excludes locum medical and dental and agency nursing and midwifery staff.

  3 Includes agency nursing and midwifery staff.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many were employed in the National Health Service as doctors, nurses, administrators, cleaners and other staff in 1961, 1971, 1981 and at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Newton
  Doctors, nurses, administrators, cleaners and other staff have been interpreted as

  Medical and Dental

  Nursing and Midwifery

  Administrative and Clerical

  Ancillary

  Others

  Such information as is available is shown in the table. Figures for 1961 are not held centrally.

  NHS staff in post in England

  At 30 September

  Whole time equivalents1

  71971

  1981

  1986

  Medical and Dental2

  29,500

  41,000

  43,200

  Nursing and Midwifery3

  285,400

  391,800

  402,700

  Administrative and Clerical

  70,400

  108,800

  111,400

  Ancillary4 5

  168,000

  172,200

  124,300

  Others5 6

  76,300

  110,600

  120,000

  Total directly employed staff

  629,500

  824,400

  801,600

  Source: DHSS Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-Medical Manpower

  1 Figures are independently rounded to nearest one hundred (100) whole time equivalents.

  2 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  3 Includes agency staff. Figures not adjusted to take account of the reduction in nurses contractual hours (from 40 to 371 per week) during 1980–81.

  4 Includes staff in cleaning/domestic, catering, portering and other ancillary areas of work.

  5 On 1 April 1984 operating department assistants transferred from ancillary to professional and technical staff group. Figures not adjusted to take account of this change.

  6 Includes professional and technical, works, maintenance and ambulance staff.

  7 Due to the effects of the 1974 reorganisation some staffing figures for 1971 may not be on a consistent basis with those for 1981 and 1986.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out for the various grades of nurses in the National Health Service the current salary scales inclusive of London weighting; what is the procedure for pay review; and what is the current progress with this.

  Mr. Newton
  The pay of nursing staff, midwives and health visitors is determined on the recommendations of the independent review body appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1983. The review body is currently taking oral and written evidence from the Health Departments and staff side and is expected to report in the spring.

  Current salary scales for nurses, including the London weighting allowances, are set out in the table.

  Grade

  Salary scale including London Weighting1 £per annum

  Student nurse

  5,470; 5,665; 6,100.

  Nursing Auxiliary

  5,495; 5,705; 5,915; 6,125; 6,345; 6,565; 6,785

  Enrolled Nurse

  7,180; 7,430; 7,680; 7,930; 8,180; 8,530; 8,680

  Staff Nurse

  8,230; 8,490; 8,750; 9,010; 9,270; 9,530.

  Sister II

  9,930; 10,430; 10,930; 11,430; 11,930; 12430; 12,930.

  Senior Nurse 7

  11,780; 12,320; 12,860; 13,400; 13,940; 14,480

  1In addition nurses receive extra payments for working unsocial hours and overtime.

  Abortions
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of those who have had abortions since 1967 have subsequently had psychiatric treatment.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret this information is not available.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many National Health Service abortions took place in 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  The statistics of notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 identify the category of premises where the operation took place. The table shows the number of abortions carried out in National Health Service premises, and for residents of England and Wales only the number of 'agency' abortions on National Health Service patients.

  Number of notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 performed (a) in National Health Service premises, residents and non-residents and (b) in non-National Health Service premises on National Health Service patients under 'agency' arrangements, residents only.

  England and Wales 1985 to 1987

  Year

  (a) National Health Service premises

  (b) non-National Health Service 'Agency'

  1985

  65,254

  5,919

  1986

  67,529

  6,819

  19871

  33,695

  3,819

  1 January to June inclusive (provisional).

  'Agency' gives the number of operations on National Health Service patients undertaken through arrangements between certain National Health Service authorities and the private sector. For National Health Service premises, an unknown number of operations are carried out on non-National Health Service patients.
  482
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the names of the 12 clinics which performed the most abortions in 1986 on foreign women with pregnancies of more than 17 weeks gestation, and the percentage of total abortions of more than 17 weeks gestation, and the percentage of total abortions of more than 17 weeks gestation on foreign women that the abortions performed by each clinic represent.

  Mr. Newton
  For reasons of maintaining confidentiality, statistics relating to individual premises are not released.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many doctors and nurses were engaged on National Health Service abortions in 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will expand on his statement during the report stage of the Social Security Bill,Official Report, 13 January, column 384, in relation to the protection of severely disabled people after the April social security changes by pursuing a solution that will depend on the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 19 January 1988 at column 685.

  Ministerial Visit (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to visit Cornwall to see local hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  Not at present. Ministers do, however, frequently visit health authorities, and the last such visit to Cornwall was in August 1986.

  Transitional Protection
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide a breakdown of the extra £220 million to be spent in income support in 1988–89 after transitional protection, referred to in the Official Report of 19 November 1987, column 1250, into claimant groups (a) including and (b) excluding compensation for the 20 per cent. contribution to rates.

  Mr. Scott
  The breakdown of the extra £220 million is as follows:

  Extra spending (£million)

  Pensioners age 80+

  +20

  Pensioners age 60–79

  +30

  Sick or disabled

  +50

  Lone parents

  +80

  Couples with children

  +50

  Others

  -10

  Total

  +220

  The £220 million includes compensation for the 20 per cent. contribution to rates. This figure cannot therefore he broken down excluding that compensation.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many disabled pensioners currently receiving supplementary benefit who will not qualify for
  483
  the higher pensioner premium will receive transitional protection under the structural reform of social security benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. All claimants aged 80 or more will receive the higher pension premium, as will an estimated 130,000 claimants aged between 60 and 79 years. A total of 380,000 pensioners aged less than 80 who will not qualify for the higher penioner premium will receive transitional protection, but this protection will not always arise from needs associated with disablement; other factors are involved. We will look again at the detail of the premiums for disabled people when the results of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' survey are known.

  Negligence
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many cases of negligence or breach of statutory duty have been brought against(a) his Department and (b) health authorities in the last three years; whether such claims were covered by insurance; how much money was paid on settlement; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what requirements are placed by his Department on regional and district health authorities to insure against negligence or breach of statutory duty.

  Mrs. Currie
  Neither the Department nor health authorities insure against claims relating to negligence or breach of statutory duty but carry their own risks.

  The total compensation payments by health authorities for the last three years, including compensation for injuries to persons, damages to property and damages for unfair dismissal were as follows.

  £

  Cases

  1984–85

  5,538,597

  3,397

  1985–86

  8,454,202

  3,702

  1986–87

  11,469,925

  4,244

  Settlements by the Department in respect of claims for personal injury to members of staff and the public in their dealings with social security local offices were

  £

  Cases

  1984–85

  28,000

  14

  1985–86

  48,000

  26

  1986–87

  23,000

  19

  (Excludes small claims settled locally).

  Figures are not routinely collected on cases where no payment is made.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing income support expenditure in 1988–89 broken down into claimant groups as in table 8b in the "Estimated Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-related Benefits" which will receive(a) more and (b) less than if supplementary benefit had continued with a normal uprating (i) including and (ii) excluding the compensation for 20 per cent. contribution to rates.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows:484

  (a)Income support more than supplementary benefit

  Income support less than supplementary benefit

  Total

  (i) Including rates compensation (£ million) Pensioners

  Singles

  510

  200

  710

  Couples

  340

  130

  470

  Non-pensioners with children

  Lone parents

  1,250

  380

  1,630

  Couples

  1,720

  160

  1,880

  Non-pensioners without children

  Single age 25+

  1,040

  270

  1,310

  Single age <25

  650

  360

  1,010

  Couples

  80

  330

  410

  Total

  5,590

  1,830

  7,420

  (ii) Excluding rates compensation (£ million) Pensioners

  Singles

  310

  300

  610

  Couples

  260

  190

  450

  Non-pensioners with children

  Lone parents

  1,020

  580

  1,600

  Couples

  1,550

  290

  1,840

  Non-pensioners without children

  Single age 25+

  610

  650

  1,260

  Single age <

  25

  30

  950

  980

  Couples

  40

  360

  400

  Total

  3,820

  3,320

  7,140

  These figures take no account of transitional protection or estimated expenditure on boarders who are generally to be unaffected.

  Transplant Organs (Register)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has had from Sir Roy Calne, FRS on the need for a register of transplant organs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Edwina Currie
  We have received no representations from Sir Roy Calne, but we are in continuing discussion with the British Transplantation Society about the establishment of a register of transplant operations.

  Bradford Health Authority
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will undertake an immediate inquiry into the impact on patient services in Bradford of cuts in expenditure by Bradford health authority of £2,100,000 by 1989–90;

  (2) what is the latest estimate of Bradford health authority's revenue and capital expenditure for 1987–88; how much non-recurring allocation has been received by Bradford health authority; and whether he expects the authority to be in deficit at the end of the current financial year;

  (3) what requests he has made of Bradford health authority to reduce expenditure in 1988–89 and 1989–90; what deficit on revenue expenditure will accrue in 1988–89 and 1989–90 if no reduction in expenditure is agreed; what

  485
  reduction in revenue expenditure is required in 1988–89 and 1989–90 to avoid deficits arising in each year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Allocation of funds, revenue and capital, to Bradford health authority, and any associated monitoring of expenditure, is the responsibility of the Yorkshire regional health authority. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the regional health authority chairman for the information he is seeking.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the effect on anticipated deficits of Bradford health authority of each per cent. pay awards which are not met by central Government; how many staff are now employed by the authority; how many staff were employed by the authority in each of the last five years: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table sets out the number of staff directly employed by Bradford health authority for the years 1982 to 1986, the latest year for which data are centrally available. It is not possible to calculate accurately centrally the cost of each percentage increase of pay awards for individual district health authorities.

  The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of Bradford health authority for the information he is seeking.

  NHS Directly Employed Stuff in Post in Bradford District Health Authority

  At 30 September

  Whole equivalents2

  1982

  5,610

  1983

  5,570

  1984

  5,390

  1985

  5,170

  1986

  5,090

  Source: DHSS annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff. Excludes senior registrars and consultants whose contracts are held by the regional health authority. Includes agency nursing and midwifery staff.

  2 Figures are independently rounded to nearest ten (10) whole time equivalents.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the names of the members of Bradford health authority; when each was appointed and how long each has served; which members receive an annual salary; and what is the annual salary and annual service in days served in each case.

  Mrs. Currie
  The members of Bradford health authority are appointed by the Yorkshire regional health authority and Bradford city council. Details are not held centrally but may be obtained from the chairman of the regional health authority. Health authority members do not receive a salary but are entitled to claim travel and subsistence allowances and, in certain circumstances, to some compensation for loss of earnings.

  Health Services
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration he gives to any proposal by a district health authority to reduce treatment to those living in a neighbouring district health authority.
  486
  Mrs. Currie
  The NHS is a national service and general practitioners are free to refer their patients to the consultant they consider most able to benefit their patient. The decision as to whether to accept a referral is a matter for the clinical judgment of the individual consultant. In some instances the consultant may conclude that the patient does not have need for the special services provided by the hospital where he is based and would be more appropriately treated elsewhere. These are not matters where it would be appropriate for us to intervene.

  Coronary Disease
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report the number of sufferers of coronary disease whose final diagnosis resulted from initial detection during the course of a National Health Service sight test in each of the past 10 years.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Disabled Pensioners
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many disabled pensioners claiming for the first time after April who would previously have received a heating addition and domestic requirements addition worth at least £10 will receive less under income support than they would have done under supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Heating Additions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether supplementary benefits claimants who are tenants of homes built with no fines concrete are entitled to a heating addition.

  Mr. Scott
  Weekly supplementary benefit heating additions are not awarded specifically to claimants who live in homes built with no fines concrete. Heating additions are, however, available to householder claimants if their home is difficult to heat adequately because, for instance, rooms are damp or draughty.

  General Practitioners (Charges)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to introduce charges for patients visiting their general practitioners.

  Mr. Newton
  No.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for 1985, 1986 and 1987(a) the number of paybeds, (b) the number of discharges and deaths of private patients, (c) the average number of paybeds occupied by private patients daily (d) the percentage occupancy for each district health authority and special health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as can be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost as soon as possible.

  Nurses
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 327, how much money in real terms expressed at constant prices has been spent by health regions on nursing training in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 27 January 1988 at column 264.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to what factors he ascribes the increase in the average number of persons receiving invalidity benefit from 700,000 in 1982–83 to 995,000 in 1987–88 and the projected rise to 1,120,000 in 1990–91, shown in table 15.6 of Cm 288-II.

  Mr. Scott
  Invalidity benefit case loads are likely to reflect a number of demographic, medical and economic influences. To understand more fully the importance of these various factors in explaining the numbers of invalidity pensioners, the Department has commissioned research by economists at Newcastle-upon-Tyne university and polytechnic. It is hoped that this project will in due course give a clearer indication of the reasons for the recent increases in invalidity benefit case loads.

  Single Payments
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he received the commissioner's decision referred to in his answer of 16 November 1987,Official Report, column 445 and whether, in the light of this decision, he will amend regulations 10 and 10A of the single payments regulations to ensure that single payments for furniture are made where the claimant has become the tenant or owner of an unfurnished home on the date of claim.

  Mr. Scott
  The commissioner's decision referred to is still awaited.

  Benefits
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will ensure that severely disabled people who have a combined order book for attendance allowance and another long-term benefit receive as much compensation for the error in the retail prices index as those receiving the same benefits who have two order books; and how many people are in each of these categories.

  Mr. Scott
  Attendance allowance is paid at two rates, of which only the higher rate was affected by the error in the RPI. Because of the difficulty of distinguishing at the post office counter between recipients of the two rates, all AA recipients will be eligible for an ex-gratia payment. Where lower rate AA, received by nearly three fifths of AA recipients, is paid in combination with another long-term benefit, the £8 special payment is likely to compensate fully for any loss suffered. Where higher rate AA is paid with another long-term benefit, the degree of undercompensation will vary with the type of second benefit and the length of time for which the recipient is entitled to both benefits during the period April 1987 to April 1989. In these 488
  circumstances it would not be appropriate to make a second special payment to all recipients of attendance allowance, simply because a small minority may for special reasons receive benefit on two separate order books, both attracting an £8 payment. It is not known how many attendance allowance order books are held separately by claimants also receiving another long-term benefit, but the numbers are likely to be small.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what categories of claimants will have lost more as a result of the error in the retail prices index than the amount of compensation they are to receive; what will be the average net loss per loser and the total net loss for each of these categories; and how much money is to be distributed to charities to make good these losses.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not possible to say with accuracy which claimants will have lost more than the amount of the special payments that they will receive because the flat-rate special payments exercise does not take account of whether claimants have been or would be entitled to benefit for the whole of the two years affected by the error in the retail prices index. Generally speaking, the types of claimants who are likely to be undercompensated are those who receive the higher rate of attendance allowance combined with retirement pension, invalidity benefit, or widow's benefit. In each case the maximum net loss per loser will be about £5. The total net loss for these retirement pensioners will be about £640,000; for the invalidity pensioners about £250,000; and for the widows about £5,000. These net losses will comprise about £900,000 of the sum to be distributed among charities.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much planned expenditure from the social fund for 1989–90 and 1990–91 is for maternity and funeral payments, cold weather payments, community care grants and the excess of leave over repayments, respectively.

  Mr. Scott
  These figures are planning figures and subject to review in the light of experience of running the social fund.

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Maternity and funeral payments

  35·2

  36·3

  Exceptionally cold weather payments

  4·5

  4·5

  Community care grants

  60

  60

  Net cost of loans

  39

  39

  Social Workers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are currently receiving training in the certificate of qualification in social work; and to what extent this meets the demand for trained social workers.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been advised by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work that the total number of students on training courses leading to the award of the certificate of qualification in social work, in the United Kingdom, was 6,140 in 1986—the latest year for which figures are available. In the same year there were also 3,812 students on schemes leading to the award of the certificate in social service, which is now accepted by the council as a social work qualification.
  489
  The council estimates that an annual intake of 5,000 students is necessary to maintain the current level of qualified social workers. The combined intake of students to CQSW courses and CSS schemes in 1986 was 4,785.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people have been registered as long-term off work due to sickness in the United Kingdom in March, June, September and December for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. The numbers of people who were sick for at least 28 weeks and were in receipt of invalidity benefit at the end of the statistical periods of the last 10 available years is shown in the table.

  Date

  Number

  Great Britain

  4 June 1977

  506,550

  3 June 1978

  559,250

  2 June 1979

  611,000

  31 May 1980

  615,000

  30 May 1981

  632,975

  29 May 1982

  683,507

  2 April 1983

  736,914

  31 March 1984

  797,400

  30 March 1985

  849,300

  5 April 1986

  899,400

  Northern Ireland

  31 May 1977

  26,065

  31 May 1978

  26,190

  31 May 1979

  29,330

  31 May 1980

  30,415

  31 May 1981

  27,415

  31 May 1982

  30,530

  5 April 1983

  33,935

  5 April 1984

  35,160

  5 April 1985

  36,425

  5 April 1986

  38,110

  Windscale Fire
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of the recent release of papers, he will review previous ministerial statements to the effect that there is no evidence that anyone in the United Kingdom has died as a result of polonium and other radiactive isotopes released into the atmosphere during the Windscale fire of 1957.

  Mrs. Currie
  All relevant information relating to the health consequences of the Windscale fire was available to Government at the time of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement on 18 April 1983, at column 12.

  NHS (Charges)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if it is intended that the present review of the National Health Service will consider charges for National Health Service patients receiving treatment in hospitals.

  Mr. Moore
  The review will be wide ranging and fundamental, and concerned with the development of the Health Service to meet the country's needs over many years to come. We do not intend to begin the review by ruling out any proposals for reform. Each will be considered on its merits and, as my right hon. Friend the 490
  Prime Minister said in her reply to the hon. Member on 28 January, at column 313, the Government will consider carefully any submissions put to them.

  So far as hospital charges are concerned, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reiterated on 28 January, at columns 477–78, that the Government will not introduce board and lodging charges for National Health Service patients during the lifetime of this Parliament.

  War Widows
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will use some of the funds made available to correct the error in the retail prices index, as announced to the House on 18 December 1987, to provide extra provision for the more elderly war widows who do not receive Ministry of Defence pensions or other forms of compensation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will use some of its funds made available to correct the error in the retail prices index, as announced to the House on 18 December 1987, to provide extra provision for the more elderly war widows who do not receive Ministry of Defence pensions or other forms of compensation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Payments will be made to war widows to compensate them for the error in the retail prices index. The money available to correct this error could not provide for improvements in war widows pensions provisions.

  Health Checks
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision he is proposing to make with hospitals for pathology and X-ray tests, in the light of the proposal in the White Paper, "Promoting Better Health", that patients newly registering with the National Health Service have a health check.

  Mr. Newton
  It will be for the family doctor to decide whether pathology and X-ray tests are needed, but it is unlikely there will be many such instances. We do not therefore envisage the need for special provision in hospitals for this purpose.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of patients awaiting(a) urgent and (b) non-urgent treatment in (i) Leeds Eastern health authority and (ii) Leeds Western health authority on the latest available figures; and if he will give the figures for the previous six and 12 months, respectively.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as can be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost as soon as possible.

  War Pensioners
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to ensure that war pensioners have rights of appeal to independent tribunals, comparable with those of social security claimants.

  Mr. Scott
  Most pensioners already have a right of appeal to an independent Pensions Appeals Tribunal
  491
  against decisions about their entitlement to war pension and their level of assessment. If they are dissatisfied with a decision about which there is no statutory right of appeal, they may ask at any time for it to be reviewed by the Secretary of State and can ask their local war pensions committee to make representations on their behalf. War pensions committees are statutorily empowered to hear and consider such complaints and to make representations to the Secretary of State. I am satisfied that these longstanding arrangements operate satisfactorily to safeguard the interests of war pensioners.

  Neonatal Units (Staffing)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each year since 1976, for

  National Health Service nursing and midwifery staff by grade: Special Care Baby Units1 2 by regional health authority as at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalents3

  Sisters

  Staff nurses and midwives

  Other nursing staff4

  Region

  1981

  1986

  1981

  1986

  1981

  1986

  Northern

  35

  52

  31

  53

  42

  55

  Yorkshire

  28

  72

  28

  79

  28

  69

  Trent

  69

  90

  60

  117

  131

  144

  East Anglian

  25

  30

  48

  55

  46

  40

  North West Thames

  40

  65

  31

  59

  69

  73

  North East Thames

  22

  41

  23

  48

  29

  31

  South East Thames

  17

  56

  25

  72

  20

  85

  South West Thames

  22

  31

  18

  35

  29

  28

  Wessex

  20

  43

  29

  74

  34

  53

  Oxford

  21

  43

  31

  75

  28

  43

  South Western

  40

  47

  65

  92

  50

  50

  West Midlands

  27

  108

  19

  96

  81

  186

  Mersey

  50

  40

  14

  33

  65

  49

  North Western

  56

  109

  16

  76

  63

  108

  London post-graduate special health authorities

  —

  10

  —

  17

  —

  11

  England

  471

  834

  439

  981

  714

  1,023

  Source: DHSS Annual census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  1 Excludes Agency staff.

  2 Occupation codes identifying the Special Care Baby Unit area of work were introduced in 1981 therefore some of the apparent increases in staff in this area of work during this period may be partially due to improvements in coding.

  3 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  4 Includes Enrolled nurses, Auxiliaries and other unqualified nursing staff.

  5 Includes Senior Nurses/Midwives.

  Sheffield Health Authority
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the increases in medical, nursing and dental staff, whole-time equivalents for Sheffield health authority for the period 1979 to the latest year available; and what are the equivalent figures for England as a whole.

  Mrs. Currie
  Such information as is available is shown in the table.

  National Health Service medical and dental and nursing and midwifery staff in post in Sheffield district health authority and England— at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Change 1979 to 19862

  Change 1982 to 19862

  Medical and dental staff

  1979

  1982

  1986

  Whole-time equivalents

  Percentage

  Whole-time equivalents

  Percentage

  Sheffield district health authority3

  n/a

  630

  680

  n/a

  n/a

  60

  +8·7

  England4

  38,990

  41,460

  43,250

  4,260

  +10·9

  1,790

  +4·3

  492
  each neonatal unit in England (a) the number of sister posts, (b) the number of staff nurses or staff midwives, (c) the number of support nursing staff including nursing nurses and nursing auxiliaries and (d) the number of medical staff with specific commitment to neonates.

  Mr. Newton
  Information to this level of detail is not collected centrally for medical staff and is available for nursing and midwifery staff in each district health authority only from September 1981 but this could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information by regional health authority for 1981 and 1986 is given in the table.

  Because of the effects of the 1982 National Health Service reorganisation figures for Sheffield district health authority for the years prior to 1982 are not available on a consistent basis with those for 1982 and later years.

  Senior registrars' contracts are held by the regional health authority. The district health authority where these staff work cannot be identified centrally. There will therefore be more doctors and dentists actually working in Sheffield district health authority than are accounted for in the table.
  493

  1 Figures are independently rounded to nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  2 Changes and percentages calculated on unrounded whole-time equivalents.

  3 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff but excludes senior registrars whose contracts are held by the regional health authority.

  4 Includes all permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS medical manpower.

  Nursing and midwifery staff

  Whole-time Equivalents1

  Change 1979 to 19862

  Change 1982 to 19862

  1979

  1982

  1986

  Wte

  Per cent.

  Wte

  Per cent.

  Sheffield DHA3

  n/a

  6,090

  6,330

  n/a

  n/a

  240

  +3·9

  England34

  358,450

  397,080

  402,690

  44,240

  +12·3

  5,610

  +1·4

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to nearest ten (10) whole time equivalents.

  2Changes and percentages calculated on un-rounded whole-time equivalents.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  4 Figures not adjusted to take account of the reduction in nurses contractual hours (from 40 to 37·5 per week) during 1980–81.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is his estimate of the proportion and number of adults in England and Wales that would be suitable for blood donation;

  (2) what proportion and number of suitable adults give blood in England and Wales;

  (3) what proportion and number of suitable adults are needed to give blood to make England and Wales self-sufficient in blood and blood-derived products;

  (4) whether he will consider reducing the period between permitted donations of blood to four months from six, to ease the shortage of blood and blood-derived products, and to make England and Wales self-sufficient; and if he will make a statement;

  Mr. Newton
  We are already self-sufficient in whole blood. The new £60 million blood products laboratory at Elstree is now on stream and we expect England and Wales to become self-sufficient in blood products next year. Regional health authorities have been set targets to ensure that the necessary amount of plasma is collected for fractionation in the new laboratory.

  Plasma may either be collected from donors directly by plasmapheresis at intervals of a few weeks, or may be extracted from blood donations generally given twice a year. Guidance on the frequency of donation is kept under review.

  It is not possible simply to relate the number of plasma donations required to the number of donors. A total of about 2·2 million blood and plasma donations were given in 1986. The theoretical eligible donor population is estimated at 27 million but medical restrictions would reduce this total.

  Homeless Persons
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations his Department has received from organisations and individuals concerning the consequences for the general health service of resettling homeless persons outside their own borough; and what response has been made to those representations.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: We have been unable to trace any representations about resettling homeless persons outside their own borough but the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has written
  494
  about homelessness in London. The association has asked for a meeting and I have arranged to see them, together with appropriate health authority representatives.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, how many pensioner households he estimates to be eligible for exceptionally severe weather payments.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The number of pensioner householders aged 65 or over in the United Kingdom who are eligible for exceptionally cold weather payments is as follows:

  Number

  Scotland

  88,000

  England

  779,000

  Wales

  56,000

  Northern Ireland

  33,000

  Source: 1986 Annual Statistical Enquiry (Great Britain).

  1986 Annual Statistical Enquiry (Northern Ireland).

  Note: These figures exclude claimants with capital in excess of £500.

  Pensioners (Savings)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, how many pensioners on supplementary pensions he estimates to have savings of £500 or more.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The number of claimants in the United Kingdom in receipt of supplementary pension (that is men aged 65 or over and women aged 60 or over) who have savings in excess of £500 is as follows:

  Number

  Scotland

  38,000

  England

  530,000

  Wales

  26,000

  Northern Ireland

  10,000

  Source: 1986 Annual Statistical Enquiry (Great Britain).

  1986 Annual Statistical Enquiry (Northern Ireland)

  Paediatric Intensive Care Nurses
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what conveniently available figures he has for the shortage of paediatric intensive care nurses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: Nationally, the total number of nursing and midwifery staff, including qualified and unqualified staff, in special care baby units and paediatric intensive care has increased by some 157 per cent. between September 1981 and September 1986; from 1,260 to 3,220 in whole-time equivalent terms. Work is in hand to establish a post-basic
  496
  paediatric intensive care nursing course in Birmingham. It is expected to commence later this year and will be the first of its kind outside London.

  The new grading structure for nurses to be introduced later this year will offer better pay and career prospects in clinical nursing for those who take on heavier responsibilities or who specialise in areas such as paediatric intensive care. It is expected that this will help to improve recruitment and retention.

  Recruitment and post-basic nurse training are the responsibility of health authorities. Information on shortages is not collected centrally on a routine basis. However, the results of a recent survey by the regional health authorities, undertaken for the nurses' pay review body, are expected shortly.

TRANSPORT

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much capital spending on trunk roads has increased since 1978–79.

  Mr. Channon
  Actual capital expenditure in 1978–79 was £327 million. Planned capital expenditure for 1987–88 is £893 million. This represents an increase in real terms of 34 per cent. at 1985–86 prices.

  Vehicle Mileage (Motorways)
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the percentage change in vehicle mileage on motorways in England since 1982.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The figure for Great Britain is about 70 per cent.

  Roll-on/Roll-off Ferries
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the progress on international arrangements to improve the safety of roll-on/roll-off ferries.

  Mr. Channon
  Yes. Following wide-ranging consultations, the United Kingdom has submitted, to the International Maritime Organisation, two sets of proposed amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea 74–78 convention. The first set will be considered for adoption in April.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the consultants employed by his Department to consider the safety of roll-on/roll-off ferries.

  Mr. Channon
  In the past three years my Department has obtained the services of what is now British Maritime Technology Ltd.;Lloyd's Register of Shipping; Newcastle university; and one consortium, comprising Lloyd's Register of Shipping, Ocean Fleets Ltd. and the General Council of British Shipping.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive interim reports on the structural safety of roll-on/roll-off ferries.

  Mr. Channon
  The report of the court of formal investigation into the capsize of the Herald of Free Enterprise included in its longer-term recommendations a proposal that there should be urgent investigations to find methods of improving the survivability of ro-ro ferries if the hull was breached. We intend to complete the first phase of this work by the end of this year.

  BR (Fares Policy)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of British Rail, he will raise with him the fares policy of British Rail.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. The level and structure of rail fares are matters for British Rail to decide within the general objectives we have set it.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Channon
  This Thursday, 4 February.

  Vehicle Mileage
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the percentage change in vehicle mileage on roads in England since 1982.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  22 per cent.

  South Dorset (M5)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received in favour of improving road links between south Dorset and the M5.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have three schemes on the trunk road sections of the route. Two of these, A303 Ilminster bypass and A5 Dorchester bypass, are due to be completed in the summer and autumn respectively. The third scheme, A303 Ilchester-South Petherton, should start construction in the second half of this year. Dorset and Somerset county councils also have their own programmes of major road improvements and aim to bring the rest of this route up to a satisfactory standard.

  Heavy Lorries
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the introduction of heavier lorries.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the introduction of heavier lorries.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the maximum weight of heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no plans to change the maximum permitted weight of 38 tonnes.

  LRT (Ticketing Systems)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has met the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss the safety implications of planned London Regional Transport investment in automatic ticketing systems.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. London Underground Limited is responsible for the design of this system and its safe operation. I have no reason to believe that the system, for which financial approval was given in 1985, is unsafe. If the hon. Lady has a particular cause of concern perhaps she will write to me.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of planned London Regional Transport capital investment is devoted to the installation of automatic ticketing systems.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  12 per cent. in the financial year 1988–89.

  West German Minister of Transport
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met his West German counterpart; and what was the content of their discussions.

  Mr. Channon
  I visited Dr. Warnke in Bonn on 25 November, when we discussed prospects for the December Transport Council and transport issues likely to arise during the German presidency of the European Community. We also met at the Transport Council itself.

  Fenchurch Street Station
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters he has received from the general public about British Rail's services to Fenchurch street station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We have received about 20 such letters since my right hon. Friend took up his present appointment. The management of the railway is a matter for British Rail. It is working hard to improve the quality of services to Fenchurch street.

  London Underground (Ticketing Systems)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning plans by London Underground Ltd. to install automatic ticketing systems.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The design and safety of this system is the responsibility of the London Underground, but I am informed that the new ticket gates will provide more passenger openings than the traditional barrier line, and in the event of emergency can quickly be set to a fully open position either locally or from the central command station at Baker street. In addition they are designed to be fail-safe in the event of a sudden loss of power or air supply, allowing passengers to push through easily and rapidly. Reports of wire mesh cages are entirely false.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the safety implications of the installation of automatic ticketing systems on the London underground.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have been made aware of the features being provided as part of the new underground ticketing system to ensure its effective and safe operation in the event of an emergency.

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the comparable effects of(a) the 1987 Christmas drink and driving campaign and (b) the 1986 campaign.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  1987 saw increased media coverage, especially in Scotland, of drinking and driving as news and current affairs. The 1987 campaign reintroduced TV advertising. Preliminary police figures suggest the campaign on the whole had a considerable impact on injuries. Full figures will be published later this year.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what lessons were learnt from the 1987 Christmas anti-drink driving campaign; and if he will make a statement.
  500
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The most important lesson from the Christmas campaign is the value of the contributions made by the private sector, and by editorial coverage and discussion in the media. We particularly welcome and hope to build on the support of the brewing industry.

  What stands out is the fact that advising people to steer clear of alcohol if they are driving and making non-alcoholic drinks attractive and available are more effective measures than arguing about whether testing should be targeted or random.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many major road schemes were completed in 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1987, a total of 28 major road schemes in the national roads programme were completed. The list is as follows:

  M5/M42 Junction (southern turn)

  M63 Stretford-Eccles improvement stage 3

  A1 Baldersby GSJ

  A1 Clifton-Stannington bridge improvement

  A2 Barham crossroads GSJ

  A6 Chapel-en-le-Frith bypass

  Al0 Buntingford bypass

  A11 Wymondham-Cringleford

  Al2 Martlesham bypass

  A19 Ricall and Barlby bypass

  A20 Sidcup bypass

  A30 Exeter-Okehampton stage 3

  A38 Belvedere Cross-Haldon hill GSJ

  A38 Hilliards Cross GSJ

  A39 Bideford bypass

  A43 Brackley bypass

  A43 Towcester bypass

  A47 Peterborough Longthorpe GSJ

  A47 Peterborough Westwood GSJ

  A47 Postwick-Blofield dualling

  A47 Wardley hill improvement

  A52 Barthomley link-M6

  A69 Eighton Lodge junction improvement

  A303 Furze Hedge improvement

  A422 Stratford northern bypass

  A406 South Woodford-Barking relief road

  A435 Evesham bypass

  A596-A595 Thursby bypass

  These schemes have added 72 miles to the network at a total works cost of about £275 million.

  Civil Aviation (Competition Policy)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on his policy on competition in civil aviation.

  Mr. Channon
  The Government remain committed to the policy set out in the 1984 White Paper on airlines competition of encouraging a sound competitive multi-airline industry, promoting competition in all markets, and ensuring adequate safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour.

  Dial-A-Ride
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average number of trips per person per week for London Dial-A-Ride members.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Less than one per week.
  501
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the number of trips per week that those eligible for Dial-A-Ride services should be able to receive.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards encouraging increases in the volume of services provided by Dial-A-Ride services.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Dial-A-Ride services outside London are funded generally from the local authorities' revenue support for passenger transport. The Transport Act 1985 imposes a specific duty on local authorities to have regard to the transport needs of people with disabilities. The execution of this duty is entirely a matter for the local authorities.

  Minibus Services
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence there is of a change in the level of minibus services as a result of deregulation.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Deregulation has strongly encouraged the introduction of minibuses, which served about 40 places at the end of 1985 and more than 250 by the end of 1987.

  Lancashire (Grant)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on Lancashire's transport supplementary grant for 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have received nine letters, eight from hon. Members and one direct from Lancashire county council. I am replying to them individually.

  London (East End)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals his Department has for improving vehicle access through the east end of London to Essex and East Anglia.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is an extensive package of proposals for improvements through east London to Essex and East Anglia. The A406 South Woodford to Barking relief road opened before Christmas. Subject to the completion of statutory procedures, a link road between the M11 at Redbridge and the A102(M) at Hackney Wick is planned for start of works in 1990. Improvements to the A13 and A127 are also planned.

  A number of studies are also looking into traffic problems in east London. Stage II of the East London assessment study is now under way, with consultants developing a range of options to relieve the transport-related problems of that area. Consultants have been looking into possible improvements to the A13 between Limehouse and Dagenham and the future needs of the A127. A study of the A12 within Essex was also started recently.

  Ports Policy
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has undertaken a review of ports policy recently.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We keep our ports policy under continual review.

  St. Pancras-Sheffield Line
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, in view of the disquiet in the communities along the St. Pancras to Sheffield Midland railway line, he will discuss with British Rail the future of that line.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I know of no valid reason why people who use the midland main line should feel any disquiet about its future. The line has an excellent high speed train service which will be improved from next May by extra trains, including one between Sheffield and London, and British Rail has just completed a £25 million programme to modernise its signalling. The future of the line is secure.

  Manchester International Airport
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of development has been approved for Manchester international airport in each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 11 January 1988 at columns 132–33.

  Disabled People (Transport)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to increase the provision of transport for the disabled.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on November 30 at columns 599–602.

  Cycle Lighting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce a campaign stressing the importance to cyclists of having front and rear lighting on their bicycles during the hours of darkness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We work for increasing cycling safety. Unlit cycles in the dark are a danger to cyclists and other road users.

  The Department continues to distribute free material to local authority road safety officers encouraging cyclists to use adequate lights and clothing so that they can be easily seen. This follows up the regulations requiring new bicycles since October 1985 to carry amber pedal reflectors.

  BA (British Caledonian)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has met the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the implications of British Airways' purchase of British Caledonian.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend frequently meets the chairman of the authority to discuss issues of mutual interest.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the
  503
  implications for the level of Channel tunnel rail services of the currently planned provision of on-train customs facilities for Channel tunnel train services.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Section 12 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 requires on-train controls to be provided on services for destinations beyond London, subject to the railway operators asking for them and providing facilities acceptable to the appropriate Ministers. Discussions are in progress between BR and the Departments concerned.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much he has agreed to allow British Rail to invest in the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  As reflected in the latest public expenditure White Paper, we have approved, in principle, a package of investments proposed by the British Railways Board not exceeding £550 million in total to enable Channel Tunnel rail services to commence in 1993. The board is now preparing detailed appraisals of individual elements in the package before final approval can be given.

  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary .of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the chairman of British Rail about the future size of the work force in British Rail Engineering Ltd.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the chairman of British Rail about the future size of the work force in British Rail Engineering Ltd.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the chairman of British Rail about the future size of the work force in British Rail Engingeering Ltd.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply earlier today to the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).

  Civil Aviation Policy
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss civil aviation policy.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend frequently meets the chairman of the Authority to discuss issues of mutual interest.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to amend his policy on civil aviation, in the light of the purchase of British Caledonian by British Airways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo).

  Population (Thousands)

  1975

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  France

  n/a

  53,880

  53,960

  54,220

  54,730

  54,950

  55,000

  55,000

  West Germany

  n/a

  61,560

  61,670

  61,640

  61,420

  61,180

  61,049

  61,140

  United Kingdom

  56,226

  56,330

  56,352

  56,306

  56,347

  56,460

  56,618

  56,763

  504
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to meet the chairman of British Airways, following its purchase of British Caledonian, to discuss the implications for civil avaition policy.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet the chairman of British Airways at the moment.

  Rural Bypasses
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rural bypasses have been authorised over the last three years; what is their total mileage; and what proportion are proposed as dual carriageway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Since 1 January 1985, orders have been made for 40 bypasses on national roads, with a total length of nearly 170 miles. Of these 15 (37·5 per cent.) are dual carriageway schemes, with a further five (12·5 per cent.) of mixed dual and single carriageway standard.

  London Lorry Traffic
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has made of changes in routes and frequency of lorry traffic in London, following the completion of the M25 orbital motorway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Classified traffic counts were taken on all major roads in the vicinity of the M25 motorway in 1987, including those in outer London boroughs. The counts are currently being processed and results will be published in "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1977–1987" in September 1988. Traffic counts of medium and heavy goods vehicles crossing cordons on the London boundary, around inner London and around central London fell by 9 per cent. 6 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively between 1980 and 1986.

  Road Casualty Figures
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the relative road casualty figures in(a) France, (b) West Germany and (c) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Although data on non-fatal injuries are collected in France and West Germany, differences in definitions and the collection mechanisms used mean that valid comparison in casualties is restricted to fatalities.

  The population, fatalities in road accidents as well as fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles and per 100,000 population in France, West Germany and the United Kingdom in 1975 and 1980 to 1986 are shown in the tables.
  505

  Fatalities in France, West Germany and the United Kingdom: 1975, 1980 to 1986

  1975

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  France

  14,166

  13,499

  13,287

  13,191

  12,728

  12,562

  11,387

  11,947

  West Germany

  14,870

  13,041

  11,674

  11,608

  11,732

  10,199

  8,400

  8,948

  United Kingdom

  6,679

  6,239

  6,069

  6,150

  5,618

  5,788

  5,342

  5,633

  Fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles: in France, West Germany and the United Kingdom: 1975, 1980 to 1986

  1975

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  France

  79·5

  62·0

  59·1

  56·9

  53·4

  52·1

  46·7

  48·2

  West Germany

  76·9

  52·3

  45·8

  44·8

  44·4

  37·6

  30·2

  30·9

  United Kingdom

  41·0

  34·0

  33·7

  33·3

  29·6

  29·5

  26·6

  27·2

  Fatalities per 100,000 Population: in France, West Germany and the United Kingdom: 1975, 1980 to 1986

  1975

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  France

  n/a

  25·1

  24·6

  24·3

  23·3

  22·9

  20·7

  21·7

  West Germany

  n/a

  21·2

  18·9

  18·8

  19·1

  16·7

  13·8

  14·6

  United Kingdom

  11·9

  11·1

  10·8

  10·9

  10·0

  10·3

  9·4

  9·9

  Bypasses
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses have been built since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A total of 79 bypasses and relief roads have been built since 1979. They represent 40 per cent. of new national road mileage.

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the implications for the decision to build the Dartford-Thurrock crossing of capacity in the British steel industry.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The 38,000 tonnes of steel which will be required for construction of this proposed new bridge represents a significant potential order for the British steel production and fabrication industry. It would create some 2,500 man years of work most of which would be in the north-east of England and Scotland.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's estimate of the changes in the volume and patterns of traffic using the A2 if the east London river crossing is constructed.

  Mr. Channon
  The Department's estimate, given at the public inquiry into the East London river crossing, was that traffic volume on the A2 would increase by between 15 and 25 per cent. in the area of its junction with ELRC and by about 5 per cent. in the Dartford area.

  Driving Standards
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to improve standards of driving.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are considering ways of achieving higher standards through the tuition given by approved driving instructors to learner drivers. The driving test remains a rigorous test of competence to drive and includes assessment of a candidate's driving behaviour. All drivers should aim to improve their driving 506
  ability throughout their driving careers. We are looking at ways of encouraging people to do so. We will offer appropriate advice.

  London City Airport
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has met the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the London City airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has had no recent meeting with the chairman to discuss London City airport. The chairman did call on him in December to tell him of the possible suspension of flights between London City airport and Paris pending the outcome of an inquiry. That inquiry concluded in January that flights could safely be resumed, and I am pleased to say they are now running normally.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of British Rail, he will raise with him the quality of service provided by British Rail's Network SouthEast.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We regularly monitor the quality of service on Network SouthEast services and we discuss it with the chairman as necessary. So far NSE's performance during 1987–88 suggests that quality is generally improving compared with 1986–87. For example, overall reliability and punctuality have been significantly better during much of the year. NSE is also planning major investments to improve quality. For example, it plans to invest about £400 million in new trains over the next five years.

  Motorway Safety
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about current measures designed to improve safety on motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 9 November 1987 at column 81.
  507
  In addition, we are now reviewing further measures which could be taken to make motorways safer. My right hon. Friend expects to reach decisions by the spring.

  Uncontrolled Air Space
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many United Kingdom airports operate international commercial flights in uncontrolled air space.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Civil aviation safety regulation is wholly the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand from the authority that, of the 35 United Kingdom aerodromes designated as customs and excise airports for international flights, 23 are not located within controlled air space (as defined in article 96 of the Air Navigation Order 1985). International flights may also operate from other aerodromes by special arrangement. Flights taking off or landing at aerodromes located within controlled air space may, nevertheless, pass through uncontrolled air space at some stage in their flight.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the future development of Manchester airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have recently received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Manchester airport and its possible implications for the airport's development. The report was commissioned by the Civil Aviation Authority in pursuit of its statutory duty to set a condition governing the maximum charges which may be levied by the airport and is a matter entirely for the authority. We have also received representations about the development of air services between Manchester airport and the United States of America. The United States Government undertook to study proposals tabled by the United Kingdom Government last month. They have agreed to respond as quickly as possible.

  Motorway Development
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to speed up the process of motorway development.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The basic motorway network is already largely in place. Its completion is a top priority within our trunk road construction programme; work on the M20 and M40 is proceeding well. The need for further development of the motorway network is monitored. New schemes are added to the programme when justified.

  The White Paper "Policy for Roads in England 1987" added schemes for widening stretches of the M2, M3, M4, M6, M40, M62 and for junction improvements on the M4.

  Pre-construction procedures are also kept under continuous review with the aim of minimising the time taken and improving efficiency.

  Speed Limit Signs
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to begin the experiment, substituting 70 mph speed limit signs for existing signs comprising a black diagonal on a white background; and if he will ensure the experiment is carried out on a major motorway, such as the M25.
  508
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The experiment is already under way at a site on the M1. Traffic speeds are now being measured before the erection of 70 mph limit signs. The signs will come into use in the autumn this year. Speeds will then be studied for a further year to see the effect of the change.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of bus services in operation in England and Wales operating at the latest available date; and what was the comparative figure in 1985.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Information is not collected on this basis. Local bus mileage in England and Wales increased by 14 per cent. between November 1985 and November 1987.

  Paddington-Heathrow (Rail Services)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding direct electrification of rail services from Paddington to Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We have received a large number of representations following the report on surface access to Heathrow by our consultants, Howard Humphreys and Partners, published in June 1987. These include representations on the possibility of an electrified link between Paddington and Heathrow. All the responses are now being considered and we will be making an announcement in due course.

  New Roads (Design Life)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current design life of new roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  New roads are designed to carry the traffic expected to use them over 40 years, with appropriate maintenance. Capacity provision is related to an economic evaluation covering the first 30 years of use.

  London Bus Services
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of bus services to the public in the Greater London area.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is for London Regional Transport to assess what levels of bus services are adequate in accordance with its statutory duty to secure the provision of public transport services having regard to transport needs in London. LRT plans to improve the overall level of service operated in the coming year.

  Nuclear Material (Transport)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the light of the planned increase in transport of these materials over the next decade, his Department has undertaken any study of the emergency arrangements for(a) ports, (b) cargo airports, (c) railways and (d) roads currently designated for the receipt, export and transport of nuclear materials.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The transport of radioactive materials must comply with regulations based on
  509
  international standards which do not depend for their effectiveness on the designation of particular routes or modes of transport.

  The increase in traffic over the next decade is not expected to raise new issues of principle.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements presently exist at ports registered to receive the import of spent nuclear fuel, or other nuclear materials, physically to check that the contents of the imported containers tally with the accompanying inventory and materials carriage documentation.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Ports do not have to be registered to handle radioactive materials. For safety reasons it is not possible to open containers of radioactive materials in a port area. The containers are subject to checking on loading and again on arrival at their destination.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for copies of the PATRAM 86 conference report on the packaging and transport of radioactive materials, published by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1987, to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the United States Senate decision on the proposed arrangements(a) to airfreight plutonium to Japan and (b) to re-transfer United Kingdom plutonium to Japan en route from Sellafield, stopping off on United States' territory.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand that Congress has incorporated into United States law a clause requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in certifying the safety of containers used to transport plutonium by air across United States air space, to include a drop test of a full-scale container from the maximum cruising altitude and the crash of a cargo aircraft fully loaded with such containers, unless the commission is satisfied that the stresses on the containers produced by other tests exceed those which would occur during a worst case accident. Meanwhile the International Atomic Energy Agency is reviewing the international regulations to see whether any changes are required in this area.

  M67-A57 Junction
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce new measures to slow down traffic leaving the M67 in Denton and coming onto the A57 Manchester road and the new roundabout for the M66 motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Traffic leaving the M67 will remain coned down to a single lane until the M66 roundabout opens. This, and construction work on the A57 over the next few months, will help to keep speeds down.

  I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  National Bus Company
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the guidelines for the sale of 510
  the National Bus Company's subsidiaries, particularly with respect to any policy regarding the immediate sale or disposal of assets by the purchaser.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  A copy of the National Bus Company's disposal programme is in the Library of the House.

  In general, NBC does not seek to prevent the sale or disposal of particular assets by purchasers of subsidiaries; rationalisation or replacement of assets will often be part of the companies' plans for the successful continuation of bus services.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the undertaking given by Her Majesty's Government during the passage of the Transport Act 1985 relating to the sale of assets by private buyers of National Bus Companies.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I am not aware of any such undertakings.

  Crosville Motor Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will refuse to sanction the sale of Crosville Motor Services to Carlton PSV Ltd. without guarantees that Crewe bus station will remain in continuous use as a bus station;

  (2) what undertakings have been received from Carlton PSV Ltd. on the maintenance of suitable bus stations and garages if it is allowed to complete its purchase of Crosville Motors.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  In accordance with its statutory duties the National Bus Company seeks to sell its local bus operating subsidiaries only to parties who will continue to operate bus services. Responsibility for the negotiation of individual sales rests with NBC. We have not yet received NBC's proposals for the sale of Crosville Motor Services, and therefore I cannot speculate on its recommendation or any eventual decision.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the proposed sale of Crosville Motor Services to Carlton PSV Ltd.;

  (2) if he will make it his policy not to approve any recommendation from the National Bus Company for the sale of Crosville Motor Services to Carlton PSV Ltd.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We have not yet received from the National Bus Company any proposals for the sale of its Crosville Motor Services subsidiary. I cannot anticipate or prejudge NBC's recommendation.

  Foreign Lorry Drivers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many foreign lorry drivers, in the past year, have been involved in road accidents; how many were warned for dangerous driving; and how many were prosecuted.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The nationality of drivers involved in injury accidents is not recorded. The nationality of drivers warned and prosecuted for motoring offences is not available.

  The number of foreign-registered heavy goods vehicles involved in injury road accidents in Great Britain between 1984 and 1986 is as follows:

  511

  Foreign registered heavy goods vehicles involved in injury road accidents: Great Britain: 1984 to 1986

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1984

  18

  51

  180

  249

  1985

  18

  76

  196

  290

  1986

  20

  70

  189

  279

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of replacing existing driving licences with EEC standard licences.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The present practice of issuing Community model licences when old-style licences have to be renewed or replaced avoids additional cost. Replacing the remaining 17 million old-style driving licences over a three-year period is estimated to cost £55 million.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people currently hold a full driver's licence in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At the end of 1987 there were approximately 27 million full driving licence holders in Great Britain, (Northern Ireland has separate driver licensing arrangements).

  Foreign-Registered Vehicles
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many foreign-registered vehicles entered Britain for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not available.

  M11 (Harlow)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what road surfaces are being used in the repair of the M11 near Harlow; and to what extent the need to reduce noise levels influenced the choice of surface.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The repairs involve cutting out sections of the existing concrete carriageways and the replacement of like for like. This gives no scope for a choice of material other than concrete.

  Vehicles (Reversing Accidents)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fatalities and (b) injuries have been caused by reversing heavy goods vehicles in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Statistics on the causes of accidents are not collected. The number of casualties in road accidents where a heavy goods vehicle was reversing is shown in the table.

  Casualties: in accidents where a heavy goods vehicle was reversing: by road user type and severity: Great Britain: 1982 to 1986.

  1982

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Pedestrian

  11

  22

  69

  102

  Pedal cyclist

  1

  2

  8

  11

  Moped user

  0

  3

  3

  6

  Motor scooter user

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Motor cycle user

  2

  7

  32

  41

  512

  1982

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  TWMV combination user

  o

  o

  0

  0

  Invalid tricycle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other 5 wheeler occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Taxi occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Car occupant

  5

  30

  86

  121

  Mini bus/Motor caravan occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PSV 1 occupant1

  1

  0

  18

  19

  LGV 2 occupant2

  0

  2

  4

  6

  HGV 3 occupant3

  1

  4

  6

  11

  Other motor vehicle occupant

  0

  2

  2

  4

  Other non-motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All

  21

  72

  229

  322

  1 Public service vehicle

  2 Light goods vehicle

  3 Heavy goods vehicle

  1983

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Pedestrian

  8

  28

  56

  92

  Pedal cyclist

  0

  2

  5

  7

  Moped user

  0

  3

  6

  9

  Motor scooter user

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Motor cycle user

  1

  16

  16

  33

  TWMV combination user

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Invalid tricycle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other 5 wheeler occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Taxi occupant

  0

  0

  4

  4

  Car occupant

  3

  14

  89

  106

  Mini bus/Motor caravan occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PSV 1 occupant1

  0

  1

  8

  9

  LGV 2 occupant2

  0

  1

  10

  11

  HGV 3 occupant3

  0

  2

  7

  9

  Other motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other non-motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All

  12

  67

  202

  281

  1 Public service vehicle

  2 Light goods vehicle

  3 Heavy goods vehicle

  1984

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Pedestrian

  10

  28

  73

  111

  Pedal cyclist

  2

  0

  2

  4

  Moped user

  0

  1

  6

  7

  Motor scooter user

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Motor cycle user

  0

  6

  19

  25

  TWMV combination user

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Invalid tricycle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other 5 wheeler occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Taxi occupant

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Car occupant

  6

  21

  110

  137

  Mini bus/Motor caravan occupant

  0

  1

  0

  1

  PSV 1 occupant1

  0

  0

  2

  2

  LGV 2 occupant2

  0

  2

  7

  9

  HGV 3 occupant3

  0

  1

  9

  10

  513

  1984

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Other motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  5

  5

  Other non-motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All

  18

  63

  235

  316

  1 Public service vehicle

  2 Light goods vehicle

  3 Heavy goods vehicle

  1985

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Pedestrian

  6

  25

  59

  90

  Pedal cyclist

  1

  4

  8

  13

  Moped user

  1

  4

  7

  12

  Motor scooter user

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Motor cycle user

  0

  6

  12

  18

  TWMV combination user

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Invalid tricycle occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Other 5 wheeler occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Taxi occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Car occupant

  3

  8

  74

  85

  Mini bus/Motor caravan occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PSV I occupant1

  0

  0

  5

  5

  LGV 2 occupant2

  0

  0

  5

  5

  HGV 3 occupant3

  0

  2

  9

  11

  Other motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Other non-motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All

  11

  49

  184

  244

  1 Public service vehicle

  2 Light goods vehicle

  3 Heavy goods vehicle

  1986

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Pedestrian

  5

  33

  62

  100

  Pedal cyclist

  0

  1

  7

  8

  Moped user

  0

  1

  5

  6

  Motor scooter user

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Motor cycle user

  1

  5

  13

  19

  TWMV combination user

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Invalid tricycle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other 5 wheeler occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Taxi occupant

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Car occupant

  0

  20

  88

  108

  Mini bus/Motor caravan occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PSV 1 occupant1

  0

  0

  5

  5

  LGV 2 occupant2

  0

  1

  6

  7

  HGV 3 occupant3

  2

  2

  14

  18

  Other motor vehicle occupant

  0

  2

  2

  4

  Other non-motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All

  8

  65

  205

  278

  1 Public service vehicle

  2 Light goods vehicle

  3 Heavy goods vehicle

  514
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fatalities and (b) injuries have been caused by reversing light vans in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Statistics on the causes of accidents are not collected. The number of casualties in road accidents where a light goods vehicle was reversing is shown in the table.

  Casualties: in accidents where a light goods vehicle was reversing: by road user type and severity: Great Britain: 1982 to 1986

  1982

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Pedestrian

  9

  67

  221

  297

  Pedal cyclist

  0

  2

  27

  29

  Moped user

  0

  3

  8

  11

  Motor scooter user

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Motor cycle user

  1

  8

  25

  34

  TWMV combination user

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Invalid tricycle occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Other 5 wheeler occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Taxi occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Car occupant

  0

  3

  44

  47

  Mini bus/Motor caravan occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  PSV 1 occupant1

  0

  1

  4

  5

  LGV 2 occupant2

  0

  1

  16

  17

  HGV 3 occupant3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Other motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other non-motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All

  10

  85

  350

  445

  1 Public service vehicle

  2 Light goods vehicle

  3 Heavy goods vehicle

  Casualties: in accidents where a light goods vehicle was reversing: by road user type and severity: Great Britain: 1982 to 1986

  1983

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Pedestrian

  10

  68

  250

  328

  Pedal cyclist

  0

  7

  27

  34

  Moped user

  0

  4

  6

  10

  Motor scooter user

  0

  0

  4

  4

  Motor cycle user

  0

  3

  16

  19

  TWMV combination user

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Invalid tricycle occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Other 5 wheeler occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Taxi occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Car occupant

  0

  4

  56

  60

  Mini bus/Motor caravan occupant

  0

  0

  3

  3

  PSV 1 occupant1

  0

  0

  4

  4

  LGV 2 occupant2

  0

  6

  29

  35

  HGV 3 occupant3

  0

  1

  2

  3

  Other motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Other non-motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  All

  10

  93

  399

  502

  1 Public service vehicle

  2 Light goods vehicle

  3 Heavy goods vehicle

  515

  1984

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Pedestrian

  4

  63

  250

  317

  Pedal cyclist

  0

  4

  35

  39

  Moped user

  0

  2

  12

  14

  Motor scooter user

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Motor cycle user

  0

  7

  16

  23

  TWMV combination user

  o

  o

  0

  0

  Invalid tricycle occupant

  o

  o

  1

  1

  Other 5 wheeler occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Taxi occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Car occupant

  1

  3

  45

  49

  Mini bus/Motor caravan occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PSV 1 occupant1

  0

  0

  5

  5

  LGV 2 occupant2

  0

  5

  27

  32

  HGV 3 occupant3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other non-motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All

  5

  84

  392

  481

  1 Public service vehicle

  2 Light goods vehicle

  3 Heavy goods vehicle

  1984

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Pedestrian

  4

  96

  269

  369

  Pedal cyclist

  1

  7

  19

  27

  Moped user

  0

  1

  10

  11

  Motor scooter user

  0

  1

  2

  3

  Motor cycle user

  0

  7

  22

  29

  TWMV combination user

  0

  0

  0

  Invalid tricycle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other 5 wheeler occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Taxi occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Car occupant

  0

  4

  61

  65

  Mini bus/Motor caravan occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  PSV 1 occupant1

  0

  0

  3

  3

  LGV 2 occupant2

  0

  4

  28

  32

  HGV 3 occupant3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  (i) Projects for which grant over £l million approved

  Route

  Title

  Progress

  Estimated total cost 1(£ million)

  Past:

  M531(M53)

  Ellesmere Port Motorway Extension A5117 to Stoak Interchange

  Completed October 1980

  4·6

  A418

  Thame Bypass

  Completed November 1980

  3·1

  A63

  Kingston upon Hull South Orbital Road: Market Place-Hedon Road

  Completed December 1980

  11·6

  A52

  Gamston to Lings Bar: A52 to A614/A606 Junction

  Completed September 1981

  6·7

  M531(M53)

  Ellesmere Port Motorway Extension Stoak Interchange to A56 at Hoole

  Completed July 1982

  13·2

  A282

  Dartford Tunnel Approach Roads (North)

  Completed November 1982

  2·3

  M602

  M602 Spur to Salford Docks

  Completed December 1982

  20·6

  A249

  Improvement between Chestnut Street and Bobbing

  Completed December 1982

  2·9

  M23/A264

  Copthorne Link

  Completed August 1984

  2·0

  A420

  Shrivenham Bypass

  Completed October 1984

  3·2

  A282

  Dartford Tunnel Approach Roads (South)

  Completed August 1986

  13·9

  A282

  Dartford Tunnel Toll Plaza

  Completed November 1986

  7·2

  516

  1985

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Other motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other non-motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All

  5

  120

  417

  542

  1 Public service vehicle

  2 Light goods vehicle

  3 Heavy goods vehicle

  1986

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  Pedestrian

  5

  70

  269

  344

  Pedal cyclist

  0

  3

  25

  28

  Moped user

  0

  0

  13

  13

  Motor scooter user

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Motor cycle user

  0

  2

  21

  23

  TWMV combination user

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Invalid tricycle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other 5 wheeler occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Taxi occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Car occupant

  0

  4

  60

  64

  Mini bus/Motor caravan occupant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  PSV 1 occupant1

  0

  0

  3

  3

  LGV 2 occupant2

  1

  5

  18

  24

  HGV 3 occupant3

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Other motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other non-motor vehicle occupant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All

  6

  84

  413

  503

  1 Public service vehicle

  2 Light goods vehicle

  3 Heavy goods vehicle

  Road Schemes (Grant)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the schemes for which grant was paid under section 272 of the Highways Act 1980 during the last eight years, showing the amount of grant paid in each case.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is as set out.
  517

  Route

  Title

  Progress

  Estimated total cost 1(£ million)

  Present:

  A64

  Copmanthorpe GSJ

  Under Construction

  1·4

  A15

  Brigg and Red bourne Bypass

  In Preparation

  5·2

  A418

  Leighton Linslade Bypass

  In Preparation

  6·2

  —

  Callerton Lane Link

  In Preparation

  1·0

  1 Costs shown for Completed Schemes are at outturn prices, for schemes under construction at current prices and for schemes in preparation at November 1985 prices·

  Financial year of approval

  (ii) Projects for which grant over £0·5 million approved

  A6/A56 bridge strengthening

  1986–87

  (iii) Projects for which grant between £0·1 and £0·5 million approved

  A25 maintenance works

  1981–82

  Heavy load grid route in Greater Manchester

  1982–83

  A4 bridge maintenance

  1984–85

  A6 resurfacing

  1984–85

  Al2/A47 tidal flow system

  1987–88

  A57 road improvement

  1987–88

  (iv) Projects for which grant less than £0·1 million approved

  A412 measure to ease traffic congestion

  1980–81

  Steventon railway bridge repairs

  1981–82

  A59(T) bridge construction

  1982–83

  Thornaby/Middlesbrough dock route improvement

  1984–85

  M65 Re-routing of high load route 20

  1987–88

  Transport supplementary grant

  Authority

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)(i)

  (d)(ii)

  Bid 1988–89 (£ million)

  Accepted expenditure 1988–89 (£ million)

  Accepted expenditure 1988–89 as percentage of bid

  Minor works accepted expenditure as percentage of total net accepted expenditure 1987–88

  Minor works accepted expenditure as percentage of total net accepted expenditure 1988–89

  City of London

  1·170

  0·366

  31·3

  100·0

  100·0

  Barking and Dagenham

  5·590

  5·672

  101·5

  12·5

  14·5

  Barnet

  0·695

  0·800

  115·1

  100·0

  100·0

  Bexley

  2·985

  1·298

  43·5

  55·1

  52·9

  Brent

  1·135

  0·872

  76·8

  66·2

  42·7

  Bromley

  9·718

  7·766

  79·9

  88·3

  17·6

  Camden

  0·556

  0·262

  47·1

  100·0

  100·0

  Croydon

  1·180

  0·468

  39·7

  100·0

  100·0

  Ealing

  6·446

  3·876

  60·1

  38·5

  34·6

  Enfield

  32·363

  22·510

  69·6

  2·6

  1·9

  Greenwich

  6·013

  1·632

  27·1

  3·5

  23·8

  Hackney

  2·902

  0·854

  29·4

  100·0

  100·0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·210

  0·130

  61·9

  100·0

  100·0

  Haringey

  9·161

  7·324

  79·9

  4·3

  2·6

  Harrow

  9·869

  7·156

  72·5

  22·3

  7·8

  Havering

  2·170

  0·640

  29·5

  6·3

  25·5

  Hillingdon

  12·867

  3·914

  30·4

  13·3

  22·8

  Hounslow

  2·941

  1·516

  51·5

  92·0

  34·0

  Islington

  0·475

  0·144

  30·3

  100·0

  100·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·038

  0·138

  13·3

  16·9

  100·0

  Kingston upon Thames

  5·632

  0·662

  11·8

  7·2

  95·2

  Lambeth

  0·896

  0·494

  55·1

  100·0

  100·0

  Lewisham

  2·838

  1·940

  68·4

  58·2

  22·7

  Merton

  7·687

  5·058

  65·8

  8·0

  4·9

  Newham

  2·868

  0·686

  23·9

  23·1

  57·7

  Redbridge

  1·645

  0·806

  49·0

  8·1

  80·1

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·743

  0·372

  50·1

  100·0

  100·0

  Southwark

  5·227

  1·994

  38·1

  38·7

  15·1

  Sutton

  2·641

  1·556

  58·9

  29·3

  24·7

  Tower Hamlets

  0·909

  0·136

  15·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Highway Authorities
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report for each highway authority in England (a) its bid for capital allocation and transport supplementary grant for 1988–89, (b) the allocation announced in each case, (c) the allocation as a percentage of the bid in each case, (d) the percentage of each authority's transport supplementary grant allocation attributable to minor works, for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The capital allocations figures were given in my reply to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 11 January at columns 139–40. The figures for transport supplementary grant are in the following table:
  519

  Authority

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)(i)

  (d)(ii)

  Bid 1988–89 (£ million)

  Accepted expenditure 1988–89 (£ million)

  Accepted expenditure 1988–89 as percentage of bid

  Minor works accepted expenditure as percentage of total net accepted expenditure 1987–88

  Minor works accepted expenditure as percentage of total net accepted expenditure 1988–89

  Waltham Forest

  1·442

  0·988

  68·5

  25·1

  88·1

  Wandsworth

  4·533

  1·108

  24·4

  14·0

  41·3

  Westminster

  5·280

  0·420

  8·0

  43·3

  100·0

  Bolton

  3·929

  2·686

  68·4

  0·0

  10·8

  Bury

  2·774

  2·020

  72·8

  84·5

  24·8

  Manchester

  10·353

  6·290

  60·8

  24·0

  22·2

  Oldham

  3·441

  2·240

  65·1

  100·0

  24·1

  Rochdale

  1·268

  0·570

  45·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Salford

  11·411

  7·692

  67·4

  6·0

  3·9

  Stockport

  0·687

  0·360

  52·4

  103·9

  111·1

  Tameside

  1·187

  0·620

  52·2

  8·12

  56·3

  Trafford

  2·689

  1·284

  47·8

  5·5

  45·5

  Wigan

  4·971

  4·630

  93·1

  7·1

  8·6

  Knowsley

  0·974

  0·484

  49·7

  89·5

  91·9

  Liverpool

  4·180

  2·470

  59·1

  19·9

  34·2

  St· Helens

  1·646

  1·270

  77·2

  100·0

  26·9

  Sefton

  1·779

  0·342

  19·2

  100·0

  94·2

  Wirral

  2·785

  2·460

  88·3

  50·3

  12·1

  Barnsley

  1·862

  0·800

  43·0

  29·7

  54·4

  Doncaster

  1·457

  0·942

  64·7

  58·4

  52·5

  Rotherham

  0·685

  0·446

  65·1

  83·8

  100·0

  Sheffield

  7·935

  0·760

  9·6

  16·4

  100·5

  Gateshead

  4·570

  3·990

  87·3

  62·5

  9·8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  8·168

  4·570

  56·0

  7·6

  10·0

  North Tyneside

  1·262

  0·760

  60·2

  100·0

  100·0

  South Tyneside

  3·065

  0·720

  23·5

  16·2

  30·6

  Sunderland

  6·128

  3·154

  51·5

  25·0

  19·2

  Birmingham

  15·788

  7·806

  49·4

  12·8

  16·7

  Coventry

  5·534

  3·884

  70·2

  7·7

  6·5

  Dudley

  5·662

  1·384

  24·4

  19·5

  36·2

  Sandwell

  3·917

  1·834

  46·8

  33·7

  19·1

  Solihull

  1·394

  1·020

  73·2

  27·3

  14·7

  Walsall

  5·669

  3·156

  55·7

  18·2

  7·9

  Wolverhampton

  8·061

  6·922

  85·9

  5·3

  5·1

  Bradford

  4·510

  3·372

  74·8

  4·6

  21·4

  Calderdale

  0·546

  0·420

  76·9

  100·0

  100·0

  Kirklees

  3·317

  2·638

  79·5

  18·1

  13·7

  Leeds

  3·928

  3·046

  77·5

  63·3

  24·4

  Wakefield

  2·006

  0·526

  26·2

  100·0

  98·9

  Avon

  12·482

  8·612

  69·0

  30·4

  10·5

  Bedfordshire

  7·717

  6·498

  84·2

  1·9

  5·7

  Berkshire

  10·041

  5·376

  53·5

  4·8

  5·6

  Buckinghamshire

  2·441

  1·414

  57·9

  0·8

  4·2

  Cambridgeshire

  10·817

  4·510

  41·7

  7·3

  2·8

  Cheshire

  4·764

  2·728

  57·3

  21·0

  14·7

  Cleveland

  10·126

  6·324

  62·5

  13·3

  6·3

  Cornwall

  6·606

  4·540

  68·7

  13·5

  8·8

  Cumbria

  3·579

  2·800

  78·2

  80·6

  17·9

  Derbyshire

  4·836

  1·366

  28·2

  76·6

  77·8

  Devon

  11·932

  7·002

  58·7

  12·6

  8·6

  Dorset

  17·464

  8·640

  49·5

  1·9

  5·8

  Durham

  7·547

  3·876

  51·4

  8·5

  19·6

  East Sussex

  9·131

  4·242

  46·5

  57·1

  14·1

  Essex

  21·519

  17·460

  81·1

  6·8

  5·0

  Gloucestershire

  5·229

  2·154

  41·2

  8·0

  13·9

  Hampshire

  10·683

  8·230

  77·0

  7·1

  7·9

  Hereford & Worcester

  5·501

  3·952

  71·8

  14·8

  17·7

  Hertfordshire

  8·310

  6·190

  74·5

  2·8

  5·5

  Humberside

  10·989

  9·036

  82·2

  12·7

  6·6

  Isle of Wight

  3·449

  1·454

  42·2

  62·3

  69·I

  Kent

  28·174

  18·510

  65·7

  12·9

  5·4

  Lancashire

  22·146

  9·366

  42·3

  10·2

  14·4

  Leicestershire

  15·436

  9·890

  64·1

  3·2

  5·9

  Lincolnshire

  3·682

  2·278

  61·9

  25·4

  53·3

  Norfolk

  7·350

  4·300

  58·5

  15·1

  23·7

  Northamptonshire

  11·180

  6·470

  57·9

  5·1

  19·3

  Northumberland

  2·629

  1·088

  41·4

  3·5

  34·9

  North Yorkshire

  5·049

  3·850

  76·3

  5·6

  22·1

  Nottinghamshire

  5·563

  4·074

  73·2

  18·1

  17·2

  Oxfordshire

  7·013

  1·426

  20·3

  28·2

  35·0

  Shropshire

  6·797

  3·500

  51·5

  3·9

  5·7

  Somerset

  9·585

  6·422

  67·0

  7·8

  4·7

  520 521

  Authority

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)(i)

  (d)(ii)

  Bid 1988–89 (£ million)

  Accepted expenditure 1988–89 (£ million)

  Accepted expenditure 1988–89 as percentage of bid

  Minor works accepted expenditure as percentage of total net accepted expenditure 1987–88

  Minor works accepted expenditure as percentage of total net accepted expenditure 1988–89

  Staffordshire

  9·909

  5·644

  57·0

  14·1

  17·7

  Suffolk

  4·572

  3·506

  76·7

  33·5

  17·5

  Surrey

  9·642

  4·472

  46·4

  6·5

  13·4

  Warwickshire

  4·918

  3·492

  71·0

  8·6

  8·6

  West Sussex

  7·429

  5·460

  73·5

  7·3

  8·2

  Wiltshire

  3·390

  0·722

  21·3

  3·5

  55·4

  Note: Transport Supplementary Grant is paid at the rate of 50 per cent. of accepted expenditure.

  EC (Passenger Transport Subsidy)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the levels of central Government subsidy to public passenger transport in the European Community.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the information on railway subsidies contained in the eighth Commission report on the transposed annual accounts of railway undertakings for 1984 (COM(87)311 final), a copy of which is in the Library. I have no comparable information about subsidies to other forms of passenger transport in the European Community.

  Level Crossings
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the location of automatic half-barrier level crossings in the United Kingdom, which are situated in residential commuter areas, and which are adjacent to a commuter line railway station where no pedestrian footbridge is provided over the road.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The information is not available in the form requested. I wrote to my hon. Friend on 19 January giving examples of automatic half-barrier level crossings which are on main routes and used by children.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the expected average and peak pedestrian, including children, and vehicle usage rates for the proposed automatic half-barrier level crossing to be installed on Princess Margaret road, adjacent to East Tilbury station in Thurrock.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  A census taken over a period of nine days in February last year showed that the peak pedestrian, child and vehicles usage at the crossing in a period of 15 minutes did not exceed 84, 46 and 176 respectively. The average usage during any period of 15 minutes between 0600 and 2400 on the same day was 16, 4 and 67.

  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 19 January enclosing an extract from the Department's safety requirements for automatic half-barriers (AHB). He will be aware from this that the number of vehicles using the crossing is not a condition for suitability which has to be satisfied for the selection of AHB.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the average and peak rates of pedestrian usage and vehicle usage per hour over 522
  automatic half-barrier level crossings in the United Kingdom; and how many of the 330 in existence are within 10 per cent. of the highest usage.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The information is not currently available.

  Drink-Driving Accidents
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are, for each year since 1975, the figures for deaths caused by drink and driving accidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Deaths in road accidents where a driver or rider had a blood-alcohol count in excess of 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood are given in the table.

  Fatalities in road accidents where a driver or rider had a blood-alcohol level in excess of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood: Great Britain 1979 to 1985

  Number

  1979

  1,550

  1980

  1,400

  1981

  1,350

  1982

  1,450

  1983

  1,050

  1984

  1,100

  1985

  1,000

  There has been a welcome downward trend. Drinking and driving remains one of our most serious road safety problems.

  Data are not collected on the causes of road accidents.

  Road Haulage (Safety)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he will take against haulage companies registering vehicle fleets in Europe in order to avoid United Kingdom regulations on side guards and splash spray devices;

  (2) what estimates are available to him of the percentage of United Kingdom haulage companies and other vehicle fleet owners registering fleets in Europe to avoid United Kingdom transport safety regulations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We do not have information about the motives of haulage companies or other vehicle fleet owners who choose to register vehicles abroad.

  Lyndhurst (Bypass)
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from residents of
  523
  Lyndhurst in support of the construction of the bypass proposed by Hampshire county council; and, if so, how many of these residents have signified their support.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have received a petition containing 1,320 signatures and one other representation from residents of Lyndhurst in support of Hampshire county council's proposals for a bypass around Lyndhurst.

  British Rail
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish figures for the proportion of total man-hours worked on British Rail track(a) between 7 am and 7 pm (b) between 7 pm and 7 am (c) on weekdays and (d) on weekends in each of the last eight years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Department does not hold such information. The hon. Member should apply to the British Railways Board direct.

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

NHS: Hip Replacement Operations
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are taking action to reduce the delays for hip replacement operations on the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, increasing the number of hip replacement operations is one of the National Health Service's priorities. The waiting list fund for 1987–88 is allowing several thousand more of these operations to be done.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that, for example, in Guildford there is a two-and-a-half year waiting list for hip operations, and that many people suffer acute pain night and day and are taking increasing amounts of drugs? Will the Minister consider whether it is possible to make it easier for people to transfer to a waiting list in another area where there is less delay?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Viscount was good enough to inform me earlier about the length of delay for this specialty in the Guildford area, which is considerably worse than the last year for which I have figures regarding the time between people being seen and diagnosed as needing a hip replacement and their admission for treatment. The average in 1985 was 21 weeks in England. I regret that I do not have more up-to-date figures.
Where individual patients go for various operations is entirely in the hands of the general practitioner who refers them to the consultant. My right honourable friend's objective is that general practitioners should have better information as to the lengths of waiting lists in local hospitals for various specialties.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I speak as one who was chairman of a hospital management committee for 14 years. In the 1950s, I had never heard of this operation. Will the Minister tell us, as a matter of interest, when this operation started? It is a truly remarkable operation and shows the advance of medical technology.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not have the facts in front of me. But, judging from memory, my father considered having the operation in the early 1960s and was told that he would have to wait at least until the late 1960s before he would be able to have it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I tabled a Question on that very point within the last year or two? The Answer indicated that there were very few, if any, such operations 30 years ago. Is my noble friend also aware that we all owe a debt to Professor Sir John Charnley, who started those operations in Wigan?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I seem to remember that the professor also operated at Haslemere Hospital.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, are the Government prepared to make funds available so that people who, except for financial reasons could go to another area, would be able to have their operation there?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is certainly one of the points at which we shall need to look. But, returning to hip operations, the objective is that by 1990 there will be 1,050 such operations carried out per million of the population. We intend that some 48,000 will take place each year by that time. It looks as though we are on stream towards achieving that aim.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I also take an interest in the position at the Guildford hospitals. A patient in whom I was interested was operated on for a hip replacement within six weeks of my making an inquiry on her behalf. Is the Minister aware that as a result of my inquiry she was transferred from one consultant to another whose waiting list was years shorter than that of the first one? Does the Minister know that there is a great deal of variation in this picture? We too often hear of bad cases; there are also good cases.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was not aware of the case just referred to by my noble friend. As I said, the figure of 21 weeks in England in 1985 was an average figure. It is vital that general practitioners have the information so that we can have an average waiting list for the various specialties across the country.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem is not confined to Guildford? It is pretty general. Can the noble Lord give some assurance that something will be done to ease the situation? The number of hip operations which need to be performed is getting greater and greater, not less.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. That is why, first of all, hip operations are one of the series of operations which are countenanced for extra funds under the waiting list initiative. Secondly, that is why

827
I said that by 1990 we intended that 1,050 operations per 1 million of the population would be carried out.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it should not depend upon the generous intervention of a noble Lord to ensure that someone gets his operation instead of having to wait for three years? Is it not the case that in very many areas and districts right now the length of the waiting list for this operation is increasing? Does he not agree with Dr. John Havard, Secretary of the BMA, yesterday, that the National Health Service is being systematically starved of the resources it needs? Is the noble Lord aware that there was a similar statement this morning by Mr. Trevor Clay, the General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing? Is this not mainly an issue of finance and staff?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not so far as concerns orthopaedics. An additional nine posts will be implemented by the end of the current financial year; a further six by the end of 1988–89; one post the following year; and one by 1991–92. That gives an additional 17 posts.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that where the patient was treated was a matter for a general practitioner? Did he mean that that was regardless of the patient's health authority? Is it possible to move people from one authority to another at the wish of the general practitioner? That is what I understood from the Minister's reply.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was talking about the district within which the general practitioner operates. There is certainly discussion going on through the offices of the district health authorities concerning the point that there should he an opportunity for referring to different districts. However, that has not yet come to fruition.

Whisky Exports: Japanese Tax
2.43 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that action is being taken expeditiously to comply with the GATT ruling on the ending of tax discrimination against imports into Japan of whisky from Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I welcome the recent forthright decision by the GATT Council calling on Japan to remove tax discrimination on imported alcoholic drinks. The Japanese authorities have announced their intention to introduce reforms in response to the GATT recommendations. Together with the European Commission, we shall continue to press for the full
828
implementation of these recommendations at the earliest possible date.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that satisfactory reply. While the Japanese announcement was welcome, does my noble friend agree that the proposal or the method which the Japanese authorities indicated they will follow is likely to cause unnecessary delay? Does he agree that the Japanese people, having acquired a taste for Scotch whisky, should be allowed the benefit of enjoying this delectable beverage, of course taken in moderation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend's remarks. As regards the Japanese, it might be even better if they took it in excess! We are encouraged by the assurances given by Japan, but we are not complacent; that is why we are pressing to ensure that action is as full and as early as possible.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are we to understand that the European Commission is being entrusted with the task of monitoring the progress made by Japan in this connection? Or is it still the case that Her Majesty's Government, who are associated with GATT, retain the right to monitor progress in this matter and if necessary to make completely independent representations to Japan? This might he as distinct from the more general case presented by the EC.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall both monitor the results of this case, but it was the EC who mounted the successful GATT case against Japan. That is not to say that the Government do not take the matter extremely seriously as well. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary, who visited Japan recently, received an assurance from the Japanese Foreign Minister that details of the proposed reforms would he available later this year.

Fawley: Proposed Power Station
2.46 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of public concern about a possible coal-fired power station at Fawley on Southampton Water; and what alternative sites are under consideration.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the CEGB has informed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy that it expects to be in a position to submit an application for consent to construct Fawley B shortly. Anyone wishing to object to my right honourable friend regarding this application will be given an opportunity to do so. A number of other potential coal-fired power station sites are presently under consideration by the CEGB.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that not very reassuring answer. Does he not agree that to maintain the amenities of the Solent area is extremely important? Can he also confirm that the building of a coal-fired power station at Fawley will involve an area of approximately 50 acres for a coal dump, with all the consequent coal dust all over the area?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The points which he raises are very important, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations. Some of them draw to his attention the concerns mentioned by my noble friend about Fawley B, from the point of view of local interests. In reply to these representations, he has explained that he will only be able to take into account the objections which he receives within a specified timetable after an application has been made. No such application has yet been made.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble friend say what type of flue gas-desulphurisation plant will be fitted at Fawley by the CEGB? Will it be a limestone gypsum plant or a limestone sulphuric acid plant?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the information he seeks. However, I can tell him that the latest boiler design proposed would ensure a reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions of about 40 per cent. In addition, the new station would he fitted with flue gas-desulphurisation equipment to the requirements of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. This would reduce the emissions of sulphur oxides by 90 per cent.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the country's power requirements are to be met, at least eight new power stations, nuclear or coal, are required by the end of the century? Planning permission for only one has been obtained so far—Sizewell B.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, it is certainly the case that there will be under-capacity by the end of the century. That is why the CEGB is at present putting forward the plans which it has in mind.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, while accepting the need for some new power stations in the South of England for load-balancing reasons, we do not necessarily need one 2,000 megawatt power station at Fawley? Would it not be in the interests of energy conservation if we had three or four smaller power stations on inland sites with combined heat and power, thus getting an overall thermal efficiency of between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. rather than the 38 per cent. from the electricity generating stations only?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am interested in the points that he makes. They will undoubtedly be taken on board by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when he comes to consider the application.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the building of power stations on coastal sites would enable the generators of electricity in future to buy imported coal, whereas those inland would be prisoners of British Coal?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, my noble friend is of course correct. He will be aware that one of the reasons the CEGB is considering an application in regard to Fawley is the facilities for importing coal there.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the Minister tell me whether the details relating to the type of flue of one of these power stations is a matter for government policy; or is it a matter within the management discretion of the CEGB?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, it is the latter.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, having regard to the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, on the matter of dealing with effluents from the power stations—on which the Minister went into some detail—can the Minister say now or later whether the catalytic process which is so successful in some of the stations in America will be used to prevent effluents from getting out into the air?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot reply to that question without notice.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that that conveniently remote date, the end of the century, is drawing closer and closer and that the time for taking decisions is running out?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right and I am very grateful to him for reminding us of that fact.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is not necessarily correct? Does not the Minister agree that it would still be possible to import coal, if that were the policy of the Government, even if the power stations were built inland?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. It would still be possible to import coal even if the power stations were built inland. But whether it would be more desirable to do so there or at Fawley will come to light after the consideration by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken place.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, is it fair to assume that the present muddle in our coal industry is a contributory factor to the importance of power stations within reach of imported coal?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend I should certainly say that, in planning where future sites of coal power stations should be,

831
we want to take account of all the different factors, and not least the economic ones to which he draws our attention
Lord Rodney: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the existing oil-fed power station at Fawley is used to only about 12 per cent. of its capacity? Would it not be cheaper to run that station at full capacity rather than build a new coal-fired power station at a cost of many millions of pounds?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, that is of course a technical question. However, it is clearly not the type of detailed matter which would be overlooked during the process of my right honourable friend's general considerations.

Education: Capital Expenditure
2.54 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the allocation by the Secretary of State to local education authorities for 1988–89 for capital spending on buildings and equipment for schools and colleges.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has allocated £369 million to English local education authorities for capital spending on schools and further education in 1988–89. This represents an increase of 24 per cent. on the corresponding figure for 1987–88.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he confirm that with an allocation to schools and colleges of £279 million for the period 1987 to 1988, and £369 million for the period 1988 to 1989, that represents an increase in allocation this year of £72 million? What are the criteria for considering what an allocation should be, and what kind of deliberations are involved in that consideration? I should be grateful if my noble friend would answer me briefly.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has available expenditure plans drawn up by local education authorities which set out their requirements in various categories. In the light of those, he discusses with his colleagues in the course of the public expenditure survey what resources can be made available. The level of resources provided must take account not only of authorities' plans but also of the Government's overall objectives of restraining public expenditure.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, we should congratulate the Minister on his patience in anticipating the supplementary question of his noble friend.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I always think that it is helpful to your Lordships' House if I can give as much information as possible on the subject on the Order Paper.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, has the right honourable friend of the Minister considered the effect of this provision on the colleges which he is proposing as distinct from the work of the local authorities, which may in some ways have a conflicting interest?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are monitoring the situation carefully, and we shall take any action that we can to ensure that the education of students is not placed in jeopardy. However, our present evidence indicates that the overwhelming majority of LEAs are behaving responsibly towards their higher education institutions.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, will the Minister (either now or later) indicate what proportion of the capital spending to which he has referred will be used for the better and improved teaching of science and technology in schools and colleges?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall be glad to have the opportunity of replying at a later date to the noble Lord's question.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the survey of school buildings, which is a report published by the DES—there was a press notice about it on 3rd November last year—stated that the sum of about £2 billion was necessary to bring school buildings up to an acceptable standard for the 1999 to 2001 pupil numbers? Is the Minister further aware that the £750 million offered over the next three years for capital spending on buildings is less than half of what that survey asked for? Is that a satisfactory state of affairs?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, needs have built up over the past three decades. The figure of £55 million is on top of substantial other resources so that over the next three years more than £750 million should be spent on projects to improve school buildings. Gross provision for capital spending by local authorities on schools and colleges has been increased by £100 million a year. That is 22 per cent. over the PES period.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, does not the Minister find it a little surprising that he is unable to give me an answer to my simple question regarding the breakdown of the capital spending, and how much of it is allocated to scientific and technological matters?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that that enters into quite considerable detail, and I should prefer further notice of the question.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that £750 million for the next three years is less than half of what the DES's own survey asked for?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am aware of the figure that the noble Baroness gives; but I would remind her that there has been an increase of 22 per cent. on the previous year.

Business
2.58 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Committee stage (on Re-Commitment) of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill will be taken.

Business of the House: Debate, 19th February
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Young of Graffham set down for 19th February shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
3.00 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 19 [Provisions supplementary to or consequential on section 17]:
Lord Thomas of Gwydir Lord Thomas of Gwydir moved Amendment No. 99A:
Page 18, line 28, after ("1972") insert ("or in relation to Scotland section 56 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Balfour, who is unable to be present. The Local Government Act 1972, which is referred to in Clause 19(6) of the Bill, only applies to England and Wales. It is quite clear that Clauses 17 and 19 of the Bill are intended to apply to Scotland as well. Section 56 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 is the Scottish equivalent of Section 101 of the 1972 Act. Therefore, the amendment suggests that that section should be added.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Thomas for moving the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Balfour and for having brought to light what would appear to be an omission. I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Broxbourne Lord Broxbourne moved Amendment No. 99B:
Page 18, line 46, leave out from ("be") to end of line 47 and insert ("damages to the injured tenderer for the costs of unnecessary studies, foregone profits or lost opportunities").
The noble Lord said: I am encouraged by my noble friend's affirmative and constructive response to the last amendment. The Committee will be sorry to hear that my amendment is a little more complex and will take longer to expound. Nevertheless, as I think the Committee will see, it has merit and deserves a similar affirmative response.
The object of the amendment is to find a solution to the difficult problem of ascertaining the proper quantum of damages which arise under Clauses 17 and 19 of the Bill. There is no certainty that the amendment provides a satisfactory solution. It would be presumptuous on my part to suggest that it does, and I am sure that the suggestion would meet with incredulity and scepticism on the part of the Committee.
The problem is that Clause 19(7)(b) provides a right of action to persons suffering loss or damage by reason of non-compliance with the statutory duty imposed by Clause 17 to disregard non-commercial considerations in the award of contracts. That is clear enough. However, what the Bill does not do is to specify how that loss or damage should be assessed. If there were no statutory definition, the injured tenderer would be entitled to general damages; that is to say, damages based on the principle of putting the contractor back into the position in which he would have been but for the breach.
The difficulty is to ascertain what that position would be. There is no certainty that, but for the breach, the tenderer would have been awarded the contract, let alone that he would have made a profit from it. Therefore, under the general principle his damages might even be de minimis. The draftsman has rather unkindly heaped Pelion on Ossa. A statutory limitation has been imposed by Clause 19(8), which is the provision which I propose to amend. As a result, an injured tenderer might be in the position of recovering at best a few thousand pounds when his real loss might amount to £½ million or so.
Faced with that position, there is not unnaturally a widespread sentiment that that provision is inappropriate and inequitable and that a formula should be found to provide a proper quantum of damages. That is the difficulty. It is not simple to identify an appropriate formula. There are various runners. For example, there are exemplary damages. That solution has quite a number of backers, including the CBI which quite properly recognises the inadequacy and inequity of the proposed limitation. It suggests that the courts should be given power to award exemplary damages. I have not been in contact with the CBI on the matter. Therefore, I do not know on what legal advice its suggestion is based.
For myself, I have found it impossible to table an amendment suggesting the award of exemplary damages. That may be of minimal comfort to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I doubt that exemplary damages are appropriate in that they do not seem to satisfy convincingly the requirements so clearly and authoritatively specified by Lord Devlin in his classic exposition in the case of Rookes v. Barnard which, as the Committee will recall, was decided in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House.
Indeed, exemplary damages had a run in another place. However, that run was scarcely encouraging. After what I felt was a somewhat perfunctory discussion in another place at the Committee stage, the amendment was withdrawn without being pressed to a Division. At Report stage in the other place, the amendment was not even moved.
There is the possibility of aggravated damages. Once again, it does not seem to me that that is an appropriate criterion. I have therefore not drafted my amendment in that form. The history of aggravated damages is even less encouraging than that of exemplary damages in that an amendment based on that possibility was not even moved in the other place.
Having rejected the possibilities of exemplary damages and aggravated damages, I was faced with finding another solution. That difficulty was not wholly unexpected because a tenderer is a non-person in English law. Until and/or unless his tender is accepted, he has no position in law. When and if the tender is accepted, he becomes a contractor. Under the law, he then has specified rights as set out in the standard forms of building contracts. In the unlikely event that the Committee wants to know more about that matter, I recommend Walker-Smith on the Standard Forms of Building Contracts.
In that quandary, therefore, and faced with that difficulty, I called to mind the Sherlock Holmes principle: when you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains is the solution. Applying that principle I hit upon this amendment, and I shall tell the Committee why that is less improbable than it may sound. Perhaps it is improbable when taken solely in the context of English law, but it has a respectable parentage in the law of the EC.
That parentage is to be found in the recent proposed directive entitled Community Rules on Procedures for the Award of Public Supply and Public Works Contracts, from Article 1(3) of which the words of the amendment that I am now commending to the Committee are derived. In due course this directive will become binding in English law under the terms of the Treaty of Rome. It will not alter English contract law across the board; only in cases of public service contracts. I should have thought that there was sufficient similarity to apply the principle of sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander, and to incorporate those words—which for their own purposes will in any event become binding in English law—into the Bill which the Committee is now considering.
After all, Ministers are fond of urging us to see things with a broader vision and in the perspective of the European Community, its law and its taxes. Here is a chance for my noble friend—I see he is absorbed in his notes. There is a chance for Ministers to practise what they preach by incorporating those words into the Bill.
Not only is the amendment of impeccable parentage and derivation, as I have sought to indicate, but it is justified on an objective analysis of its merits. The three heads of damage specified in the amendment are clearly capable of being suffered by a frustrated and injured tenderer as a result of a breach of Clause 17(1). Clearly they also constitute in principle damage which should be compensated. Compensation which might be recoverable under "general damage" is excluded by the words of limitation in Clause 19(8). This amendment is designed to remove that anomaly by flaking the required express statutory provision. If accepted, it will do just that.
I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to indicate the Government's acceptance of the amendment. On the other hand, if he wants more time to consider the matter I shall fully understand. If he can say that he will give sympathetic and constructive consideration to it between now and Report stage, I shall certainly rely on that assurance and withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I have considerable sympathy with the sentiments behind my noble friend's amendment, but fail to see why a potential contractor who has had a contract denied on noncommercial grounds should not receive damages in respect of the costs that he has reasonably incurred in submitting a tender as provided in Clause 19(8). I imagine that those costs would include what my noble friend describes as expenditure on unnecessary studies, provided that that expenditure was reasonable, of course.
I acknowledge that, in cases where the tort is one of interference with business relations, damages for loss of business profits may be claimed. It may also be possible, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, to claim damages for loss of chance. However, in the case of claims under Clause 19(7) the idea of compensating a disappointed tenderer for forgone profits or lost opportunities is fraught with difficulty. My noble friend's amendment would mean in effect that we would be asking the court to decide that if a contractor's tender had been accepted and he had been awarded the contract and successfully completed it—quite possible over a period of years—his profits would have amounted to X pounds and his lost opportunities to Y pounds.
I must tell the Committee that we think that this chain of hypotheses is too long and that it would be asking the courts to make almost impossible judgments. We do not want to encourage aggrieved contractors to go down this road by including provisions such as those proposed by my noble friend when the outcome would be so uncertain.

837
So what is to be done? While seeking a solution my noble friend has overlooked an important deterrent that already exists; namely the threat of damages for pre-tender costs and legal costs which might lead to auditor action against the offending councillors. That is a deterrent which I think we should not ignore.
My noble friend has urged me to look at the EC directive. Indeed, we have done so, for it is in the positive words of the directive that I have marshalled the arguments to counteract my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Broxbourne: Not unnaturally I am bound to confess some disappointment with my noble friend's response. He says that this provision would create complications and raise difficult matters for the courts to decide. In addition to being a distinguished Minister, my noble friend is, I believe, a chartered surveyor. He has the edge on me. Although I also am a chartered surveyor, I am only an honorary one and I understand that he is a practising one. Surely he knows that in arbitrations in the Official Referee's Court matters of this kind are being canvassed and decided every day. His argument is not a valid one. I see noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches who know far more about these matters than either my noble friend or I will ever do. They would recognise the truth of that proposition.
I am hound to say that I do not regard my noble friend's argument as a sufficient reason for denying the patent justice of this case. I shall therefore consider the position between now and Report stage and I trust that my noble friend will do the same. I hope that when we come hack to this matter it will be in a more constructive and positive way. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 19, line 10, leave out ("section 18") and insert ("sections 18 and (Sex equality matters)").
The noble Baroness said: A very similar amendment was discussed earlier in Committee stage. I wish to speak to it again this afternoon.
As will be plain to the Committee, the use of contract compliance for race relations issues is allowed under Clause 18 of the Bill, in conformity with the requirement of Section 71 of the Local Government Act. Those who support this amendment believe that it is highly desirable that the same provisions should be available for people wishing to promote equality between the sexes. In our view, contract compliance is an extremely useful weapon for so doing. I know that it is the view of the Government that the essential difference between the two is this. The Race Relations Act 1976 requires the local authorities to promote equal opportunities for members of ethnic minorities, but there is no such provision in the Sex Discrimination Act. It is the wish of many of us that such a provision should at some date be incorporated into the Sex Discrimination Act.
Is it not somewhat unnecessary for the Government to argue on this point? Surely the crucial matter is whether it is desirable that positive action
838
should be taken by local authorities in connection with the promotion of equal opportunities on grounds of sex, similar to that taken on the ground of ethnic origin. If this is so, this is the substantial argument. It is not whether in the Sex Discrimination Act there is a positive requirement laid on the local authority. It is of course true that there is not.
We contend that there are two very important reasons why action should be taken by local authorities in giving out their contracts, in using their resources, to increase the utilisation of women in jobs for which contracts are being given. It is now very well known that women figure insufficiently in many of the grades and types of work, and perhaps most importantly, in the types of work for which local authority contracts are given. There is also this very substantial point. With the need for increasing numbers of skilled persons and the fact that school-leaving numbers are falling and therefore the availability of skilled people will decrease at a time when the demand for them will increase, it is of very great economic importance as well as being important in terms of equal opportunity that positive action should be taken to increase the number of women available for these jobs. We shall find ourselves increasingly without the people we require unless such action is taken.
It is for these two reasons that I very strongly urge that the Government accept these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: One can well anticipate that the Government's response will be that this amendment was spoken to last week and that it refers to a new clause which was voted down. I am sure therefore that it would not be proper for us to proceed with a discussion of the amendment today. However, before that procedural point is made from the Government Front Bench, perhaps I may say this.
Baroness Seear: It was not voted down. It was withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. However, the matter was disposed of in Committee earlier. Before the Government give that procedural answer. I merely wish to take the opportunity to say how strongly I support the views of the noble Baroness. We shall take every opportunity to give expression to that support at Report stage.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sure I speak on behalf of all Members of the Committee when I say how nice it is to see the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, back. His place has been well filled by the noble Lords, Lord Dean and Lord Graham. I realise that the Opposition needed a change of bowling, but we shall continue stoutly to defend the Bill, which is an excellent piece of work.
The noble Baroness surprised me by moving this amendment, which was spoken to with Amendment No. 95 on Thursday last week. I would not dispute with her that it is quite right for a local authority to look after its own house with regard to sex equality. We are saying that it is not part of a local authority's

839
duty to do it on contract compliance with regard to other people's houses. That is a matter for the law as the law stands, to be enforced as the law should he enforced. It is not for a local authority to take on an extra statutory duty.
Perhaps that answer is a little brief, but I know that the noble Baroness heard me at length on Thursday. I do not wish to bore the Committee by repeating everything that I said, because I fear that I shall have to repeat much of it at Report stage.
Baroness Phillips: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment—if she is going to do so—I deplore the fact that it is left to the noble Baroness to put this point. Will the Minister use the same argument a little later in this debate in connection with another famous clause? It seems to me that there is no objection to underwriting a principle that is accepted and is now endemic in law.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As a male supporter of this amendment—whether my noble friend withdraws it or not; and it may be tactically better to do that so that the amendment comes clean at Report stage—I, and I think most of my friends, will support her when that time comes.
Baroness Seear: In all the circumstances, it would be much more sensible to bring this forward at Report. Therefore, for the time being, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 19, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in section 17 above shall preclude a local authority from taking all reasonable steps to ensure that a contractor carries out or is competent to carry out the contract with due regard to the appropriate health and safety at work legislation.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move this amendment with a certain amount of trepidation. My experience is that when one reminds the Government of statutory responsibilities of local authorities with regard to decent conditions at work, instead of reinforcing those obligations and the rights of people to decent working conditions, the Government tend to find further ways to reduce those rights. I recognise that there is nothing in Clause 17 as it stands which prohibits local authorities from paying due regard to the appropriate health and safety at work legislation. Indeed, I hope that nothing the Minister says in reply will do anything to eliminate those powers and responsibilities. However, I think it is worth moving this amendment in order to ask the Minister specifically about training in health and safety.
In the Government's view, does the Bill as now drafted provide adequate incentives and power for local authorities to ensure that contractors who are putting themselves forward to do work on behalf of a local authority have sufficient training in health and safety?
The Earl of Caithness: I agree entirely with the sentiment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in moving this amendment. Of course authorities should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the contractors they employ are competent to carry out the work involved in accordance with the health and safety legislation. However, we believe that to include such a provision on the face of the Bill would suggest that provisions in Clause 17 somehow prevent authorities from taking such steps. No provision exists, and we believe that to amend the Bill in the way suggested would therefore be entirely superfluous.
On the training for health and safety, we discussed training at some length earlier in the Committee proceedings. It would be quite all right for the local authority to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the contractors are competent to carry out the work, but to look specifically at the training over and above that matter would be taking contractual compliance to a stage which should not be necessary when there is already existing legislation to deal with that matter.
However, the noble Lord has raised the matter. Will he permit me to consider it between now and another stage?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister. I am satisfied that it is proper that he should look at it between now and a later stage. On the basis of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Duty of public authorities to give reasons for certain decisions within section 17]:
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 20, line 8, leave out ("15") and insert ("28").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 104 is to bring this legislation into line with quite a substantial volume of previous legislation that provides more flexible and more realistic timescales in which local authorities can prepare a statement of reasons for a decision which has been taken, in this case under the terms of Clause 17 of the Bill.
The Committee will observe that in Clause 20(1) a person who has been notified of a decision may, in writing within a period of 15 days, request the authority to furnish him with a written statement giving the reasons for the decision. That may be reasonable, but it seems to be going too far not to provide in cases of urgency and in exceptional cases further possibilities of time for consideration. The period of 15 days is extremely short. It includes public holidays and weekends. At certain times of the year —notably Christmas and the Easter period—the 15 days could be down to nine or even fewer working days. The problem with this kind of notification is that they tend to come in a bunch. A person has been notified of the decision of a local authority, in common with a large number of other persons, and

841
the local authority has the responsibility, after perhaps consulting a number of different departments in the authority, for notifying a large number of people within the period.
To extend it to 28 days is a very modest extension. It ought not to affect significantly the rights of the persons concerned, and it is far more modest than the provisions which exist in other legislation— notably the housing benefit regulations—which provide a time that is reasonably practicable or as soon as possible thereafter. The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act allows the Secretary of State a 28-day period, but allows him until the end of the 28-day period to give notice that he requires further time. I could go on further, but the Secretary of State generally is more generous to himself than he is now being to local authorities. I hope that this modest increase will not prove unacceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The amendment seeks to extend the period in which a public authority responds to a request for reasons for any of the decisions listed in Clause 20(2). We do not consider the 28 days' period suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to be a reasonable one in this instance. The public authority will be aware of its reasons for making its decision at the moment that decision is taken. If it is reasonable for a person affected by a decision to request reasons within a 15-day period of the decision notice, as specified in Clause 20(1), it is not unreasonable to expect an authority to respond within an identical timescale.
The arguments are the very ones that the noble Lord used—such as difficulties that local authorities have over Christmas and public holidays. They apply with equal force to the tenderer. It is right to point out to the Committee that we have not simply plucked this 15-day period out of the air. It conforms with the figure put forward by the European Commission in its proposals for amendments to the existing EC works directive.
If after the Bill has been enacted however, there are demonstrably good reasons why the 15-day response period should be changed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may by order under Clause 20(4) amend the period. I hope that gives some satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that—although we do not believe we should change from 15 days at the moment—should evidence prove to the contrary, there is the ability to change the timescale.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I find that reply disappointing and illogical because there is clearly a great difference between the time which is required by a contractor to request reasons for a decision and that required by a local authority. After all, there is not a great deal of research required by the contractor: it is almost certainly the only obligation he has to himself. He is not trying to deal at the same time with a whole number of appeals, as the local authority will be; and he does not have to do a great deal of work to prepare his submission. I do not think that the argument that there is a natural equality
842
between the time required by a contractor and the time required by local authorities holds water at all. I listened with care to the words of the noble Earl with regard to the European Communities. I should like to think about them before the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Transitional duty of public authorities as regards existing lists]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 20, line 24, leave out ("compile the list afresh") and insert ("extend the list").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is tabled in order to seek clarity. Whether the tender list should be compiled afresh or extended may be looked upon as a matter of semantics; but important cost factors might be concerned. We know that, by and large, the lists in the possession of local authorities are fairly extensive. We also understand that, once the Bill begins to operate, others will be added to tender lists, not least those who come on to it as a result of the non-commercial consideration. Can the Minister tell us why a list should be wholly compiled afresh as opposed simply to adding to an existing tender list those additional firms who may be added as a result of the Bill? I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has argued that compiling fresh approved lists to accommodate what it is claimed will be the small number of firms who have possibly been excluded by non-commercial considerations could be a time-consuming, expensive and wasteful exercise by the local authority.
The whole purpose of the provisions in Clause 21 is to place a duty on authorities who have included or excluded firms from approved lists on noncommercial grounds to compile fresh lists in accordance with the Bill's Part II provisions. Approved lists should not become rigid, self-perpetuating lists of firms who have been there for years and years, but should in any event be reviewed at regular intervals so that the entry of new and rising firms should be encouraged. The advisory model standing orders issued by my department recommend reviews of approved lists at intervals of not less than one year and not more than two years. It is even more important that such lists should be compiled afresh when there is the possibility that firms have been included or excluded in the past on non-commercial gounds.
I believe that the burden that Clause 21 will impose on authorities has been much exaggerated. First, only the minority of authorities which have compiled lists taking account of non-commercial matters will be affected. The majority of authorities will not be affected. Secondly for those authorities which are affected, if lists have been compiled recently there is obviously no need for authorities to carry out detailed checks on the firms already on them when they apply to go on the new lists. Nor will they need

843
to carry out more checks on firms which they have recently rejected, provided that they have rejected them on legitimate grounds. So in many cases all authorities will have to do is check new applicants, and look again at applications from firms which they previously rejected on non-commercial grounds.
The fear about making the change that these amendments propose is that a few authorities— and I acknowledge that it will probably only be a few—might not make great efforts to advertise if they were simply considering extending lists to include firms that they had previously excluded on noncommercial grounds. We believe that they will make greater efforts if the whole list depends on responses to the advertisement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is quite clear that the Minister is intransigent. As an example, Strathclyde regional authority has lists containing the names of 4,000 firms. All of them will in future have to rely upon seeing the advertisement, according to the Minister. I fail to see why the Minister cannot accept that in the overwhelming majority of authorities—the Minister would have to specify even if there were only one authority—if one company is excluded on what I consider to be the spurious grounds of noncommercial interests, they have to go to that trouble.
Strathclyde is not the only one. The Minister says that if there are already 4,000 companies on the list, one need simply force them to respond to an advert and one can accept them.
For the Government to examine what noncommercial means is a subjective judgment. If an authority is to carry out the true intent of the Bill—and it must do so to avoid being caught by the Bill—it must apply all of the government yardsticks to every body that wishes to tender. The illustration I have given is Strathclyde. I have with me references to discussions which have taken place between CoSLA and Ministers in an effort to resolve the matter, but it was not resolved. We shall be forcing the overwhelming number of authorities, whose tender list is what I would call "clean" in the eyes of the Minister, to go through this process.
The Minister blandly says that all they have to do is to respond to the advert. Mistakes and errors do happen. One can well imagine that there will be some authority within whose area there is a company of good repute, of long-standing and with a reputation for good service, and one must rely upon a person in that company to watch for the particular advert and respond. The Minister has said there are a handful of companies that have been excluded, but he will not specify the few. There are 460 authorities and there must be tens of thousands of companies already on tender lists. I say that the overwhelming majority of them are "clean" even by the tests that the Government wish to set, yet they must go through this process. I think the Minister has taken on a very heavy responsibility. If by an administrative error some of those companies fail to respond to the advert and they are out, the Minister will have a great deal of explaining to do.
844
It is not a satisfactory answer. It is not a political point; it is a needlessly bureaucratic point. We shall read what the Minister has to say and we shall take advice from outside the Committee. We may very well decide to come back again at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 106 to 109 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 110 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 111.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Exclusion of charges for inclusion in approved list]:
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Consent required for provision of financial assistance etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I indicated at Second Reading our dissatisfaction with the inclusion of Part III as a whole in the scope of the Bill. There is a comprehensive Housing Bill going through another place in which this part would much more readily have found a suitable position. However, we have it here with us and the question is whether we should go through it with a fine toothcomb and consider in detail the amendments which might be necessary. We have taken the view that although we have a large number of amendments prepared, it would not be appropriate to introduce them at this stage.
In speaking to Clause 25 of the Bill, I should like to make some general points about the three clauses which form this part of the Bill. The Government have been insistent when speaking about Clause 24 that these are new powers for local authorities in relation to private rented housing. That sounds all very well until we come to Clause 25 which provides that these new powers shall not be exercised except with the consent of the Secretary of State. Our contention is that many of these so-called new powers have been exercised by local authorities for a considerable period of time. Without going too deeply into technicalities, the noble Earl will be familiar with the Richmond provisions and with the fact that it has been the department's practice on a number of occasions, when dealing with inner urban areas, to allow local authorities to exercise very comparable powers in relation to private rented property to those now proposed in the Bill.

845
Therefore, the effect of Clauses 24 and 25 together is that powers which have been exercised without challenge by local authorities, and indeed with the encouragement of the Government and the European Communities, will now be subject to the restrictions of Clause 25 on the necessary consent of the Secretary of State. I suggest to the Government that the net effect of these two clauses taken together is not that there are significant new powers for local authorities hut, on the contrary, that the powers which have already been exercised will now be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.
We have here, very cleverly disguised, another piece of centralisation and another piece of legislation taking away from local authorities their right to do what their electorate want. It places that power, instead, in the hands of the Secretary of State who is notoriously unfitted to exercise such detailed powers.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the canter round the course of housing that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has given us on these clauses. There has been some concern about the provision of assistance to special needs groups, particularly where grants to voluntary organisations are involved. We have reassured them that we do not want to stop or impede a great deal of worthwhile activity which comes within the scope of these new consent requirements in Clause 25.
I can understand why your Lordships may ask: why not exempt these activities altogether from control rather than including them in general consents? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, alluded to the fact that some of them had been practised responsibly by local authorities for some time.
The course upon which I have hypothesised has attractions. But we must not forget that some authorities have gone so far down the road of legalism and hair-splitting in their attempts to circumvent expenditure controls that we cannot assume they will not try to do so again. I am sure that most local authorities will not do so. Here one returns to other provisions in the Bill and the reasons for them. We do not underestimate the few, nor the ability of their legal advisers, to turn an apparently innocuous power into a loophole.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the Committee are aware that there are already six general consents issued. We are about to issue another covering the limited housing association grant scheme for the homeless. We are considering further general consents because we wish to be as flexible as possible.
The noble Lord has said much about the negative control side of the new provisions of Clause 25. However I hope that the Committee will not overlook the very positive side of the powers in Clause 24, which extend to all private landlords, not just to those who are registered housing associations, and the increased public and private sector cooperation in housing that we hope to encourage within the framework of the consent provisions.
We believe that on balance these clauses taken together are a positive step forward for the local
846
authorities. We shall continue to look at general consents where we believe that they are flexible and can be issued without detriment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My colleague, who is now leading on this side in the Committee stage, indicated that we consider that the power sought in this clause would have been better included in the Housing Bill now in another place. I think that all the reasons put forward by the Minister indicate that my colleague is correct. When there is a Housing Bill going through another place, I think it odd that this section is hived off to be dealt with in a Local Government Bill. Occasionally consolidation Bills go through the House and it is strange that the Government should now deviate by putting this clause in a Local Government Bill. I think that the Minister has given reasons as to why this matter should he included in a Housing Bill and not in this Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with everything that my noble friend has said. I fear that in his response to my remarks the Minister has given himself a great deal more work at Report stage. I am not satisfied with his analysis of Part III of the Bill. His claims regarding local authorities exploiting loopholes in existing legislation were made without any evidence. They were not even assertions; they were mere asseverations. They do not deserve the respect of this Committee without further evidence.
The fact is that local authorities have faced the additional challenge of the interface between private rented accommodation and traditional local authority responsibilities with a great deal of responsibility and imagination, and in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I think that that fact has been recognised. The Minister's reply simply makes it necessary to table amendments at a later stage in order to protect the responsibilities of local authorities, particularly in relation to the homeless. The general consents which have already been issued, and those which are about to be issued, do not sufficiently cover the task which local authorities have before them. However, that matter is for another stage of the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to say that I know he would not have expected me to make any complaint about local authorities without justification. I should like to draw his attention to the case at Sheffield, where it was clear that the local authority tried to circumnavigate the financial controls that had been placed upon it. That is one extremely good reason for having this clause.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I shall certainly look into the case that he has raised. In the meantime, I do not think that it is appropriate to pursue opposition to the Motion that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Local authority publicity]:
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 113ZA is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 113ZB, 113A or 113B.
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter moved Amendment No. 113ZA:
Page 27, line 36, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: This is a matter of some importance as it affects local authorities in general and many voluntary organisations. The numbering in the Bill and in the 1986 Act is somewhat confusing. I should like to point out two parts which remain in this Bill, and which were contained in the original Act. The first is the famous sentence which states that a local authority shall not publish any material which in whole or in part appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. We are agreed on that matter. The second part of the 1986 Act which remains states that a local authority shall not give financial or other assistance to a person for the publication of material which the authority are prohibited by this action from publishing themselves.
In this amendment we are arguing about the determination of the material within the prohibition and the regard which must be paid to it to ascertain whether the material is legal or illegal.
At this point Members of the Committee may have the curious feeling of having been here before. That is quite right; we were here nearly two years ago when we argued about the "likely effect", which was a phrase used in the 1985 Local Government Bill. At the time the Government were unhappy with the amendent but there was insufficient time for them to come back to this Chamber. They therefore gave a commitment in the other place that they would bring forward new proposals at the earliest opportunity to restore the effects of the original Bill. Clause 27(1), which we are now discussing, is one of the results of that commitment.
It is interesting to note that the subsection does not simply reverse the Committee's amendment two years ago. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, had the good grace to say that the Government recognised that the concern of Members of the Committee was a real one. In the opinion of the Government, the subsection therefore tries to clarify the matter and not extend it. I would argue, and so I believe would others, that far from clarifying the issue the subsection confuses it greatly. The real motive behind the subsection is not to clarify the Act but simply to honour the commitment given in another place and to overturn the Committee's considered judgment of two years ago. I do not feel that in itself that is a reason for amending an Act which is generally considered to have already achieved its desired objective.
I should like to remind the Committee of the concerns expressed in the debate on the 1985 Bill. We were agreed that political propaganda should not be funded by the ratepayer or the taxpayer. We were concerned about the prohibition of political publicity as drafted in the Bill. We thought that it went far beyond its original intention. One of the particular concerns expressed was that voluntary organisations
848
funded by local authorities would have been prohibited from issuing publicity material about matters of local concern, simply because the material might unintentionally have affected support for a political party.
It seemed to me, and to a majority of the Committee, to be quite wrong that the legitimate work of voluntary organisations, in publicising the concerns of their members or clients, could he prohibited in this way. Yet the legal advice given to the National Council of Voluntary Organisations at the time was that the prohibition on local authority publicity applied equally to material published by voluntary organisations which were receiving financial or other assistance from local authorities. Furthermore, the inclusion of the test of those ugly words "likely effect" in the drafting of the Bill made that a distinct possibility. That is why we chucked it out.
Now we come to today's debate, and I am not at all convinced that the amendments proposed by the Government to the 1986 Act will clarify the definition. Indeed, all the evidence seems to be that they are confusing the situation just at a time when the local authorities and voluntary organisations are becoming clearer about the implication of the 1986 Act as it stands. The Government's amendment tries to list some of the factors which should be taken into account when determining whether or not publicity material is prohibited. Some of the factors are so obvious as to be not worth including. For example, Members of the Committee will notice the statement:
"regard shall he had to the content and style of the material".
It is hard to imagine how anyone can decide whether material appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party without having regard to the content and style of the material.
However, some of the other factors included are much more sinister. For example, our particular point relates to the provisions that regard should be had as to whether the material:
"promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another".
A great deal of the publicity material produced by local voluntary organisations is concerned with elderly people, tenants' groups, physically disabled people and many others who will, by their very nature, promote or oppose a point of view which may well be on a question of political controversy and which may well be identifiable by the reader as the view of one party or another. Indeed, it is hard to think of any issue in spheres such as social services, education, housing or welfare rights which will not fall into this category, especially with the amount of legislation currently being debated in these subject areas.
Let me illustrate my concern with the help of an example. Many local tenants' groups receive small grants from local authorities to pay for a newsletter, and from time to time these newsletters will cover questions of political controversy. For example, a tenants' group may well decide to describe and comment on proposals in the current Housing Bill. It may decide to support or criticise some of those

849
proposals. I should have thought that was fair enough. Those proposals are undoubtedly questions of political controversy at the present time.
However, it is quite clearly legitimate for a local tenants' group to discuss this since it will be directly affected one way or the other if the proposals are enacted. Clearly, such a newsletter might be party political in a number of ways. For example, it might refer to the Tories' housing proposals in critical terms, or it may even criticise the Socialist record on housing. It might include a picture of the Prime Minister with a party political caption underneath. We all recognise that material of this kind is party political, and the 1986 Act quite clearly prohibits that.
In the example that I have given it is not the fact that the material is about the Housing Bill which makes it illegal. Rather, it is the fact that it is or is not written in a party political way. Therefore, what is worrying about the sentence that we are now seeking to delete is that in itself it does not provide a legitimate reason for prohibiting material. The fact that it opposes or promotes a point of view on a question of political controversy does not, in my opinion or anybody else's, make it party political. However, what would make it party political is if it referred to political parties or politicians and was written in emotional and political terms. However, those matters are already covered in the 1986 Act.
Let me say straight away that I accept the proposition that publicity material must not be party political, that it clearly prohibits this and already makes it clear that reference to political parties or political persons must be treated with great caution. Indeed, such organisations as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations issued advice to voluntary groups soon after the 1986 Act saying that they should not mention or allude to a political party, or mention or picture a leading politician in any publicity material which is funded by the local authority.
What is the purpose of the Government's amendment? Party political publicity is already prohibited by the 1986 Act. What further publicity material is the new subsection trying to cover? Certainly neither the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, nor any other member of the Government have been willing to give examples of material which escapes the 1986 Act and will be caught by this new subsection. It will be very interesting to see whether the Minister can give us any examples of such an incident.
I and many other voluntary organisations are concerned that a lot of other publicity material which is not party political might get caught, albeit unintentionally, by this subsection; and cautious local authority solicitors will advise against giving grants for any potentially controversial material; and cautious voluntary organisations will be reluctant to express views on issues of political controversy. That may be what the Government intend, but I submit that cannot be in the best interests of local democracy and cannot be in the best interests of those people for whom and with whom local authority organisations work.
I know that recently there has been a great growth in voluntary organisations. I also know that there are many Peers in all parts of the House who are involved with voluntary organisations. I point out that the 1986 Act already prohibits political publicity. The prohibition stands in its own right and does not need amending in any way whatsoever. The subsection in this new Bill confuses and does not clarify. It should therefore be rejected in line with your Lordships' decision two years ago. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose this amendment. The case for intervention by central government is accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, to prohibit abuse of rates on political publicity. This amendment is designed to clarify only, and on any objective analysis the fears of the voluntary organisations (which I assume are nonpolitical) are wholly misconceived.
There are two ways in which this subsection has been criticised. The first is the content and style of material. I can find nothing to which to take exception in that. It seems to me to be reasonable to offer a guide, and indeed a safeguard. As to the other criticism that it promotes or opposes, the word "promotes"—if one looks at any dictionary—means in this context active support or active opposition. It is implicit in active support or active opposition that there should be an intention to support and an intention to oppose, and that which is implicit is expressly recognised by the Government in their amendment to Clause 28 which follows. In those circumstances, if one construes the words "promotes or opposes", I respectfully suggest that it is not open to the interpretation which the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, gave it and, for the reasons I have given, that the fears of the voluntary organisations—although I welcome that they have been expressed—are nonetheless misconceived.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell the Committee whether anything has happened since 1986 which suggests that this second attempt to deal with the matter is necessary. Why cannot the Government leave it alone? Why must we continue with this nitpicking against local government which for the most part acts responsibly. However, there is certainly a minority of local authorities who have behaved rather badly. However, to have to consider legislation in such comprehensive terms and to pursue such matters as are likely to affect someone in this connection, is quite absurd. It is reminiscent of the wording of the obscenity laws. However, if one wants another cross-reference in this connection, there are the trade union Acts. We have been defining the political object since 1913 and it has recently been revised and put into recent legislation affecting trade unions. Why must we think of another and mote elusive definition of political purpose in local authority?
I notice in passing that this part of the Bill is called "Miscellaneous and General", and the heading above the clause under discussion is "Miscellaneous". In other words, bits and pieces, a nondescript clause, incidentals, sweepings-up. It is not even declared as part of the purpose of the Bill.

851
However, under this part of the Bill we have the two most contentious clauses, which are likely to take up more time than the rest of the Bill put together. The clause concerning the promotion of homosexuality is to follow, with dogs the next day, and political propaganda of certain local authorities this afternoon. I believe we are getting matters entirely out of proportion.
Surely when a court or any arbitrary body is considering whether something is wrong, if it looks at the style and content it will at the same time look at the possible effects. I cannot believe that such bodies have to be told to do that. However, this Chamber having rejected terms in the 1986 Bill which have a similar ring about them, I believe we ought to reject this clause too. We should leave the position alone. I strongly hope that this Committee is not going to fall for the renewal—I was going to call it persecution but will use the word "pursuit"—of the detail and extension of the definition of the behaviour of local authorities in order to overcome the excesses of minorities.
In conclusion, I mention one other point. In all these debates about the powers and use of them by local authorities, how little reference there has been to the capability of the local electorates to reject them. It is as though what councils do can be done with impunity and without consequences when they come to account to their electors. If there are grave excesses in the use of local ratepayers' money and public money on items of political propaganda, is it not in the hands of the electorate to deal with such people? If the electorates disapprove, why is it that they do not turn them out?
We are reflecting, therefore, on the effectiveness of local democracy in legislating so zealously and almost ruthlessly. We are pursuing the local authorities as though they were not accountable to the local electorate and not open to local criticism. Criticism can be made week by week in the daily press by people who have voices to express it. I cannot understand why we have to do all this nanny work in Parliament to deal with local government. We should leave matters alone and let them take their course. Has the Minister a single item of evidence to produce this afternoon which justifies dealing with this matter again, in this way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot rival the conservatism of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whose theme was that he wanted to leave matters alone. He is against change. Nonetheless, he indulged in a real fallacy. He said, "Why not leave the local electorate to deal with a local authority that uses its money for party political propaganda?" There is a simple answer to that. It may well be that there is a strong element among the local electorate which thoroughly agrees with the use of its money for party political propaganda—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Will the noble Lord permit me?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: In a moment, but not in mid-sentence—but, and this may help the noble
852
Lord, what he does not face is that whether the majority of a local electorate like it or not, in the view of Parliament and of the country that is not a proper function and proper use of local authority money. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I remind the noble Lord that we are not beginning afresh on this matter. There is the 1986 Act. There is adequate protection in that Act for citizens and public money. I am complaining at this attempt at embroidery without justification. When I say that we must leave matters alone, I do not do so because there is nothing there. I mean that we must leave the 1986 Act alone. That Act surely is enough, unless there is evidence that it needs reinforcing.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am well aware of the 1986 Act. I believe I inflicted a speech or so on this Chamber when we dealt with that Act, and I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, did so too. However, even that distinguished parentage of the measure does not necessarily prove that it is perfect.
This is a difficult matter on which to draft. It is no use pretending that there is an easy solution when one must try to draw a line between the abuse of ratepayers' money by perhaps a temporary majority in charge of a local authority using that money for political propaganda on behalf of one party or another—which I hope all Members of the Committee regard as wrong—and inhibiting the genuinely intentioned expression of views by voluntary bodies in that area. That is not an easy matter on which to draft.
It does seem clear—no doubt my noble friend the Minister will enlarge on this—that, as was suggested during its passage, the provisions of the 1986 Bill are not quite perfect. If the Committee accept the necessity of preventing this abuse of ratepayers' money for party political purposes, surely it is important to get it right. If we have not got it completely right, and if in all honesty and frankness in a difficult matter we have not done so, it is not good enough merely to say, "Well, why not leave the 1986 Act alone?" I do not believe that the 1986 Act has worked perfectly, but I believe that it has done a certain amount of good.
If we want to get this right then it is worth taking a little trouble to do that. Looking at this clause as it stands, it seems to me to make a good deal of sense. It appears to take the essentials of what should be stopped—party political propaganda, support for a political party, promotion of a political party out of the ratepayers' money—and provide for stopping it.
It may be that we are wrong and that this clause will not be watertight, in which case there will have to he further amendments in future years. No doubt then, again, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will say, "Why not leave it alone?" This clause is an attempt to get the legislation right. Such an attempt does not damage the legislation, as criticisms have suggested, and I think it should be given a trial.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not need to repeat in my remarks on these amendments the full explanation of and background to Clause 27 given on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Belstead. It will, however, serve a useful purpose to remind the Committee of the purpose and nature of the Government's proposals. They are fundamental to the Government's opposition to this amendment and, indeed, the other amendments to this part of the Bill and which I take it, with the leave of the Committee, we can speak to generally as they are all related.
The purpose of Clause 27(1) is to provide a comprehensive statement of the range of matters to which regard must be given by the local authority, its auditors or, in the case of challenge the courts, in determining whether publicity appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. The provision in the 1986 Act as presently drafted is arguably unclear about whether all the circumstances of publication arc relevant to the nature of the publicity or whether the court should look only at the two aspects identified on the face of the legislation as being relevant. The Government believe this to be an unsatisfactory consequence of the amendments made in this Chamber during the passage of that Act.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter because I believe, as he does, that we should get it right. We wish to make it clear that factors will be relevant to the decision whether material appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. Now there seems to be no difference between us about the relevance to apparent design of most of the factors specified in Clause (26)(1). The sole point at issue, as I understand it, is whether the likely effect of material on those to whom it is directed is a relevant factor in the same way as the content, style, timing and other circumstances of publication.
The Government believe that the factors listed in Clause 27(1) should be taken into account in assessing the apparent design of publicity. The likely effect of material may well, in some circumstances, be highly relevant in the decision as to its apparent design. Sometimes it may be the decisive factor. It is important to emphasise that none of these specific factors constitutes a separate test of the nature of publicity. All of them may point to a publication being party political, but equally each may be decisively outweighed and negated by other factors which indicate the contrary.
I turn to Amendment No. 113B, which is also relevant to the argument we are having. This proposes the deletion of one of the factors to which particular regard must be had in determining whether material appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. This is the reference to whether material,
"promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another".
It has been argued that this new element will stop local authorities issuing publicity on any matter which is politically controversial between the parties at national or local level.
854
This argument, like the argument about the likely effect tests, we believe demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Government's proposals. The reference in question does not impose any new or additional test of what publicity does; it simply identifies the question whether a piece of publicity promotes ideas linked to a political party as one of the factors particularly relevant to a decision whether it appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. This seems to the Government to be a highly apposite element of the content and material.
There seem to be three ways in which publicity may be linked with a political party. It can explicitly mention a political party; it can refer to people who are the embodiment of a political party, and it can refer to the ideas for which a political party stands. In summary, therefore, there is no reason why a piece of publicity which promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy should be prohibited on that ground alone. New subsection (2)(2A) provides that if a piece of material promotes or opposes a controversial point of view and that view is identifiable as being the view of one political party and not another, the question must be asked whether the material appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. In some cases it may well do so.
It is not difficult to conceive of a piece of material which deals with a question known to be highly controversial between the parties. For example, it may be a question of the level of the rates set by an authority but which deals with the matter in a way which is balanced, to the point, and does not stray into the political arena. There is nothing in Clause (27)(1) that would inhibit the legitimate publicity activities of local authorities. Having listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, who made a very clear exposition of his argument, I believe he has misunderstood what we are trying to do and I hope I have been able to clarify the position for him.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the noble Lord say whether it would be illegal or otherwise in the case, for example, of housing benefits changes which are to take place and also of the 20 per cent. increase in rates which people will have to pay? A local authority may be faced with many of its electors who come to neighbourhood offices, housing offices or the rates offices, asking "What are you doing'?" They become very irate and complain, "You are asking us to pay this extra money". They are making a challenge to the clerks behind the desks. It all becomes very angry.
Would it he in order for the local authority to use the press, perhaps by a public announcement, or to put on the wall in the office a notice to the effect that the changes in the housing benefit are devised by government and that it as a local authority merely acts as agents and administers the grant? Would such a course be illegal? I believe it is going to be very difficult for a local authority. It has to be recognised that the personnel behind the counters are the ones who are challenged. The same situation will arise in the rates offices where there will be queues of people. I understand that at the present moment there is a barrage of inquiries regarding the rates. The people at the counters are asking, "What are we going to do?

855
We can't pay it". The local authority is in a very difficult position because it has to say, "You must pay it."
I believe that the staff have the right to say that it is government policy. If they say it is government policy, would it be all right if that were done without using anything other than a declaration which states, "This is government policy and we are carrying it out"? Would that be in order or would it be against the clause as we have it now?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Baroness is experienced in local government and we come almost from the same parish. She knows the answer to her question without having to ask it. If anybody says yes—
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Will the noble Lord give way? I do not know the answer. I have asked the Minister to reply because it is a completely new question which a local authority will have to face. This involves paying 20 per cent, of the rates for the local electors. It is altogether a new question and I do not know the answer. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I know the noble Baroness well, and I admire her very much. I know of the work she has done. She ought to know the answer to her question; perhaps I may put it that way. I am surprised that she does not know the answer, because she ought to know it perfectly well. She ought to know that if anybody administering government decisions says, "We are administering government decisions as laid down" they cannot be doing wrong at any point or charged with doing wrong.
On the other hand, if they go on to say, "The Opposition would do it in a different way and we indicate that they would be right"—in other words, if the answer goes beyond the clear answer that they are merely carrying out government intentions—they would be doing wrong. It is because there is a possibility that that can happen—and indeed some of us know that it happens to a greater or lesser extent—that I agree with my noble friend that there is a need to go this extra step beyond the 1986 Act. There is no doubt about that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, if this merely repeats what is already in the Act, what is he grumbling about? If it is going to make no difference and if it is simply saying again what has already been said, I agree with the noble Lord that it is a pity we should waste the ink and the time. If people have doubts that it is necessary to go that extra step in order to deal with the uncertainty arising from the way the question put by the noble Baroness is answered, then I believe the Government are doing their duty in spelling it out.
Another matter which surprises me is the fact that both the noble Lords, Lord Hayter and Lord Houghton, asked, "Give us some evidence to justify this". Nobody said in clearer terms than the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that there is a minority who do things that he would not approve of. He went on
856
to say, "Why should everybody have to be the victims of these extra words because it is the work of a minority?" The only reason we have a police force is because there is a minority of people in the country who are criminals. If there were not that minority, there would not be the need for anything like the amount of legislation that is passed through Parliament from time to time. The very fact that the noble Lord admits that there is a minority and that even with the 1986 Act that minority could do things which he believes are wrong and go beyond the pale is the evidence that I believe he was asking for. It is not going very much further than the 1986 Act, but it is going far enough to justify the extra words that we are being asked to approve today. It is only if it can be seen that positive efforts are being made with ratepayers' money to do things which are partisan that these words will come into play. I believe the point put by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter justifies these extra words and I hope that we shall find it in our hearts to approve of them with a good majority.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Does the noble Baroness accept the principle of prohibition for political purposes, as does the noble Lord. Lord Hayter? In the answer to that question lies the whole attitude to intervention by central government in this and other spheres.
Lord Bellwin: I should have thought that the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked for further information confirms the need for the clarity which the Government are trying to give in the Bill. If there are doubts, then by all means let us have more clarity. I should have thought that that would cover the point.
We could talk about this issue for a long time. I am sure the Committee does not want that, but I shall take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He said that if local ratepayers do not like the provision there is a local remedy. But there is no local remedy. In the authorities where this sort of conduct takes place, the percentage of people who pay rates is so small that they cannot do a great deal about the situation. That is why we have accountability, with which we shall deal in a later Bill, when we shall debate this matter at greater length. I see no harm whatsoever in having this extra clarification. It can do no harm. We all know what we are talking about. We all know the kind of damage that this provision seeks, as did the 1986 Act, to repair. It is a good thing. Let us get on with it.
Lord Somers: It should be easy to protest to local government that it should not take some step which one considers to be out of order. But how on earth is one to do that? It is all very well theoretically, but just how does one do it? Will local government listen to any protest, vocal or written, from any of its electors? Such authorities have been democratically elected and therefore they consider that that gives them the right to ride over the rights of all those who elected them. I cannot see how anyone can consider that such authorities might be influenced by any of their electors' opinions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I shall give one example to illustrate why this clause should be in the Bill and why it would help. In 1985, the City of Edinburgh District Council mounted a publicity campaign—
A noble Lord: Before the 1986 Act?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Yes, that is right. It mounted a publicity campaign with the slogan, "Improving services—creating jobs". That slogan alone was written all the way down Princes Street in Edinburgh during the Edinburgh Festival on banners, and posters, and on lapel badges and car stickers. The campaign was similar to other campaigns of which the Committee is aware which occurred in other places. I think that there was one in Manchester where the slogan was, "Defending jobs—improving services".
The Edinburgh campaign publicising the slogan in that way was widely regarded as a waste by the council, of ratepayers' money. The council's auditors were asked to report on the matter. They reported that expenditure on the slogan had been £113,281·77, and that in their view at that time it was contrary to the law. In August 1986, the Comptroller of Audit said that in his view the campaign was unlawful. He did not claim that the slogan was party political; he merely said that when used in isolation on banners, posters and the like it did not convey any information and therefore it was not something which in law should have ratepayers' money spent on it. Other books and leaflets containing information which the council published at that time had the slogan upon them, but he did not comment on that fact; he did not regard it as wrong. The literature was unlawful where the slogan appeared without any accompanying information.
In February 1987, the Account Commission decided to state a case on the matter to the Court of Session. That case has still not been heard. Whatever the outcome of that stated case, at the time when the slogan was published no one in Edinburgh had any doubt that it was intended as propaganda for the ruling Labour group's policy of creating jobs through local government. There was a great deal of controversy between the Edinburgh District Council and central government. The intended effect of the campaign was clear even though it did not mention any party or people in a party. Such a campaign could not occur if the Bill were left as it now is. If the clause were removed such a campaign would not be caught and could happen again, for the reasons I have just given. In my view, that illustrates precisely what my noble friend on the Front Bench said.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she explain why, if the Account Commission can take action under the existing law or, as I understand her to say, under the pre-1986 law, the Bill will make any difference?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hesitate to take issue with a distinguished Scottish lawyer, but the stated case is not about party-political content or the meaning of the campaign; it is about the lack of information accompanying the slogan. To produce a
858
slogan alone, without any information, is illegal under existing law. That is the reason.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: First, 1 should like to confirm that it is our intention that all the amendments with the number 113 and various combinations of letters of the alphabet should be dealt with together. It is a happy tradition of this place that, whether we design it that way or not, debates on such matters are collapsed into single debates, and we cover a wide range of amendments at the same time. There are significant differences in the amendments, but it is as well to deal with them at the same time, especially as the debate was so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter.
This is a matter of great importance, as this place recognised in 1986, not just for local authority publicity, but for the whole relationship of central and local government and the people they are elected to serve. A feature of our society is that we do not live in a Greek city state in which all the citizens can assemble in the market place to discuss matters of public concern. With a larger population, we must find alternative ways to deal with matters of public concern and to communicate the community's decisions to those who are affected by them.
One of the ways in which we do it is by voting. Another way in which we increasingly have to do it, talking particularly about the communication of ideas and decisions and communication of the effects of political decisions, is by paid-for publicity. I say that because it is above all central government who have increased their expenditure on paid-for publicity. The budget of government departments for publicity through the Central Office of Information enormously exceeds any expenditure by local authorities on publicity. Indeed, why not? It is the responsibility of government to communicate to the governed; to communicate with the governed.
One of the ways of doing that is by paid-for publicity, whether it be in the form of advertising or promotional material or explanatory material or whatever. But if that is the case for central government—and it is the case—surely it is equally the case for local government. It is equally the responsibility of local government, to communicate. It ought to he a two-way process as far as possible, with the electors to whom local authorities are responsible. How are they to do it except by the same means as those used by central government—by advertising, by printed material, by use of the medium of broadcasting and by any other methods available to them.
This was recognised by the Government when they asked the Widdicombe Committee, which they originally charged with looking into the conduct of local authority business, to present an interim report on publicity by local authorities.
Lord Somers: If the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, he said quite rightly that the local authorities can communicate with us in various ways; but how do we communicate with them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that it has to be a two-way

859
process. Indeed, I said so. One part of the answer to him is that the ballot box is the people's way of communicating with all the governors, except this Chamber. I do not think that is an adequate answer. There ought to be more detailed methods of accountability. However, I think that the Committee would find that a detailed exposition of this would fall outside the scope of even this wide range of amendments.
The Widdicombe Committee was asked to report on publicity. What it said seems to have been forgotten in the debate so far. Widdicombe said that there should be a prohibition on publicity for party political purposes, but the test of that prohibition should purely be the material test as to the content of the material. Widdicombe made no reference, or at least made no favourable reference to the two alternative tests which are now being put forward by the Government. One is of the intention of the material; the second is the effect of the material.
When this matter came before the House in 1986, the Government tried to bring both those tests into the legislation. They said that the tests should be about the intention of the material and about the effect. Noble Lords, in my view rightly, said that it was impossible as well as undesirable to have the test of effect applied to publicity by local authorities. This was largely because the effect of any given publicity is vastly different according to the person who is receiving that publicity or hearing it. It is simply unworkable to have a test of effect.
What are the Government now doing? They are seeking, by putting back in subsection (1) the words,
"likely effect on those to whom it is directed",
to bring back specifically the particular phrase which was twice taken out of the 1986 Bill by noble Lords. Any claim that this is simply a clarification will not stand up. It is a clear attempt to reverse a decision of noble Lords which the Government did not like.
That may be justifiable in certain circumstances. It could be that in the two years following the passage of the 1986 Act there had been sufficient evidence that the Act was not working effectively. If that were so, I think the Committee should consider that evidence clearly and dispassionately and should reach a conclusion as to whether further amendment of the Act is now required. However, that is not the case. The fact of the matter is that under repeated questioning in Committee and at the Report stage in another place, Government Minnisters not only failed to produce evidence of any misuse of the 1986 Act but they denied that it was necessary or appropriate. They said that they were not going to do it.
In those circumstances, it is not a particularly conservative thing to do what my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby did, which was to say, "Leave it alone". It is not conservative; it is realistic and in line with the best traditions of this Chamber that we should not be needlessly and mindlessly seeking to fiddle with the existing law. Without evidence of abuse—and there is none—there is no need for us to do what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested was necessary—to prove that it is perfect.
860
On the contrary, the onus is on those who seek to make a change even to start to make a case for it.
There are other objections to Clause 27 which I could go into at some length, but I only want to refer to something not covered by this amendment but by a later amendment which is grouped with it. That is the question of draft codes. The history of draft codes of conduct for local authority publicity is not a very happy one. The Government have been producing these draft codes for at least two-and-a-half years. In November 1987 they produced the most recent, the fifth code, which in the view of the local authority associations is a substantial improvement on the preceding codes.
The difficulty with the draft codes as we have them, and the difficulty with their status in this Bill, is that they are drawn up by the Secretary of State. They can be amended at will by him and they have the status of law so that in the terms of this clause the local authority must have regard to them. It might be acceptable in certain circumstances for a local authority to have regard to something which has been produced by consultation between local authorities and the Secretary of State. That is a defensible position.
What is not acceptable is that the local authority should he bound to the extent of having regard to a code which is drawn up entirely by the Secretary of State and which can be amended at will by him. That means that any parliamentary responsibility for the conduct of local authority publicity, the control of local authority publicity, is in the hands of the Secretary of State and can be changed at any time at his whim.
I suggest to the Committee that there is something profoundly unsatisfactory about that position which is not overcome by this amendment. Indeed, if the amendment is passed we may have to pursue it without further debate. There is something profoundly unsatisfactory about what is proposed in that part of Clause 27.
There has been a great deal of talk about the party political aspect of this clause. I would remind the Committee that the four major local authority associations—the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which is Labour-controlled; the Association of County Councils, which has no overall political control; the Association of District Councils, which is not Labour-controlled either; and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—are all unanimous in their opposition to this clause. They arc unanimous in their support of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, to which I am proud to add my name.
If that is the case, if it is the unanimous view of the four local authority associations and therefore of substantial numbers of leaders of local government of all political parties that this amendment is wrong; if the argument for its necessity has not been put adequately, or at all; and if the tendency of the amendment to increase centralisation and to decrease local responsibility is as I have suggested it is, this amendment deserves the support of the Committee. The clause before the Committee does not.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, expected quite such a long debate after posing me what appears a relatively simple but is in fact a difficult question. I am grateful that her question has provoked such a useful debate. Of course the answer must be that it very much depends on the way that the local authority produces the documentation. In the example of the noble Baroness, it could be done legally. But it is not difficult to imagine some local authorities doing it in a way designed to affect party political support. That would be illegal. Therefore, without being able to comment further, one would have to see the precise wording that the local authority used in the example that the noble Baroness gave. The question of the noble Baroness prompted a good reaction and very useful support for which I am grateful from my noble friends Lord HarmarNicholls, Lord Bellwin and Lady Carnegy of Lour who answered the points better than I have been able to do.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, raised two points in essence. The first referred to his Amendment No. 113D which concerns the draft code. The responsibility for the draft code was given to the Secretary of State two years ago. That had to be done with the approval of both Houses of Parliament who accepted the basic justification of his involvement. The reasons no code has yet been put to Parliament are, first, that we have endeavoured as far as possible to take local government with us on the drafting. The history of the drafting demonstrates that we have been prepared to listen to local government's point of view and to make amendments designed to allay concerns. However, it will be for Parliament to decide whether to approve the final product of that consultative process. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, accepted the fact that the Government had moved quite considerably and had taken into account some of the things that local authorities had said.
The second reason is that we did not think it would he right to ask Parliament to approve the code, the status of which would not be clarified until the Committee had considered Clause 27(2). A copy of the draft code is in the Library of the House and will of course be subject to the Committee's consideration. The code is not subject solely to the whim of the Secretary of State as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seemed to imply.
The second point the noble Lord mentioned returned to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. He said that the Government were putting forward alternative test—intention and effect. Any Member of the Committee who has studied the amendment will realise that that is wrong. The Government have accepted that there is only one test—the apparent design of publicity. The Government's proposal is not an attempt to slip a second test in by the back door. It is impossible to assess what something appears to be designed to do without looking at what its likely effects are. All that Clause 27 is doing is to state that plain fact. I ask for the Committee's support on that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister says that the Government are only putting forward a single test—the intention of the material. But subsection (2) of the 1986 Act which is repeated on the face of the Bill refers to the likely effect on those to whom it is directed. It refers also, unexceptionally, to the content and style of the material. The reference to the intention of the material is indeed highlighted by the words "in particular", but surely the Minister would not deny that there is reference to the other tests in the clause he is supporting?
The Earl of Caithness: I wish to make it clear that I was speaking of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, which deals with the first part of the proposal. That, as I understood it, was what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was criticising because it brought in a second test. However, it certainly does not do that. It merely explains what the auditor or the courts in due course have to take into account.
Lord Hayter: I had the wicked thought as we were debating this amendment that we would save an awful lot of time in this place if nobody could make a speech—I paraphrase the words of Clause 27(2)(a)—promoting or opposing a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable with the view of either one party or the other. That is my tactful way of pointing out how careful we must be to see that we do not injure free speech here, in local authorities or, even more importantly from my angle, in voluntary organisations.
However, on this amendment, we are perfectly happy with the 1986 Act to which we keep referring where it is stated that a local authority should not publish any material which appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. As no one has put forward any argument to show that something has happened since 1986 which makes necessary a new attempt in this Bill I feel that I must seek a Division.
4.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 113ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 162.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Amherst, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carter, L.

Annan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Attlee, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Aylestone, L.

David, B.

Banks, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Basnett, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Diamond, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bottomley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ennals, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

863

Falkender, B.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mayhew, L.

Foot, L.

Milford, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monkswell, L.

Galpern, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Mulley, L.

Gregson, L.

Nicol, B.

Grey, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Hampton, L.

Oram, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peston, L.

Hayter, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seear, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Seebohm, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Serota, B.

Jeger, B.

Somers, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Soper, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stallard, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kennet, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kissin, L.

Tordoff, L.

Leatherland, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Listowel, E.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Longford, E.

Wigoder, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Willis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Cross, V.

Aldington, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Arran, E.

Deedes, L,

Ashbourne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Dilhorne, V.

Auckland, L.

Dundee, E.

Barber, L.

Elibank, L.

Bauer, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elles, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bellwin, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Beloff, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Belstead, L.

Faithfull, B.

Bessborough, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Blatch, B.

Ferrers, E.

Borthwick, L.

Ferrier, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Foley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Gainford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Caithness, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Goold, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grantchester, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnock, L.

Gridley, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Coleraine, L.

Halsbury, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harvington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Havers, L.

Cowley, E.

Henley, L.

Cox, B.

Hertford, M.

Croft, L.

Hesketh, L.

864

Hives, L.

Portland, D.

Hood, V.

Portsmouth, E.

Hooper, B.

Prior, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Quinton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Reay, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Renton, L.

Kearton, L.

Rodney, L.

Killearn, L.

Romney, E.

Kimball, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kitchener, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sandford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Savile, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Selkirk, E.

Long, V.

Shannon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lurgan, L.

Sherfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Slim, V.

Manton, L.

Southborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Stockton, E.

Marley, L.

Strange, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Merrivale, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathspey, L.

Milne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Milverton, L.

Suffield, L.

Morris, L.

Swansea, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Terrington, L.

Mowbray and Slourton, L.

Teviot, L.

Munster, E.

Teynham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Torphichen, L.

Norfolk, D.

Trafford, L.

Norrie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Onslow, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Pender, L.

Westbury, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wise, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Wolfson, L.

Porritt, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.4 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 113ZB, 113A, 113B, 113BA, 113C, 113D, 113DA, 113E and 113F not moved.]
Clause 28 [Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material]:
[Amendment No. 113G had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 28, leave out lines 17 to 29 and insert:
("Publication and leaching of material representing homosexual relationships.
(1) A local authority shall not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to have as its primary purpose either of the following, namely

(a) the representation of homosexual relationships or homosexual acts as being more acceptable then heterosexual relationships or acts;

(b) the representation of a homosexual relationship as a pretended family relationship.

(2) A local authority shall not cause to be taught in any maintained school any material which falls within subsection (1).
(3) A local authority shall not give financial or other assistance to any person for the publication or teaching of such material as falls within subsection (1).
(4) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to any material which is published in the bona fide belief that such material

(a) serves, or may serve, a literary, artistic, scientific or educational purpose; or

(b) serves, or may serve, the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease.")

The noble Viscount said: Clause 28 and the arguments behind it are well known to the Committee. Indeed, they are better known to the Committee than they are to the country at large. That is why those of us who have been involved in public debate on the issue have been somewhat dismayed. I recently took part in a television discussion on the matter. I was personally dismayed and bewildered by the lack of understanding and the ignorance as regards the delicate subject which we are addressing today. That subject is sexuality. The Committee is here today to talk about homosexuality because that is the precise subject which we are addressing. However, I think that confusion has been the hallmark of Clause 28 from the word go.
I suggest that the thinking and the philosophy behind Clause 28 are confused; I suggest that mild confusion followed its publication in that the clause was known as Clause 27 in the publicity concerning the matter. Dangerous confusion has resulted from discussion and even from amendment of the clause. We must address ourselves here, as I shall attempt to do in moving the amendment, to discussing some of the background to the clause.
First, we have in this country an attitude towards sexuality which is, by the standards of any civilised country, confused. As a result of the publicity abroad concerning the clause, I have discovered that many of our European partners are watching the results of this debate with absolute amazement. I have talked to two foreign journalists who say they cannot believe that we should have such a debate in this day and age. A significant minority of our citizens—some 6 million people or perhaps more—are homosexuals. By trying to put the clause on the statute book, we are saying that we wish to make 6 million people second-class citizens.
Noble Lords: No!
The Viscount of Falkland: I shall expand on my argument. That will be the effect of the clause. There is a movement in this country which is prompted by the spread of the terrifying disease of AIDS. That must be taken together with a misconceived view of sexual behaviour which worries not only the homosexual community, who are immediately at risk from the backlash of ignorance, but also heterosexuals. I ought not to have to say that I am a heterosexual. I should say that 50 per cent, of my post bag, which is enormous—I believe that many Members of the Committee will have been inundated with letters in the same way—comes from people who live what are generally described as normal or orthodox sexual lives. I prefer the word "orthodox"; I think that the word "normal" is deprecating and even insulting. To a homosexual, his relationship is normal. The Committee must bear that in mind in considering the clause.
866
Apart from the fear and ignorance concerning homosexuality or unorthodox sexual relationships, there is the confusion between sexual relationships and sexual acts. Many people in this country—and indeed a section of the popular press—have been moved not by a concern about relationships as such but by an idea (which I can understand) of the widespread promotion of the extraordinary nature of the sexual act. I submit that the fear that people have of unorthodox sexual acts is quite reasonable. I should not want my children to be taught, or have described or unnecessarily underlined to them, information concerning homosexual acts. Nor should 1 want them to be exposed unnecessarily to the details of heterosexual acts. It seems to me that there is an enormous confusion which goes through much of our sex education. What matters in our lives and our sexuality is that we develop loving relationships.
There is a suggestion in the clause that in no way can a homosexual have a loving, caring or responsible relationship. That is an opinion which has caused deep feeling among homosexuals because they are extremely vulnerable to the implications of this clause, and it seems to me to be an offensive and arrogant suggestion. It is one of the reasons, probably the main one, why I have stood up in this debate as an individual. On this occasion I do not pretend to identify myself with my party grouping. I rise as an individual and hope that I shall be supported by members of my party. It offends me that in this country we should seek by statute to create an illiberal and prejudiced view of one section of our community.
That is the background to the kind of thinking that arises from these confusions plus the spread of this terrifying disease. I quite understand and share the concern of many Members of the Committee, particularly on the other side of the Chamber, that there could be unnecessary expenditure by local authorities on matters relating to homosexuality—for example, special teaching facilities. I agree that it is unsatisfactory to set the homosexual community apart as a special class of citizen by creating for it special expenditures unless they are very carefully considered and unless they have the express purpose, for example, of protecting people from violence and so on.
The background is quite clear. It is understandable that in this day and age there is a fear of promiscuity. Here again there is another misunderstanding. In many people's mind promiscuity is connected—wrongly, I suggest—with homosexuality whereas promiscuity itself, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, is a problem. Indeed, as a result of AIDS and responsible and careful action by homosexuals and others on behalf of the homosexual community, that community has become remarkably unpromiscuous, if that is the correct word. There has been a dramatic change which has been prompted by fear of disease and so on. I suggest that homosexual people are less promiscuous than heterosexuals. Promiscuity is neurotic in its origins and does not contribute to a happy and productive life. In every possible way we should oppose promiscuity which is such an obsessive feature of our lives.

867
The Government have introduced a clause which deals with homosexuality and attempts to make it unacceptable—another word which occurs in the clause that I do not find easy to accept. They wish to say that homosexuality is unacceptable. Homosexuality is legal in this country. I suggest that we are putting back the clock to the days before it was legalised and are creating an enormous fear among the homosexual community, particularly the young. We are encouraging a backlash within the rest of the community which puts at risk all classes of homosexual and particularly young people.
We are encouraging discrimination and violence which is out of step with the very responsible attitude that the Government have taken as regards AIDS. I consider that attitude to be more responsible and more effective than that which has been taken in the United States of America. Responsible homosexual groups have been consulted. The country is becoming fully aware of a meeting of minds and the productive movement between the homosexual community and the Government in creating a proper list of measures and precautions against AIDS. By promoting alarm among the homosexual and the heterosexual communities, the clause will create confusion in people's minds to to where they stand.
The clause remains with us and 1 suggest quite honestly that one of the main arguments against it is that it uses a very large hammer—a pile-driver—to smash a pane of glass. The splinters will go wide and far with the possibility of damaging and wounding a number of people. That will be regrettable. I think that those people who now view this clause with favour will agree with me later on that it is regrettable that we should have sought to put on to statute a clause which, through its loose wording and vague ideas, creates confusion in the minds not only of homosexuals and the general public but even of lawyers.
The authors of my amendment—and I make no bones about the fact that it was drawn up by a distinguished lawyer who was consulted by the Arts Council, which I also have consulted at some length—have said to me today that from the way that this clause is drafted it is just not possible (and I dare say we shall argue the point) to understand what it meant by the word "promote". If I may say so, to make matters worse the amendment which has been put down in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, seeks to amplify the Government's intention by putting in the word "intentionally". How can one promote unintentionally? Perhaps Members of the Committee will tell me how that can be done. It seems to me that "promotion" is always intentional unless the promoter is incredibly inept.
I am told that this will be a long debate; I hope not. However, perhaps Members of the Committee will have had experience themselves, not I hope of promoting but of having had promoted to them some form of sexuality. I went through what is called the public school system which, in the eyes of some foreigners, quite incorrectly is supposed to be a hotbed of homosexuality. I must say that I did not see a great deal of it. I never had promoted to me any idea
868
of sexual behaviour. Nobody has ever promoted to me, or sold to me, the idea that I should be a homosexual or a heterosexual. I seem to remember that when I was about seven years old I had vague stirrings of attraction to the opposite sex that have not left me in the 45-odd years that have ensued. But nobody promoted these ideas to me. It is an absurd idea that one can go into a classroom, to a meeting, or on a holiday course, or whatever, and that someone can make attractive the idea that one can change the drift of one's own sexuality.
The arguments against the clause are basically these. It is vague; it is dangerously misleading; it is badly drafted; it uses words in their wrong sense; it creates alarm and despondency among all classes of people. It makes us as a nation appear somewhat absurd to many of the other civilised countries who look to us—quite rightly—for leadership in so many areas. It worries me that we should appear so muddle headed on a social area of such importance in particular to the young.
The implications are far reaching. The arts are one of the most effective ways in which we disseminate knowledge and concepts of civilised behaviour. If this clause goes through, those arts that are funded by local authorities will be inhibited from performing plays, showing films, or having books in libraries, that are now readily acceptable. Nobody would quarrel with the idea that the novels of Oscar Wilde, the sonnets of Shakespeare, or many other books, should be on bookshelves.
But there is a risk—and I do not think that one is being alarmist—that if a clause like this goes onto the statute book then local authorities who have already been under some pressure, or to use a popular word have been "hammered" even, will ask, "dare we go ahead? Dare we fund that production which seemed innocuous enough before this clause?" They will go to their lawyers who will say, "It is better not to risk it. Go somewhere else." If that happens we shall be the poorer for it.
A civilised community depends on its arts; and the arts community has shown universal alarm at this clause. Even today I have received a letter from the entire cast of "Les Miserables" saying that this was a totally misplaced idea and a very damaging concept which would result in an extremely dangerous piece of legislation.
I summarise in this way. Our objections to this clause are that it is too loose and dangerous to make good law. On a sensitive subject this Chamber was not the place to decide on the future lives of 6 million people. There are too many people involved to risk making a bad provision. I do not think any Member of the Committee is entirely out of sympathy with some of the sentiments which lie behind the provisions of this clause. There is no doubt that there is alarm. There are extremists. There are people who exaggerate in every field, who tend to over-egg the pudding, or to overstate the case. I am perhaps even doing so myself now.
However, in this country we wish to create a proper, happy, productive community where everyone works together. That is one of the reasons why I undertake this painful, voluntary task of

869
standing on my feet and terrifying myself by talking to Members of the Committee. It is because I wish to see a better community where all classes of citizens—whether they are minorities such as homosexuals, or immigrants, or whatever—have the best possible life and the best possible opportunity of working with everyone else. I do not think that this clause helps in that cause.
I want to see stable relationships among homosexuals. I want to see their way of life understood. I want to see them walking on the streets, not flaunting themselves or behaving in a way which is provocative to other people—which is neurotic behaviour like promiscuity, as I have described—but to see people having stable, happy relationships, such as I am sure most Members of the Committee have. That will reduce the violence in our society. It will increase the understanding in our society of the differences between people. In that way we can be an example to others who are not as well educated or as privileged as ourselves. We can also show the rest of the world that we are the civilised community that they already perceive. I should not like to see us slipping from such a path. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Before I put the amendment to the Committee, I should explain that I undertand it to be for the convenience of the Committee that Amendments Nos. 114,115, 116, 116ZA, Manuscript Amendment No. 116ZB, Amendments Nos. 116A 117A and 118 will all be debated together.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: Perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Lord Henderson!
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: As I have my name down for this amendment I think that it is only customary to allow those who have their name down to speak to the amendment. I ask for the indulgence of the Committee in that respect.
I have attached my name to this amendment—the so-called "Arts Council" amendment—in the hope that Clause 28 can be improved although I do not believe that the clause is either necessary or desirable, and indeed I believe it to be harmful.
Before I give my reaons for disliking the clause, I should make it plain that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—who has done so much to bring this matter before the attention of Parliament and the country—I deplore the excesses committed by homosexual people of either sex, or for that matter by heterosexual people. The minority ought to have respect for the feelings of the heterosexual majority. In this connection, I should like to recall the words of the late Lord Arran—the father of the noble Earl who now sits on the Government Front Bench—on the Third Reading of the Sexual Offences Bill 1967. He played a very great and honourable part in bringing that Bill about. He then asked the homosexual people in the future to comport themselves quietly and with dignity and to eschew any form of ostentatious behaviour or public flouting.
870
Homosexual people would do well to heed those words, especially now, in case the present backlash turns into something really nasty like, for example, the Popish plot of the 17th century. That recalls at once that 1988 is the tercentenary of the glorious revolution which led to the Bill of Rights 1689 and the beginning of toleration. It would be a poor start indeed to the tercentenary to pass an intolerant measure such as this clause with its potentially repressive consequences.
I owe it to the Committee to say why I support the amendment. It is entirely because I do not just object to the principle, but I object to the drafting. The noble Viscount who introduced the amendment said why he objected to the word "promote" Quite frankly, I do not object to the word "promote". I recognise that it was used in the previous clause, Clause 27, in relation to publication and it is also used in the Education Reform Bill in Clause 1. I accept that word, though I recognise that others do not.
But in Clause 27 of the Bill and Clause 1 of the Education Reform Bill the word "promote" is used in conjunction with concrete objects or objectives. The use in the clause of this Bill is, I believe, the first occasion, so far as I am aware, that the word "promote" has been used in a statute in relation to an abstract concept; that is, homosexuality. Can you (I ask: should you?) legislate against an undefined abstract concept? I say certainly not. One might legislate against homsexual acts or relationships, if that is what is meant. As the Committee will see the amendment does not contain this abstract concept of homsexuality.
I ask the Minister to go to Mr. Baker's education Bill and to look at Clause 1 where in subsection (2)(a) the curriculum,
"promotes the spiritual … cultural, mental and physical development of pupils".
It does not promote the pupils' spirituality, culture, mind and physique. How absurd if it had done so, and how absurd for the clause to seek to proscribe the promotion of the abstract concept of homosexuality. Amendment No. 114, to which I am speaking, at least corrects that absurdity.
Then there is the word "pretended". We are all told by those of our friends who are learned in the law what this means; it is supposed to mean "claimed" as the pretender to the throne claims the throne. But what does it mean to the man in the street? It means something other than "claimed". It is certainly offensive to the homosexual community and especially to those homosexual couples—I know of some—who have a real family relationship with each other and with their children, whether adopted or not. I regret that the word is in the amendment which I support, but no doubt it could be improved on at a later stage. Then there is the word "acceptability". That is another horrible abstract concept which is nowhere defined in the clause and which our amendment manages to eliminate.
So much for the drafting, except to commend the drafting of our amendment in subsection (4) which I regard as quite essential (despite anything that the Minister may say) to ensure that the potential damage covered by the clause is effectively limited.

871
How did this bad drafting come about? I have no doubt that it came about through the unseemly haste with which this legislation has been introduced, and introduced into the wrong Bill. If it is necessary (which I doubt) surely it should be part of the Education Reform Bill.
The Halsbury Bill—if I may so term it—was a product of haste. It was slipped in on the very last day just before Christmas, 18th December 1986, when it was read a second time as the last business on that day, just before the Christmas Recess. Then it received its Committee stage on 3rd February and the noble Earl deprecated any amendments, even those that he accepted in principle. He then proceeded to put in substantial amendments at Third Reading on 11th February. That is not the way to legislate on important, socially sensitive matters. The Bill failed in the Commons and was only resurrected at the last possible moment in Standing Committee in another place on the last afternoon of the last day in Standing Committee when a private Member introduced a new clause, a starred amendment, to which the Government tabled a starred amendment, so no adequate notice of the clause could be properly considered was given in another place either by the private Member or by Her Majesty's Government. Does this not remind one of the infamous amendment of 100 years ago known as the Labouchere amendment,
I have no wish to keep the Committee longer. I should otherwise dilate on what I regard as the totally insufficient evidence on which the Bill has been brought before the Committee. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is entirely sincere in her motives; but I believe that she is perhaps a trifle gullible. She mentioned an action of the Lambeth Borough Council. I found out that the incident she mentioned she took from a newspaper. The newspaper was written to by Lambeth Borough Council totally denying the incident. But, as so often happens in these cases, the borough council was not granted the right of reply. To confirm what I had heard I asked my daughter and my son-in-law, who live in Lambeth, to go to the public library to make detailed investigation as to whether or not books of the nature described by the noble Baroness were available on the shelves. There was none.
In conclusion I ask: why have the Government made this astonishing U-turn? When the Halsbury Bill was before noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, both said that though they were in sympathy with the noble Earl's Bill they could not recommend it. They could not recommend it to go forward for two, very adequate reasons. The first was that in the Local Government Bill now before the Committee there is a perfectly good code of conduct. It would be quite useful, productive and sensible to introduce into that code of conduct directions as to what or what might not be taught in the schools under local authorities. That was one means of controlling the situation which we all believe must be considered carefully in view of the disquiet by some parents in the very few boroughs which have promoted homosexuality, or as I prefer to say, homosexual practices.
872
Secondly, the two Ministers referred to the Department of Education circular which has been extensively quoted both in this Chamber and in another place. I believe two actions on the departmental circular and the introduction into the code of practice would be quite sufficient to contain this problem without going to the extent of legislation.
If that was what the Government thought last Session (as proclaimed quite separately by two Ministers in this House) why on earth is it not still their policy in this Session? What has made the Government make this dramatic new turn? I believe this clause to be totally unnecessary but, if it is to be in the Bill, it must be amended in the kind of way which I am suggesting.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: For the avoidance of doubt, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he subscribes to the view expressed by the noble Viscount who when moving the amendment described homosexuality as legal. In my view the legislature of this country has never legalised homosexuality, not even between consenting adults; it has merely protected from criminal prosecutions adults who committed homosexual acts together by consent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: While opposing the amendment, I should like to say that if the thinking and philosophy is confused, as was suggested by the noble Viscount, the responsibility is wholly mine. I drafted the clause. I propose to defend it and the intention behind it. I do so with a totally open mind.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that this amendment was carried in to Lord Halsbury's Bill at Third Reading by a very thinly attended House. It is a matter of considerable public concern. For my part, I welcome this opportunity for objective discussion, full examination and detailed debate.
In that spirit, let me assure the Committee that there is no question of making homosexuals second-class citizens. The Committee may also wish me to admit that I drafted Lord Halsbury's Bill. At Second Reading, when I supported the noble Earl, I made it perfectly plain that the Bill was not designed—and I quote my own words from memory—"to harrass or humiliate homosexuals". There is no question of the Bill taking an illiberal or prejudiced view of a section of society. That charge, though sincerely made, is wide of the truth. I agree that in drafting the Bill, I failed to consult foreign journalists or any of the 6 million people in the minority sections.
It is very wide of the mark to suggest that the Committee is considering anything to do with AIDS, whether rightly or wrongly associated with homosexuals or with promiscuity. The clause has nothing whatever to do with that. There is no question of putting the clock back as regards discrimination. Every subject, whatever his sexual proclivity, is entitled to respect and entitled to live subject to the law of the land. All these charges are quite beside the mark.

873
I have studied the amendment moved by the noble Viscount. Much of what was said was said against the principle, as it appears, of his own amendment.
Clause 28(1)(1) stands in the Bill verbatim as drafted by me and carried into Lord Halsbury's Bill on Third Reading on an amendment tabled by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk; the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury; the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and myself. None of us, with the possible exception of myself, is noted for illiberality. I accept that the amendment was carried by a thin House. I accept also, being the draftsman, that it would be far from perfect. I do not have the expertise to draft a Bill. Certain reservations were entertained by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, which were very sound, reasonable reservations. Certain reservations were entertained across the House by my noble friend Lady Cox. They were very reasonable reservations. They have been embodied in Amendment No. 116ZB, the manuscript amendment, and meet two-thirds of the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton.
However, it is important that the Committee should accept and acknowledge that Lord Halsbury's Bill was accepted in principle by all noble Lords with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, with whom I am in amicable but assuredly irresoluble disagreement.
The amendment, which is now Clause 28, widened the original scope and intendment of Lord Halsbury's Bill, which was designed solely to prohibit the promotion by local authorities of the homosexual set-up as an acceptable family relationship. This specific and limited prohibition of abuse of rates was considered to be far too narrow by all noble Lords at the Second Reading of Lord Halsbury's Bill. I accepted that and in deference to the views of your Lordships' Committee drafted this amendment, which is now Clause 28. That was accepted by the House. It was indeed welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, on behalf of her noble friend Lady David who was unable to attend.
There has been much misguided criticism of this Clause. There is absolutely no doubt that any local authority seeking simply to provide access to a full range of artistic and literary material, would not be constrained from doing so by this provision. The highest that it is put against the drafting or the principle—probably both—is this; that the local authority might be at risk. That is hardly the basis of a sound objection. By the use of the word "promote" I understood it to be active support or encouragement. I take the noble Viscount's point, but it was intended by me to include intention, and that intention was implicit in active support or encouragement. I welcomed the Government's amendment by making express what I understood to be implicit. How the Government's amendment which does that can be said to make Clause 28 worse is not understood, simply as a matter of logic.
If the principle of Clause 28 is acceptable, the machinery of implementation proposed by the noble Viscount's amendment is not appropriate. In principle, Clause 28(1)(a) was accepted by the Committee in Lord Halsbury's Bill. The clarification
874
was expressly welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. In principle, subsection (l)(b), dealing with teaching in schools, was also accepted by the Committee. Its acceptance has since been endorsed by the public in an 85.9 per cent, opinion poll published on 25th January.
Why is the noble Viscount's amendment to be preferred as a means of implementing the question? There are three basic objections to it. First, it is limited to the material published, thus permitting what may be said or done under paragraph (a), or taught in schools under paragraph (b), directly or indirectly by financial or other assistance under paragraph (c). Allowing that to be done is an obvious escape route for abuse. Secondly, it is limited to primary purpose. In this context it is an all but impossible task for the courts to distinguish between primary and secondary dominant subsidiary purpose. The test of intent as proposed by the Government's amendment is workable; the approach to the amendment to qualify such intent by primary purpose is not workable. Thirdly and lastly, the wholly subjective test of bona fide belief that some literary, artistic or scientific purposes may be so is imported to serve as a defence. I underline the words "some", "may" and "bona fide belief that". It drives the proverbial carriage and four right through the principle of any effective enforceable prohibition.
Far from implementing the principle of prohibition, the effect of this amendment in the name of the noble Viscount affords the means for a massive evasion and abuse. It is wholly unworkable. It could turn the courtroom only into a platform for the deployment of forensic weaponry such as, "What is the material published?"; "What is primary purpose?"; "Is there bona fide belief?" No doubt an attempt at enforcement would always be made by a legally-aided litigant, and no doubt and assuredly the costs to the local authority would be met from the rates. Members of the Committee may well think that it is hardly appropriate to seek to inhibit one type of abuse of the rates at the expense of creating another.
I welcome this discussion. I support the principle of Clause 28 but do so with an open mind. I shall listen to everything that is said in respect of any of these amendments. However, we who set our names to the Third Reading amendment in the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, also set our names to Amendment No. 113G, which was a probing amendment. I owe it to the Committee to explain why it was not moved. It was simply because the amendment recasts the Bill in its original form to afford a basis and an opportunity for discussion. There has been a full opportunity for discussion. I hope that Members of the Committee will support the principle of Clause 28, find the government amendment acceptable and not accept Amendment No. 114.
The Earl of Halsbury: I shall not make a long speech. On Second Reading I acknowledged the draftsmanship of my Bill. I acknowledge the draftsmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway; it was a team effort from beginning to end. Naturally, if one has counsel learned in the law as a member of the team one looks to him to do the

875
drafting. What he said is true and we owe a great deal to him. It is for that reason that I advised the Committee to abide by the considered and considerable wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who has lived with the situation with me and my friends for over a year.
Naturally I have been deluged with many letters about homosexuality, most of them written by homosexuals. The one that I like best read:
"I want to say how fed up I am with my fellow homosexuals. They have brought it upon themselves, their unpopularity. They are too promiscuous, too aggressive and exhibitionist. I cannot stand the sight of them. I wish they would keep themselves to themselves.".
He added the rider:
"I cannot help what 1 am but 1 can help what 1 do. Yours faithfully,".
I thought that that was a pretty good letter.
Subsection (4) of the amendment is the basis of fudge after fudge. We have lived through it for years, and everytime one tries to include the issue in a statute it ends as a fudge.
Lord Soper: I oppose the clause—
Lord Somers: I support almost everything that was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland—
Noble Lords: Soper!
Lord Somers: I say "almost" because I believe he said the promiscuity is no worse when indulged in by homosexuals than when indulged in by heterosexuals. With that I heartily agree. Promiscuity is a bad thing and one should not encourage it in any form. The noble Viscount said that homosexuals regard themselves as normal. One has only to look through the entire animal world to realise that it is abnormal. In any case, the clause as it stands does not prohibit homosexuality in any form; it merely discourages the teaching of it. When one is young at school one is very impressionable and may just as easily pick up bad habits as good habits. I suggest that that is a sound piece of legislation and I sincerely hope that the Government will keep it and not accept any argument to the contrary.
Lord Soper: I oppose this clause for reasons which I shall define briefly. At the outset I shall confess the difficulties which confront anyone endeavouring to approach the matter from a Christian point of view. In the absence of my ministerial and other friends—except for one, I am glad to see—we are in great difficulty from the Christian standpoint, and we had better confess that.
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. The early Church took the precaution of a totalitarian view from the Old Testament in order to define homosexuality as an abomination. Of course, it is not; it is a condition. The Church did not respond to the discoveries that were made in the scientific field by which the whole concept of sex as relationships between male and female has now been decided by mechanical and other devices which have left no doubt as to the position. Therefore, it would be impudent for me to pretend that I could speak for the
876
Church in saying that is it is right and proper to reject this clause. I have to make up my mind as to what are the reasons for which any amendments are more suitable than the clause itself. I am drawn to this particular amendment. I am gratified that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in his admirable speech, reminded the Committee that there are difficulties here which have yet to be resolved. I present two of them. I find it a little impudent, if I may say so, where it states:
"any material which is published in the bona fide belief that such material serves, or may serve, a literary, artistic, scientific or educational"
there is no reference to religion. It is a curious age—is it not?—in which the absence of the religious element seems to be almost automatic in dealing with these moral problems? It is essentially a moral problem, and it is a moral problem which, in my judgment, can only be approached if we can find some parameters of judgment.
I begin with the concentration in this field of sex on one aspect of sexuality. May I remind the Committee that when I was a child the vocabulary on sexual matters was strictly limited. Nowadays it is widespread. Unfortunately, there is no dictionary available at the same time as that vocabulary becomes more prolific. The Committee may be interested to know that these questions of homosexuality in particular are current in discussions indoors and outdoors. The imperative need is, as I see it, that if we are to educate people further than the vocabulary-cognisance that they may have of various words, we must avoid the emotive consequence of leaving them uncriticised that they may attain, as they do, and acquire all kinds of emotive and thoroughly disagreeable elements which seem (at least to other people and particularly the youngsters themselves) a correct definition of the word which comes so easily upon their tongues.
There is an added problem. I take it that part of the acceptable diet of the normal human being is a sexual ingredient, but I deplore the fact that there has come into being in my lifetime such a preponderance of emphasis upon sexual matters motivated not least by the press and expressed in many of the less reputable productions in other forms of the media. The trouble is that one suffers from indigestion if one takes too much sex into the content of one's spiritual stomach, and most people today are not equipped and not fit enough to absorb the amount of sexual stimulation to which they are constantly exposed.
These may sound rather pompous, moral judgments; but they lead me to the conclusion that in the rejection of this particular clause we do not avoid the responsibility of a far better educative process in this strange, emotive, tumultuous, sexual issue and to isolate one of the aspects of it is, in my judgment, impudent. Do I not sense a smell of fascism about this emphasis on homosexuality? I do. And I am old enough to remember what it was like when that was rampant not so very long ago. Do I notice a kind of attitude in which there is confusion between homosexuality as a condition and homosexual acts—good and some bad? Of course I do, and that confusion is written into this clause.

877
What I find so desperately important is the kind of compassion which I thought irradiated the initial speech of the noble Viscount in talking about matters which are intimate. I can speak of them in my old age as retrospective, and what nostalgia I have is hard to command. But at the same time I have no doubt whatever in my own mind that we are in a perilous strait of circumstance if we isolate problems like homosexuality as if they belonged to the category of evil just as heterosexuality may be regarded as the category of good.
I have some very good homosexual friends and I intend to maintain that friendship. I have no witch hunt in my make-up to pursue them as if they are the archetypal kind of evil from which we have to flee, as from the devil. I agree that many homosexuals are arrogant as a kind of counter-productive effect to the way in which they have been mistreated. I want for them compassion and understanding. I do not believe that this clause will give them either. I believe that if we cannot so emasculate this clause from the evil conditions in which I believe it is conceived, we have no right to go further with it and it is for that reason that whatever I may say in general support of the intentions of this particular amendment, increasingly as I ponder on this matter I think I shall vote that it do not stand part of this Bill becaues I think it has no constructive part to play and I hope it will be rejected.
6 p.m.
Baroness Cox: In speaking to Amendment No. 114, may I also speak to Amendment No. 116ZA in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness and to my own manuscript Amendment No. 116ZB?
Lord Elton: On a point of order, would my noble friend read out her manuscript amendment?
Baroness Cox: It has been made available but it is very short and reads as follows:
"Page 28. leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert—("(b) Permit the teaching or use of any material which promotes homosexuality in any maintained school;").
I will explain the rationale behind it through my brief remarks.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that I support the broad intention behind the other two amendments to which I am speaking; but I am concerned about semantic vulnerabilities. First, if I may address the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I seek categoric reassurance that the words in Clause 4 which include the word "educational" do not open the floodgates for the kind of policies espoused by some local education authorities to promote the so-called positive images of homosexuality in schools and playgroups. Those policies have caused very grave concern to parents and the public. I shall not repeat many of the points made at Second Reading; but I emphasise once again (to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soper) that I am not and never have been against teaching which increases understanding about people who have different sexual orientations, which reduces victimisation of homosexuality and particularly that such teaching should be offered in an especially
878
sensitive way to children or young people at an age when some of them, as senior pupils, may themselves be realising that they are homosexual. Therefore, I have never been against that kind of appropriate, sensitive teaching and discussion in schools.
However, I am strongly opposed to teaching and dissemination of materials which may influence young people at an age and at a stage when their sexual identity is still emergent and when that teaching may have deep psychological effects. I am also strongly opposed to teaching which offends parents and which thereby leads schools into violating their role and responsibility to act in loco parentis. Therefore, if the words in subsection 4(a) of the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland were to result in the effective dilution of protection of schools, then I should have to oppose it very strongly. I should like also to point out that that is an argument put forward in an article in The Times a little way back when The Times itself said that on these matters parents would actually require the protection of central government.
One argument that has been put forward by noble Lords opposite is that the kind of words in the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness might have the effect of censoring as teaching material works of literary value. I do not believe that that follows logically at all. No one will use those words to censor out the reading of works by authors such as Oscar Wilde or Virginia Woolf. Those are judged on literary merit or substantive content. They are not judged according to the sexual orientation of the authors. I suggest to the Committee that that argument is a distraction and a red herring.
My second concern relates to the words "pretended family relationship". I suggest that those words are invidious, for reasons already suggested by other noble Lords. Moreover, they are inadequate in dealing with the range of material recommended for teaching in the resource lists produced, for example, by the Inner London Education Authority in its resource list on positive images, or in books such as School's Out written by gay teachers. For example, those words "pretended family relationship" might cover books such as Jenny Lives With Eric and Martin which the Committee will remember shows photographs of a little girt in bed with her father and his male adult lover.
I suggest that those words will not cover other recommended books such as The Milkman's On His Way. That book is strongly recommended in the book School's Out. It deals in explicit—some would say pornographic—detail with the sexual intercourse between a teenager and his male adult lover. I will not read out the most sensitive and the most explicit parts. It is recommended for children still at school. For Members of the Committee who have not had a chance to realise what we are talking about—we are not talking about Oscar Wilde or Virginia Woolf—I quote:
"Kisses, gentle hands touching skin. Drifting towards sleep. 'I don't have to wonder if you enjoyed it, he said, later. I smiled. No answer was needed. 'Or if we were the right way round." I opened my eyes. "I just want it again. For ever and ever like that. Till I'm ninety-six and dying.'".

879
If Members of the Committee read that in conjunction—
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The noble Baroness is quoting from one book out of 200 items in a resource list for ILEA found in a library. She has taken one sentence from one book. Has the noble Baroness any evidence that that book has ever been shown to a child in a classroom?
Baroness Cox: I should like to make two points in that respect. I said that it was not taken only from the resource list produced by ILEA, though that in itself is quite serious. Although it is pointed out that it is voyeuristic, nevertheless, it is there. It was originally recommended for 15-plus and now recommended for 16-plus. It is also given a most glowing recommendation in the book called School's Out, which is written by gay teachers, in which it is recommended very strongly for use in schools. I stand by what I have said. I will show the noble Lord the reference if he wishes to see it.
May I also take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who accused me of gullibility? The book The Milkman's On his Way was available to and taken out from a public library by a 15-year-old girl. I have the evidence to support that.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Will the noble Baroness confirm what she said, or withdraw it, about the Borough of Lambeth? My investigations prove that what she said was founded on wrong information. I believe that my informaton is rather better than hers.
Baroness Cox: I should be happy to debate the Borough of Lambeth with the noble Lord and with teachers of the borough after this debate. I am giving my proven evidence relating to Haringey, because that is where I have seen that book. However, I shall certainly find some correspondence vis-à-vis Lambeth for the noble Lord.
I come back to the point regarding the wording "pretended family relationship" and why I am unhappy about that wording. I believe it is too narrow and too limiting. As 1 said, it would perhaps allow some of the other material which is recommended with regard to the positive image of homosexuality to pass through a loophole.
Therefore, in an effort to be helpful I have tabled my own manuscript amendment without the words "pretended family relationship". I believe that my amendment is more simple and straightforward but that it preserves the protection of young people which I believe must be the overriding concern of all Members of the Committee.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Kennet: I rise to make a point which I have not heard much, if at all, in the debate on this Bill both in Parliament and in the country. Clause 28 states that a local authority shall not do certain things. I agree with the criticisms which have been made from all parts of the Committee, and in the
880
country, about the way those things are drafted as defined in Clause 28.
Let us for the moment leave that aside. I wish to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that it is only upon local authorities that the prohibition will lie. The Government's attention was obviously caught by Jenny Lives With Eric and Martin and perhaps one other book. There was only a little evidence that anything really undesirable was going on. However, if the Government had wished to make it perfectly clear that such teaching and such material being laid with commendation before children must not be allowed, then I submit that the logical action would have been to introduce a general prohibition upon all persons, whether individual or collective.
This is a local government Bill. It is not a homosexuality Bill and it is not an education Bill. It imposes a disability upon one class of persons, and one only, to the exclusion of all others. If the governors of a private school wish homosexuality to be promoted in their school they will not be impeded by this clause. If a theatre company in receipt of central government grant—mark this, in receipt of central government grant as opposed to local government grant—wishes to put on a play appealing to children which will "promote homosexuality" it will not be impeded by this clause. If a library or library association, or a museum or association of museums, not in receipt of a local government grant wishes to do the same, it will not be impeded; and so on throughout the whole range of persons, individual or legal, who could do so.
That, I believe, is reason enough to invite the Government to think again and to acquiesce that the clause does not stand part and to bring forward their reasons at a later stage for singling out the local authorities for this disability.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, raised the question: whence the U-turn and, in any case, why not put it in a code of conduct? I am in no position to answer either of those questions, but I wonder whether the Government would have made such a meal of it if the original offence concerning Jenny Lives With Eric and Martin had been committed not by Labour local authorities but by some other category of persons. If it were true, and I hesitate to descend from a lofty level to a party one, and if it were thinkable that the Government were encouraged to have another go at the loony Left authorities by means of this high moral Bill, perhaps that would be another reason for the Government acquiescing in what I hope will be the situation; namely, that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: Before the noble Lord sits down will he please consider that local authorities are creatures of statute and derive their powers statutorily. They do not get them from anywhere else. Is that not a proper answer to the question posed by the noble Lord?
Lord Beloff: There is another answer to the extraordinary argument just advanced by the noble Lord. After all, we are talking about schools, which are fundamentally at the root of this clause as I shall endeavour in a moment to demonstrate.

881
Those people who send their children to a private school have the possibility, if they are offended by the nature of some of the instruction, of withdrawing their child. Those people who are within the educational ambit of a local authority which promotes matter which is repugnant to them on moral or religious grounds may protest but, as we have been told previously in this Chamber, when they try protesting to the local authority they may be subjected to verbal and even physical abuse. We are concerned with protecting parents, and the parents at risk are only those who have no alternative school. We are now clear that what most noble Lords opposite—it probably does not apply to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—are doing is not to seek to amend any infelicities in this clause but to have it rejected altogether.
Why? We have been told by the noble Viscount that there is a great deal of confusion in the public mind. I believe that the confusion is attributed by him to a public which, according to most public opinion polls, and as one's correspondence shows, is not confused at all. His two foreign journalists may well have been confused for a perfectly valid reason. I agree it is very improbable that a debate of this kind would take place in the legislature of any of our Continental neighbours. I do not know where his two journalists came from. The simple fact is that the curriculum and what may be taught is settled centrally; there are no local authorities or teachers' groups who could introduce, let us say, into the French educational system the propaganda or promotion of homosexuality. Therefore they may have been perplexed that Parliament was required to intervene.
They may have been even more perplexed—as many of us have been—by the kind of propaganda we have received against this clause from the alleged representatives of the intelligentsia. There is perhaps confusion in the sense that the public, the ordinary citizen has a fairly clear view of what he wants and does not want. On the other hand, those who speak for the Arts Council or the PEN Club, with their superior minds, can adduce arguments. I have read the legal opinion submitted to the Arts Council; it seems to me to be extremely specious. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said, it argues that this could lead to the banning from libraries the works of Oscar Wilde, the banning of concerts of the music of Mahler and stuff which is such obvious nonsense that it is difficult to believe that noble Lords who put it before us even believe it themselves.
It is as though one were to say that because being an accessory to murder is a serous criminal offence somebody is going to remove the works of Agatha Christie from the public library in case they should put the idea of murdering someone into a person's head. I am afraid that one comes to the conclusion that although they know these arguments are specious, although they know perfectly well there is no threat to artistic freedom—if there were such a threat I would be the first to oppose it—they are putting this amendment forward as another bulwark in order to persuade people to vote on the only substantive issue, which is: "Are the Government right to try to protect even a minority of children and
882
their parents for whom this kind of teaching is a worry as to the possible impact upon impressionable minds?"
As I have said and despite what the noble Lord, Lord Soper has said, the great religions professed in this country—namely, Christianity, Judaism ( my own religion) and Islam—do not regard homosexuality as the equivalent of the normal human affections which scripture describes and to which this country has hitherto also subscribed.
Lord Willis: Some of the statements made in the debate so far are typical of the fog of emotive issues that surround this subject. For example, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, mentioned that he received a letter from a homosexual saying that homosexuals have brought this upon themselves because they have been too flashy; they have flaunted themselves, and so forth. It is curious that we do not hear too much about the heterosexuals and the way they flaunt themselves. I was recently at a film festival, and you should have seen the heterosexuals flaunting themselves on the beach and along the promenades. Why do we have to distinguish in this particular way?
We have been talking about these two booklets which have been issued. They are not booklets that I particularly condone. It is possible to cross from the school gates into a newsagent's shop and buy the most abominable horror comics and the most abominable sexual horror comics. Children are buying these but we pay no attention to that. It is this kind of imbalance that I worry about because of the emotive nature of this word "homosexual".
I support this amendment but I do so with a sinking heart. We seem to be more and more having a clause not stand part debate. Although this amendment is an improvement, like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I have never really been too frightened about the clause even as it stands being a threat to artistic freedom. I believe that to make too much fuss about it would create a diversion from the main problem that I see in this clause. I am glad that the amendment removes any possible doubt on that score.
Nothing I have heard so far has convinced me not to oppose the clause in its entirety when the time comes. I do so because it is based on misapprehension and misinformation. To a great extent it is based on what I believe to be mistaken and unconscious fear and prejudice. For example, there is misapprehension about the role of local authorities. They have a social role as well as an administrative one. They have a duty to provide certain welfare services for the community which elects them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Would the noble Lord give way? I am obliged to the noble Lord. This clause is not based upon any misapprehension of the functions of local authorities. The view was taken—certainly by me—that the whole ethos and the traditions of local authorities were being sorely traduced and that a new balance ought to be set between central government and devolved government. This is part of it. There was no misapprehension because it was totally and wilfully done to prevent one aspect of abuse of the rates.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Willis: The noble Lord made a very long speech in his own defence, and he will forgive me if I continue with mine. I maintain, and I believe it has been proven, that local authorities have a social role. Thus it is considered right and reasonable for local authorities to provide funds and to support the setting up of counselling services, meals on wheels, advice centres for battered wives, the victims of rape and assault, and so on. In a wider sense they are responsible for the funding of libraries and civic theatres, which may be considered to be a social service. This clause, which has been hurriedly drafted and pushed through in another place with undue if not indecent haste, could lead to one small section of the community being deprived of access to those social services.
Homosexuals, who pay rates and taxes like everyone else, are singled out, and they are the only group to be so. They are singled out for special mention in this clause. In a certain sense this at once places them outside the community. Perhaps I may take as one example the area of counselling. I have had dozens of letters from anxious and distressed parents. They are concerned because at one time or another they have learnt that one or other of their children is homosexual. Nobody is responsible for that; it is a matter of pure nature. Heterosexual parents living an ordinary family life suddenly face the situation of having their son or daughter confess that he or she is homosexual. I dare say that many of the Members of the Committee must know of parents who have had to face such a situation.
They fear that if Clause 28 is implemented they will be cut off from help.
Do those people not have the right to seek advice and help for themselves and for their sons and daughters? It is a tremendous shock—perhaps it should not be—for a heterosexual father or mother suddenly to hear their grown-up son or daughter confess to being homosexual. They need help to adjust. But under Clause 28 it would be dangerous for the local authority to give them any guidance or counselling. The children may need help more than the parents, because if the children discover that they are homosexual they have to come to terms with that sexuality in a hostile world. There are many children who cannot stand it and who go mad or commit suicide.
If a local authority gave funds to a counselling service, would it be accused of promoting homosexuality? I know that it will be said that that is not the intention of the clause; but it is naive to think that it could not happen. That is where fear and prejudice come into the picture. In the past year or so, partly due to the fear of AIDS as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland said, and partly due to the excesses of some extreme gay groups, there has been a distressing revival of what was known as "queer bashing". The noble Lord, Lord Soper, mentioned fascism. He was not exaggerating. If anyone thinks he was, let me remind the Committee of the statement made by the leader of the Staffordshire District Council in December, 1986. He called upon the British Government to "gas queers". Had such a statement
884
been made about blacks or Jews, the person concerned would have been hauled up before the courts. But it seems that homosexuals are fair game for the bigots, and that we are now to declare an open season.
It has been suggested that all homosexual AIDS sufferers should be put into remote camps. That is not far from fascism, is it? "Gas queers", "put them into camps"—the noble Lord, Lord Soper, was not far wrong. It is also instructive to note that the media paid little attention to that gentleman from the Staffordshire council, while printing story after story about the so-called activities of homosexual groups and certain local authorities. It is not true that most homosexual groups or people spend their time and local authority funds in the promotion of homosexuality, any more than it is true that heterosexual groups spend their time in the promotion of heterosexual activities.
I appeal to the Committee. Is there anyone in this place with no homosexual friends—as I have many—who lead ordinary, straightforward, decent and taxpaying lives? Most of us have such friends. What are we saying in this context? Are we saying what the Germans said, "Oh well, we know one good Jew"? That again is the smell of fascism.
The National Council of Voluntary Organisations confirmed what I have just said when it made a report on the activities of those financed groups. It said:
"The report finds that in counselling and advice services, housing provision and AIDS-related work, the voluntary organisations do not encourage people to become homosexual, or claim that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality. Instead they aim to offer non-judgmental help and support to people."
Let us look again at the facts with regard to expenditure by local authorities. If one listens to some people one would think that some boroughs were spending fortunes on the promotion and setting up of counselling groups. Two of the most criticised groups were those in Camden and Haringey. Camden's 1987–88 budget figure is £138 million; that is its total budget. The lesbian and gay budget for the year is £133,000 which is 0·096 per cent. of the total budget. Haringey's total budget for 1987–88 is £204 million. The lesbian and gay budget is £127,000; that is, 0·06 per cent. Is that wild and extravagant, considering the number of homosexuals in the community? If we accept that there are people who should have access to council services, advice and help, is that extravagant?
We do not need this clause. I am saddened that we need even to discuss it. To some people it may seem limited in scope, but like the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I see it as the first breath of a chilling wind of intolerance, the first page of a charter for bigots. In the first place, the clause stresses only the negative aspects. It is a monument to ignorance, about which I shall not speak now, concerning the very nature of homosexuality. We do not need legislation of this character.
If a local authority steps over the line, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton said, let us leave it to local citizens to deal with the situation, because that is what democracy and local elections are all about. This subject has been blown up beyond its

885
importance, as I indicated, in relation to the amount of money spent on these projects. The clause sets our feet on a dangerous path. Pass it, and the Committee will have taken the first step towards embittering, isolating and frightening the homosexual community. Thus the Committee will create the very situation that it wishes to avoid: a siege mentality among a minority.
I believe that tolerance may be defined as the positive, generous and open-minded effort to understand one another's beliefs, practices and habits without necessarily sharing them. This place has a notable record for tolerance which I hope it will show again in relation to the clause.
The Earl of Bessborough: As president of the British Theatre Association, I have been much concerned about the amendments. I agree fully that there must be a clause relating to this issue. Therefore, I cannot agree with those noble Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, who say that the clause should be deleted.
I am concerned, as were the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that nothing in the clause should apply to material which serves, or might serve, a literary, artistic, scientific, educational or religious purpose. When I read the booklet called Gay Lessons by Rachel Tingle, it became clear to me that some action must be taken. I agree that the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Caithness inserting the words "intentionally" and "intended", goes a considerable way towards meeting those who fear that the word "promotion" might be abused. However, on the whole, I should have preferred to see a clause more on the lines of the Arts Council draft, as supported by the noble Viscount, on the issue of artistic and scientific works.
As president of the British Theatre Association, I have been lobbied more intensely on this clause than on any other Bill or debate in the 32 years that I have been a Member of this place. Like other noble Lords, I have received hundreds of letters, many of them multi-signed, from scores of theatre groups, professional and amateur, representing, as I understand it, some 150,000 people. I cannot ignore what they say, nor can I ignore what the chairman of Faber & Faber said in his letter to The Times on Saturday, nor the letter in The Times today from the president of English PEN and others.
It would clearly be grotesque if the clause as it stands prevented the production of plays of classic importance, if they were supported by local authorities or if some local authorities interpreted the clause as meaning that public libraries should no longer stock, say, Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past", or many other works of fiction. There is a very long list of works of considerable literary merit which refer in some way, maybe only incidentally, to homosexuals.
I understand those who consider that the clause as it stands might be the thin end of the wedge. Surely, as was written in the Spectator this week, there are other abuses such as bestiality which local authorities should be forbidden to promote. I must admit that up to a point I quite like the Arts Council draft
886
amendment as moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Caithness will be able to add a reference to artistic and scientific publications perhaps when we come to the Report stage.
Finally, I shall certainly support the present amendment of my noble friend Lord Caithness which goes some way to meet my point, especially if he can assure me that anything serving a truly artistic, scientific or educational purpose will not be affected by this clause. I cannot ignore the hundreds of letters from people who have written to me. Nonetheless, I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Cox that there must clearly be a clause in the Bill taking into account the blatant promotion of homosexuality which has been going on for example in Haringey and Brent.
I have my doubts about this wording and the phrase "pretended family relationship". I think it is a mistake. I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that this was to be dropped from the amendment by the noble Viscount, and I certainly think it should be deleted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I intervene at this stage from the Dispatch Box not in any way to inhibit my noble friends from further intervention—nor anyone else who wishes to speak. I do so because I think we are in danger now of having a debate on clause stand part rather than the amendment which is before us. It is important that we should try our best to get back to that. These are different issues. It is not like the publicity issue which we were debating a couple of hours ago. There are different issues involved and further amendments which deserve debate before we come to the clause stand part debate. I should like to concentrate our attention on going back to the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
I have a particular reason for concentrating on this amendment rather than on the clause stand part debate because, as I made clear at Second Reading, I stand in a different capacity at this Dispatch Box when speaking to amendments. In other words, I hope to speak on behalf of my noble friends on this and other amendments rather than on clause stand part where I think it will be recognised that there is no question of a whip, and there will be a free vote as a matter of conscience.
The Earl of Longford: Perhaps I might intervene. I understood that there was no question of a whip on any of the amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope to expand on that matter in relation to this amendment and that what I say will be acceptable to my noble friend. The benefit of this amendment on which we ought to concentrate, as I see it, is that it deals quite comprehensively and effectively with what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, charmingly called the "infelicities" of the wording of the amendment. There are many things worse than "infelicities". The

887
words "promotion", "pretend" and "acceptability" are fundamental to the difficulties which we have with this clause. They have to be dealt with, clarified, if any sort of a clause on this subject is to be acceptable to Parliament and workable in the country.
I understand that the advice which the Government are receiving is that the word "promotion" refers specifically to proselytising activities, to attempt to persuade people to become homosexual. Apart from a deep doubt as to whether that is possible through any activities of a local authority—I have never known local authorities to be very effective in propaganda of that sort—there are equally strong and widespread legal opinions that it means nothing of the sort. It means a much wider form of promotion. This is the advice which has been given to the National Council for Civil Liberties, the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, the Arts Council of Great Britain and to many other organisations. If the Government believe that "promotion" means proselytising, then they should say so. They should take out the word "promotion" and insert the words "persuading anybody to become a homosexual", rather than the broader words which they have at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, rightly referred to the difficulty about the word "pretend". Is it just an old-fashioned way of saying a "claimed" relationship, or does it mean something else? Again, it is the responsibility of the Government, if they wish, to defend this clause. Their amendments indicate that they do wish to defend it not quite but virtually in its entirety. If so, then they must deal with this and make it understandable to ordinary people and to a consensus of lawyers.
Finally and perhaps worse, there is "acceptability" which immediately raises the question: acceptability to whom? Is it acceptability to pressure groups of the right or the left? Is it acceptability to libertarian pressure groups or authoritarian pressure groups? Is it acceptability to the man on the Clapham omnibus or acceptability to a primary school child? There is no indication of that anywhere in this clause. Until something is done about the word "acceptability" or until it is wiped off the face of the clause, it is difficult to see how this clause will have a coherent and useful effect.
The last word on these difficulties of terminology, in my view, was given by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, a year ago when they said that these words were capable of harmful misinterpretation, and that the Bill, which was proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was unnecessary. If that was true then, there has been no evidence whatsoever that it is untrue now. It is difficult to see why the Government are changing their mind.
There are specific advantages to these amendments which I should like to suggest make it worthy of support. The matter of literary, artistic, scientific and educational merit has already been canvassed; but I should like to refer to something which has not yet received any attention: treating or preventing the spread of disease. The Association of Metropolitan
888
Authorities wrote to the Minister on 5th January this year asking specific questions about the services of local authorities in relation to the spread of disease and dealing with AIDS. They asked whether, under the clause as it would be amended by the Government, it would still be possible for them to give aid to voluntary groups which sought to disseminate information about AIDS. They asked whether the word "treatment" of AIDS extended to the concept of care and counselling; in other words, help to those who might already be infected. They also asked whether the word "prevention" meant the aspect of prevention which is covered by sex education.
I understand today from the Minister of State's office that a reply is expected tomorrow. It is a great pity that there was no reply available in time for the debate this evening because clearly it is of great importance to our understanding of the responsibilities and rights of local authorities that we and they should know whether the valuable work which they do at the moment to combat the spread of AIDS will still be possible if this clause goes through without substantial amendment.
Coming back to the the issue of the promotion of homosexuality, I think that there will be a general consensus in the Committee with remarks that have been made on all sides about the dangers, particularly in schools, of some publications which have been referred to. I do not think that they have been as widely used as has been suggested; but there is no doubt that they are there, and there is no doubt that there are individuals and groups of individuals—although there is doubt about whether there are authorities—who would like to see their wider use. That has been the starting point for the campaign which has been carried on in support of previous legislation and in support now of this amendment.
I suggest that the activities even of the gay and lesbian groups in local authorities are overwhelmingly not of that character and overwhelmingly of a quite different character. It is confirmed by the National Council of Voluntary Organisations that on the whole they seek to attempt to diminish fear on the part of those who find themselves to be homosexual. They seek to counter discrimination against homosexuals; they seek to break down the barriers in ordinary life which exist between homosexuals and heterosexuals; they seek to make life better for homosexuals. That does not mean encouraging promiscuity or encouraging proselytisation. It just means encouraging homosexuals to have a decent, ordinary and acceptable life. They seek above all to help homosexuals to contribute to society in the work that they do; in the arts that they can contribute to society; in the knowledge that they can give to society and in the work that can be done, particularly in the caring professions. In those respects, which are much more important in terms of the contribution that local authorities can make on this subject than any of the more damaging aspects that have been mentioned, I believe that the clause as amended would be preferable to the clause as unamended. I support the amendment.

889
I come to the issue which my noble friend Lord Longford referred to. I recognise that there are, among Members of my party, those who feel very strongly about homosexuality. They are strongly opposed to it and to any expression of homosexuality. They feel very strongly that we should not by amendment or by support of the original clause do anything to support homosexuality. I respect that view; but I hope that it is held by as few as possible of my noble friends.
The Earl of Longford: I may say that that view is not held by me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not go so far as to accuse my noble friend of that. However, I know that there are people who take that view. But what I would hope to persuade my noble friends, and what my recommendation would be with all the strength that I can give to it, is that this is a rational, a reasonable, a helpful and forward-looking amendment to the clause and that it deserves all the help it can get.
The Earl of Caithness: If I sense the mood of the Committee it might just be that 1 should say a few words at this stage.
This debate has become the focus of the great concern voiced in recent weeks about the effects of Clause 28 of this Bill on the activities of local authorities. These concerns have been ably summarised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in moving the amendment which stands in their names. The purpose of the Government amendment which we are also debating—and my main purpose here today—is to remove those concerns which we think are misguided.
Let me make it absolutely clear at the outset that the clause in no way imposes some form of discrimination against homosexuals. The Government are firmly opposed to all forms of discrimination. To listen to some of those who have spoken in public about the clause, the Committee might be forgiven for thinking that the clause would stop local authorities providing services to homosexuals, would stop local authorities helping groups that have homosexual members, and would stop local authorities having any books or works or art by anyone who might be thought to have been a homosexual—in short, one might think that the clause erected a Chinese wall between local authorities and homosexuals.
It is a familiar device to set up an Aunt Sally, pretend that it actually is one's opponent, and then knock it down. That is just what we are seeing here. I do not for a moment question the sincerity of those who have attacked the clause, but most of them are attacking a dummy which bears little or no relation to the clause as we have it before us. Full of sound and fury though their arguments may be (if the Committee will permit me a Shakespearean allusion in a debate that seems so concerned with the arts), those arguments are wide of the mark.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, (whom I am glad to see returning to his place) that the clause
890
would in no way prevent local authorities ensuring that parents or children have access to counselling services to provide help in an objective and helpful fashion. That is quite different from intentionally promoting homosexuality which is what the clause prohibits.
I first want to explain why in the Government's view there is no real difficulty with the clause as it stands. I shall then go on to set out why nevertheless we think that the clarificatory amendment that we have put down is justified. Thereafter it might be helpful to the Committee to demonstrate why we are not prepared to accept the amendment so clearly explained by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Finally, I shall comment on the other amendments that are also in this group.
Let me therefore start with the clause as it stands. Far from being introduced with unseemly haste, I would remind the Committee that only a year ago your Lordships passed a Bill whose operative part was identical to the clause we are now discussing. There was then scarcely a dissentient voice on the principle at stake and certainly no Division. It was then introduced in another place. Notice of the amendment was given well in advance of the debate. The new clause was not starred as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said that it might have been. It was taken on the last day of the sitting because new clauses are in another place. It was taken after all the amendments to the clauses in the Bill as introduced.
When this was tabled in another place, the Government took the view that this formulation, which had already been accepted by your Lordships, encapsulated well a satisfactory approach to the mischief. Let me to try to explain why. Some Members of the Committee are concerned about the vagueness of the word "promote". We do not think that this is justified. Language naturally has an "open texture". Words are coloured by their context. But we think that "promote" has a clear meaning. If one promotes something, one is deliberately doing something to give what is promoted a more favourable treatment, a more favourable status or wider acceptance, than other things or than that thing hitherto.
The Oxford English Dictionary and its supplement make this natural meaning of the word clear: to further the growth, development, progress or establishment of anything: to help forward a process or result; to further, advance, encourage; and in the context of advertising, to further the sale of an article. What promotion is concerned with is therefore all forms of activity designed to enhance the status of something. Thus in banning the promotion of homosexuality we think the promoters of this clause well encapsulated the range of activities for which local authorities should not be using the ratepayers' and taxpayers' money
I now turn to the question why the Government have decided to propose an amendment. I start from the point that we have always been clear that what is prohibited by this clause are those actions which are deliberately carried out by the authority for that purpose. This being so, it follows that no action

891
undertaken by a local authority for any purpose within the authority's powers, untainted by any intention of promoting homosexuality, would be prohibited by the clause.
From this it followed that there could be question of the clause affecting many of the examples that were cited as being likely to be upset by it. Local authorities have a duty to provide a comprehensive library service: provided that this, and this only, is what they intend to do, there can be no question of the clause inhibiting them from stocking any book that they think necessary for that purpose. Local authorities have power to provide entertainments. Provided that this, and this only, is what they are intending to do, there is no reason why the clause should inhibit them from staging plays by Joe Orton or Oscar Wilde. Local authorities have power to assist voluntary organisations providing public services. If they want to support a homosexual "help-line", provided that they do so on the same basis as they would support a similar facility for any other section of the community, the clause gives no reason why they should not do so.
Since this was the Government's view of the clause, there seemed no reason why we should not say so. We have therefore brought forward an Amendment (No. 116ZA) which makes it explicit that what we are banning is intentional promotion of homosexuality.
The second government amendment (No. 117A) is a necessary safeguard to this. It is not inconceivable that a local authority might claim that its intention was one thing, when any independent outside observer would be quite clear that this was just a sham and what it was really intending to do is to promote homosexuality. The second amendment in my name therefore makes it clear that the courts are not bound by any such sham claims, but can take the position of the independent outside observer and judge from what the authority does, as well as what it says, what its real intention is.
Having thus explained the attitude that underlies the Government's view of the clause and the Government amendments, I must now explain to the Committee why we cannot commend the amendment moved by the noble Lord—
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister before he moves to the next point. He is seeking to reassure the Committee about the nature of the clause as put forward and as he seeks now to amend it. I wish to ask him two specific questions concerning his reassurances. Is he saying to the Committee that if the clause in his amended form passes into law, we can be absolutely certain that as a consequence no book will have to be withdrawn from a library? Secondly, may we be assured that no teacher, librarian or other local authority employee who is explicitly homosexual will ipso facto be in danger of being fired from his or her post as a result of the clause being passed into law? Is the Minister able to give us those assurances?
7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: No. The book and the teacher to which the noble Lord has referred may promote, by various means, the homosexuality which the clause is designed to ban. If the book in question is part of a range of other books on the shelves of a library in a school or of a local library, those are facts to be considered by an appropriate authority at the time.
Having explained the attitude that underlies the Government's view of the clause, I shall explain why we cannot agree with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The first point to note about the amendment is that it does not apply across the whole range of local authority activity. It applies only to what they do in relation to teaching and publishing. All other activities remain unrestricted. We believe that that is unacceptable. Some of the most objectionable forms of action taken by local authorities have been where they are reported to have attached conditions intended to promote homosexuality to grants to voluntary organisations.
The second point to note is that the amendment would only prohibit material which has as its primary purpose the representation of homosexual acts or relationships as more acceptable than their heterosexual equivalents, or the representation of homosexual relationships as pretended family relationships. That again is very narrow. There are many other ways of promoting homosexuality, and those are all equally objectionable.
Thirdly, I say to my noble friend Lord Bessborough that even in the limited area it covers, the amendment provides a major loophole, as identified by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. It would exempt anything published in the bona fide belief that it serves or may serve a literary, artistic, scientific or educational purpose. I have little doubt that those local authorities which go in for that type of activity would have no difficulty in claiming that everything that they are doing is for an educational purpose. It would be argued that their purpose was clearly to re-educate the public to their way of thinking on homosexuality. Even in the limited way in which that is put forward, the amendment carries the seeds of its own destruction.
We recognise the thought that has gone into the amendment and the unimpeachable motives of those who support it. Neverthelss, we cannot commend it to the Committee, as we do not think that it in any way provides an answer to the mischief at which the clause is aimed.
Perhaps I may turn now to the manuscript amendment of my noble friend Lady Cox. My initial reaction is one of concern at the use of the word "permit" in the amendment. That implies that local authorities have direct control over the content of sex education given in maintained schools. My noble friend is well aware that they do not. The Committee will be aware that Section 18 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 provided for control to pass from local education authorities to the governors of schools. Therefore, the most that they can do now is to influence what goes on in sex education in schools.

893
However, I should like to take the amendment away for futher consideration between now and a later stage of the Bill. I should also like to consider some of the points which my noble friend raised concerning the original drafting.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, proposed a reformulation in his Amendment No. 116A of the exemption in subsection (2) for actions undertaken for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease. We believe that care, counselling and health education in relation to AIDS or other diseases are fully covered by the present formulation in subsection (2), as are all other activities concerned with the treatment and prevention of disease. We feel that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is rather narrower than the provision in the Bill. Therefore, we should be reluctant to accept it, as we think that the wider basis is right.
Turning to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, the reason that the clause deals only with local authorities is that local authorities are the only class where there is evidence that public funds are being used to promote homosexuality. However, 1 take his point. Should further examples occur, that will be a matter on which my right honourable friend will have to decide.
Some Members of the Committee have said that the Government have changed their minds on the matter. I wish to make it absolutely clear that we have not changed our minds. If Members of the Committee will read what was said at an earlier stage, they will see that our view has been entirely consistent throughout. My noble friend made it clear that the Government entirely support the purpose of the Bill proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. That purpose is the same as that of the clause which we are now debating.
Anyone who has seen the books and materials put out by what I must admit is a limited number of local authorities, aimed primarily at children, will realise that something had to be done. I am sure that it is for that reason that the Opposition spokesman in another place put out a press notice which said:
"It is not and never has been the duty or responsibility of a local authority to promote homosexuality. The Labour Party does not believe that councils should promote homosexuality".
Nor do we.
To sum up, the Government consider that the fears that have been expressed about this clause are misplaced. It is in no way intended as part of some campaign against homosexuals. It is a modest and necessary measure to restrain the activities of some local authorities which have gone too far.
Lord Annan: Even the charm of the Minister cannot persuade me that it is necessary to do this. The Government remind me of a pompous headmaster who keeps the whole school in after lessons because some "oiks" have flicked bread pellets at him during assembly. The oiks in this case are the militants in the so-called gay liberation movement. What they want is a first-class row. They then want to parade their self-righteousness. Why oblige them? The militants do not represent homosexuals any more than the student union activists used to represent students.
894
Homosexual men and women ask to be left to live their own lives. They ask not to be harrassed by the police or by their fellow citizens. They ask not to be denied opportunities which are open to their fellow citizens.
By introducing Clause 28, I think that the Government are playing into the hands of the militants. I put it to the Minister that the clause exhibits something which in society as a whole will be interpreted by many people as nasty and illiberal. In recent months the Government have shown themselves far too ready to get into a huff. For instance, they did so with the universities over free speech on campus. They introduced a clause which will probably restrict freedom of speech. I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on that matter because, I regret to say, the universities had disregarded a specific plea by the Secretary of State and showed themselves impervious to public opinion. Those disturbances had gone on for years. Still the universities refused to put their disciplinary procedures in order.
However, in this case, can the Government point to a single child who has been corrupted by the literature in question? How many local authorities have voted to disseminate that literature? I must press the Minister. I believe that the number is six authorities out of 1,500. I believe that outside London this debate would be regarded as almost unintelligible.
The Government should let public opinion work for them instead of working against them as it is now. I received a letter from a Conservative councillor in Haringey, who said that the campaign that he and others had mounted against these offensive books had stopped the militants in their tracks, and that no homosexual books were being peddled in Haringey. I quote from his letter:
"It would be far better to leave the matter alone and trust the electorate to throw out ill judged council policies".
Is it not possible that one of the reasons why ILEA got rid of Mrs. Frances Morrell was that public opinion was fed up with her activities? Where the welfare of children is concerned public opinion is not slow to form.
Let me turn for one moment to the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Campbell of Alloway, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and reply to the question whether this measure is likely to stop serious literature from being disseminated in schools. Obviously the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, thought that that was a purely specious argument. When he said that I recalled what happened when the obscenity Act of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was passed. If ever there was a book which that Act was meant to protect, it was a book such as D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover. What happened? Directly Penguin published it, the Director of Public Prosecutions brought a prosecution. Penguin were very well-to-do, and I am glad to say that as a result of that prosecution became even better-to-do.
However, local authorities and individual theatre companies, and other ventures even less, would not dare to defend an action if it were brought against them. Where the arts are concerned, I am bound to

895
say to the noble Earl that I never trust the establishment—I never trust the judiciary, the police or the Home Office, all of whom can be relied upon to take an illiberal line.
I made my maiden speech in this Chamber on the subject of one of the late Lord Arran's Bills to end homosexuality remaining a criminal offence in all situations. Nothing that has happened since has made me change my view—not AIDS, not the offensive propaganda directed against the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the incidents that have led to this clause being put forward, and not even the abduction of that enchanting word "gay" that brightens so many lines of poetry. None of those things has made me change my views.
The Arran/Abse Act was a victory for justice, liberty and tolerance. I am afraid that the Government are falling into the American habit, whenever a mischief is discovered of saying, "There ought to be a law against it". Let public opinion do the job and do not overlegislate. I beg the Government to think again and not to create a loophole for busybodies, humbugs and vindictive queer-bashers.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I do not wish to prolong this debate, because I know that the hour is late. However, the matter is of enormous importance and I should like to make one or two comments on what the Minister has said and to bring the Committee back to the points which were made on the form of the clause. In my submission, that is extremely dangerous and I do not think that many Members of the Committee on the Benches opposite realise the extent of this clause in the form in which it is presently drafted.
It gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Earl Lord Bessborough, whose balanced speech, it seems to me, gives the general feeling of the Committee in its heart of hearts. I speak as someone whose has had something to do with the arts and with the law and whose favourite client was Lady Chatterley's Lover. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for having mentioned that book just now.
I take my stand on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in the debate on 18th December (although the noble Earl has just said that the Government have not changed their view) when he said:
"The distinction between a balanced approach to teaching about homosexuality and promotion cannot be drawn sufficiently clearly in legislation so as to avoid misrepresentation. That is a risk that we cannot take".
Those were wise words and I shall take my stand on that. I have heard nothing from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to show that the noble Lord was not absolutely right in saying that. I must say that I am astonished to hear the noble Earl sweep aside the opposition to this clause. To use his phrase, it is easy to set up an Aunt Sally with a great deal of sound and fury and knock it down as a camouflage of one's real views.
896
Is the noble Earl saying that Sir William Rees-Mogg, Lord Olivier or the Chairman of Faber and Faber have all been setting up an Aunt Sally in order to knock it down to camouflage the truth of the matter? When Sir William Rees-Mogg went to see the Minister for the Arts, did he go there to put up an Aunt Sally so that it could be knocked down when he was really trying to save the face of all the homosexuals in this country? Or was and is there nothing in the argument which has been put forward by a host of responsible people advised by distinguished Queen's Counsel, as is the Arts Council, as to the dangers of the breadth of the clause as it is drafted?
As a lawyer, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the drafting of this clause is simply not tenable. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that we were dealing with children, but one of the dangers of the clause is that we are not dealing with children. If we were dealing only with children, as limited by the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, I would ask the Committee to support the amendment, but we are dealing here with promoting homosexuality—finish. Promoting homosexuality has nothing to do with children. The words "promote homosexuality" are at the beginning of the clause. It is an impossibly imprecise concept to put in an Act of Parliament, especially when the noble Earl's new amendment—which incidentally is the sixth attempt—says that inferences can be drawn from facts exactly as anyone sees fit.
Homosexuality means having a propensity for persons of one's own sex. It can include anything across the whole range of human relationships between simple affection and homosexual acts. There is no choice in this matter. It is genetically determined. As the Wolfenden Report said, homosexuality exists among all callings and at all levels of society from those of the highest intelligence to the dullest oaf. One cannot promote a propensity. In using these words the clause is wide open to every form of interpretation.
It provokes the sort of argument that one will find in courts and, long before the matter gets to the court, in local authority and council chambers. As the noble Earl says, "promoting" means to help forward, to enhance, to give more favourable treatment. However, before one comes to what "promotion" means one has to start from somewhere. From which point are your promoting? If you are someone who takes the view that homosexuality is not acceptable, that homosexual relationships cannot be as true as heterosexual relationships, and if you, as a local authority, support counselling organisations, agencies, homosexual lifelines, and so on, you are raising the basis of the view of those people about homosexuality. You are in fact promoting homosexuality from the level at which it is being considered.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may expedite matters. I take it that this is an interruption and that the noble Lord has not finished. Can he tell us whether he is advocating one of the amendments on the Marshalled List or speaking against the question that the clause stand part?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: If the noble Lord will look at Amendment No. 114, it starts,
"leave out lines 17 to 29".
If the Committee is to consider this amendment, the first decision which we have to reach is this. Are we to leave out lines 17 to 29? If we are, and there are good reasons and good arguments for doing so, then is what is on the Marshalled List in Amendment No. 114 a correct and good substitute?
I may be corrected—my experience is much less than that of the noble Lord—but is it not in order to point out the reasons for leaving out (a), (b) and (c) in this clause as it is drafted? If it is not, then I shall not continue to say any more about it.
Lord Elton: I had no wish to stop the noble Lord. He has now made it clear that he is addressing this aspect of the Bill in order to advocate an amendment. He had not got around to doing it; I thought that it would help if he did so.
The Viscount of Falkland: It is probable that millions of people are watching us tonight. It is absolutely essential that we get this provision right. In our admirable debate we have shown that there are fatal flaws here which will put in jeopardy the peaceful and productive lives of many people. We have had some very eloquent speeches, in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Annan. We, on these Benches, do not have a Whip on this issue. We are voting with our consciences. I cannot understand why others are doing otherwise. The prayer from the High Court of Parliament, has a phrase which says,
"setting aside all partial affections".
I think that this is the kind of moral issue where we ought to have just that phrase in mind. We have put forward arguments to show that my amendment is an enormous improvement. Bearing that in mind, I should like to test the mood of the Committee.
7.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 114) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 166.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Alport, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Amherst, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Annan, L.

David, B.

Ardwick, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Avebury, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Barnett, L.

Basnett, L.

Diamond, L.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Birkett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ennals, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Falkender, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Canterbury, Abp.

Ferrier, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Feversham, L.

Carter, L.

Foot, L.

898

Gallacher, L.

Molloy, L.

Gifford, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Grey, E.

Mountevans, L.

Hampton, L.

Nicol, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peston, L.

Hayter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rea, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hughes, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hunt, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Seear, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Seebohm, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Serota, B.

Jeger, B.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Soper, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Killearn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kissin, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lawrence, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Listowel, E.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McCarthy, L.

White, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Willis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

McNair, L.

Mayhew, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Melchett, L.

Milford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Croft, L.

Arran, E.

Cross, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Deedes, L.

Attlee, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Barber, L.

Dundee, E.

Bauer, L.

Elibank, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elles, B.

Bellwin, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Beloff, L.

Faithfull, B.

Belstead, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Blatch, B.

Fitt, L.

Blyth, L.

Foley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Fortescue, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Bramall, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Goold, L.

Butterworth, L.

Grantchester, L.

Caithness, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Caldecote, V.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Greenway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Carnock, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Chelmer, L.

Halsbury, E.

Chelwood, L.

Hanworth, V.

Coleraine, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Havers, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Henley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hertford, M.

Cox, B.

Hesketh, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hives, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

899

Hood, V.

Reay, L.

Hooper, B.

Rees, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Renwick, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Rodney, L.

Kearton, L.

Romney, E.

Kimball, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sandford, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Savile, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Selkirk, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Shannon, E.

Long, V.

Sherfield, L.

Lurgan, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Slim, V.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Manton, L.

Southborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Strange, B.

Marley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Merrivale, L.

Suffield, L.

Mersey, V.

Swinfen, L.

Milverton, L.

Terrington, L.

Moran, L.

Teviot, L.

Morris, L.

Teynham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mountgarrel, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Munster, E.

Trafford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nelson, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Norfolk, D.

Waldegrave, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Onslow, E.

Westbury, L.

Orkney, E.

Whaddon, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Windlesham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wise, L.

Pender, L.

Wolfson, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Porritt, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Before the House is resumed, will the noble Lord indicate that we shall not return to the business on the Local Government Bill until half past eight.
Lord Hesketh: Yes, not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill
7.36 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Broads Authority.]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendments No. 1
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2—it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to both at the same time—is to increase the number of appointments made by the Nature Conservancy Council from one, as is currently provided in the Bill, to two. This would put the Nature Conservancy Council's representation on the same footing as that of the Countryside Commission in that it can appoint two members. By reducing the number of appointees made by the Secretary of State from nine to eight, the size of the authority with 35 members—which many believe is already very large—will remain unchanged. The local authorities will retain a majority of 18 representatives.
The balance of membership proposed for the authority is, as it should be, in favour of democratically elected representatives. The Nature Conservancy Council is the statutory body with specific duties to provide advice on conservation matters. Given the high scientific and conservation element in the Broads Authority's responsibilities, it seems essential that the Nature Conservancy Council should be properly represented. I am aware that on the existing Broads authority there was no representative of the Nature Conservancy Council. However, we are now talking about a body with much wider powers and with a wider representation than the old authority. It seems proper that the Nature Conservancy Council should increase its representation to equal that of the Countryside Commission. The Nature Conservancy Council in its submission to the Select Committee said that it would welcome any further membership facility, though it did say that that should not be at the expense of the Countryside Commission. We do not propose that it will be at the expense of the Countryside Commission. I beg to move.
Lord Harvington: I rise to oppose the noble Baroness. I do not like doing so because I agree with her on so many issues. In proposing the amendment, however, she has the whole thing wrong. If she reads the Second Reading debate, she will see that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—I shall not worry the Committee with the exact quotation but it is at col. 27 if anyone is interested—made it clear that she supported the Bill as it was and that it could not be improved in the way I believe the noble Baroness had in mind. The words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, form a very good reason for not accepting the amendment.
At the time my noble friend Lord Ferrers made a very important speech on this matter. He was quite firm in saying that it was much better to leave the Bill as it stood and not to try to amend it, as the noble Baroness now seeks to do. Later, the Lord Privy Seal, then speaking as the Minister in charge of the Bill for the Government, made matters abundantly clear by saying that it had taken 40 years to achieve the amount of agreement which had been reached on the Bill as it stood with all the interests, of which there are

901
so many, which come under the wing of the local authorities and with the boating interests and so on. They have at last come to an agreement. If we accept an amendment such as this, we throw the whole matter into the boiling pot again. Perhaps it becomes a hybrid Bill, in which case the Examiners will have to look at it to decide whether it should go to a Committee of the House again. An interminable time would be wasted by accepting an amendment such as the noble Baroness suggests.
I do beg the noble Baroness not to press my noble friend to accept the amendment. I hope that she is looking for some further clarification. I am quite sure that the questions of conservation that she and I share will be adequately looked after by the new body which the Bill seeks to set up. I hope that the mere fact that all the interests concerned have agreed that this indeed is the case will weigh with her; and I hope that she will not press her amendment.
Lord Hunt: I should like to support the noble Baroness's amendment. I support all four of her amendments, but we are talking about Amendment No. 1.
In response to the noble Earl who has just spoken, I for one do not yet know what the noble Baroness's intentions are about dividing the House on this matter. I think it should at least be discussed.
I am in favour of Amendment No. 1 because it is self-evident that there must be adequate representation. There must be adequate voices who will make themselves heard on the Broads Authority and who are knowledgeable about and have experience in the particular characteristics in regard to conservation and nature conservancy in that authority. This tends to redress the imbalance and the insufficiency of those voices, bearing in mind that that authority is heavily represented by local land-owning interests no doubt in the local government representation and commercial interests. Even if, as I hope, the Government were to see fit to accept the noble Baroness's amendment (No. 4) I still feel that it is most important in the case of the Broads, which has very particular and fragile conservation characteristics, that there should be adequate representation of what I regard as the priority of setting up the Broads Authority.
Lord Renton: At first sight, I was tempted to think that a body of such importance as the Nature Conservancy Council should have two members rather than one, if only for the reason that if one member is ill they will not be represented in the discussion at all. That could be a misfortune. On the other hand, the Nature Conservancy Council has many demands upon its membership. If it is to be an established principle that they are to have two representatives on every important conservation body, then their resources so far as concerns the members of the council would be somewhat strained.
I missed the first two minutes, I am sorry to say, of the noble Baroness's speech when moving the amendment; but I wonder whether I may ask if the Nature Conservancy Council have expressed views about this or not. I should like also to seek
902
clarification from my noble friend Lord Harvington. He said that all the interests concerned have agreed the composition of the Boards Authority, as set out here. May I ask whether the Nature Conservancy Council was one of the interested parties which took part in that discussion?
Lord Harvington: I am not absolutely sure whether the conservancy council took part itself, but its interests were definitely very much represented. The whole idea was to have everybody on a level so that no one could veto a common decision and say, "That is not the decision we want; we want this". I think we can safely say that those with, for example, navigational interests, whose livelihood depends on keeping everything beautiful and as we would like to see it, will take great care to see that for their part the things which the noble Baroness wishes to see done will indeed be done.
Baroness Nicol: I think I should have spoken to Amendment No. 3 with these two amendments, because one cannot divide them. If I may, I will say just a little more.
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the Nature Conservancy Council said that they would welcome additional membership provided it was not at the expense of the Countryside Commission. The question of alternates was one which I intended putting to the Minister. I too was concerned that if one member of the Nature Conservancy Council should fall ill, there would not be a representative there. Although I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about their strained resources, the fact that they have two members appointed to it does not necessarily mean that those two members need to be there every time. It does mean that they have a better chance of seeing that one of their members is there. That is a another reason for doing it.
Amendment No. 3 would not alter the size of the authority. It still remains at 35 members. It would be on a par with provisions contained in Clauses 1(5) and (6) which provide for consultation with voting and land-owning interests. My feeling is that the membership as presently constituted and the requirements of the Secretary of State in regard to voting and land-owning interests does in fact tip the scales in favour of those interests at the moment, leaving conservation interests a little light.
The Minister, Mr. Moynihan, said in the Standing Committee in another place on 16th July 1987, (col. 56):
"The composition of the Authority is the key. It should allow conservation issues to be well aired by specialists from a wide range of conservation bodies."
How true that is! It is obviously the intention of the Minister that this should be so. It has been repeated by other Ministers on other occasions. The Bill as drafted does not provide for this. Unless the present and future Secretaries of State are required to consult with voluntary conservation bodies and amenity bodies on a proportion of the appointments of the Secretary of State, it is difficult to see how the Minister's very worthy aims will be fulfilled.
As we know all too well, Secretaries of State can change. We have had quite a number of Secretaries of

903
State and Ministers for the Environment in the past few years. Members of the authority will also change. There is a kind of euphoria at the moment and everybody wants to make it work, but that could change. I think it is much safer to make sure that all interests are properly represented in the membership as shown on the Bill.
I apologise for taking up so much time. I think I have now filled all the gaps.
Lord Melchett: I very strongly support my noble friend's three amendments. I think it is worth bearing in mind that this Bill was introduced because of widespread and long-standing concern about the deterioration in the conservation and amenity interests of the Norfolk Broads. It was not introduced because of concern about navigation or concern for some other interest such as agriculture in that area. It was introduced because of concern at the appalling loss of wildlife and loss of the natural beauty of the area. For that reason, the setting up of the Broads Authority has been welcomed by amenity and wildlife conservation interests.
It is hard to conceive of any other major national interests in this country which would accept a body, set up for those reasons, having such a small representation directly from it of three people. It seems to me that the extraordinarily complex ecology of the Norfolk Broads is still very poorly understood. Certainly measures to reverse the damage that had been done are still in the experimental stage. It would be extremely useful to have two people with the scientific and ecological knowledge which Nature Conservancy Council appointees would bring. I do not accept for one moment the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this might stretch the Nature Conservancy Council. It is a major national organisation with representatives and regional offices all over the country, including one with a number of senior staff in Norwich.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will know, there are many national parks with representatives from many interests. The Norfolk Broads will be the only equivalent of a national park to have been established because of the ecological deterioration being suffered by that area. It is unique and it is absurd that there should be only two representatives of the NCC on its managing committee, let alone one.
I should like to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harvington. For the life of me, I cannot see how my noble friend's amendment could possibly introduce into the Bill any question of hybridity. That may be claimed to arise—wrongly, in my view—in respect of a later amendment but certainly not in relation to these amendments. For the noble Lord to suggest that the Bill is incapable of improvement by Parliament is a novel constitutional doctrine and would make the Bill unique in the annals of parliamentary democracy. I am quite sure that it is not that—
Lord Harvington: I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting him. I did not mean that Parliament could not try to intervene. I meant that it would be impossible to obtain agreement between the many
904
parties concerned, from which agreement has been obtained, if we do not accept it as it is now.
Lord Melchett: If I may say so, the noble Lord is wrong for a third time. There is no agreement among all the parties involved as regards the composition of the Broads Authority. As far as I am aware, widespread concern has been expressed by all the voluntary wildlife and amenity organisations both about the composition of the Broads Authority as proposed in the Bill and the way in which the Broads Authority's duties are set out. If it were not for the grave problems that have existed for many years in the Broads I daresay that some organisations would be opposing the Bill for those reasons. There is no agreement.
The Norfolk Naturalists' Trust, of which I am a member, is horrified by the lack of representation of nature conservation interests on the Broads Authority. That trust owns a large area of the Broads; probably the largest area owned by any single landowner. It is very concerned about this matter. As it stands, it is not a consensus measure. I believe that my noble friend's amendments will help to move it in that direction and I support them.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the Committee is in danger of assuming that the appointees from, for example, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission are the only people on the newly appointed Broads Authority with conservation interests. When I first became involved with the Bill I was particularly impressed with the interests of Norfolk County Council as regards the problems set out by the noble Lord. It was concerned about the loss of wildlife and it was particularly concerned about the state of the Broads. Because of that it initiated the former Bill and that is why it is anxious to see this Bill through. Rather than being concerned specifically with the Nature Conservancy Council or the Countryside Commission, we should be concerned about the conservation of the Broads. When the Bill passes through this House we must make sure that the issue of conservation is well and truly recognised in this document.
We have debated at length the difficulty of giving conservation primacy, because there is a balance of interests which must be recognised in the Bill when it is passed. Therefore I do not join with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in her concern—probably her suspicion—that the interests of conservation are not properly protected. I believe that they will be properly protected and that we shall find ourselves with a body of people which has a vested interest in seeing that the Broads flourish as a most beautiful and protected part of our country. I believe that the Bill will provide that.
We could spend a great deal of time thwarting the progress of the Bill by arguing about composition. I believe that there has been a high degree of consensus, although I am not sure whether it has been absolute. However, speaking with representatives who have visited the House during the course of the Bill, with the exception of the Sandford principle which we shall discuss later, I have been impressed with the degree of consensus that there has been about the way in which the Bill has been put together.
Lord Hesketh: When my noble friend introduced this Bill at Second Reading in your Lordships' House he particularly stressed the balance that we had sought to strike in the Bill between the various interests that have been so vividly described this evening and which have a part to play in the future conservation of the Broads for all to enjoy. He said to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol:
"the balance struck in Clause 1 is as near to a very good balance as one can hope to achieve."—[Official Report, 16/11/87; col. 34.]
Nothing that the noble Baroness has said in moving these amendments—which have already been extensively considered and rejected in another place—leads me to take a different view from that of my noble friend.
I believe that my noble friend Lady Blatch made a telling remark, which was that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, tended to indicate that only the voluntary conservationists were interested in conservation in the Broads. That is patently untrue. In every part of this country one meets landowners, farmers and people with boating interests who are equally keen on the preservation of the great and beautiful things in this land of ours.
The effect of these amendments, which the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Melchett, urged strongly on the Committee, would be to alter radically and drastically the balance which the Government have sought to strike between the various legitimate interests in the membership of the proposed new authority. These amendments would double the representation of conservation and amenity interests; and they would, moreover, leave my right honourable friend with only one, single, un-earmarked appointment to represent other interests which are given no assured representation in the Bill—angling, tourism and land drainage, for example.
The question was raised as regards what would happen if one member of the NCC was ill and unable to attend. I have mentioned people who have no guarantee of a single seat. For those reasons alone I urge Members of the Committee not to listen to the siren voice of the noble Baroness. But I must also draw the Committee's attention to the recent decision of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House which considered, but declined to make, an amendment to Clause 2 which would have unreasonably tipped the balance struck in the Bill as now drafted in favour of nature conservation at the expense of the other equally important interests which the authority will have a general duty to consider.
I put it to the Committee that amending Clause 1 of the Bill in the way proposed by these amendments is no more and no less than another way of achieving the result which the Select Committee has ruled against.
I should like to explain briefly to the Committee the reasons why we believe that Clause 1 strikes as near a perfect balance as can be struck. Briefly, Clause 1 provides that the authority will have 35 members in all, giving the eight local authorities a bare majority of 18 and leaving 17 places to be filled by others. On national parks
906
authorities two-thirds of members are appointed by the local authorities and one third by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. No appointments are made by other bodies. We decided that we should follow the national parks precedent in relation to appointments by my right honourable friend, and the Bill therefore provides for him to appoint nine members; one-half the number appointed by the local authorities.
We decided that the remaining eight places should represent interests that are vitally involved in the Broads. Six of these places are therefore allocated to statutory bodies having special interests in the functions to be performed by the new authority. The remaining two are to be appointed by the authority itself from the outside members of its navigation committee—one of whom, and probably (but not certainly) the other, will represent boating interests.
Clause 1 makes two further provisions to ensure that the membership adequately reflects the various interests. First, Clause 1(5) provides that at least three of the members appointed by my right honourable friend will be appointed after consultation with boating interests.
Secondly, Clause 1(6) provides that a further two of the appointments made by my right honourable friend are made after consulation with farming and landowning interests.
Lord Melchett: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question in relation to that matter. Earlier in his speech he said that one of the interests which would not be represented along with angling was land management. How can that be if the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association are to be asked to recommend two people to the authority?
Lord Hesketh: I did not say "land management"; I said "land drainage".
This is not a provision that the Government made. We have always recognised that farming and landowning interests would need to be represented, but would have preferred that this—like the representation of other interests I have already mentioned—should be left to my right honourable friend's discretion.
This provision was one made by the Select Committee in another place which carefully considered all the arguments put to it over nine sittings. The Government have therefore accepted its judgment. That Select Committee also considered the case for making the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, but declined to make them.
I remind the Committee of the Select Committee's final verdict:
"We believe that the Bill as we have amended it represents a fair balance between the many conflicting interests".
Provision is already made in the Bill for three members to be appointed to represent conservation and amenity interests—two appointed by the Countryside Commission, and, as my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned, one by the Nature Conservancy Council.
The Committee should perhaps be aware that the NCC is not directly represented on the existing non

907
statutory Broads authority. In framing our Bill we decided that the NCC ought to have direct representation, but we could only make room for this appointment by taking away one of the three appointments that had originally been proposed for the commission in Norfolk's Private Bill. The commission accepted this reduction because it recognised that allocating an additional appointment to represent nature conservation interests would unbalance the overall membership arrangements and would destroy the two-thirds to one-third ratio between local and national appointments.
Those remain insuperable objections to the first two of the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness. Moreover, I cannot in any way accept the argument she has urged that the NCC must have parity with the Countryside Commission. The role of the NCC, though very important, is relatively narrow. It cannot be equated with that of the Countryside Commission, which we expect to perform the same wide-ranging sponsorship role in relation to the Broads as it does in relation to all the national parks.
The third amendment would go even further than the first two in favouring nature conservation and amenity interests at the expense of others, and thus destroy the careful balance now struck in the Bill. The combined effect of these amendments would be to double the assured representation of these interests, weighting these interests above those of any other interest. It would deny my right honourable friend any scope for appointing members to represent other legitimate interests.
I suggest to the noble Baroness that the result she seeks to achieve by her amendments could not provide the proper basis for co-operation and mutual understanding between the many interests which must work together for the future of the Broads—an objective which I am certain we both share. I hope therefore that she will not press her amendments. But, if she does, I must ask the Committee most earnestly to reject them.
Lord Renton: I am sorry to have to trouble my noble friend, but he has continually talked about a fair balance and he has told the Committee that there will be 35 members of the authority altogether. He has also told the Committee that there will be three representatives of conservation interest; namely, two from the Countryside Commission and one from the Nature Conservancy Council. That is three out of 35. If he looks at Clause 2(1)(a), he will find there that the first named (and I should have thought the principal) general duty of the authority is conservation—conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads.
If noble Lord uses his great mind and his concept of a fair balance, is he really going to say that by having two members of the Nature Conservancy Council plus two out of what will become eight members appointed by the Secretary of State, he is upsetting the fair balance between conservation and other interests? The arithmetic of the matter simply does not support him. I am sorry—he is a noble friend and I have always been happy to support all
908
Members of my Front Bench whenever possible—but on this occasion I think he has been, if I may say so, wrongly advised.
Lord Melchett: I am sorry that I misheard the noble Lord earlier, but his reference to land drainage not being represented does not help me very much because some land drainage interests will be represented by the person appointed by the Anglian Water Authority, which has statutory responsibility for most aspects of land drainage in this area as in others.
I should like to add one point to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It seems to me that the special expertise which will be brought to the Broads Authority by the Nature Conservancy Council representative is not just a concern for wildlife or concern for the conservation of the Broads. As the noble Baroness opposite said, that is a concern that is going to be shared by, one hopes, all the representatives of the local authorities in the area which have in recent years, after a great deal of prompting by voluntary conservation organisations, not to say a long-running militant campaign by voluntary conservation organisations, taken this cause to their hearts and are supporting the Bill.
However, the particular expertise which local authority members are unlikely to have is the scientific expertise to deal with some of the very serious ecological problems from which this area suffers. Those are difficult, technical questions to which we do not yet know all the answers. Various experiments are under way but none of them has proved wholly successful. It seems to me that there is an argument for saying that that scientific expertise should be adequately represented on the authority. I do not believe one person will do that, even if he manages to turn up at every single meeting.
Lord Trafford: It seems to me that this Bill has been brought before this Committee with a long history of negotiation between a large number of authorities, all of whom for different reasons have generally the same objective in mind; namely, to produce an authority that could cover the variety of functions laid out under Clause 2(1)(a), (b) and (c), which are the three main agreed functions of this Bill.
I am always uncomfortable in disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, a large number of the members of the county council who have themselves, as he well knows, promoted the previous Bill and are interested and very concerned about this Bill, will be interested in this aspect. For that reason, I suggest that the noble Lord's mathematics may not be absolutely right.
Lord Renton: They certainly are.
Lord Trafford: If the noble Lord is suggesting that only three out of 35 will be interested in conservation, then he is almost certainly wrong because it is most unlikely that, for example, the 18 members appointed by the local authorities or indeed the nine, under the present Bill, appointed by the Secretary of State, would also be totally uninterested in this.

909
One of the features of the Bill is that to obtain agreement, a balance always has to be kept. Throughout the arguments both in another place and here, a great deal of effort was devoted—mainly by the conservationists' lobby—to try to obtain a primacy for conservation in this particular Bill which would have led to the others probably withdrawing from this situation. It is for that reason that the best balance that we can achieve may have been achieved, where everybody can go forward and make this a great success. I share entirely the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness that it is desperately important that conservation is carried out properly and scientifically and that the Broads, which have seen such a desperate decline over recent years, are restored to their previous state. Because of those points, I personally could not support this amendment.
Lord Renton: Very briefly, as the noble Lord has challenged what I have said, I wonder whether I may point out two matters. First, my noble friend Lady Blatch—I have never disagreed with her before, and I have known her many years—is quite right, I am sure, in thinking that the present members of Norfolk County Council are conservation minded. I am not disputing that. However, the composition of county councils changes.
We find that in Clause 2(1)(b) among the general duties of the authority is,
"promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public".
We may very well find, through a local government shift, the strong feeling that the public's enjoyment has not been adequately catered for, leading to a change of approach. We must have a degree of certainty here. The certainty under the Bill as it stands is that only three out of 35 will be specifically involved with conservation interests; others may or may not be. We must keep a sense of proportion. If the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness are accepted, instead of three out of 35 there will be six out of 35. It does not seem to me that that is going to upset the balance very much.
Baroness Blatch: It is with great trepidation that I rise possibly to counter a most respected friend, my noble friend Lord Renton. However, may I first say that there is no difference between any of us in the Committee about the importance of protecting this beautiful area of our land. Conservation is a very real issue.
If one assumes, for the hypothesis I am about to put, that all named authorities—the local government representatives and those who are not specifically mentioned as conservation organisations —are "other interests", then the unfairness is not on the side of conservation. The unfairness, if it exists—I do not argue that it does—is on the part of boating interests. Of those members who are not local authority members, we come down to two from the Countryside Commission, one from the Nature Conservancy Council, which gives three, and only two for boating interests and one for water. Then there are the Secretary of State's appointments.
I would need to possess the highest degree of suspicion to discount the fact that responsibility even
910
where there is a change of local authority members, will be on the board of governors or management authority to abide by this Bill. They are required by Clause 2 to give equal weight to conservation of the natural beauty of the Broads, promoting enjoyment and access by the public, which is also very important, and protecting the interests of navigation. We had a long debate about the balance of those interests and the fact that not one of those interests could be considered greater than the other. I believe that it will be a requirement of the body that its objective is to strike a balance and to conserve the beauty of the Broads along with full access for the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is concerned about expertise. I have sat on enough committees to know that it is not committees that necessarily bring the kind of technical expertise that is required. What is important is that the board has access to the technical and expert information that is required—with, of course, practical help. With the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council represented and also the conservation interests that some of the 18 members of local authorities inevitably will have, plus the Secretary of State's appointments, I believe that, in the end, conservation will probably win rather than merely have a balance.
Lord Melchett: Can the noble Baroness tell me why it is necessary to have three boating experts? Boating is a fairly technical subject, but not as technical as the ecology of the invertebrates and the fauna of some of the Broads. If her arguments were accepted there would be no interests represented on the authority at all.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I said boating, but I used the word loosely because the two people who will represent the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners will not necessarily be concerned only with boating. The condition of the waters, too, is a factor. Again, that is an aspect which has deteriorated over the years and about which there needs to be a management plan and a management concern. Therefore, I simply say that there are two specifically with water interests and port and haven interests and three with conservation interests.
Lord Melchett: I do not want to prolong the debate, but the noble Baroness has not looked at Clause 1(5) where the Secretary of State appoints three people from the boating interests.
Lord Hesketh: I feel that my noble friend Lord Trafford put his finger on the point because, to be perfectly honest, 1 am rather depressed by the discussion that has taken place. For 45 years we have been trying to get an Act on the statute book and the arguments I have heard in the past 10 minutes illustrate one of the reasons why we have not yet been able to do that.
Lord Renton: We are going to get this one.
Lord Hesketh: I am not sure that we are going to get it tonight, which we had hoped. The fact is that not only is the ecology a delicate balance. There is also a very delicate managerial balance representing the local authorities, the Secretary of State, scientific input, navigation, commercial, the pleasure of hundreds of thousands of people in this country who go to the Broads and many other interests besides.
I could seek to argue with my noble friend Lord Renton on whether there should be three, as I believe to be correct, or more, as he believes, representing conservationists. I believe that what we have in the Bill is an acceptable balance that is agreeable, perhaps not 100 per cent. to all parties but agreeable enough to achieve the aim of the Bill.
Baroness Nicol: Before I decide what to do with the amendment, can the Minister answer two questions? His noble friend sitting behind him indicated that there was a danger of hybridisation of the Bill if the amendment were to be accepted. Can the noble Lord confirm that? Secondly, can the noble Lord answer my question on alternates as regards the one member of the Nature Conservancy Council? I specifically asked that question earlier.
Lord Hesketh: As regards the point concerning the member of the Nature Conservancy Council being ill, if we applied that to any of the other bodies which have only one representative we would be back at square one. As regards hybridisation, I shall be coming to that later.
Baroness Nicol: I need to know about hybridisation in relation to this amendment.
Lord Harvington: Perhaps I may interrupt here. I should apologise to the noble Baroness. I believe I made the mistake. On reflection, and I should know from my long memory, I do not think hybridisation is involved.
Baroness Nicol: We are taking rather longer over this amendment than I expected. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that, yes, I am sure that many people who come from local authorities will be interested in conservation. I do not doubt that. However, that is not the point at issue. The point concerns what is actually written into the Bill now and for the possible future changes in local authorities. That is a danger we should guard against.
We are all aware that the real difficulty is a balance of interests and a possible clash of interests rather than finding a formula. We could all find a formula which would work if everyone was prepared to accept it. I have to say again that Minister after Minister says that the whole purpose of the Bill is to secure the long-term conservation of the Broads. Indeed, some Ministers have said that it is also to restore the Broads to what they were in the past, which is something a little more than simply conserving them as they are now. I do not feel that the composition which is being proposed will achieve that. I do not believe there is sufficient weight in favour of conservation interests. However, I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division this evening and
912
rather regretfully I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Conflict of interests.
.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 2(1) of this Act, where it appears to the Authority that there is, or is likely to arise, in connection with the discharge of the functions under section 2(1), irreconcilable conflict between the interests of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads, and either promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public, or protecting the interests of navigation, it shall give priority to the interests of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads.
(2) The Secretary of State shall prepare and issue (in such form and in such manner as he considers appropriate) guidance to the Authority for the purposes of subsection (1) above.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would introduce the Sandford principle, which is a recommendation of the National Park Policies Review Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I am glad to see the noble Lord in his place and I am sure that he will put me right if I say anything about it which is incorrect.
That committee reported in 1974 and the Secretaries of State in their reply to the report said:
"NPAs can do much to reconcile public enjoyment with the preservation of natural beauty by good planning and management and the main emphasis must continue to be on this approach wherever possible. But even so, there will be situations where the two purposes are irreconcilable. The Secretaries of State accept the Committee's view that where this happens priority must be given to the conservation of natural beauty and they will issue guidance to this effect to the NPAs. The Secretaries of State will consider further whether and if so, how, this guidance might be given statutory force".
It seems to me that in the discussions on the new Broads Authority there has been a great deal of comparison made with the national parks. Everyone says that it is a national park but with a difference. That difference seems to be the existence of a third force, if I may put it that way, and that is the navigation interests on the Broads.
The existence of this third force adds to the danger that one day there may be an irreconcilable conflict. I do not believe that these conflicts are inevitable and I do not think that, if they happen, they will happen often. In fact I am glad to be able to quote from the report of the Select Committee to this House. The representative of the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust said at page 27:
"I think it is actually important to say that the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust or any other conservation body and boating interests are not at each other's throats in the Broads the whole of the time which is what you are suggesting".
It was said in reply to a question. The representative went on to say:
"We do actually work quite closely together."
I am sure that this is true and I am sure that in the majority of cases any differences will be sorted out before the point of irreconcilable conflict is reached. But that day might come and if it does then I believe we need something like the Sandford solution. The very existence of the principle would itself reduce the possibility of conflict since there would be an understanding of the background to the Bill.
I have said before this evening and I say it again, that various Ministers have said over and over again that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure the long-term conservation of the Broads. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whom I am glad to see with us, said at Second Reading in this House at the very beginning of his speech:
"The basic purpose of this Bill is to establish new statutory arrangements whereby the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads can be conserved for all who value and treasure this unique area."—[Official Report, 16/11/87; col. 10.]
On the same occasion at col. 12 the noble Lord said:
"It is conservation problems that have dictated the need for this Bill, and conservation of the Broads for all to enjoy must surely be our ultimate objective."
He went on to say that we must do justice to all the other legitimate interests and so we must.
What we are saying is that these statements made by the Minister and by Ministers in another place and also by the Secretary of State himself have no power. Ministers change, authority members change and even governments change. Today's sweetness and light may not last. The inclusion of this clause would leave the stated intentions of the Government in no doubt and it would be there for future years when all the personalities now involved have gone.
The enjoyment of the Broads will be as important to future generations as it is today and we must find a way to ensure their long-term survival. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: The Committee raised the question of hybridity on the first three amendments where it did not arise, but on this amendment I am afraid that it does. It may be convenient if I explain to the Committee the procedure that will be followed if this amendment is agreed to. In my opinion this amendment raises a prima facie question of hybridity because it singles out for preferential treatment one of the three members of the class affected by Clause 2(1) of the Bill. If it is agreed to, in due course I shall have to table a Motion to refer the Bill to the Examiners.
Lord Renton: I hope that the noble Baroness will not to take too much time on this amendment. I was glad to support her on her previous amendments but I believe that she has a tremendous difficulty here in addition to the hybridity point, which could delay the passage of the Bill very much. Her difficulty is that if you have a relatively minor point of conservation, but a major point involving a major decision on (shall we say?) navigation, it would perhaps be an exercise of bad judgment for the Broads Authority to say "Oh no, we must have priority for conservation therefore the major navigation point must give way." That is why I think the amendment is quite unacceptable.
Lord Hunt: I shall not detain the Committee very long. I understand and appreciate what the Chairman of Committees has said. I appreciate entirely the hope and wish of the Government that there should be a balance of interests between the three purposes in Clause 2. I am very much aware of the generally happy and constructive way in which
914
the voluntary Broads authority has carried on its business hitherto. But we are not in a static situation; we are in a situation in which increasing pressures are going to arise. They are going to arise from the increasing demands, particularly from boating interests and the tourist industry associated with that, and from the navigational interests associated with boating. There will be increasing pressure from that side bearing adversely on the interest of conservation.
With respect, I slightly disagree here with the noble Baroness, but when conflicts arise in the future—even if they have not already arisen—the balance of interests will go by the board. There will be increasing pressure from the commercial and associated navigational interests.
The intention of the Bill is to give statutory authority to the voluntary nature of the authority which exists, and I shall regret it if we can get no further than placing on record the fact mentioned by the noble Baroness. That is, that there would not be this Bill and the intention behind it if it were not to create an authority whose purposes are analogous to those of the other national parks. If we forget that, and the Sandford principle attached to it, we are making a grave error for the future.
Lord Sandford: It is always gratifying to hear one's name mentioned in a debate like this, particularly when it is linked to a principle. When the noble Baroness opposite looks at me in that inviting way, I cannot but respond. She was perfectly correct in the first part of what she said because she was quoting from Circular 476, which gave the views of the Minister on the review which I undertook for the national parks. What she did not do was to go on to the next paragraph, which reads:
"Several of the comments on the report suggested that a third statutory purpose should be introduced; namely, the promotion of the social and economic wellbeing of the national park areas".
The comments on the report were quite extensive on that point. We did not go into them because it was not within the national park authority's terms of reference to pursue the social and economic well-being of national park areas. After we reported there was a strong body of opinion to the effect that it should have this role, but the Secretaries of State took another view. Since then, everyone has seen much more clearly that if the national park authority does not take a hand in promoting the social and economic well-being of the national park areas, there will not be the necessary economic pressures to promote any policy. That is why we have seen developments such as the uplands farm land experiment which was a way of promoting the economy of the uplands so that some of the purposes of conservation could be pursued.
There has been no statutory change but anyone who studies the present national park plans and compares them with the first generation of plans, which arose as a direct result of my report, and the administrative changes made at the same time, will see that conservation comes well to the fore. It cannot be a criticism of what is contained in the Bill that the Sandford principle—choosing between two functions of the national park; namely, conservation and access—did not pay any regard to the economic and

915
well-being of the areas concerned. It did not do so because it was not in the terms of reference. It is firmly in the Bill's terms of reference and it is right that it should be given some primacy. In my view, the Government have the balance right.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: I fear that I must to some extent disagree with my noble colleague Lord Hunt. I pay tribute to what environmentalists have achieved over the years. I have some sympathy with what the amendment seeks to achieve. There is however a grave danger of enthusiasm getting out of hand. Almost every major project has some unfortunate environmental aspects which must be balanced against the advantages or necessity of the project. To hand over, as the amendment does, and to weight the decision in favour of the environmentalists, I fear might lead to disaster. It is only too easy for enthusiasts to put forward an issue and push it to the ultimate. In that case, what happens? Priority would have to be given to them.
There is the further point that if we do this we are creating a precedent which would be highly unfortunate in a large number of other areas. Therefore, despite the sympathy that I have for the amendment, it must not go ahead.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to mention one point. I believe that by re-hybridising the Bill the real risk is that we shall lose it altogether. The chances of the Bill coming back through Parliament again are slim indeed, certainly in the foreseeable future. I should like, given that all things in the end are compromise, to plead with the noble Baroness not to press her amendment. I was sympathetic at the beginning because I hoped that outside the Bill a form of words could be found that would give people the impression that conservation was at least a real objective of the Government in passing the Bill. But I understand that once a Bill is enacted what counts is what is inside it and not what is outside it.
I believe that the risk is too great to press the amendment. I have two reasons for opposing the suggestion that the Sandford principle be built into the Bill. The first is that the irreconcilable conflict may not necessarily be between a conservation interest and another interest; it may be two different interests. What would happen in that case? Secondly, should the Sandford principle form part of the Bill, there is always the tendency not to agree because one knows that at the end of the line the Sandford principle at least guarantees a solution. I am in favour of people finding solutions themselves and of the board sitting down until a solution is found.
Given that the Bill's requirement is to balance interests and to ensure that no one issue has primacy over another, I hope that that will at least be some assurance and some guarantee that conservation will receive fair and equal consideration.
Lord Melchett: I shall say a brief word in support of my noble friend and ask the Government one question. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that to some extent we are having a debate
916
about concepts, and about words which are rather dated given the enormous changes that have taken place, for example, in agricultural policy.
There was seen to be a clear conflict of interests between the economic well-being of farmers and conservation in an area such as the Norfolk Broads. The Norfolk Broads were of course a forerunner of the environmentally sensitive areas. Most of the farmers in the area covered by the new authority are now making money by farming for conservation. Their economic interests are the same, at least in theory, and almost always in practice as the interests of conservationists.
Trying to set up social and economic interests on the one hand and conservation on the other does not work very well on the Broads. The same should apply and on the whole, as my noble friend pointed out, does apply on the ground when we consider the interests of navigation and conservation. After all, the reason so many people visit the Norfolk Broads is that it is an attractive and wild area with many wild birds, beautiful reed beds and so forth.
The economic interest in the long run, not, unfortunately, in the short run, of the boating interests on the Broads will be to conserve the area so that people will want to continue to go there. An entirely sterile and dead area with no reeds, no wild birds and no fish, which is what some of the Broads have already turned into, and most of the rest are in danger of turning into, would not be in the economic or general interests of navigation. To that extent, there is a false argument, but unfortunately it is one which the Government have forced upon us because in drafting the Bill they have set out three interests as if they were separate and were liable to be in conflict. Everyone talks about one not having primacy over another.
The Bill should have been drafted to give the Broads Authority a duty to conserve the Broads to promote enjoyment and the economic and social well-being of the area and to protect the interests of navigation. In that way, the Bill would have recognised what I believe is the reality; namely, that all these interests depend in the long run on the proper conservation of the landscape and wildlife of the Broads.
But the Government have messed that up and missed that opportunity. We are now faced with the threat of hybridity and the loss of the Bill. My noble friend might be well advised not to press the amendment in view of what has been said in this place. That does not prevent the Government from doing something and that is what I ask them to do. I hope that they will repeat the assurances that have been given in the past: that the purposes of this Bill are to conserve the wildlife and the landscape of the Broads; that is why the legislation has been brought forward; and that is what the Government will expect to happen once the Bill becomes enacted.
Baroness Nicol: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may put one more question to him. If I were not to press the amendment, and I am conscious of the need to preserve the Bill, can the Minister say whether the Government are likely to issue guidelines, which would not be on the face of the Bill

917
but would have some power to advise the Broads Authority? Is he willing to issue guidelines on the Sandford principle?
Lord Hesketh: Before I say anything, perhaps I may answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. We do lay out and have clearly laid out the general duties of the authority to manage the Broads. There are three primary considerations: the conserving and enhancing of the natural beauty of the Broads; the promotion of enjoyment of the Broads by the public and the protection of the interests of navigation. Those three hold equal weight. All I can say to the noble Lord is that at the end of the day politics are about the art of the possible.
I regret very much that the noble Baroness has seen fit to table this amendment and at so late a stage. I am in no doubt, and Members of the Committee should be in no doubt, that this new clause, if it were to be included in the Bill, would wreck the balance that we have so carefully sought to strike between the various legitimate interests; and that it would destroy the basis for co-operation on which the future of the Broads depends.
I am in no doubt whatever that this new clause would be violently opposed by all the other interested parties: the local authorities, the farmers, the boating and navigation interests, other recreational interests, and all those who depend for their livelihood upon the economic life which is centred on the Broads. It has been tabled so late in the day that many of these interests will have had no chance to realise that a further, last minute, assault is being launched upon the Bill in the name of conservation, and are thus unable to express their views. I must therefore speak for them.
The noble Baroness has said that this amendment does not seek primacy for nature conservation. She argues that it does no more than enshrine in the Bill the Sandford principle—that is, the guidance that was given to the National Park Authorities in Circular 4/76 in response to the recommendations of a committee chaired by my noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whom I am pleased to see here this evening. I disagree most strongly.
First, the new clause goes further in saying not only that actual conflicts, but all conflicts that are likely to arise, are to be decided in favour of nature conservation whenever the conflict is judged irreconcilable. If that is not a recipe for ensuring that the nature conservation interest will always insist on its interest prevailing, and thus for artificially creating irreconcilable conflict, then I do not know what it is. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts, not creating them as this new clause would. I have a rather poor speaking note on the Sandford principle; but I am sure that we are all equally grateful this evening that we were able to hear—for his name has been much bandied about—the actual words which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford himself used. I shall certainly not debase them by using my speaking note.
That is why I say that this new clause seeks to give primacy to nature conservation. This is an issue which has already been exhaustively examined and
918
discussed in Select Committees both in another place and in your Lordships' House. It has also been debated and rejected in Standing Committee in another place. A time comes when one must accept the judge's (or the umpire's) verdict graciously and without dissent. If I may say so, the case pleaded by the noble Baroness has already been heard and lost in a court of first instance, in a court of appeal, and by the highest court, your Lordships' House.
I do not think it right to detain the Committee with a recital of all the objections to what this amendment seeks to achieve. They have already been recorded at length in the reports of two Select Committees, which have rejected the arguments put to them for making changes to the Bill which would favour one interest at the expense of others.
In another place the House authorities advised that any amendment giving priority over any of the others to any one of the three equal purposes in Clause 2(1) would rehybridise the Bill. If such an amendment were to be made by the Committee this Bill would be stopped in its tracks. It would be the ultimate irony if a Bill that has been designed to ensure the future conservation of the Broads were wrecked by those claiming that conservation of this area was their sole interest. I cannot say definitely that this amendment would be ruled to rehybridise the Bill—although I think it very likely, since in my view there is no doubt at all that it is intended to give primacy or priority to nature conservation. The noble Baroness will have noted what the Chairman of Committees said on this matter. I can only recommend to the Committee what my noble friend Lord Renton said. We were possibly going too far on this front. Also, my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out that it would be a disaster if we lost the Bill.
I have no doubt whatever that both Select Committees were right in their verdicts. May I remind the Committee of the actual words of the verdict of the Select Committee in another place?
"The Bill now before the House is the outcome of more than 40 years of discussion and proposals aimed at improving the management of the Broads. It is framed in the belief that the problems caused by the conflicting interests are not irreconcilable. We believe that the Bill as we have amended it represents a fair balance between the many conflicting interests, and we hope that this measure will encourage co-operation and goodwill—the only way in which the Broads will flourish."
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke sympathetically of the aims and ambitions of the amendment; but he also pointed out that at the end of the day practicality would have to triumph.
May I also remind the Committee of the verdict of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which declined to make an amendment to Clause 2 which would have tipped the scales towards nature conservation?
"The Committee … recognise the unique character of the Broads, and share the concern of the Petitioners … [these were the voluntary conservation/amenity bodies.] … For the vital importance of maintaining—indeed of restoring—its value as natural habitat … They consider that the Bill already requires the new Authority to give weight to such considerations, while pursuing the wider aims of effective handling of the Broads' resources."
That is the view of the Government, and of all the interested bodies except the nature conservationists.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. It

919
would, in our view, wreck the Bill and the future prospects of the Broads. If she does, I must urge you most strongly to reject it, and reject it decisively.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: Before the noble Baroness replies, I wonder whether the Minister can answer the final question the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, put to him about guidelines. I served on the Select Committee and perhaps I may briefly refer to one answer given by Mr. David Walley, the chief witness from the Department of the Environment—and a very good witness, if I may say so. Answering on Question 636, referring to the Sandford Report, he said:
"It is a note of general guidance and philosophy to national parks authorities, if you like, about how they should approach their planning and management of the parks. What I was saying was that the Government had some sympathy with the view that similar kinds of philosophical guidance, if I can put it that way, might be given to the Broads Authority."
He then said:
"But it is not something that the Government feels can, or should, be written into the Bill."
I hope the Government can give some general philosophical guidance, partly based on that, since Mr. Walley referred to it, when this Bill is launched.
Lord Hesketh: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Craigavon for his intervention since I know that he served us on the Select Committee. He summed the situation up very well. The Government are philosophically very much attuned both to the Broads and to the Bill; but we shall not be able to provide guidelines, for instance, based on the lines of the proposed clause following Clause 4.
Lord Melchett: Will the Government provide some general guidelines of the sort that were discussed in Committee and which the noble Lord has been asked about? That is the question.
Lord Hesketh: I have no doubt that we shall be able to consider the matter.
Lord Melchett: Would it be possible for the Government to consider the matter before the Bill leaves this House? It is a significant point. The noble Lord has said very strongly that this should not be pressed because of the danger of hybridising the Bill. That puts a considerable constraint on your Lordships' House. Would the noble Lord be prepared to consider the matter before the Report stage?
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies I hope he will not let it be thought that this is a fit subject for legislation for a department to be asked to give guidelines.
Lord Hesketh: I shall have to bring the matter to the attention of my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Nicol: I am a little taken aback at the fierceness of the Minister's reply. After all, this is the
920
first opportunity which we in this House have had to put down amendments. He reproaches me for being late in the day. This is the first opportunity, at the Committee stage, where one could put forward amendments. Although I am aware of the long history of the Bill, it has not been in your Lordships' House. We have only had the Second Reading, plus two days upstairs.
I think that in spite of all that has been said there is no doubt that the Bill as it stands does not give sufficient weight to conservation matters. In earlier amendments we did not even touch on the navigation committee which will be an extremely powerful body, and which will be doing a lot of the day to day navigation matters which will not even need to come before the authority. There is every reason why we should be seeking more safeguards on the authority itself for conservation matters. As regards the guidelines, I know that what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said is correct. It is not a matter for legislation in this place. But to ask for an undertaking from the Minister is surely not out of place? I intend to find some way of asking for that at a later stage, so I hope that some thought will be given to it. It has never been my intention to hold up this Bill, and certainly not to have it sent back in the way that has been described. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 27 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Broads Authority]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 25, line 16, at end insert—
("Authority's chief officer
The Authority shall not—

(a) appoint a person to the office (by whatever name it is known) of chief officer of the Authority; or

(b) determine, or vary, any of the terms and conditions on which he is employed by the Authority;

without first consulting the Countryside Commission.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I am aware that the Committee wishes to get on, but we have to deal with these amendments. On Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the question of a chief officer. I am glad to see that some facility is made for a definition of how he should be appointed. However, there is no mention in this amendment about a decision on a chief officer. Is that not a matter for the Bill?
Lord Hesketh: On Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speaking on behalf of the Countryside Commission, urged the case for amending the Bill to say something about a chief officer for the new authority. She suggested, as is the case with all national park authorities, that there should be a requirement for the Countryside Commission to be consulted about the appointment of the chief officer and the nature of that appointment which the Countryside Commission believes should be a full-time post. That suggestion made by the

921
noble Baroness was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and by my noble friend Lord Belstead, who was then the Minister responsible for the Bill. He gave noble Lords an assurance that the Government would look as favourably as they possibly could at the suggestion made with the aim of bringing forward a suitable amendment for the purpose.
That amendment is now before the Committee. The form of the legislative requirement as it applies to the national parks is not appropriate to this Bill, but the amendment we have tabled achieves the same purpose. It requires the Countryside Commission to be consulted by the new authority before it appoints a chief officer and enables the Commission to proffer its advice on the person to be appointed and the terms and conditions of the appointment. I commend it to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Functions of Authority]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 30, line 26, after ("II") insert ("and section 45(2) and (3)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment rectifies a slight oversight. Paragraph 30 of Schedule 3 makes the authority a local authority for the purposes of Parts I and II of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act 1979. But we overlooked a section in Part III, Section 45, which empowers local authorities to incur expenditure on archeological investigations. This amendment will give the authority that power as well. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 31, line 32, leave out ("Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,") and insert ("Ministers").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 7, I also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
This group of amendments provides for the statutory drainage code to be agreed jointly by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture. It also provides that any dispute arising from the implementation of the code shall be determined jointly by the two Ministers. The term Ministers is defined in Clause 25 of the Bill to mean the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture acting jointly.
These amendments seek to follow the precedent which exists in relation to the Government's own code in respect of land drainage in England and Wales which has the rather long title of Land Drainage and Conservation—Guidance Notes on Procedures for Water Authorities, Internal Drainage Boards, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission on the Operation of Section 22 of the Water Act 1973 as amended by Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
That code was issued jointly by the Department of the Environment, MAFF and the Welsh Office and
922
provides for objections to drainage schemes to be referred to the Ministers for decision. Our concern in relation to the Broads is not that Ministers should necessarily be refusing drainage grants, but rather it is important that in view of the wetland characteristics of the area, and the effect that drainage activities can have on our environment and wildlife which it supports, the Secretary of State for the Environment should have a role to play in agreeing on the guidelines to be issued in respect of the day to day procedures and operations of drainage authorities.
Similarly, he should have a role in determining any disputes that may arise between the Broads Authority and drainage authorities in implementing the code. Since the Government's conservation and landscape advisers, the NCC and the Countryside Commission, are responsible not to MAFF but to the Department of the Environment, so the environment Minister should be consulted over the formulation of any guidance material that may have a bearing on conservation. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the purpose of these three amendments is to remove from my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his sole power of approval over the issue of the drainage code of practice and arbitrations and disputes relating to the code. It also requires him to exercise these functions jointly with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I would remind the Committee that these changes sought by the noble Baroness have already been fully considered but rejected in another place. I suggest therefore that we would need to have very good reasons for taking a different view in relation to a matter that has already been exhaustively considered.
I do not believe that the reasons put forward by the noble Baroness in moving these amendments are good ones, or indeed that any good reasons exist. I believe that the provisions of the Bill as drafted are the right ones. In providing for a code of practice to be drawn up to regulate the carrying out of land drainage works by drainage authorities, and for the authorities to have ultimate responsibility for the code, I believe that we have properly reflected the nature conservation interests. However, because there are genuine land drainage interests, it is right that the issue of the code should be agreed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who in doing so will also be aware of his responsibility under Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to further the interests of nature conservation wherever it is practical to do so.
It follows that he should also arbitrate in any dispute between the authority and a drainage authority in relation to the application of a code. The contents of the code and the form in which it is published are clearly matters for the Minister responsible for land drainage, and it is wholly inappropriate to involve my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in these aspects.
However, the noble Baroness pointed out that she felt that the Secretary of State had a role to play. We

923
do believe that he should be involved in the resolution of important disputes under the code, and assurances have already been given in another place that he will be, which I am happy to repeat here. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments. If she does, I urge the Committee to reject them.
Lord Melchett: I hope that the noble Lord will not mind me saying that his constant repetition that we are bringing things up late in a Bill's passage when we are in Committee is getting a little wearing. If the noble Lord was saying that at Third Reading, it might be reasonable; but as my noble friend has already said, this is the first opportunity we have had to debate any of these detailed points on the Floor of the Chamber. The fact that this is a hybrid Bill and that private interests have had the opportunity, through an entirely different procedure, to have their interests debated, is really of no relevance whatever. I hope that the noble Lord will not keep repeating for the rest of the time that we spend on this Bill the point that we are coming to it very late in the day. We are in Committee regarding the public aspects of this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will not mind me making that point.
I have two questions to ask the noble Lord. First, why is the code of practice issued under this Bill different from the other land drainage codes which my noble friend mentioned where the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture play a joint role in drawing up and issuing the code? I do not understand that. The noble Lord said that it is very late in the day and it has all been considered in other places. But he did not say why there was a difference between the procedures under this Bill, where only the Minister of Agriculture is involved, and procedures in other matters.
Secondly, if the noble Lord accepts that the Secretary of State for the Environment should play a part (as clearly he must and will do) in practice under any government in resolving any serious disputes in this kind of field, why could that not be put in the Bill?
9 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: In response to the last question, perhaps I may say that I have made a commitment to the Committee this evening. In answer to the second question, I shall write to the noble Lord. With regard to his comments concerning my remarks on lateness, I remind the noble Lord that, as he is well aware, the most important amendment—Amendment No. 4—was put down last Friday.
Baroness Nicol: I was not aware that the Minister was referring to lateness in that respect. I understood him to criticise the fact that we are discussing the matter at all. In support of my noble friend's comments, perhaps I may say that to tell us that something was fully discussed in another place is not an answer. The Committee is not a rubber stamp. We are entitled to discuss matters at length if we wish to do so. However, I can see that I shall get no further
924
with the amendment this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Application to Authority of certain enactments applying to local authorities etc.]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 49, line 15, leave out from ("Authority") to end of line 17 and insert ("and any member of its Navigation Committee").
The noble Lord said: The amendment simply rectifies another small error in the Bill as now drafted. Paragraph 10(7) of Schedule 6 will enable the authority to pay special responsibility allowances to any of its local authority members, but not to its other members or to non-local authority members of its navigation committee. The amendment will enable all to be treated equally. I commend it to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 51, line 23, at end insert—
("The Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)
. In the definition of "local authority" in section 4 of the Housing Act 1985—

(a) the words ", in sections 43, 44 and 232 includes the Broads Authority" shall be inserted after the word "Scilly"; and

(b) the words "the Broads Authority" shall be inserted after the words "Education Authority".

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (c. 70)
. In the definition of "local authority" in section 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the words "the Broads Authority" shall be inserted after the words "Education Authority".").
The noble Lord said: These are technical amendments designed to make the Broads Authority a local authority for the purpose of legislation relating to security of tenure and right to buy. There is no particular reason to expect the new authority to become a landlord for housing purposes. However, we have to envisage that it may at some stage have to provide some residential accommodation for caretakers, wardens, and suchlike. By virtue of these amendments any such tenants would be put in the same position as equivalent tenants of any local authority. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 51, line 28, at end insert—
("The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (c.31)
. In section 58 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (exempt bodies), the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (d)—
""(dd) the Broads Authority;"").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Transitional provisions]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 51, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
("(2) When the Secretary of State is satisfied that all of those members have been duly appointed, he shall, if he has not already exercised his powers under sub-paragraph (2A) below, do so.
(2A)If the Secretary of State is satisfied that at least 27 of those members have been duly appointed, he may by order specify a date for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2B)The Authority shall he deemed to have been duly constituted as from the specified date, notwithstanding the absence of some of its members.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 together, The two amendments are designed to facilitate the earliest possible establishment of the authority after enactment of the Bill to enable it to put in hand all the necessary preparatory work and take all the planning decisions that will be needed before it assumes all its executive functions on the operative date.
The first amendment will enable my right honourable friend to make a commencement order, prescribing the date on which the new authority is to be established as soon as 27 members—just over three-quarters of the full membership—have been appointed, instead of all 33 of the members to be appointed by the local authorities and other appointing authorities, including my right honourable friend. It seems to us a wise precautionary measure to guard against the possibility of delay in making even one single appointment—for whatever reason—preventing the establishment of the authority.
The second amendment is designed to reduce to the minimum any possible delay in making appointments about which my right honourable friend is required to consult outside bodies. The amendment provides that if my right honourable friend starts his consultations before Royal Assent those consultations can satisfy the requirement which would otherwise only start to apply after Royal Assent.
I should take this opportunity to say something about timing. When the Bill was first introduced in another place in November 1986 it was hoped that it could be enacted by the summer of last year. That Bill accordingly provided for the new authority to assume its executive functions on an operative date of 1st April this year. The intervention of a general election rendered that timetable impossible. The Bill was accordingly amended to provide, as it now does, that the operative date should be specified in an order made by my right honourable friend.
Until recently we had hoped that a date of 1st October this year would be achievable. However, because of the various preparatory steps that have to be taken between enactment and the operational date if transfer of responsibilities is to be effected in an orderly and sensible way, that October target date was dependent upon achieving enactment of the Bill by the end of last year. Sadly, therefore, I have to advise the Committee that October is no longer achievable, and that our target must now be 1st April 1989, coinciding with the start of that financial year.
This further delay that has been forced upon us makes it all the more vital that there should be no more delay if we can possibly avoid it. I invite the Committee to agree to the amendments as sensible precautions to minimise delay in establishing the new authority.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps the Minister can answer two brief questions. The amendment represents a considerable reduction in numbers, from 35 to 27. I am anxious that the authority should not go on too long with such a reduced membership. Perhaps the Minister can give me an idea of a timescale over which the appointments will be made. He will appreciate, in view of the arguments which we had earlier this evening, that the balance could be tipped one way or the other by a delay in some appointments.
My second question concerns how the quorum will apply in the interval before the full body is appointed. Will it be one-quarter of 27 or one-quarter of 35? Neither of those is possible, but there it is.
Lord Renton: In a very long experience of legislation—I first entered Parliament 40-odd years ago—I have never seen a precedent for this type of provision. I have never known a provision to be enacted by Parliament which stipulated that, if a Minister could not appoint the proper number of members on a public authority as laid down by Parliament in a Bill, the department could get cracking with fewer members. In this case, we are speaking of a fairly large proportion.
I listened as fast as I could to what my noble friend said, but I cannot pretend to have taken it all in. However, this matter will become a precedent. As it is an unusual and important precedent, we should be sure that we shall be doing the right thing. I should have thought that perhaps my noble friend does not have to press the amendment. It would not hold up the Bill if he did not press it tonight. It would make me much happier if more thought were given to the matter.
Lord Hesketh: I shall deal first with the numbers on the authority, and, secondly, with the point made by the noble Baroness about the quorum. My noble friend Lord Renton raised the same point about the numbers on the authority. Acceptance of this amendment need not mean that there will be fewer than 33 members at the authority's first meeting.
Baroness Nicol: I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but the number is 35, not 33.
Lord Hesketh: I am sorry—35. The amendment is designed to allow my right honourable friend to take the initial step of making the order prescribing a date for the establishment of the authority before all 35 appointments have been made. The date of the authority's first meeting is bound to be some time after the order itself, as may also be the date of establishment. Therefore, by the time that the authority meets all 35 members may well be in place. This is only a precautionary provision. I very much hope that it will be possible to make all 35

927
appointments promptly so that they are all in place when the authority is established.
Should that prove impossible, I do not believe that any real damage will be caused if briefly the authority is missing one or two members. The most immediate decisions that the authority will have to take will not commit it on matters where the contributions of those missing members could be seen as vital. They will largely be preliminary enabling decisions—for example, to initiate consultations about membership of its navigation committee. However, unless action is started promptly on these issues the authority will be delayed in starting its real work.
In conclusion, perhaps I should point out that the existence of a provision enabling the authority to be established before all appointments have been made will provide an incentive to all appointing authorities, including my right honourable friend, to press ahead with making their appointments and for those consulted to respond quickly to consultation, so as to ensure that their interests are not left unrepresented even for the shortest period.
So far as concerns the quorum for meetings, paragraph 3(6) of Schedule 1 provides that:
"No business shall be transacted at any meeting of the Authority unless more than one quarter of its members are present".
This is the normal provision which applies to local authority meetings generally. I am advised that this provision will mean at least one-quarter of the full membership of 35 under Clause 1—namely, nine—even if the actual membership is fewer than 35 at any time, for whatever reason.
Lord Renton: I have listened carefully to my noble friend but he has not told us whether this provision is breaking new ground or whether there is a precedent for it. If this is a precedent I hope that it will not be used at random by a less well-intentioned government at some time in the future.
Lord Melchett: For the first time this evening I should like to give some support to the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench. I think it would be a good idea. I hope that I have not entirely put him off his dinner. I think that it would be a good idea to get moving on setting up the authority and the transfer of functions. As he said, a provision of this kind will encourage everyone to make appointments quickly to the new authority. Given the assurances that the noble Lord has mentioned about a quorum, I personally should be happy for this amendment to form part of the Bill.
Baroness Nicol: I must make just one point. We have spent 40-odd minutes at the beginning of this evening arguing about the importance of one extra body for the Nature Conservancy Council. The Minister is now telling us that it does not really matter too much if two or three of them are missing when the authority starts. Either one person is important or he is not. I hope that a date will be set for the appointment of the full authority.
Lord Hesketh: With regard to the noble Baroness's last points I can only draw her attention to the remarks of her noble friend Lord Melchett. Certainly I shall take note of what my noble and learned friend Lord Renton has drawn to our attention this evening and bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Renton: My noble friend is much too generous. I am not learned in your Lordships' Chamber.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 53, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert—
("Consultation.
6—(1) Consultations carried out by the Secretary of State before the coming into force of subsections (5) and (6) of section 1 of this Act shall be treated as satisfying the requirements in those subsections if they would have done so had those subsections been in force at the time in question.
(2) Consultations carried out by the Authority before the coming into force of subsection (3) of section 13 of this Act shall be treated as satisfying the requirements of that subsection if they would have done so had that subsection been in force at the time in question.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to,
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Local Government Bill
9.14 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 28.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I understand that Amendment No. 115 falls as a result of the defeat of Amendment No. 114.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 28, line 17, after ("(1)") insert ("Without the prior approval of a majority of those electors entitled to vote in a local poll,").
The noble Lord said As one of the original 94 Members of this Chamber who voted almost 23 years ago for the Wolfenden Committee's recommendations for the reform of the laws governing private male homosexual behaviour, at a time when this was considered a fairly shocking and even disreputable thing to do in some quarters, and as one who has consistently spoken and voted in favour of all subsequent decriminalisation measures, whether in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland or to 18 to 21 year-old males, I do not think that anybody could accuse me of being hostile to the genuine (I stress the word "genuine") rights and freedoms of homosexuals.
However, it is one thing to say that the police should never again be obliged to peer through keyholes into the bedrooms of consenting adults. It is quite a different thing to claim that local authorities should be free, using ratepayers' money, to propagate

929
purpose of this book seems to be to persuade impressionable teenagers that there is no pleasure in life more intense or desirable than being sodomised by an older man. A more blatant example of trying to brainwash teenagers who are going through a transient homosexual phase into crossing the line permanently can scarcely be imagined.
I should add that before dinner the noble Baroness read out some of the most innocuous passages from that book. Far worse is contained within it. This, in conjunction with various other developments that have come to light over the past years and months, has persuaded me that Clause 28, albeit with suitable modifications, not only those in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, but possibly also Amendment No. 120, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is indeed necessary. In taking this line I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Annan, who I understand was also one of the original 94 who voted for Wolfenden.
Let me explain Amendment No. 116. Perhaps those of us who are in our fifties or older are out of touch with what ratepayers and local government electors with children of school age feel about this matter. I do not believe that we are, but I may be wrong. If the militant homosexuals and their supporters are as numerous as they claim to be—it was originally 1 per cent. or 2 per cent.; it then rose to 5 per cent., then to 10 per cent., and now it is more like 20 per cent.—their large numbers, combined with the intrinsic merit of their arguments, assuming that their arguments have merits which many of us have been too obtuse to appreciate, should be sufficient to ensure that they win any local poll, such as that held in Swanage prior to the Third Reading debate on the Swanage Yacht Haven Bill in this Chamber fairly recently.
If, on the other hand, they are not as numerous as they claim, and/or their arguments fail to convince their fellow local government electors, they will lose. Either way, local democracy in its true sense will have prevailed.
Let me stress that there is no question of genuine, fundamental freedoms being put at risk in any way by this amendment. Nor is there any question of censorship. If local government electors vote against such material being provided on the rates, material of this kind will still be available in sex shops for purchase, or indeed in ordinary bookshops if the owners feel inclined. It is one thing to allow such material to be sold. It is quite a different thing for unwilling ratepayers to be forced to pay for it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose this amendment. It is totally unacceptable in principle because the justification for the intervention by central government in devolved government is the sad saga of the abuse of rates in this and other contexts; but we are concerned only with this context within the prohibition of Clause 28.
If it is right and necessary—indeed requisite—for central government to intervene in the interests of the vast majority of ratepayers, it is wholly unacceptable,
930
as I see it, to carve up the country into a series of city states where there is a disparate regime according to the vote of the majority of the electors in each city state. That may have been all right for the doges of Venice; but surely in principle this is a novel and wholly unacceptable proposition.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I do not think this is a novelty. The noble Lord will recall that there used to be local control about the opening of pubs. That no longer exists; but there certainly is a precedent for it. I am not recommending it particularly, but it is going in the right direction. As my noble friend Lord Monson said, it is at least asking the people what they want to have in their district, instead of the Government dictating whatever they may or may not have.
I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Monson has the right instincts on this matter. I believe that if we let the local people foment enough opposition to the objectionable practices, that would be quite enough, together with the DES circular and a properly drafted code of practice. The Milkman, which I have not read, but extracts from which have been quoted by the noble Baroness, could be dealt with by being prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act. It is not a reason for bringing the clause into the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should be the last to question the credentials of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on this matter. I certainly do not question his motives in bringing forward the amendment. Indeed, I come back from Australia as a recent convert to compulsory voting; but I very much doubt whether it is really appropriate to introduce, at this time and on this subject, the entirely new principle of a majority of those qualified to vote rather than a majority of those actually voting. There are very few local elections in which a majority of those entitled to vote vote on any side, let alone for the winning side, and to expect a majority of those entitled to vote to vote is a little unrealistic. Although the amendment is, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, says, undoubtedly well meant and is a step in the right direction, it is a minuscule step and I do not think it will help us very much.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I do not suggest that it was not well meant, well intended or that I doubt the sincerity of anyone; but for the reasons I have sought to give I suggest that it is wholly misconceived and unacceptable.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, whom I am glad to see taking part in the debate—I am sorry he was unable to do so earlier—suggests that the prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality should be qualified if the majority of electors entitled to vote at a local poll give prior approval to the proposal that the local authority may underake an activity that promotes homosexuality. Quite apart from the cost implications of such referenda, and the constitutional problems of deciding issues in that way, the Government have other worries that make us feel that we are unable to accept the noble Lord's

931
such odious books as The Milkman's on His Way, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, so helpfully drew our attention to some months ago. The chief proposition. Surely it plainly undermines our view that local authorities should not be promoting homosexuality in any circumstances.
The major drawback of the noble Lord's amendment arguably is that one effect of the amendment would be to authorise local authorities to promote homosexuality when it is by no means clear that they have such authority under the existing law. That is the major stumbling block, quite apart from those that worry the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that makes us feel that is is not a step in the right direction as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, thinks.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton for his support and for his confirmation that there is indeed a precedent for the procedures which my amendment proposes. I was well aware that my amendment had the technical defect to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew attention. Had it been acceptable, I would have been very happy to have altered that defect the next time round. I also anticipated many of the objections made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I do not think in practice that they would come to very much because I cannot believe that many local government electors would vote in favour of the material which I described earlier. However, I think the whole issue needed an airing. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 116ZA:
Page 28, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
("(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material intended to promote homosexuality").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Gifford: May I ask the noble Earl for clarification? I apologise if the point has been covered. I was in a trial in Manchester this afternoon and could not attend the earlier session of the Committee. I should like clarification on the meaning of the amendment. There are two matters; first of all, "intentionally promote homosexuality". The intention there is clearly the intention of the local authority. The second matter is, "or publish material intended to promote homosexuality". Whose intention is being referred to? Is it the local authority again? Or if the local authority published material intended by its author, perhaps a well-known writer whose works, in someone's view, promoted homosexuality, would that be covered by the proposed amendment? Surely, it should be clear that the only intention involved is the intention of the local authority? As it reads, it is ambiguous. If the local authority published material which was intended by James Baldwin or E. M. Forster, or whoever else wrote it, to promote homosexuality, it would be capable of being covered by this clause. I hope that this point will be considered. Perhaps the Minister can obtain advice. I hope that he intends that it is only the local authority's intention which is meant to be decisive in construing this clause.
Baroness Seear: The point raised is really quite clear. It is not the local authority because "intended" qualifies the material. It is the material intended and therefore it is the author's material and not the local authority's intent, grammatically as it stands. This is not a point of argument; it is a point of grammar.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My intention as draftsman—it is a valid point to take, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord—was that it was the intention of the local authority. I would have thought it so read. If there is any doubt about it, it is surely a matter of importance which should be clarified.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is a very interesting intervention by the noble Lord. We have heard of him drafting bills for the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. Is he now drafting government amendments?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord is being rather mischievious, and that is permissible at this hour. He knows perfectly well that I do not draft government amendments. But the original draft of the Bill was my draft, if he was present when I spoke. My intention in the original draft, which has not been
934
departed from, as I understand the government amendment, was that it should be the intention of the local authorities.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The more we hear about these amendments, the more ridiculous your Lordships' House will look on the television play-back 50 years from now. It is time for a little impatience to emerge in the debate. We have listened to more nonsense today than for many, many a day. What does the noble Earl want to do? Does he really want to carry this to the point of absurdity? How does one unintentionally promote? In any case, he has another amendment, Amendment No. 117A, which says,
"In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as it sees fit".
How many more times is the intention of the local authority, or the unintention of the local authority, to be stated, restated and finally examined by the court? Surely the Minister can leave it alone. When I say "leave it alone", I mean that we are going into the refinement of the words and the extension of their meaning when at the end of the day a court will decide the matter.
We shall soon have to issue guidelines and codes of conduct for the courts; we shall not be able to leave them to interpret words either. What is the matter with everybody? Why are we asked to stay late at night to go into this kind of guff? Surely we can get on and finish it now. Drop all this nonsense and let us get on and decide that we do not want homosexuality in schools. It ought to be in the Education Act but we have stuck it in the Local Government Act. We are to consider the curriculum and other matters relating to educational reform in due course, but here we are spending time on a local government Bill which really has nothing to do with this matter. Tomorrow we shall be talking about dogs. We shall spend hours discussing dogs tomorrow and all the arrangements have been made to spend hours discussing dogs tomorrow.
When television viewers see pictures of this Committee they will wonder what has happened. They will see all these ageing Peers sitting on crowded Benches and discussing homosexuality in schools. The young will roar with laughter and ask: what did those old men do when they were young?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I cannot follow an act like that! However, I should like to ask the Minister one question. I apologise if the point has been made before during the debate, as I am sure it has. The amendment states:
"intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material intended to promote homosexuality".
I understand that that refers to homosexual acts and relationships. However, that is not stated and I should like the Minister to explain why. I ask that question because it seems to me important that a distinction should be made, because we know very well that a certain proportion of people in this country are homosexual by nature. It is vitally

935
important that prejudice is not encouraged by a clause of this kind. I should like the Minister to say why it is not stated in that form.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: In response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I believe that television viewers will regard this Committee with great respect for the trouble that it is taking to get the Bill right, whatever their views. The noble Lord says that the viewers will see aged Peers. They may see the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, but, on the other hand, when their eyes turn to the Government Front Bench, whatever accusation can be made against the Minister great age is not one of them. I believe that viewers will be deeply impressed to see that a Peer of his relative youth is able to handle this complex material with such skill, patience and effectiveness.
As regards the amendment, I should like to make the point that the intention is surely perfectly clear. If the material that is published is intended to promote homosexuality, surely it can be assumed that a local authority which takes it upon itself to publish that material intends to promote homosexuality. It can hardly say, "We published this so sweetly and innocently that we had no idea that this material was intended to promote homosexuality. We just thought it was beautiful literature". I cannot believe that it would get away with that in any court. It seems to me that my noble friend's amendment is perfectly effective. If the material is intended to promote homosexuality, then the local authority which has taken it upon itself to publish that material also intends to promote homosexuality. Therefore this seems to me a perfectly good amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Nobody is more anxious to get on with the Bill than I am, as I am waiting to move an amendment which stands in my name. However, I believe it is rather serious that we are proposing to leave in a matter of ambiguity on this question of intention. As my noble friend said: by whose intention? If the local authority is not only to be the arbiter so far as itself is concerned as to what it thinks, but is also to determine what a series of very distinguished authors—they may be distinguished as well as the porn people—may think, we shall be putting a local authority in an absolutely impossible position. Therefore, I think that when the noble Earl comes to reply to this debate he must say that he will clarify this point. We cannot have local authorities left in the position of censors not only of themselves but of everybody else as well. We must have clarification on that point.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has put his finger on the point. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the television viewers will be impressed because the Committee has tried to get it right. That is exactly what the Committee have not done. They have tried all afternoon to get it right and have got it wrong.
I will give the Minister an example and ask him to tell the Committee what will happen. Suppose that a local authority is supporting a theatre which puts on
936
a play which depicts a homosexual relationship which in fact is depicted as being successful and happy and in every way as good as any heterosexual relationship. Suppose that that is the message of the play. A councillor says, "This theatre is putting on a play which in my opinion promotes homosexuality because it makes it equal to heterosexuality, and that in my view is wrong and is promoting homosexuality." The other councillors say "Why do you say that?" He says, "In the Bill it says that I may draw any inference that I like from what goes on and the inference I draw is that this playright is promoting homosexuality".
Will the Minister tell the House whether in those circumstances this clause here, as amended, means that if those councillors come to the conclusion that that playright is intending to promote homosexuality however good a play, the authority will be perfectly entitled to withdraw their subsidy and therefore this is censorship by the back door? I should like the Minister to tell me if that is correct.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should just like to answer the right reverend Prelate with regard to the word "homosexuality". That point was raised in the earlier debate. It was raised by myself, among others; and I described homosexuality as an abstract concept which meant nothing. I very much take the point made by the right reverend Prelate, and I give notice to the Minister that I shall be moving an amendment to delete "homosexuality" and to put in "homosexual acts" or words to that effect at the next stage of the Bill. I am happy to see the right reverend Prelate nodding, and hope that I may have his support when I come to that amendment.
The fact that this amendment has been so widely criticised is yet another instance of the rush and hurry in which this whole business has been put before Parliament. This amendment was tabled late on Friday. Nobody on Friday could get hold of it. It was circulated at the very earliest on Saturday morning. If one happened not to be at home, or to live far away, one did not receive a copy until one arrived at the House this afternoon. And the matter is to be debated this afternoon. That is not treating the House properly. It is merely a continuation of the rush and hurry with which this Bill was pushed through another place. I know that the noble Earl very kindly sent me a letter to the effect that he was tabling this amendment on Friday, and it was courteous of him to do so. However, in thanking him for doing that, surely it is an indication that he admits himself that it is very late in tabling an important amendment and that he found it necessary to make that explanation to me as one of the signatories to Amendment No. 114.
While I am on the subject of rush and hurry (which I consider to be highly reprehensible on a matter of social sensitivity) I should like to add, as I said earlier, that the government amendments in another place were starred. That was denied by the noble Earl. I have a copy of the proceedings for Standing Committee A in front of me. It is dated 8th December 1987. I see, if it is worth putting before the Committee, that the amendment was starred on that

937
very morning of 8th December; that is, the last day of the Committee proceedings. However, because the amendment was taken at the afternoon sitting, it lost its star. I ask the Committee whether that is not pushing things rather hard. Is not the noble Earl pushing us hard in this place by producing this amendment late on Friday night? I do not consider that this is the proper way to treat Parliament on a socially sensitive issue. All I shall do at the moment is reserve my right to bring forward an amendment to the word "homosexuality", which I consider to be totally unacceptable.
I follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who asked whether it was possible unintentionally to promote. I should like to ask a further question. If "intention" is to cover "publish" as well as "promote", how can you unintentionally publish something? The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, has experience of publishing, and I see that he is in the Chamber. How is it possible for him or anyone else unintentionally to publish something? I see that he is shaking his head; so it is not a possibility. That is another indication of the absurdity of this amendment which has been pushed through in such an unseemly rush.
Lord Airedale: If you substitute "likely to promote homosexuality" for "intended to promote homosexuality", you substitute the judgment of the court for the opinion of the local authority. Perhaps that is a safer way of dealing with the matter.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because it is to the courts that we look to draw what inferences they wish on the example put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. That means of course that the courts can take into account all the relevant circumstances in determining the purpose of the local authority, not just what the authority claims to be its purpose.
As I believe I explained at some length on Amendment No. 114, what we are aiming to do is reach those local authorities that have abused the situation that has always been held by local authorities and who have in the recent past promoted homosexuality; that is, giving it a standing over and above the standing that is given to similar matters.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, was not here earlier, and that I fully appreciate; but I covered the point he made in that the intention of the Government certainly is not to ban the literature and the plays to which I believe he refers. However, he has raised a point which I should like to look at in some detail. As I understand it, the point is to catch the local authority on this; but he has perhaps raised a query which I should look at between now and a later stage of the Bill.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester asked about the vagueness of "homosexuality" itself. He asked about the abstract concept. We believe that the word "homosexuality" is a useful and clear way of referring to all three aspects. That covers the point that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, will come to in a moment.
938
Some local authorities have been concerned to expend taxpayers' money on promoting positive images of homosexuality. That is the abstract concept. Others have been concerned to ensure that homosexual relationships receive a degree of support and assistance not necessarily available to other relationships. Other authorities in recommending books which set out to explain the details of homosexual activity seem to want to encourage such acts. The word "homosexuality" is therefore a convenient way to cover all aspects of the problem.
At this stage I hope that the Committee will accept the recommendation of the Government on the proviso that I shall look at the point that has been raised. If I am wrong, or it needs tightening up in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, suggests, we can come back to it at another stage.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government have dug themselves into a pit, and every time the Minister wriggles he sinks deeper into the mire. For the first time he has attempted first of all to define "promote". He says that "promote" means to say that homosexuality is something over and above heterosexuality. The Minister has never said that before and it is an interesting thing for him to say. It goes flatly counter to common English usage, and it certainly demands more justification than it has had from the Minister tonight. He is now attempting to justify the use of the word "homosexuality" by defining the different objectives which local authorities may have in, as he describes it, promoting positive images. There again the Minister has got himself into very deep trouble because homosexuality as an abstract concept is not an adequate way to look at these various aspects of homosexual behaviour, and homosexual acts including the representation of homosexual behaviour.
Obviously with his undertaking to my noble friend to look at the question again, it would be inappropriate for the Committee to pursue him now. The Minister will find himself in very much greater difficulty at the Report stage than he anticipates if he believes that the Government can get away with the present wording, because they cannot.
Baroness Seear: In fact the Minister is playing Humpty-Dumpty is he not? "Words mean what I want them to mean" said Humpty-Dumpty, "neither more nor less".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 116ZB:
Page 28, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert—
("(b) permit the teaching or use of any material which promotes homosexuality in any maintained school;").
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment, and I shall not detain the Committee any longer in speaking further this evening. I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his undertaking to take this amendment

939
away and consider it. On that understanding, I shall not press it further this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 116ZB not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haring Lord McIntosh of Haring had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 116A:
Page 28, line 28, leave out ("treating or preventing the spread of disease") and insert ("care, counselling or health education in relation to Aids or other diseases").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 114. I listened very carefully to the reply from the Minister in which he indicated that the amendment was perhaps narrower than I intended it to be. In the circumstances, it is better that I do not move it.
[Amendment No. 116A not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 28, line 29, at end insert ("or the stocking and lending of works relating to homosexuality in the normal discharge of the functions of a public library or the library of an educational institution.").
The noble Lord said: The remarks I have to make about Amendment No. 117 more or less cover Amendment No. 120, so with the permission of the Committee, I assume I shall not have to speak twice.
The general position that I hold is the one that I took during Second Reading, and which has been reinforced by listening to the debate we have had today. The clause is essentially nonsensical, and that seems to me to be amply confirmed by the debate. It is in the nature of things in Committee that one only discusses the question of a clause standing part of the Bill after discussion has taken place on the amendments to the clause. Therefore I find myself in the intellectually unattractive position of considering amendments to a clause that I think is gibberish in the first place.
Nonetheless, because one has a duty in a fail-safe sense to try to do something to rectify the situation, it seems to me that the material in Amendments Nos. 117 and 120 is at least worth considering. As regards Amendment No. 117, after listening to the noble Earl it may well be that the provision is taken care of in his interpretation of the clause. Obviously I do not have a record, but I thought that he said that the words in the amendment would be in order, and that if the library were run normally but happened to contain books of a homosexual nature in one form or another it would not run foul of the law. If that is the case, obviously I shall not press the matter any further.
Again, a possible interpretation of what the noble Earl said could also cover Amendment No. 120, because that essentially relates to the normal operations of a library, and of teaching and so forth.
There are two possibilities. Either it is clear that all these matters are taken care of, and that that was what the noble Earl was saying (in which case I do not need to press the matter) or it is intended that it should be the case and that it is not clear, in which case it would be reasonable for the noble Earl to accept most of the amendments.
I wish to refer to the concept of a defence in any action. Not being a lawyer, if we pass the clause (people keep talking about the courts) I should like to have some clarification as to who would bring the appropriate action. I assume that the local authority would defend in such cases. But would the police bring the action? Would it be possible for parents to bring the action? What do the Government have in mind about that aspect of the legal side of the matter? Those are the points upon which I should like some reassurance. I beg to move.
Baroness White: I was also engaged in public business in the Principality earlier in the day, so I am not sure to what extent the Minister has covered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
It is some half century since I was on the staff of a public library. That library was not in this country but in New York. It was the great New York Public Library on 42nd Street with which some of the Committee may be familiar. It is one of the great libraries of the world. It combines public responsibility and private beneficence, which ought to appeal to the Government. I have kept in touch, although distantly, with the profession of librarianship. I ask the Minister to recognise that there is considerable anxiety among librarians as to precisely where they will stand. It is essential that somewhere in the Bill we have the statement that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has mentioned, which would leave the matter in no doubt.
We all know the pressures under which public and educational libraries work these days. One needs only one difficult client to make one's life a misery. One needs a clear statement as to what action is proper and permissible in the eyes of the Bill's promoters, and what is not. I do not want to labour the point but it is a serious one which affects an important profession. We have had representations, and before the Bill leaves this place we must secure absolute clarity on the issue.
Lord McNair: In general, I support both the amendments, but I have niggling worries about them, which suggests to me that it might be better if they were withdrawn tonight and introduced later.
The worry about Amendment No. 117 is that it is awkwardly attached to the clause as it stands. If it were accepted it would read:
"Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease or the stocking and lending of works relating to homosexuality"
etc. The therapeutic and the literary do not seem to me to go in one subsection. I would urge the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to bring this in again later as a separate subsection.
When we get to Amendment No. 120, since the noble Lord has spoken to both amendments, I take it that his intention is that any of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) should be a defence. If that is his intention, ought there not to be an "or" after (a) and (b)? As I read it at present, the defence would have to consist of (a) plus (b) plus either (c) or (d). I do not think that

941
is what he meant. This might be better given a little more thought and perhaps discussed in further proceedings.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to support the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 120. Perhaps I might ask the Minister why there should not be a defence provided. The Government have reduced support of material which may show homosexuality favourably to the level of the law of obscenity. Anyone who is charged with an offence of obscenity has a statutory defence. Surely, here, there should also be a statutory defence. If you are charged with obscenity but it can then be shown that the work has great artistic merit, even though it may be obscene, it will not be caught by the legislation.
Suppose there is a work of the greatest possible artistic merit which also promotes homosexuality. Is a conviction inevitable? If a conviction is inevitable, then are we not right in fearing, as we have said throughout this debate, that this clause is stark censorship through the back door?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendments. At this hour, I wish to make only one point: why should the courts be encumbered with juridical imponderables such as the literary merit, the pedagogical need and what is incidental to principal content, and what is essential to completeness of a work of learning or reference? These concepts render the prohibition in Clause 28 totally unworkable. They dilute the whole essence of the prohibition and, in view of what my noble friend the Minister has already said this afternoon, they are surely unnecessary.
As to the proceedings, as I understand it civil proceedings may be instituted; but I am open to corrrection. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to "conviction" which presupposes criminal proceedings. I understood that this was enforceable in the civil jurisdiction.
Baroness White: Can the noble Lord explain to the Committee, if he were a librarian having to work out the purchasing list for a library how he would feel about the remarks which he has just made?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have made my point and I do not think the Committee would wish to hear any further from me at this stage.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: In answer to the noble Lord, perhaps it was a slip of the tongue to use the word "conviction". I mean finding the offence proved. But is the noble Lord saying that literary merit can have no relevance whatever under this clause?
10 p.m.
Lord Monson: Having made it clear earlier that I broadly support the Government on Clause 28, I urge them to give sympathetic consideration to Amendment No. 120. I am not so happy about Amendment No. 117.
942
By no means all the fears expressed from the Opposition Benches are well founded, but some of them undoubtedly are. I think that acceptance of Amendment No. 120 either as it stands, or in slightly modified form, will go a very long way to meeting these legitimate concerns. Let me also point out in favour of Amendment No. 120 that it is more tightly drawn than Amendment No. 114, which was defeated, and that only works of literary merit as opposed to those works which merely have a literary purpose are exempted. That would make it clear beyond doubt that those recommending works by Oscar Wilde, E. M. Forster, Proust and others have nothing to fear.
Lord Trafford: I take the point in worrying about this amendment, mainly with regard to its wording— I understand fully the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in moving his amendments—and I share the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway about Amendment No. 117. As regards Amendment No. 120, in view of what was said in this afternoon's debate I wonder whether it is necessary at all because surely there will be no proceedings taken here. The true answer to the question how one would act as a librarian is that if one is as a librarian carrying out one's proper function and duty, which is to get a proper selection of books including those of literary merit, one would continue to select such books. I do not believe that under this kind of provision, which after all is only a restriction on local authorities, librarians would have anything to fear. I am sure we shall hear again from the Minister—perhaps I misheard him earlier—that that fear is without any grounds.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: There should not be any doubt at all, but the fact is that there is a fear. There was an unsuccessful attempt made in Amendment No. 114 to do something of this kind and it is very valuable that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has brought in Amendment No. 120, which I consider to be rather better though I should not be willing to pawn its worth.
There is quite a lot to answer for. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was asked two questions which by his silence he does not seem able to answer. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will do so in his place.
I hope that the Minister will take this matter very seriously and consider whether something could be brought forward at another stage to meet the genuine concern which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has put forward. At the same time, refer once again to the fact that the only government amendments in the House of Commons were starred. The only starred amendments on this occasion are government amendments. If the Minister is going to table any amendments on Report, will he please make sure that they are not starred as well?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for his charming courtesy and for the assumption that because I do not take up the Committee's time at this hour I am unable

943
to answer the question and that I have not the slightest idea what I am talking about! But I shall not proceed any further.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has proposed a specific exemption in Amendment No. 117 for the stocking and lending of works relating to homosexuality in the normal discharge of the functions of a public library or the library of an educational institution. In his speech he quite rightly referred to the fear of those in the library world that the normal functions of public libraries would be constrained as a result of this clause.
We have debated at some length in the context of the earlier amendments the various fears about the effect of the clause. I have made it clear that we believe those fears to be misguided. I would only reiterate what my noble friend Lord Trafford has just said on that. I can assure the Committee that it is no part of the Government's intention to inhibit local libraries in their decisions on which books to stock. We recognise that local authorities are under a duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service and that they may wish to stock a range of material about homosexuality dealing with homosexual themes or written by homosexual authors.
In our view, Clause 28 does not stop them doing so unless they are setting out intentionally to promote homosexuality. The amendment is, in the Government's view, therefore unnecessary. It is no part of a local authority's role to promote homosexuality. Our amendments make it absolutely clear that it is only the deliberate promotion of homosexuality by local authorities that would be affected.
Turning to Amendment No. 120, again, we do not accept that it is a legitimate defence for a local authority alleged to have contravened the prohibition that a literary work used by the author or made available to the public by the authority also served a legitimate purpose.
I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that Clause 28 would not prevent local authorities from making available literary works in any of the circumstances specified in his amendments so long as it was no part of their purpose intentionally to promote homosexuality. I come back to that theme, which we have been trying to get across to the Committee as being the sole purpose of the clause. It is for that reason that the Government would not wish to sanction any defences for activities with that specific purpose, which would be the effect of the amendment.
The noble Lord asked a specific question regarding who would be able to bring the action. Any ratepayer, elector or anyone affected by the authority's decision could seek judicial review of that decision. That could cover a parent in the case of a decision affecting a school. In any event, such a party would need the leave of the court, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is fully aware. He asked me whether a conviction would be inevitable. I "tangled"—I use the word in inverted commas—with
944
the noble Lord on the Criminal Justice Bill, so he is aware that I cannot give him a straight answer as I have not had the legal training that he has. Again, it would depend on whether the local authority was seeking intentionally to promote homosexuality. That would be the matter at which the court would look.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Peston, further, the authority's auditor could use his power to seek a declaration from the court that expenditure is illegal under the clause.
Lord McCarthy: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may make sure that I have understood him. Is he saying that masterpieces such as the first 138 sonnets of Shakespeare or large parts of the Iliad, if found by a court to promote homosexuality, could not be issued by a public library?
The Earl of Caithness: No. I am saying that if the local authorities put a range of materials in their libraries, we do not wish to affect them with the clause. If a local authority goes out of its way deliberately to promote homosexuality, that is a matter of great concern.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may ask for one final clarification. I thank the noble Earl for his clarification on the matter of who may bring an action. However, I am even more confused now. Let us assume on the one hand that there is an argument about a certain authority promoting homosexuality. Assuming that, does that not bring into question everything that the local authority is doing? Therefore, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy has said, the issue of Shakespeare's sonnets would arise. One is arguing in a sense that the authority is promoting a positive policy and defying everybody. Therefore, how is one to know that those particular books are not connected with the promotion of homosexuality?
It seems to me that the Minister is not fully aware of what he has opened up and the enormous dangers he is presenting to libraries, schools, and so on. I do not wish to press the matter too strongly. However, I believe that he ought to think about the matter instead of simply rejecting it. I think that the matter is more serious than he appreciates.
The Earl of Caithness: I take the arguments and theories of noble Lords opposite very seriously indeed. If such a matter comes to court for judicial review—and leave must be given for that to happen—and the court looks at all the circumstances, it then has to assess the intention of the local authority. If the authority did nothing other than provide on all its shelves books which were for the promotion of homosexuality, I dare say that under the clause it would not stand a terribly good chance. However, I should not wish to prejudge any situation. As I have said time and again, if there was a wide range of books covering a variety of subjects, we would not wish to catch that in the clause.
Lord Hughes: When the Minister answered Lord Peston's point about who would raise the action he indicated that any ratepayer could apply for a judicial review. Then he went on to talk about the powers of the auditor, which seemed to be a fall-back position. If no ratepayer wanted to involve himself in seeking a judicial review, there would still be this other matter. Am I right in thinking that when he talks about the powers of the auditor he is referring to the new clause in Amendment No. 120BA and the new schedule after Schedule 3 which empowers the auditor to issue prohibition orders against an authority which is infringing any of the provisions in the Bill? If so, what happens in Scotland which is specifically excepted from the new clause and the new schedule?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will allow me to speak first. He has had two or three goes already on this amendment. It seems that the longer the Minister seeks to answer questions the more difficulties he encounters. He has now raised a completely new concept; namely, the idea that a library has a range of books on different subjects and that if the library consists entirely of books about homosexuality it would be subject to challenge, but not if homosexual books are only a part of its general range. Of course none of that appears anywhere in the clause, but that is the interpretation which the Minister offers us.
Let us take a halfway house example. Many bookshops have sections on feminist books, as do many libraries. Many of the feminist books are lesbian feminist books. If they are put in a position of prominence in a public library, is the local authority at risk? I know of bookshops which have shelves and sections specifically for gay and lesbian books. If there is a section of that kind in a public library, is the local authority at risk?
There is no escape for the noble Earl from the difficulties that he is making for himself in accepting this clause and the way in which it has been phrased. Every time that he says something more he makes it increasingly impossible for there to be an acceptable interpretation of what the Government intend by this clause.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: From this side of the Committee we do not have the impression at all that the more the Minister says the more difficulty he gets into. One has the impression that noble Lords opposite have created difficulties which on examination do not have substance. I am not much given to supporting Ministers but on this occasion my noble friend the Minister has acquitted himself logically and well on this subject and is in no difficulty at all.
May I ask a question for clarification? My noble friend the Minister said that the prohibition in Clause 28 was enforceable by judicial review. Then he went on to say "or by a declaration". As I understood it, the normal process of enforcement would be the civil process, that is to say, in England applying in the Chancery Division for a declaration that the conduct was prohibited. One would not be limited to a judicial
946
review process. The civil courts would have the power in an appropriate case even to award damages. That power would be distinct from any powers of the auditor to which the noble Lord has just referred. My understanding is that in the ordinary way if one were consulted about a prohibition, whether or not there was a breach, one would issue a summons or a writ in the High Court seeking a declaration and, if appropriate, in very rare cases damages. Is that the right approach?
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Earl answers that question could he simply tell us whether it is a private Mother Grundy who brings the case or a government Mother Grundy? Is it a civil liability or criminal liability?
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I was surprised by what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about my earlier comments. All I did was repeat what I had said, admittedly in slightly different words. I thought it would be wrong for me to repeat to the Committee exactly the same words that I had used before. However, let me repeat them for the Committee's sake. I am sure that the noble Lord inadvertently did not hear me.
We recognise that local authorities are under a duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service and that they may wish to stock a range of material dealing with homosexual themes, or written by some homosexual authors. In our view, Clause 28 does not stop them doing so unless they are setting out intentionally to promote homosexuality. That is exactly what I said to the noble Lord a moment ago. For him to say to me that I have changed my mind and have dug a deep hole is nonsense. It surprises me that the noble Lord has said it.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I think that I am right in saying that this is a civil matter. I say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that I understood it was through judicial review that one sought the decision; but perhaps I should check on that.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The noble Earl has not answered the question on Amendment No. 120. This sword of Damocles is hanging over the council: that if it supports this play then it may be said that it is promoting homosexuality because it is supporting an organisation which is putting on a play which is promoting homosexuality. That authority will then withdraw its funding because it has hanging over it the sword of Damocles that any member of the public or the auditor may say, "Take them to court. They are promoting homosexuality".
One wishes to know whether in those circumstances the local authority can sit back and say, "This is a play of clear, artistic merit. We do not care a damn that it is promoting homosexuality. We are perfectly safe. We can say to the other councillors that we are perfectly safe because there is here a work of literary merit and that is what makes the difference"; or is literary merit irrelevant? If it is irrelevant, then I ask the Minister again to answer the charge that this is censorship.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said on an earlier amendment that we were not even trying to get things right. I would certainly agree that that observation applied to his own contribution. However, Members of the Committee generally are trying to get this right. What the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has just said confirms what I said a moment or two ago about his attitude. If a play is put on which is intended to promote homosexuality, I think that it would not be, and should not be, a defence that it was also of high artistic or literary merit. If the purpose was the promotion of homosexuality, literary merit is and should be no defence. If a play is put on in the general way and is not intended to promote homosexuality, it is all right.
The final safeguard is the view of the court. Here we come shortly to another amendment of my noble friend. If the court thinks that a play or book, or whatever action is involved, is intended to promote homosexuality, the court will find against the authority financing it. However, if the court finds that the main purpose of the play is the maintenance of a high literary standard and that the homosexual aspect of it is of less importance, it will not find that the purpose is the promotion of homosexuality. Therefore it seems to me that the noble Lord is making extremely heavy weather on a rather bad point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We must be grateful to the noble Lord for coming clean. He rather reminds me of the mother whose child comes home and uses bad language. In defence the child says "Why mustn't I use those words? Shakespeare uses them". The mother says, "Well, you mustn't play with Shakespeare any more."
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is the noble Lord really saying- it is interesting because I think he has unconsciously come clean—that one can put on, shall we say a play, the clear purpose of which is to promote homosexuality and hope to get away with it because it is of high literary quality? Is that what the noble Lord is saying?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have consistently questioned whether the phrase "to promote homosexuality" has any definable meaning, and we persist in doubting that. There cannot be an answer—not that we are unwilling to give an answer—to the noble Lord's question because the terms of that question are inappropriate. If his question, properly interpreted, is whether a play of high literary merit is to be banned, although it portrays homosexuality as an acceptable or as a "pretended family relationship", our answer would be that high artistic merit would defend it from the charge of promoting homosexuality and it ought not to be banned. If that is not the Government's position, the Government have really committed themselves, should they accept the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to a position of censorship of the worst kind that I have heard in this Chamber in the time that I have been here. It raises
948
much greater doubts about the sanity of the Government in pursuing the clause than I should have thought possible.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is the noble Lord who has committed himself, not the Government. He has made it clear—and it is useful to have got this clear—that one can put on a play deliberately designed to corrupt young people—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter:—deliberately designed to corrupt young people and get away with it if it is written by someone whose literary skills are adequate to enable it to claim high artistic or literary character. It is extremely interesting to have extracted that from the noble Lord. It has taken a good many hours to do it, but the truth is now out.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Yes, at long last one knows what one is facing. One realises why all the speeches on Amendment No. 114—which I gather was an Arts Council amendment proposed by the noble Viscount and seconded by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton—were not in favour of the amendment; they were even against the amendment. They were against any interference that was in favour of the motion, That the clause shall not stand part. The motivation has just been explained and we can read it in Hansard tomorrow.
Lord Monson: I can understand the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 120. I am not sure that I entirely agree with him, but I can understand his reservations. Does he not agree that there can be no possible objections to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of Amendment No. 120?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am not dealing at the moment with Amendment No. 120. I was dealing with the one specific point as to whether a play or any other publication designed deliberately to promote homosexuality, and thereby to corrupt young people, should get away with it because it had high literary merit. I confine myself to that point and resting on that, I feel that the other parts of Amendment No. 120 do not arise, although I demur to the suggestion at the end that if the reference were educational, that perhaps would not matter. It is a question of the intention.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the phrase "to corrupt young people". It was I who asked the question. I never mentioned anything about corrupting young people. Young people did not come into my question. The question that I asked was whether a play which incidentally promoted homosexuality or put homosexuality in a favourable light would be caught by this clause if it had high literary merit. Corrupting youth has absolutely nothing to do with it. The noble Lord has misconstrued the question which I put. I should very much like him to withdraw those words.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I was not in fact referring to Lord Hutchinson of Lullington's point; I was dealing directly with his noble friend on the Front Bench to whom I directed the question. Therefore, I have nothing whatever to withdraw in respect of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, although I felt that his speech tended, as they so often do, to miss the point.
I am dealing with the point, which is now clearly established, that it is apparently the view of the Opposition that however damaging and however effective in promoting homosexuality a publication may be, it should get away with it if it can demonstrate high literary merit. That is all. I think that is a point of which not only the Committee but also people outside may take note.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am directly challenged. I am content to let Hansard record correctly what was said. I made no reference to the corruption of young people, as the noble Lord perfectly well knows. Those are entirely his words. I do not care whether or not he withdraws them. They bear no relationship to anything that I said. I also made it absolutely clear that in our view the phrase "promote homosexuality" has no definable meaning and therefore cannot be used effectively in legislation. I will not be led into the trap of trying to use his words and the Government's words to define our point of view.
We are saying that many works of art and literature throughout the ages have portrayed homosexual relationships as being acceptable, admirable, happy and worthwhile. Nothing should be done in this Bill which would make it impossible for local authorities to publish, promote or make available such works of art. Anybody who says otherwise is going back not only on the last few years of legislation but also on hundreds of years of civilisation.
Lord Trafford: Perhaps the noble Lord will answer the question. It seems to me that he answered his own question in his choice of words and so did the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington.
If I remember correctly, Lord Hutchinson's question began with the words, "if a play is shown which incidentally contains a large amount of homosexual material" or words to that effect. By using the word "incidental" as opposed to "intentional" it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, answered his own question and that he was talking about an entirely different type of play from my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He was talking about an ordinary play with perhaps a considerable amount of homosexual content which was, to use his word, "incidental".
In exactly the same way a few minutes later, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to a work of art. I assume that he was referring to a play. If those are the reasons why a play is put on, then it cannot fall foul of this particular clause. I am giving an interpretation which I believe I have heard come from the Front Bench on this side of the Committee all the way through; namely, that if it is not the
950
obvious intention of a particular work of art or play to promote homosexuality, then it does not fall foul of the clause. From the way in which they phrased their questions, I should have thought that both noble Lords had answered the point.
The other point which we were trying to pin down was made I thought a little prematurely by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He was referring to plays that one might say were homosexual or heterosexual. If they were heterosexual I suppose they might come under the term "blue film" or "pornography". This is the obverse side of that particular coin. No matter what sexuality it was promoting, it probably would have been obscene. But where it is a work of art and where its primary intention is not to promote homosexuality, even if it is portrayed in the book or the film, then it would seem to me that it is self-evident from all that has been said on this side of the Committee that it does not fall foul of this clause.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to support the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Earlier in the debate it was said that laws were made because of the authorities or individuals who abuse. If one were to think of the worst kind of example of that to which the noble Lord was referring, it is using great works of art not as such but to promote homosexuality. In other words, the works of art are the focal point of the teaching or the influencing, and I include young people. It does not include great plays which incidentally contain homosexual people or descriptions of homosexual acts. There are great works of art which are there to be enjoyed, and there is no intention on the part of the Bill, or on the part of those who support Clause 28, to prohibit that from continuing. However, we have heard today of examples of some individuals within the educational system or some local authorities who would specifically use selected parts of the works of art to exploit, promote and further the cause of homosexuality. That is what is to be outlawed by the Bill and not the works of art themselves.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to say that it is not a question of selecting some works of art. The first 138 sonnets of Shakespeare are a love poem from one man to another. Would she catch that or not?
Baroness Blatch: With respect, I would advocate that my children and anyone else's children should continue throughout the future years to study the beautiful pieces of literature; the Shakespeare sonnet. I would absolutely and violently disagree where somebody uses the sonnets to advocate and promote homosexuality. That is not how I expect them to be used or taught. It is in the hands of the person influencing somebody else.
Lord McCarthy: It is all right if it is Shakespeare but not somebody else.
Lord Hughes: I should like to return to my little play within the play and the origin of the matter in respect of an offence. The Minister said to his noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—who was about to leave but has now stopped—that he thought it would be judicial review. I think that the Minister is right about that matter. At the bottom of page 10 is set out the power of the auditor to apply for judicial review in the new schedule. I should like to be certain as to the position of Scottish local authorities in respect of that matter. This schedule, and the clause which refers to it, are specifically stated to apply only to England and Wales. I do not expect the Minister to answer my question, even though he has just been joined by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. However, in order that I might know whether I need do anything at the next stage, I should appreciate it if the Minister would write to me outlining the Scottish position.
The Earl of Caithness: I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord on that particular point because I think that it would be the right way to deal with the matter.
I should like to try to summarise the debate, if that is remotely possible. When a local authority, which carries out its normal functions, decides to stock books, it can stock books with homosexual themes. If a local authority decides to put on plays, it can put on plays with homosexual themes. The question that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, asked me is perhaps the question that the local authority should be asking itself. It needs to decide what its purpose is in either stocking the books or funding the play. If its purpose is to fund a work of literary or artistic merit, then its purpose will be legitimate.
Lord Peston: I must apologise. I thought my two amendments were very innocuous and I thought they would be dealt with very rapidly; but I am relatively inexperienced. Of course I agree, en passant, with Lord McNair that there are some disjunctives missing from the clauses, but that is not a major problem.
I believed that the difference between the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and myself was that I took him to be saying that my worries are taken care of implicity in the clause as put forward. I am saying that I am doubtful and should like it made explicit. I was hoping for a more positive response from him, but it looked early on as if one could agree to differ. However, given what several Members on his side of the Committee said, I thought their remarks were disastrous from almost every point of view because they certainly lead to a completely different conclusion and lead me to the view that especially what I say in Amendment No. 120 is absolutely necessary. Regretfully, I cannot withdraw the amendment and I must divide the Committee.
10.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 117) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 42.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birkett, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Manchester, Bp.

Gifford, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Seear, B.

Grey. E.

Tordoff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beloff, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Norfolk, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Renton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Colnbrook, L.

Sandford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Selkirk, E.

Dundee, E.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stockton, E.

Grantchester, L.

Strange, B.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L,

Trafford, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.44 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 117A:
Page 28, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as it sees fit.").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: Although this amendment was spoken to earlier, and although the Minister was kind enough to be sympathetic to a suggestion I made a short time ago, I ask him whether he really thinks that this amendment is necessary. It states:
"a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as it sees fit".
You cannot look into the mind of a person or even that of a body corporate and get direct evidence of what was intended. All you can do is to infer somebody's intention from the way that they behave. The courts are doing this every day; they could not do it any other way. We ought to be careful not to clutter the statute book with matters which are not strictly necessary. I believe that the words of the amendment go without saying and are unnecessary.
Lord Hughes: I should like to make the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. If this amendment is not put in the Bill, would the judge be unable to draw such inferences as he thought fit?
The Earl of Caithness: On the best legal advice that I have available to me I am advised that this amendment is necessary to make it absolutely plain what inferences the court can draw when and if a case is brought before it. Contrary to what the noble Lord. Lord Airedale, said, my legal adviser on this—I must take the legal advice, not being a lawyer myself—says that these words are very necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 28, line 37, at end insert—
("(4) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to apply to the production and/or presentation of a play within the meaning of the Theatres Act 1968").
The noble Lord said: In case the Committee is completely drowned with words by now, I believe that I should make it entirely clear that this amendment is not intended to contradict anything which the noble Earl has said from the Front Bench. It is intended to make quite sure that the intentions of the noble Earl are translated into the legislation. That is the object of this particular exercise; it is quite different from anything else that we have been discussing until now.
The amendment which was lost at an earlier stage was, as the Committee will be aware, promoted to some extent by the Arts Council. I had better come clean and say that this amendment is promoted by the Theatre Managers' Association, by the Society of West End Theatre Managers and by the Theatrical Managers' Association. They asked me whether I would agree to put forward an amendment which they felt was necessary not only in regard to their artistic requirements but also from their financial point of view.
Today, the supported theatre and the commercial theatre are closely intertwined. Most of the companies which operate throughout the country are members of either the Society of West End Theatre Managers—in the case of the great national theatres—or of the Theatrical Managers' Association in the case of the smaller companies. They put on shows which initially are quite often promoted by local authorities. Therefore they have an interest in this subject purely from a financial point of view.
They have not asked me to become involved with the niceties and difficulties into which the Arts Council got itself, but simply to ask the Committee to add these words on the assumption that the previous amendment would be defeated. Personally, I believe that it would have been necessary to add these words even if it had not been defeated. The amendment seeks simply to say:
"Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to apply to the production and/or presentation of a play within the meaning of the Theatres Act 1968."
954
That takes out of the situation what I believe it was never the intention of the Government to include—the performance of plays. I do not believe that to have been the object of the exercise at all; it arose, I believe, incidentally. It so happens that, among other things, local authorities finance theatrical productions. Sometimes they are also financed by the Treasury and by the Arts Council. Quite often, plays are financed by private enterprise. In fact we get what is a mixed economy operating together in the theatre. That is necessary because even as amended by the noble Earl subsection (1) states that a local authority shall not,
(c) give financial or other assistance to any person for cither of the purposes referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above".
The two purposes referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) are,
"intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material intended to promote homosexuality".
and promote the teaching of homosexuality and so on.
Paragraph (c) worries theatrical managers. There are a number of productions around the country at the moment which might conceivably be decided by a judge to be promoting homosexuality because they do not present it in a deleterious or tacky way. They might be regarded as being neutral on the matter. They might be regarded by some people to be promoting homosexuality. The situation is uncertain. It does not matter what the noble Earl's opinion is because it is not his opinion which will count. I ask the Minister not only to give us his opinion, but to say, "Yes, I am so sure of my opinion that I am prepared to accept your amendment," which merely provides:
"Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to apply to the production and/or presentation of a play within the meaning of the Theatres Act 1968."
All plays put on commercially in this country come within the meaning of that Act which covers the whole theatrical scene.
The opposition is widespread. My desk has been covered with papers. If I were to spread them out they would cover every seat in this Chamber. Not only the seats on which Members of the Committee are sitting, but all the others would be covered with letters from people who are sincerely worried about this issue. They see something happening here that we have tended to resist in this country. We have tried to avoid the use of monetary censorship. The Arts Council has always tried hard not to use the money that it distributes in a way which betrays a desire to influence what the play says but solely to give the money on its artistic merits.
The same principle applies to the man who is putting on a play commercially. If he thinks that someone is saying something interesting, he may want to put on the play. With help from the local authority, either directly or indirectly, he can put it on. Such a person may want to take over a play, which has already been put on elsewhere, and translate it to the West End. That is where the issue of intention comes in:
"intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material".

955
or give money. How will the system work? Someone may see a play and say, "I think that this play is promoting homosexuality." By that time it may be in the West End, in a large town or anywhere else. Whose intention are we talking about? Originally, of course, it was the local authority's intention. By putting on that play, did the manager take on the local authority's intention? What about the playwright? Where does his intention start and finish? By taking on the local authority's intention and the playwright's intention is the manager automatically assuming a responsibility of his own? Does it become his intention?
Those matters are not sufficiently clear. However, they would all be clear if the noble Earl were to say, "Well, this is something we did not intend to enter into at all. It is not the object of the exercise. We had no idea that all these problems would arise and that people would be so seriously worried about them." So if the noble Earl will say, "I not only say that what I am doing here, what the Government are doing here, does not have this effect, but I will accept your amendment to show that we are confident that it will not have that effect", I think we shall be happy.
This matter is thought to be very important by people not only in the commercial theatre but in the theatre generally. The theatre is important in this country; make no mistake about that. It is not something which does not matter. It matters a great deal, more than many other things which we give value to. If the noble Earl cannot say, "I not only mean what I say but I'm prepared to support legislation", we shall have to press the matter further. I hope I have said enough to convince the noble Earl that what I am proposing here is something which he can accept, and that he will do so. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: What about films? We have not mentioned films throughout the whole debate. It seems to me that local authorities are more likely to promote a film for these purposes than a play. I have a suggestion to make. If it is a film we might invite the services of the British Board of Film Classification. I notice that the vice-president of that board has been sitting here for hours. I dare not ask him whether he is here to see what classification his board would give to the video recording of our proceedings today. Would it be classified as available for general viewing, or would it be only for people over the age of 18 who would have to go to a sex shop for it? Or would it be for children between 15 and 18, but only under parental guidance?
It seems to me that to give all the refinements an expert body would be needed for an answer to this dilemma as to whether a work is free of taint. I would not suggest that local authorities should take a chance and produce a film and by calling it educational they would not go to the British Board of Film Classification at all. There is a law to prevent any display of genital organs in educational films, except under very strict conditions. So I think that anything that was called education which contained this unseemly content would fail to be classified as a lawful educational film.
956
Quite seriously, there is wonderful scope here for exploring aid in defining the various degrees of acceptability of films and plays. It seems that by the end of the day we shall have suppressed something, but I do not think we shall be very clear about what it is. I am only trying to be helpful. I am prepared to stay here all night as long as I can be helpful.
11 p.m.
Lord Birkett: I had intended to make a short and modest contribution in support of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and I had no idea that as vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification I should be called upon at this late hour for technical advice on the classification of movies. In order to get that out of the way as swiftly as I possibly can, let me say that so far as concerns the proceedings of the Committee, should they be issued for sale as a video, there are a number of classifications to choose from. The most widely accepted and generally regarded as being totally acceptable is called U(C), which means universally acceptable and especially suitable for children. Whether one would dare to apply that to the proceedings of the Committee I should not dream of saying without seeing the film first.
To revert to the matters in hand today, should anybody, whether a local authority or anybody else, produce a film designed to promote, encourage, proselytise homosexuality, I should be very surprised indeed if my board gave it a certificate at all, of any sort. So I very much doubt whether that eventuality will arise. However, I have to say that I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, partly because I seem to have spent most of my working life connected with the theatre in one way or another—I love it and I still believe it to be one of the great glories of this nation—and partly for the slightly sentimental feeling that his amendment is beginning to look a little lonely at this time of night on the Marshalled List.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has made a lot of reassuring remarks today about what the Bill is not intended to do, and how many people need not be alarmed about the effects of it; in particular, of course, the artistic community who are and were alarmed. It was for that reason that the Arts Council called for the legal opinion that it did and proposed through several of the Members of the Committee, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, Amendment No. 114. I was very sorry to see that disappear and rather surprised to see it find so little favour on government Benches. I think the artistic community has been worried.
It is all very well reassuring it about the intentions of the Bill and how it will not be caught by some of the more luridly imagined worries that come into its mind; but I do not think the artistic community is preternaturally sensitive about those things. We are dealing with an amendment now on the theatre. We have had one that touched upon libraries. The matter of artistic merit has been debated. We have had pedagogical merit debated. We have had a number of amendments, none of which seems to have found favour in the eyes of the Committee. So one after another little clauses have disappeared.

957
I put it to the noble Earl that if he would really like to dispel the worries of the artistic community at large about this Bill it is not beyond the wit of man and certainly not beyond the wit of the drafting expertise available to his department to put into the Bill at some stage a degree of reassurance in the very terms that he has outlined so clearly this afternoon which will in fact take the curse off what is seen as a very dangerous measure by the world at large and reassure in particular the artistic community. I recommend him to think very seriously about that before the next stage. In the meantime, I simply extend some warm support to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I rise at this stage to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney. As I said, I wish to be very brief; but this matter is a worry that has developed from the previous exchanges regarding the possibility of prosecution of a local authority. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in his brief remarks, referred to the way that theatre these days is financed, in some cases from a local authority and donations from businesses. That is how it works.
I am going back now to my days in Manchester when the local authority did make contributions from the rates to the Halle Orchestra, the Library Theatre, and the 69 Theatre. I put the point in a most constructive sense to the Minister. One of the theatres that was a beneficiary of some support from the local authority rate fund might promote and produce a recognised bona fide play that had homosexual undertones or depictions in it and then (as theatres do on some occasions for these plays or concerts in order to justify the donations made) they may distribute tickets to schools.
If some of the tickets that were made available were then distributed among sixth formers who then went along to see these plays what would be the situation? Would the local authority be liable to prosecution, but not the people who made the private donation? If that was the case, there would be the situation where the local authority would be treated quite differently and quite arbitrarily while the person or the company who made the private donation would be in no way involved. Is that not a rather strange way of applying what we are supposed to in this country—the even-handedness of the law as it affects everyone? I should like the Minister to answer that point because I do not think it is as hypothetical as some people in the Committee may think.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I declare an interest as a director of a company that owns a good many London theatres. Having said that, I make the simple point, in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that it would seem very odd to make an exception of the theatre as compared with every other activity. I do not yield to him in my admiration for the very high standard of the theatre in England today, whether owned by private enterprise or operated by local authorities. Although there may be some force in what he has said it would be a great mistake to make a conspicuous exception and a grant of special immunity from
958
prosecution for the theatre, when all other activities would be exposed if they erred in that direction under the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: It is true that our briefcases are lined with correspondence on the subject. It is also true—I listened to Members of the Committee as they exchanged notes on who had heard from whom and about what—that that correspondence has come from a relatively small percentage of the community and almost entirely from homosexuals, with some exceptions.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps Members of the Committee on the opposite side of the Chamber have had more correspondence from people asking to support the Bill than those of us who have received correspondence urging us to oppose it. The bulk of my correspondence has been in terms of: "Please support Clause 28". However, I believe that Members of the Committee have all received the same letters from the same people. Very few letters have come in saying: "Please, do what you can to make sure that Clause 28 stays in the Bill."
I wish to refer to the 88 per cent. of people, as determined in a recent opinion poll, who are very concerned about the issue. Our responsibility is to address that concern. I am worried about the danger of going around the same arguments once again. At the end of the day, the debate is about proving an intention to promote homosexuality. That is what it is all about. If plays are put on in the normal way, the public go to see them and the intention is simply to show a play for the sake of showing a play, whether or not it is of high literary merit. There is no danger to that activity from the Bill.
Where there is an intention to promote homosexuality and that can be proved, there is something to be worried about. I cannot support the exemption because I do not believe that the people mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, are in any kind of danger. The Bill is concerned with the promotion of homosexuality which it is designed to outlaw.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Is the noble Baroness saying that the authority takes the view that the play promotes homosexuality? That is what it is all about.
Baroness Blatch: I am saying that if the people putting on the play have the intention and purpose to promote homosexuality, then I believe that the motive is questionable. If the motive is simply to present a play to the public and no more than that—schools or theatre companies may be producing a whole season of plays—then there is no danger. The motive for putting on the play in the first place is the matter at issue.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I think the noble Baroness is wrong in assuming that, because the Minister has given the Government's view on the intention of the Bill, it becomes the law. In another place I sat on

959
numerous standing committees both in opposition and in government. It was always made clear that court decisions were made on what was in an Act and not what the Government thought was in an Act. I have to remind the Committee that three times in the last Parliament Secretaries of State were taken to court for misinterpretation of Acts. Unless it is written into the Act, the court has no clear guidance on the law. It has to be written into the Act and not be in the Minister's words from the Dispatch Box, however good his intentions.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may make one brief point, which follows on what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has said. It has been bothering me all day. The suggestion has been made that opposition to Clause 28 stems primarily from homosexuals. To my certain knowledge, so far as concerns the arts, that is simply not the case, because the whole force of objection is coming from people who are heterosexual. That applies to the sciences as well. However, to judge it as opposition from a small pressure group is entirely erroneous. We ought to get that point on the record. The objections are not from groups asking for special privileges but precisely from other groups who say that they do not want that to happen.
Baroness Blatch: Many of my letters actually start with the phrase, "I am a homosexual". Perhaps I have had a different set of correspondents.
Lord Monson: Although I am still unhappy about certain aspects of Clause 28—even as it has been amended—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it would be quite illogical to exempt one medium and one only. Furthermore, I do not think that the clause as it stands is quite the threat to the theatre that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and his supporters suppose. I dare say that they have in mind "The Romans in Britain" as one of the plays that might possibly be affected. "The Romans in Britain" does not promote homosexuality; but shows it in a most unpleasant light, so much so that it has precisely the opposite effect. I do not think that noble Lords need have any worries on that particular score.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: One of the things worrying the theatre is the fact that there will be two laws: a play will not be censored if it is not promoted by a local authority, but it will be censored if it is. That surely is an undesirable situation—to have one law for plays that are put on or promoted by local authorities, and another law for those which are not so promoted. It may be the very same play.
Let us consider the case of E. M. Forster's novel Maurice. That has been made into a film which could well be said to promote homosexuality. I myself believe that it does. In the view of many people it is a work of art. That film is freely shown in cinemas in the United Kingdom. However, suppose that it is shown in cinemas owned by local authorities. Those local authorities can then be taken to the courts for promoting homosexuality. That is merely another
960
amendment which showed how ridiculous is the construction of the clause, and another reason for the noble Earl to take it back to his friends and ask them to reconsider it.
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was very ingenious in the way in which he introduced his amendment. He highlighted the answer that I would give him, which has been the fairly consistent answer that I have been able to give this afternoon. Then he said, "Get me off the hook; let us exclude theatres". Therefore, I have to repeat that the Government do not share the noble Lord's view that local authorities' funding of the theatre would be affected by Clause 28, except in circumstances in which a local authority, or a group which it was funding, set out deliberately to promote homosexuality.
A local authority wishing to stage or assist with the staging of plays as part of a programme designed to provide a wide cross-section of material for the general public need not feel constrained from doing so by this provision. Here is the rub for the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. He has itemised one play. I am not itemising one play. If the local authority is staging a succession of plays of which one is the one that he mentioned, I hope that he will bear my words in mind. However, if the local authority were to promote a succession of plays which promoted homosexuality as their only motive the plays must be subject to questions that would have to be resolved by the courts. It will then become the defence of the local authority to say that it was not their intention. The purpose of the amendment that I have just moved is to allow the court to take into account all the circumstances.
The proposal in the amendment of the noble Lord would, however, be damaging in terms of the Bill's objectives, and I know he fully realises that. It would effectively allow local authorities who wished to do so to use the theatre to promote homosexuality; for example, by funding a theatre group whose purpose was solely or mainly to do that. The Government could not support the introduction of this important loophole into the clause for the very reasons that my noble friend Lady Blatch has given.
In summary, the Government do not believe that the local authorities would be prevented by Clause 28 from financing the theatre for the purposes of ensuring that the public have access to a full range of available material. Our amendments put beyond doubt any question that they would. I believe that we have met the noble Lord's concerns and that his worries are not founded.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: The noble Earl is too young to recall that about 20 years ago, almost to the day, in this country we abolished censorship of the theatre. The only noble Lord present who was a member of the committee which abolished it, as well as myself, was the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He was a member of the committee which abolished censorship of the theatre. It was an extraordinary committee. It was a joint parliamentary committee

961
under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, consisting of the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, the late Lord Kilmuir, the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and, in addition, Mr. Faulds, Mr. Foot, Mr. Hooson, Mr. Hugh Jenkins. Sir David Renton, Mr. St. John-Stevas, Mr. Strauss and Mr. William Wilson.
One could hardly have had a group of people less likely to agree about anything. However, the reason that they came to the conclusion that the censorship on the theatre must be abolished was that the Lord Chamberlain himself, who was the censor, said, "I want nothing more to do with this nonsense". He said that he had spent his life substituting this unpleasant word for that unpleasant word and saying that it could then go through, judging whether or not there was an intention and judging whether or not there was a deliberate intention to promote. He said, "This is a total nonsense. Abolish me". We had no alternative but to abolish his office.
What is happening now is that, by a silly back door, censorship is being allowed in again. All the problems that we spent all those years dealing with are listed—the noble Earl can read them—as are the absurdities we went through when discussing whether the issue did or did not promote something, or whether it intended to, and so on. We decided that enough was enough. This issue is coming back. This is a disgraceful business. It is the result of introducing into a Bill which has nothing whatever to do with the subject an issue which has been insufficiently studied by people who have no knowledge of it and do not realise the quagmire, the swamp, into which they are putting themselves. I suggest to the noble Earl that they will bitterly regret Clause 28.
Lord Renton: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I hope that he will allow me to remind him that in reaching our unanimous decision to which he has referred, our minds were prompted by the fact that we were taking away from the Lord Chamberlain a jurisdiction of being censor while placing upon the courts a responsibility which, it could be said, they already had of allowing the law relating to obscenity to operate. In order to give a complete picture of the conclusion that we reached, I think that that should be borne in mind.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Will the noble Lord agree that the whole of this matter we are discussing should be left to the ordinary law and the law of obscenity? If not, why not?
Lord Renton: That would make the amendment unnecessary.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I think I agree with much that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. One of the courses we took was to make sure that the law was not exploited by every Tom, Dick or Harry. We made it necessary to get the fiat of the Attorney-General before an action could be brought under the Act. Therefore, if instead of the noble Earl telling me that
962
anybody can sue under this—the whole country—he will say that the Government will introduce a clause whereby action can only be taken with the fiat of the Attorney-General, we may look at it again. But he is not saying anything of the sort. He is saying simply: "Here it is. We have done it and we are not going to change our minds". That simply will not do. A change has to be made, and unless the noble Earl has something more to say, even at this late hour, it will be my duty to divide the Committee, simply to demonstrate some of us will not have this nonsense.
Lord Monson: Does the noble Lord not agree that a local authority owning a theatre could not possibly be caught by the clause unless it were deliberately to put on something entitled, for example, "A season of homosexual drama" and advertise it widely as such? Unless it were to do such a thing it could not possibly be caught by the clause.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: If that were put into the Bill, yes. But if no such thing were done, what the noble Earl says about a range of things is absolutely meaningless. The Bill itself is in total contradiction of the words of the noble Earl on the Front Bench.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: There is this point of censorship. This is how it will come about. A local authority will say, "We shall not put on 'Maurice'. Goodness me, no; otherwise someone will prosecute us". Therefore one will have censorship in that form. It will not be put on because somebody will prosecute. It will be a fear of prosecution by the local authority that will stop it putting on a perfectly reputable play because some busybody will take it to court, waste ratepayers' money and the court's time in finding out whether or not the intention is there in putting on a single production of "Maurice".
This is absolutely censorship by the back door. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has put his finger on it. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has given the game away completely. The whole of the clause can be operated under the Obscene Publications Act.
11.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 119) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 33.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Birkett, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kissin, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Gifford, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

963

NOT-CONTENTS

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Norfolk, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dundee, E.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stockton, E.

Grantchester, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trafford, L.

Harvington, L.

Wynford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 120:
Page 28, line 37, at end insert—
("(4) It shall be a defence in any action brought under subsection (1) of this section to establish to the satisfaction of the court, with regard to any literary works used by or under the local authority and which are alleged to be contrary to subsection (1), that—

(a) such works are of literary merit;

(b) the use made of such works, in all the circumstances, meets a genuine pedagogical need.

(c) the references to homosexuality in the works are incidental to its principle content; or

(d) the references to homosexuality in the works are essential to its completeness as a work of learning or reference.")

The noble Lord said: Disappointed though I am by what one might call the noble Earl's standard reply, it seems to me that I have had a very fair run for my money and therefore I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 28. line 37, at end insert—
("(4) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of providing information, counselling or advice to any pupil at a school or other educational establishment maintained by the authority as to his personal development or any family relationship which could reasonably be regarded as likely to affect that development.")
The noble Lord said: Having failed to get any sense out of the Government in defining precisely the meaning of the terms "promote" or "intentionally promote", the intention of the amendment is to look at what we consider could be a problem the other way round. The Government may believe that there are children who will need protection from some people involved in education. The amendment seeks to point out that there are those who intentionally seek to promote homosexuality in all the terms used by the Minister and his friends and that they need to be stopped. That is the stance of the Labour Party because this is substantially the amendment which was moved by my honourable friend John Cunningham, the Member for Copeland in another place.
Will the Minister confirm that in carrying out their duties regarding sex education as laid down by, for
964
example, the Department of Education, the overwhelming majority of teachers are doing nothing that they will not be able to do when the Act is passed, provided that there is not an intention to promote homosexuality? In every school there are young people who are growing up and finding that they need to ask questions and to discuss matters. They need counselling of one kind or another in the school. We want the Minister to confirm that all those duties which are now undertaken will not be caught by the Act because they do not intentionally promote homosexuality. I hope that what is being done by the teachers, counsellors and groups is what every Member of the Committee would wish them to do—they are responding to genuine concerns, cares and considerations which are brought to their attention by young people.
The Minister may well say that there is no need for this amendment. If he says that there is no need for it because all the issues which it seeks to include in the Bill are not caught by the Bill, in my view that would substantially meet the case. I do not wish to delay the Committee unduly.
I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speak of the correspondence which she has received about this matter. I have received more than 200 letters from the city of Cambridge. Undoubtedly, most of them are from students in the colleges. All of them substantially plead the case in respect of Clause 28. She will understand how remarkable it is that they have chosen the right person in her and the right person in me.
The other point that the noble Baroness made was that most of the letters she received started off, "I am a homosexual". In one of the letters that I have from Downing College, which is certainly better known to the noble Baroness than myself, the writer speaks both as a heterosexual and a Christian:
"I feel bound to say that in my opinion this Bill proposes a very dangerous precedent."
In another part of the letter he speaks as a scholar of literature and the fine arts. He says:
"I also wish to register my profound dismay at the implications of Section 27(2)(a) of the Local Government Bill."
Undoubtedly Members of the Committee have received much correspondence.
The Minister can assure a great many people who are worried about what the Bill means in practice. If it makes no difference whatever to the overwhelming number of teachers who are carrying out their duties properly, fairly, compassionately, sincerely and giving guidance and counselling to young people who have come to a realisation of their sexual orientation and are seeking guidance and who are not promoting or intentionally promoting homosexuality, then I am sure the Minister will do those and thousands of other people a good service. I beg to move.
Lord Gifford: I should like to support the amendment. The clause as drafted at present puts teachers—and especially teachers who have the pastoral care of young people—in an impossible position. They are charged with counselling and

965
trying to assist and advise young adolescents who are finding out about their sexuality. They will be approached by young men and women who may be discovering that they are gay. The young people may be very oppressed by that discovery, particularly given the climate of our times, and they come to the teacher for advice.
What is the position of a teacher who counsels that young person that he or she is not abnormal but that there are millions in the same position; that their sexuality—if they arc indeed gay—is not something abhorrent or unacceptable but is real and is normal and is their particular characteristic and not something to be ashamed of? If that young person then in conversation with their parents or relations divulges that advice and the parent, in horror, complains to the press or the local authority that here is a teacher who is promoting homosexuality, what happens to the teacher then? Can the Minister assure the Committee that teachers in that position will not be subjected to disciplinary proceedings if they do not abstain from that kind of advice? There is a real point of issue raised by this amendment, and I hope the Minister will assure the Committee that he will either look at the matter again or give a sympathetic reply.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has put his finger on a most important point. There is another aspect of this matter. Those charged by the council, by HMI and the Department of Education and Science with the task of counselling will be afraid to do it in relation to homosexuality in case just this sort of thing happens. They will be afraid to carry out their proper task of counselling. I ask the noble Earl to consult with the Department of Education and Science and ask it whether or not it has fears because there is a HMI publication dated 1986 called Health Education front 5 to 16 which states:
"The importance of sexual relationships in all our lives is such that sex education is a crucial part of preparing children for their lives now and in the future as adults and parents."
That cannot he done without describing the whole range of sexual inclinations. The 1987 Department of Education and Science circular entitled Sex Education at School states:
"The Secretary of State considers that the aims of a programme of sex education should be to present facts in an objective and balanced manner so as to enable pupils to comprehend the range of sexual attitudes and behaviour in present day society".
Let us suppose that there is a homosexual teacher, of either sex, who is afraid of being exposed in just the way that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, related to the Committee. What is that teacher going to do? He or she is not going to do the job properly, but will refrain from telling children about homosexuality, whether male or female, and will not be able to fulfil the wishes of the Secretary of State in his circular. That is a most undesirable development which might well take place.
Lord Renton: This well-intentioned amendment is extremely widely drawn and I wonder whether those who have moved it have really contemplated that it would have a most damaging effect. The only criterion as to whether this information, counselling and advice could be given is to be found in the words at the end:
966
"which could reasonably be regarded as likely to affect that development."
Absurd though it may seem, the amendment means, as worded, that if it is to have an adverse effect it would be all right-anything goes. I find that a very strange result but one must infer that from the wording of the amendment.
Another point that the Committee may wish to hear in mind about the amendment, mainly because of what I said about the wording of it, is that it would be in conflict with subsection (1). We should therefore be passing a wrecking amendment if we agreed to this one.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for giving the Committee the opportunity to discuss the question of pupil counselling. Clearly it is important for a local authority and its staff to feel free to discuss with a pupil any problems that arise because of a pupil's personal preferences, including problems that involve the discussion of homosexuality. The Government naturally share the Opposition's concern that local authorities should not be prevented from ensuring that pupils with personal difficulties have access to persons, be they teachers or specialised counsellors, who can discuss those personal circumstances in an objective and helpful fashion. That is quite different of course from promoting homosexuality or promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
Let me again reassure the Committee that the government amendment would make it clear that local authorities' legitimate counselling services would not be affected so long as the local authority was not promoting, or assisting counsellors to promote, homosexuality. That was the point that my noble friend Lord Renton picked up from the final words of the amendment. Clearly I have great faith that the majority of counsellors will do this in an objective and helpful fashion; but what is fundamental to the Bill is that those local authority staff who promote homosexuality must be candidates for being looked at as seriously transgressing it.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Gifford: Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further and take him up not on the question of promoting homosexuality but on the other limb of the clause as it stands, that is to say, promoting,
"the teaching… of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
If, in a counselling situation, a pupil were to ask, let us say, about his parent who may be in a lesbian relationship, it would surely be promoting the teaching of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship for the teacher to say, "There is nothing wrong with your mother's relationship; it is a normal relationship and many women have such relationships. It is perfectly acceptable."
Is it really to be supposed that a counsellor should be inhibited from trying to reassure a child who is concerned about something in relation to his parents because that teacher will be at risk of promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a

967
pretended family relationship? Surely, there is something to be looked at here, at least in respect of paragraph (b) if not (a) as well.
I hope that we shall have an answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. Has the Minister consulted the Department of Education and Science as to its view of this clause? If he has not, he should, should he not? Will the Minister undertake to the Committee that he will?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may refer to what my noble friend thought might be a hypothetical situation. One of my closest friends is a lesbian and is living with the mother of a five year old child who has just started school. The case which my noble friend has put is precisely that which is happening now in a school in north London. Is that young child, a boy aged five, to be told that what he sees as his family relationship is unacceptable? Is it to be prohibited that the truth should be told about the relationship which is that of a happy family? It is clear from the way in which the Bill is drafted that a description of that relationship is outlawed by this clause.
Anybody may have their own views about my friends. But they cannot consider it acceptable for an innocent five year old boy to be deliberately confused by a clause of this kind.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has overlooked the fact that if the five year old child, when he becomes a teenager, asks about this relationship and is told, "In the case of your mother and her friend it is a relationship that they have decided upon and I do not think you need worry," that is not promoting homosexuality in the child.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is promoting in a maintained school the acceptability of homosexuality as the pretended family relationship. That is what it is doing.
The Earl of Caithness: Of course, the noble Lords, Lord Gifford and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, were right to raise the question of a pretended family relationship. I am sorry that I did not say earlier that this is the very point which I took back to look at. It was the amendment of my noble friend Lady Cox. I wanted to have another look at the wording between now and another stage, and I shall do so.
Of course, the Ministers at the Department of Education and Science have been consulted. I did not answer that question from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, because I thought that with his knowledge of the workings of government he would have automatically assumed that that had taken place, as indeed it had.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, this was something that I agreed to take away and look at again. I said that when the noble Lord was not here.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The trouble with this kind of legislation is that one cannot leave anything to chance. On subjects of this kind there are some
968
extremely vicious people around who are relentless in their pursuit of their objective. I do not want to mention any names, but one can recall cases that have been taken against local authorities by citizens who want to work out, to the bitter end, their relentless opposition, for example, to what was being done in connection with young girls and family planning.
We cannot leave this issue to chance because people can pursue matters all the way to this place on legal aid. It is astonishing how far people can go on legal aid to resolve some matter of public importance. That is why we must be so careful.
I shall not detain the Committee any longer, except to say that it is remarkable that, so far as I am aware, throughout this debate no advice has come forward from anyone representing the Department of Education and Science. The issue has been treated as a local government matter. We are discussing an educational matter during a debate on a Local Government Bill.
Another point is that it is undesirable to be considering matters relating to schools and the teaching or promotion of homosexuality separately from consideration of other subjects being taught to children. What other proscriptions are there to be? What matters in our educational system are to become obligatory? Where is the balance? Where can we see the whole child undergoing educational instruction and enlightenment?
My noble friend Lord Henderson read out something a moment ago relating to sex education in schools. But we have heard nothing about that subject. All we have heard about is promoting homosexuality. This is the narrowest, most blinkered piece of legislation that one can possibly have in such a matter.
I thought the Chamber existed to make good law and to see that it is done properly. But we are just a receptacle for the slipshod work done in another place. Legislation that is ill-considered, thrown in at the last minute and ill-drafted comes to this place to be knocked into shape. I shall have much more to say about this when we come to Clause 10 stand part.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Earl has said that the Department of Education and Science was consulted. Will he tell us at what level it was consulted, what it was asked and it said?
The Earl of Caithness: Of course the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is right to raise the question of sex education. However, he knows full well that under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, control passed from the local authorities to school governors. It is right that one should still consult one's colleagues in other departments, and more than one department is involved in this. But it would be wrong for me to spell out the details that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, requires.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I bet that if the Minister had the details he would not hesitate to spell them out. I strongly suspect that he does not have them. I am not saying that they are not available. Over the past few minutes the Minister has again

969
sought to stick rigidly to the fact that the only offenders arc those who intentionally promote homosexuality. And when, in our naivety on one side of the argument—sadly, always on this side of the Chamber—we say. "Well, if in fact that is wrong, can you tell us that this or that is right?", the Minister cannot give us the answers.
I accept that he does not have the answers or is unwilling to give them, but what is certain is that we have no answers to those questions. The term "a pretended family relationship" will haunt the Minister for a long time. There are a number of one-parent families or families where the two members are male or female. They may not be homosexual or lesbian, but the family has in the eyes of those two men or two women, a loving, caring relationship—not homosexual.
The Minister must do a lot of hard work in bringing forward phrases which are not only much more acceptable, but also much less offensive to people who are leading their own lives. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, makes a valid point. I never intended, nor would I accept that the wording was absolutely perfect. It was designed to try to get the Minister to give a little more reassurance for those outside so that what they have been doing in counselling young people is not caught by the Bill.
I am afraid that the Minister has not satisfied me and it will be seen by those outside that he has not satisfied them. But in the light of the time and circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, with the prospect of bringing it forward again at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Midnight
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 120B:
Page 28, line 37, at end insert—
("(5) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against any homosexual person, or designed to protect the civil rights of any such person.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment ought not to be necessary. The clause ought to have been adequately drafted to ensure what has been proclaimed a number of times by its supporters; namely, that it is not the intention of the Government nor of the supporters of the clause to encourage discrimination against any homosexual person, nor to damage the civil rights of any such person.
In order not to detain the Committee any longer, I should be very happy if the spokesman from the Government Front Bench would give me the assurance not only that that is the Government's intention but that they will accept either this amendment or another one in suitable terms, to ensure that we achieve that.
I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Gifford: I should like to support the amendment. If I had been able to be here tomorrow to oppose the Question, that the clause stand part, I should have done so on the basis that the clause, in my view, breaches fundamental human rights. But
970
because this amendment draws attention to the aspect of discrimination and civil rights, there is a lot to be said for it.
I want to look at this country's obligations as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, and to ask the Minister whether he has considered this country's obligations when he supports the clause as it now stands. Article 8 of the convention is in the following terms:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life…"
Article 10 of the convention is in these terms:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
Both those articles are subject only to the following qualifications:
"there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of"
and various matters follow, including the protection of morals. Finally, Article 14 of the convention says:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion … or other status."
I had the privilege of arguing before the European Court of Human Rights on this very issue in the case of Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. In that case the court declared that it was a violation of the rights of the applicant, Mr. Dudgeon, for the law in Northern Ireland to prohibit homosexual acts. As a result of that decision, the Government had to change the law. The court, whose interpretation of the convention binds this country, had some very interesting things to say about Article 8, in particular. It said:
"The present case concerns a most intimate aspect of private life. Accordingly, there must exist particularly serious reasons before interferences on the part of the public authorities can be legitimate for the purposes of Article 8(2)."
The court continued that,
"in Article 8 as in several other Articles of the Convention, the notion of necessity is linked to that of a 'democratic society'. According to the Court's case-law, a restriction on a Convention right cannot be regarded as 'necessary in a democratic society' (two hallmarks of which are tolerance and broadmindedness) unless, amongst other things, it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued".
The court then added:
"The Court is not concerned with making any value-judgment as to the morality of homosexual relations between adult males".
One looks at the clause before us without the amendment proposed by my noble friend in the light of that convention and our obligations under it. Let us remember the factual background under which we are considering this clause. Millions of our fellow citizens are gay men and lesbian women who make family relationships full of the mixture of affection, compatibility and sexual feeling and respect which make up any enduring love relationship. Those are family relationships as much as any between husband and wife. They are entitled to protection under Article 8 of the convention.
People do not become gay through persuasion, reading books or through seduction. Their sexual orientation is fixed in early childhood so that a young person will discover at an early age when sexual feelings begin to develop that he or she is gay. Therefore, the prohibiting of books and materials has nothing to do with stopping people being

971
homosexual but everything to do with Article 10 of the convention which protects the right of free speech.
Finally, we look at this against a background of deep prejudice against gay men and lesbians, a prejudice which Article 14 is designed to combat. Surely it is fundamental that responsible leaders should invoke Article 14 and combat prejudice instead of encouraging it? Looking at this clause against that background, does it interfere with those rights under the convention? In my submission it does—in its terms and in its consequences.
In its terms the clause attacks those particular family relationships protected by Article 8. It states that they are pretended and unacceptable and, as I said a moment ago, a teacher is at risk in voicing the idea that they may be acceptable. The clause is incompatible with our obligations under the convention. It will lead to breaches of the convention in its inevitable consequences.
I mentioned a moment ago the possibility of teachers losing their jobs because they might say to children what I have just said in this Chamber; namely, that gay and lesbian relationships are just as normal and acceptable as any others—quite apart from the dangers of censorship to which we have drawn attention in earlier amendments.
We often rail against violations of human rights in foreign countries, but under the clause as it stands—without these amendments which would do something to rectify the position—human rights in Britain will become a cause of great anxiety. I challenge the Minister to tell us whether he has taken advice on the compatibility of the clause with our obligations under the convention and, if not, to agree to look again at the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I regard this amendment as one of the most important of all the amendments. I very much regret that it has been so arranged that it is discussed at or after midnight. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for giving us the benefit of his experience in the European Court. What he said is most important and I am very glad he has taken this opportunity of saying it so that it is on the record.
Unfortunately those who have not stayed this late will not be able to read the discussion because it is overmatter and will not be printed tomorrow morning. Those who take part in the debate on clause stand part will not have the benefit of the noble Lord's utterances. That is a great shame. I must say that I am very sorry that the Committee is so thin to hear such an important argument. Nevertheless it is very good to have it on the record and, of course, it will be referred to on Report.
My interest is not so much in human rights. At least it is; but I have not the confidence to talk about that issue. My interest is in the first part of the amendment as regards discrimination. I have been concerned about discrimination against the disabled for many years and I am concerned about discrimination against that minority of our community.
972
I shall not ask the Minister whether he has consulted the DHSS because I know that he has. One of the many starred amendments which the Government produced at the last moment concerned AIDS. It was introduced on the last day of the Committee stage in another place. Therefore, I know that the DHSS has been consulted.
Things have moved on since the time of the Standing Committee. In January of this year the department published Problems Associated with AIDS (Cmnd. 297). That was the department's response to the third report from the Social Services Committee session 1986–87. The paper quotes Recommendation 25 from that committee.
"The alienation of any sub-group from the rest of society, whether by their own intent or through the attitudes of others, will undermine the public health, since they may not then feel any responsibility to act for the general good, especially in preventing the spread of infection. We recommend that likely reactions are taken into consideration when planning the targeted campaigns".
The Government then gave their considered reply—no doubt after the Minister had consulted the department because it was published in January. They replied to the Select Committee in Paragraph 3.9.
"The Committee's view of the need to ensure that AIDS information is presented in ways acceptable and relevant to the target audience is shared by the Government, particularly where the objective is to effect behavioural change. Any reinforcement of feelings of alienation or stigma could lessen the impact of the campaign and, in this respect, researching and piloting of material to be used are most important.
3.10 The Government shares the Committee's view that educational material is often best put across by bodies active in particular fields, e.g. among the homosexual community or representing disabled or sensorily impaired people, or those from ethnic minority communities. Their advice in presenting and putting out messages about AIDS to these groups is greatly valued".
In view of the recommendations of the committee and the firm response of the Department of Health and Social Security, I should have thought that the amendment was absolutely necessary.
Lord Renton: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, I do not agree that Clause 28 as it stands in any way offends the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not consider that an amendment along the lines of Amendment No. 120B is necessary. However, if it were to be considered necessary, with great respect to noble Lords who have spoken, the amendment does not cover the points made by the noble Lord when he quoted from the judgments. I believe that the first judgment he quoted referred to non-interference with a person's private life. The second judgment referred to freedom of publication. The amendment does not deal with either of those matters. Even if the assumption which the noble Lord invites us to make is correct, I do not think that the amendment meets his purpose.
Lord Gifford: Perhaps I may respond. The noble Lord, Lord Renton is right because the law does not recognise civil rights, as referred to in the amendment. That is why I am asking the Minister not so much to say that this amendment is perfect but to ensure that the articles of the convention—they are not judgments—to which I have referred are safeguarded by the final version of this clause.
The Earl of Caithness: At first sight the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, seems very reasonable. We are all against discrimination. We all want to protect civil rights. However, I must ask the Committee to look more closely at the amendment. On closer examination, I think that it proves a Trojan horse which, in the guise of something to which we can all subscribe, could in fact remove much of the effect of Clause 28. In the first place, I ought to point out that the amendment is concerned not with discrimination by the local authority but with the local authority's attempts to discourage discrimination by others. Therefore the whole amendment is built upon a busybody's charter. It deals not with the local authority's own decisions but with other people's conduct of their own business.
More importantly however I have to draw the Committee's attention to the phrase "the doing of anything". As Members of the Committee are aware, that is a very wide phrase. In particular, it can cover the promotion of homosexuality. In other words, the amendment—like some others before it—is suggesting that a local authority can promote homosexuality if its purpose in doing so is to discourage discrimination or protect civil rights.
In the Government's view, if the noble Lord's amendment were concerned directly with discrimination by local authorities it would be unnecessary. Clause 28 will not provide any justification for a local authority to discriminate against homosexuals. However, given the way in which the amendment is drafted, we believe that it would open a back door to all the practices which have caused so much public concern. Therefore we feel that the amendment is positively damaging.
Turning to the question of the European Convention on Human Rights, I am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Renton said. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that of course we have considered this important convention but the clause is concerned with what local authorities may spend their money on and not with what individuals may do. Therefore we are satisfied that the convention is not applicable to what is proposed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may be the lateness of the hour, but I thought that those were uncharacteristically weak rejoinders from both the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, did nothing but assert his disagreement with my noble friend. He gave no reasons for that disagreement and even misinterpreted the status of the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Minister surprised me with his final remarks when he said that the European Convention on Human Rights does not affect legislation which is designed to control the way in which a local authority spends its money—or the ratepayers' money. Presumably, any way in which the ratepayers' money is spent by a local authority in this respect can have an effect on discrimination for or against any particular group in our society, and on the civil rights of any of the inhabitants of that local authority's area. Therefore it is not possible simply to exclude on
974
such weak grounds the relevance of the European Convention on Human Rights.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, this is perhaps one of the most important amendments that has been tabled to this clause. It has come at the end of a series of amendments which have progressively exposed not only the weakness of the clause as drafted but also what we have seen as the impossibility of putting it right.
When the Minister once again relies on that totally impossible and unworkable phrase "promote homosexuality" as his justification for all the "obscenities" (I am tempted to say) which the clause is likely to carry in its train, it is clear that there is something much more seriously wrong with this clause than had previously been thought. In a matter of six hours of debate in this Chamber there has been no effective defence of any significant aspect of this clause. It will need not only the most severe criticism when we resume tomorrow afternoon, but it will clearly need severe and rigorous attention at the Report stage. Clearly at quarter past midnight it is not appropriate to take the Committee to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past midnight.

  ENGLISH TEACHING IN THE ARAB WORLD
  ENGLISH TEACHING IN THE ARAB WORLD
  HELSINKI FINAL ACT: IMPLEMENTATION
  HELSINKI FINAL ACT: IMPLEMENTATION
  WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS
  WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS
  NURSES' PAY
  NURSES' PAY
  WORKS OF ART: EXPORT LICENSING
  WORKS OF ART: EXPORT LICENSING
  NATURE CONSERVATION: DoE CIRCULAR
  NATURE CONSERVATION: DoE CIRCULAR
  HOMELESSNESS
  HOMELESSNESS
  ALCOHOL-FREE DRINKS
  ALCOHOL-FREE DRINKS
  MR. KIM PHILBY
  MR. KIM PHILBY
  CUBAN TROOPS IN ANGOLA
  CUBAN TROOPS IN ANGOLA
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG
  RIVER ERNE SYSTEM: JOINT WORKING GROUP
  RIVER ERNE SYSTEM: JOINT WORKING GROUP
  VISITOR ADMISSIONS: EFFECT OF VISA REQUIREMENT
  VISITOR ADMISSIONS: EFFECT OF VISA REQUIREMENT
  CRIME DETECTION: INNOVATIONS
  CRIME DETECTION: INNOVATIONS
  RN TASK GROUP DEPLOYMENT
  RN TASK GROUP DEPLOYMENT